1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

Cost Analysis of Metallic Material 

Options for the Lightweighting of

Full Size Pickup Trucks

by Richard A. Schultz

February 2011

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086 -

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

Introduction to Ducker Worldwide

2

We understand the special challenges and opportunities of today’s global marketplace. More 

importantly, our teams are local and can mobilize quickly to create advantages for our clients.

Ducker Core Coverage

Ducker Additional Coverage

 

Global expertise with local access.

Troy, Michigan

United States 

Paris, France Berlin, 

Germany 

Bangalore, 

India Shanghai, 

China
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086 -

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

Introduction to Ducker Worldwide

3

Data for this presentation was obtained as part of Ducker research projects over 

the last 24 months for:

 American Iron and Steel Institute

 North American Aluminum Association

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 U.S. Department of Energy

 European Aluminum Association

 Various North American OEMs

 Various Worldwide Automotive Parts and Material Suppliers

 North American Die Casting Association

Ducker Sources of Information
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086 -

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

Study Objectives

Ducker was asked to provide technical data assistance in evaluating 

verifiable weight savings opportunities by using additional aluminum, 

advanced high strength steel, and magnesium in North American pickup 

trucks of 8,500 pounds or less in Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW). The focus 

on maximum weight reduction potential using three alternative lightweight 

materials will be limited to the major component level of body, chassis, 

and interior vehicle systems. For example, body structures, cargo boxes, 

full frames, bumpers, and closures for body system; suspension arms and 

steering knuckles for chassis system, and instrument panel structures and 

seats for interior system. For the disaggregation level to be considered in 

the analysis (see page 6). Detailed vehicle component design 

consideration are of less importance than the coverage of most likely light 

weighting components at the major component level. Vehicle component 

consideration should be in accordance the Company Automotive System 

Cost model in addition to major components within that level. The 

proposed analysis should also be based on a target baseline vehicle such 

as the 2008 Dodge Ram Quad Cab SLT for a direct comparison of what 

material substitution can do to save weight in a very popular full size 

pickup truck. Cost estimates for the weight savings were added as a 

second phase after the weight savings first phase was complete.

4
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

Study Objectives

5

As a second phase of the study, we were asked to develop estimates of the

impact of each scenario on vehicle cost. We concentrated on direct cost which 

includes obvious tooling costs such as dies and fixtures. We did not address any 

costs associated with any needed investment for new plants and equipment. 

Only the extreme scenarios would require a major investment in weld and 

rivet adhesive bonding equipment to replace conventional spot welding. The Base 

and Moderate cases would require an investment in warm forming for AHSS.

The high annual production levels for pickups trucks works in favor of keeping any 

equipment investment allocations very small compared to the direct cost differences 

on a per vehicle basis

The Practical, Functional and Theoretical weight scenarios we first developed have 

been slightly adjusted for the cost analysis. We changed the names of the three 

Scenarios to the Base Case, Moderate Case and Extreme Case. We removed 

the magnesium door inners from the Functional Scenario because an all aluminum 

closure solution is nearly as cost effective, and we have concerns about mixed 

metal joining in the Functional/Moderate Case. We kept the entire cargo box in mild 

and HSLA steel in the Practical/Base Case

 
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

Study Objectives

Full Size Full Frame 4 Door Pickup

Light weighting Candidates

Note: Other major metallic components that are assumed to already be

aluminum include the cylinder heads, radiator, HVAC, transmission case

and parts, four road wheels, ABS housing, master brake cylinder and oil pan at an

estimated weight of 275 pounds per vehicle

Body Components

Sidewall

Roof Cross member 

Roofrail

Cowl

Fender wells

Longitudinal Upper

Longitudinal Front

Crash Management System

Firewall

A Pillar

Rearwall

Floor

Longitudinal Rear

C pillar

B Pillar

Sills

Tunnel 

Door Frame

Radiator Support

Cargo Box

Ladder Frame Long Beams

Ladder Frame Cross Beams

Roof Panel

All Other Base Body Parts

Closures and Bumpers

Door Outers

Door Inners

Door Hinge Reinforcements

Hood

Fenders

Tailgate Inner

Tailgate Outer

Front Bumper and Brackets

Rear Bumper and Brackets

Chassis

Front Upper Arms

Front Lower Arms

Front Steering Knuckles

Rear Upper Arms may not apply

Rear Lower Arms may not apply

Rear Steering Knuckles

Axles

Brake Calipers

Spare wheel and Hubs

Interior

Instrument Panel Support

Steering Wheel

Steering Columns

Steering Column Brackets

Seat Frames

Seat Stanchions

Knee Bolster

Console

Glove Box Door

Pedals

Fuel Tank Barrier

Not Included

Powertrain 

Engine Block

Bed Plate

Intake Manifold

Engine Cover

Transmission Case

Drive Shaft

Differential Cover

70% of the metallic weight in the vehicle

was examined in the study

6
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086 -

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

ducker.com

Source: EPA & NHTSA

The Drivers for Change

2016 CAFÉ Target for Passenger Cars

41.1

37.1

32.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

40 46 53

Car Footprint Square Feet

Car Target mpg 

2016 CAFÉ Target for Light Trucks

32.9 30.6

28.2

24.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

44 49 55 67

Light Truck Footprint Square Feet

Litght Truck Target mpg

2016 Mandate for Passenger 

Cars (Not Including Credits) is

39.5 Miles Per Gallon with 

tailpipe emissions of no more

than 225 grams of CO2 per mile

2016 Mandate for Light Trucks (Not 

Including Credits) is 29.8 Miles 

Per Gallon with tailpipe emissions 

of no more than 298 grams of CO2 

per mile. The footprint of a four 

door pickup truck is typically 75 

square feet.

The combined car and light truck 

mandate is 35.5 Miles Per Gallon 

with tailpipe emissions of no more 

than 250 grams of CO2 per mile. All 

the values are regulatory test 

procedure values. Real world mpg 

values are 20% lower 

Current 

Average is

45 square feet

Current 

Average is 

54 square feet

2012 – 2016 CAFE Regulation

For sticker 

deduct 20%

For sticker 

Deduct 20%
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086 -

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

US 2025:107

EU 2020: 95

Japan 2020: 105

China 2020: 117

90

110

130

150

170

190

210

230

250

270

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Grams CO2 per kilometer, normalized to NEDC

US-LDV

CaliforniaLDV

Canada-LDV

EU

Japan

China

S. Korea

Australia

 Solid dots and lines: historical performance

 Solid dots and dashed lines: enacted targets 

 Solid dots and dotted lines: proposed targets

 Hollow dots and dotted lines: unannounced proposal

[1] China's target reflects gasoline fleet scenario. If including other fuel types, the target will be lower.

[2] US and Canada light-duty vehicles include light-commercial vehicles.

Global fleet CO2 emissions performance and

current or proposed standards adjusted for the NEDC test cycle

Emissions and Fuel Economy Analysis

Europe has very 

aggressive targets 

for CO2 reduction 

8
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086 -

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

9

US 2020[2]: 49.6

EU 2020: 64.8

Japan 2020: 55.1

China 2020[1]: 50.1

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Miles per gallon, normalized to US CAFE test cycle

US-LDV

California-LDV

Canada-LDV

EU

Japan

China

S. Korea

Australia

[1] China's target reflects gasoline fleet scenario. If including other fuel types, the target will be higher.

[2] US and Canada light-duty vehicles include light-commercial vehicles.

Solid dots and lines: historical performance

Solid dots and dashed lines: enacted targets 

Solid dots and dotted lines: proposed targets

Hollow dots and dotted lines: unannounced proposal

Historical fleet fuel economy performance and

current or proposed standards NEDC Test Cycle

U.S. 

Regulation
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086 -

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

10

The footprint based fuel economy regulations are likely come with implied weight 

reduction targets 

-130 -150

-185

-300

-400 -400

-500

-800 -900

-800

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

A B C D Average Medium FF E Large FF

Pounds per Vehicle

Needed Weight Reduction by Vehicle Segment to Save 10% 

-400 to -500

-800 to -900

-500 to -600

-200 to -300

-150 to -200

-300 to -400

Pounds

Source: Ducker Worldwide
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

Rational for the Three Scenarios 

Scenario A Theoretical Limit or Extreme Case: Maximize the weight reduction for the target 

systems (body, chassis and interior) through the substitution of new steels, aluminum and 

magnesium for every conceivable component without sacrificing safety, performance or 

functionality. Standard design and engineering weight savings rules were followed, but material 

and manufacturing cost was initially of secondary importance. The cost analysis was added 

after the initial study so as to not inhibit the use of the best metallic options to save weight

Scenario B Functional Limit or Moderate Case: This Scenario was added to insure that 

previously voiced OEM concerns about consumer acceptance of lightweight materials in a work 

truck could be addressed. The perception that full size pickup trucks with a lightweight ladder 

frame, cargo bed and/or rear suspension may not be durable enough for the overloading and 

harsh towing conditions to which these trucks are often subjected is a reality of the market place. 

This Scenario could be viewed as a first step toward the theoretical or maximum use of 

lightweighting after 2020

Scenario C Practical Limit or Base Case: This Scenario was added to take into account the 

anticipated manufacturing problems associated with mixed metal joining and other non 

traditional joining techniques, such as rivet and weld bonding. These anticipated joining 

problems are of particular concern for high volume vehicles. This Scenario was also meant to 

address marginal and expensive substitutions uncovered in the other two Scenarios

11
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

12

Dodge Ram

Quad Cab SLT

Body/Cab, 

Cargo Box 

and Ladder Frame

(2.1 Million FF 

Pickup Trucks will

be sold in NA in 

2011, 1.7 Million

in the USA)

Ladder frame

weighs 500 pounds

Cab weighs over 500 pounds 

Cargo Box weighs 

nearly 300 pounds

Chassis, Wheels, Tires and Bumpers weigh nearly 1,000 Pounds 

Closures weigh 

over 300 pounds

The Typical Vehicle
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

OEM COMMENT ON THE RESULTS OF THIS STUDY

13

OEM Position on the Study:

Given the methodology Ducker has employed and that the results are intended to be a broad estimate 

(as opposed to a fully considered study backed up with engineering designs and a full cost assessment) 

the results you have achieved seem to be consistent and appropriate. In saying this we particularly need 

to mention that we do not have detailed knowledge of any competitor and its current weight breakdown or 

material applications and also have no knowledge about any other OEMs future plans for this product. 

We would also like to point out that there are many alternative combinations of weight reduction actions 

which might be considered. What you have outlined is certainly one of the many possible alternatives. 

It should not be inferred from our opinion of your results that our choices and assessments of the costs 

and weight savings would necessarily be the same. Therefore, in communicating your results to any 

government agencies (and others) we request that it be accompanied with a caveat that they do not

represent an agreed “our opinion" or even an "industry position.”

Ducker Response:

We in no way are portraying the results of our efforts as being supported by any OEM. We will 

say that in an OEM peer review, no major concerns about the methodology used for these particular 

scenarios, which are three of many possible scenarios, was of great cause for concern to the engineers 

consulted. This does not mean our solutions might not be impractical solutions or much less than optimum 

solutions compared to the final solutions which must be determined by each OEM based on their own 

particular circumstances.
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

14

 

Aachen Study

Weight savings can vary because there 

are hundreds of mild, BH and HSLA steel 

parts in a light vehicle and each part has a 

different potential for weight savings. 

Nevertheless the ranking below is well 

accepted by most OEM engineers 

Weight Saving Assumptions

This chart is specific to the 

strength and stiffness 

requirements of the parts 

studied in the 1Q 2011 

Pickup Truck Project 

50%

50%

45%

40%

40%

40%

35%

30%

30%

25%

16%

7%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Magnesium HPDC

Aluminum Suspension/Steering

Aluminum Closures

Aluminum Structures

Aluminum Bumpers

Al Ladder Frame Conventional

Hot Formed Boron Steel

Al Ladder Frame Box Beam

Roll Formed Martensite

DP 780 and 980 Steel

DP 590 Steel

HSLA Steel

Deep Drawing Mild Steel

Weight Savings over Mild Steel
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

The Cost of Weight Savings

15

This chart shows the relative ranking of the cost for weight savings. 

It should not be used for anything other than a “very rough estimate” of cost. 

 This is not a decision tool. It is just a guide 

$3.25 

$2.75 

$2.75 

$2.75 

$2.50 

$1.75 

$1.75 

$1.50 

$1.00 

$0.75 

$0.40 

$0.30 

$0.15 

$0.00 

$0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50

Stamped Al Box Beam Ladder

Magnesium HPDC

Aluminum BIW Structures

 Extruded Al Ladder Frame no Box

Other Aluminum Closures

Aluminum Suspension/Steering

Aluminum Bumpers

Aluminum Hoods

Hot Formed Boron Steel

Roll Formed Martensite

DP 780 and 980 Steel

DP 590 Steel

HSLA Steel

Deep Drawing Mild Steel

Cost per Pound Saved Over Mild Steel

In addition to the types of materials,

every component will have a different 

premium for weight savings based on 

the substituting product form, tooling, scrap rate,

cycle times, parts consolidation, and the 

difference in raw material costs at the time of 

the analysis
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

Base Case

Summary

16

2008 Ferrous Lbs. Replacement New Weight Savings % Weight Saved Cost

BIW/Cab 123 Aluminum 73.8 0.4 49 135

BIW/Cab 139.5 Mild/HSLA 139.5 0 0

BIW/Cab 125 UHSS 82 0.34 43 43

BIW/Cab 142.5 AHSS 117 0.18 25.5 10

Cargo Box 85 HSLA 79 0.07 6 1

Cargo Box 200 Mild /HSLA 200 0 0 0

Ladder Frame 500 Dual Phase 420 0.16 80 24

Bumpers 90 Martensite 63 0.30 27 17

Door/Tailgate 

Outers 147 Aluminum 80.85 0.45 66.15 165

Hood 45 Aluminum 24.75 0.45 20.25 30

Fenders 27 Aluminum 16.2 0.4 10.8 20

Radiator Support 55 Magnesium 28 0.49 27 75

Door/Tailgate Inners 125 Aluminum 74 0.4 51 128

Steering Wheel 3 Magnesium 1 0.66 2

Steering Columns 4.5 Magnesium 1.75 0.61 2.75

Steering Column 

Brackets 2.5 Magnesium 1.5 0.5 1

Seat Frames 44 Magnesium 18.5 0.58 25.5

Seat Stanchions 24 Magnesium 13 0.46 11

Knee Bolster 10 Magnesium 4.5 0.55 5.5

Console 8 Magnesium 5 0.38 3

Glove Box Door 1 Magnesium 0.5 0.5 0.5

Pedals 4.5 Magnesium 3 0.33 1.5

Fuel Tank Barrier 8.7 Magnesium 5 0.43 3.7

IP Crosssmember 25 Magnesium 14 0.44 11 185

Suspension Arms & 

Links 74 Aluminum 37 0.5 37 65

Suspension Arms & 

Links 46 Iron/Dual Phase 43.7 0.05 2.3 1

Knuckles and Hubs 32 Aluminum 16 0.5 16 28

Knuckles and Hubs 32 Iron 32 0 0

Calipers 22 Iron 22 0 0

Spare Wheel 30 Aluminum 22.5 0.25 7.5 23

Total 531 950
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

Moderate Case

Summary

17

2008 Ferrous Lbs. Replacement New Weight Weight Saved Cost

BIW/Cab 123 Aluminum 73.8 49.2 135

BIW/Cab 139.5 Mild/HSLA 139.5 0 0

BIW/Cab 125 UHSS 82 43 43

BIW/Cab 142.5 AHSS 117 25.5 10

Cargo Box 85 HSLA 79 6 1

Cargo Box 200 Aluminum 120 80 160

Ladder Frame 500 Dual Phase 420 80 24

Bumpers 90 Martensite 63 27 17

Door/Tailgate Outers 147 Aluminum 80.85 66.15 165

Hood 45 Aluminum 24.75 20.25 30

Fenders 27 Aluminum 16.2 10.8 20

Radiator Support 55 Magnesium 28 27 75

Door/Tailgate Inners 125 Aluminum 74 51 128

Steering Wheel 3 Magnesium 1 2

Steering Columns 4.5 Magnesium 1.75 2.75

Steering Column 

Brackets 2.5 Magnesium 1.5 1

Seat Frames 44 Magnesium 18.5 25.5

Seat Stanchions 24 Magnesium 13 11

Knee Bolster 10 Magnesium 4.5 5.5

Console 8 Magnesium 5 3

Glove Box Door 1 Magnesium 0.5 0.5

Pedals 4.5 Magnesium 3 1.5

Fuel Tank Barrier 8.7 Magnesium 5 3.7

IP Crosssmember 25 Magnesium 14 11 185

Suspension Arms & 

Links 74 Aluminum 37 37 65

Suspension Arms & 

Links 46 Iron/Dual Phase 43.7 2.3 1

Knuckles and Hubs 32 Aluminum 16 16 28

Knuckles and Hubs 32 Iron 32 0

Calipers 22 Iron 22 0

Spare Wheel 30 Aluminum 22.5 7.5 23

Total 2175 1640 612 1110

Moderate 

Case

$/lb. 

Saved

Boron, 

Martensite 

&

Dual Phase 

Steels 

0.53

Aluminum 2.22

Magnesium 2.77

Cost includes base 

material cost 

differences plus 

tooling and fixture 

premiums

over the material 

being replaced. It 

does not include fixed 

investment in new 

plant and equipment 
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

Extreme Case

Summary

18

2008 Ferrous Lbs. Replacement New Weight Weight Saved Cost

BIW/Cab 475 Aluminum 285 190 500

BIW/Cab 55 Mild/HSLA 55 0 0

Cargo Box 285 Aluminum 171 114 228

Ladder Frame 500 Aluminum 350 150 413

Bumpers 90 Aluminum 54 36 63

Door/Tailgate 

Outers 147 Aluminum 80.85 66.15 165

Hood 45 Aluminum 24.75 20.25 30

Fenders 27 Aluminum 16.2 10.8 20

Radiator Support 55 Magnesium 28 27 75

Door/Tailgate 

Inners 125 Magnesium 62 63 173

Steering Wheel 3 Magnesium 1 2

Steering Columns 4.5 Magnesium 1.75 2.75

Steering Column 

Brackets 2.5 Magnesium 1.5 1

Seat Frames 44 Magnesium 18.5 25.5

Seat Stanchions 24 Magnesium 13 11

Knee Bolster 10 Magnesium 4.5 5.5

Console 8 Magnesium 5 3

Glove Box Door 1 Magnesium 0.5 0.5

Pedals 4.5 Magnesium 3 1.5

Fuel Tank Barrier 8.7 Magnesium 5 3.7

IP Crosssmember 25 Magnesium 14 11 185

Suspension Arms 

& Links 120 Aluminum 60 60

Knuckles & Hubs 64 Aluminum 32 32

Calipers 22 Aluminum 12.1 9.9 178

Spare Wheel 30 Aluminum 22.5 7.5 23

Total 2175 1330 854 2053

2225 Sheet Box Beam 924 2255

Keeping the ladder frame 

from the Moderate Case

would still save 80 pounds,

and reduce the cost 

Premium by nearly $400.
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

Summary of Findings

19

687 lbs. used

in the Base Case

Saved 180 lbs.

1,118 lbs. used

in the Extreme 

Case Saved

700 lbs.

158 lbs. used

in the Extreme 

Case Saved 

 154 lbs.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

UHSS/AHSS Aluminum Magnesium

20%

40%

50%

Percent Saved Over Studied Components

Average Weight Saved Through the

Substitution for Mild Steel 

in a Full Size Pickup 
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

20

The cost the OEMs are willing to pay to save one pound of weight has gone up, and 

40% of all body and closure parts are stiffness critical not strength critical

7.85

2.7

1.8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

All Steel All Aluminum All Magnesium

Density

grams/cm3

$0.5

$2

$2.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

AHSS Aluminum Magnesium

Cost of Saving One Pound 

$/lb. Saved

Density Modulus

Weight 

Savings

Material g/cm3 KN/mm2

Equal 

Stiffness

Mild Steel 7.85 210 Base

AHSS 7.85 210 0%

Aluminum 2.7 72 51%

Source: Energy and Transportation Science Division

Oak Ridge National Laboratory August 2011

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Mild Steel Base AHSS Aluminum Magnesium

Savings over Mild Steel

$2 is rapidly becoming

acceptable

Equal Stiffness

Equal Strength

A physical material property

such as density or modulus

can not be significanty changed 

through alloying

The new steels are

very cost effective
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

Steel simply does not save enough weight!

21

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Direct Cost

Pounds Saved per Vehicle

Direct Cost of Weight Savings as Aluminum and 

AHSS are Added to a Pickup Truck

Cost Savings from Weight Compounding

are not Included

100 600

AHSS

is cost 

effective

But ultimately you must 

add more weight savings 

and cost with 

aluminum

It is very difficult to estimate how the experience curve has or will reduce the 

cost penalty to save 500-600 pounds of weight using aluminum 
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

Summary of Findings

22

Closure and Interior Savings Are Consistent Over All Scenarios 

The truck cab and the hood, fenders, doors and tailgate offer the 

largest opportunity for weight savings
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

Summary of Findings

23

Body/Cab

22%

Cargo Box

15%

Frame

9%

Closures 

27%

Bumpers

2%

Chassis

12%

Interior

13%

Practical Limit by System 

531 Pounds 

Body/Cab

31%

Cargo Box

13%

Frame

8%

Closures 

25%

Bumpers

2%

Chassis

10%

Interior

11%

Functional Limit by System 

612 Pounds

Body/Cab

26%

Cargo Box

13%

Frame

18%

Closures 

19%

Bumpers

3%

Chassis

13%

Interior

8%

Theoretical Limit by System

854 Pounds 
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

Summary of Findings

 Final Overall Material Mix for the original truck and All Three Scenarios

24

Steel

57%

Iron

7%

Aluminum 

5%

Magnesium

0%

All Other

31%

2008 Pickup 5,075 Pounds 

Steel

40%

Iron

8%

Aluminum 

16%

Magnesium

2%

All Other

34%

2020 Practical Limit 4,540 Pounds 

Steel

36%

Iron

Aluminum 8%

18%

Magnesium

3%

All Other

35%

2020 Functional Limit 4,450 Pounds

Steel

20%

Iron

7%

Aluminum 

33%

Magnesium

4%

All Other

36%

2020 Theoretical Limit 4,230 Pounds
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

Comparison with Lotis Study for CARB

25

Ducker’s efforts were totally independent from the 2010 Lotus Engineering Study 

for the California Air Resources Board. We did not have access to the 

Lotus study until our analysis was complete; yet both studies saved 39% 

of the weight of the studied components under the most aggressive 

weight saving scenarios. Ducker used more aluminum and Lotus used 

more magnesium and composites, but the weight savings were similar. Lotus studied 

many more components than Ducker. Lotus saved 1,100 pounds out of 

2,800 pounds, and Ducker saved 844 pounds out of 2,175 pounds studied

Neither Ducker nor 

Lotus studied the 

powertrain
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

Summary of Findings

26

Base Case Moderate Case Extreme Case 

Pounds Pounds Pounds

Starting Steel Weight 2,175 2,175 2,175

Add UHSS 150* 150 NC

Save -60 -60 NC

Add AHSS 537** 537 NC

Save -120 -120 NC

Add Aluminum 346 464 1,118

Save -258 -348 -700

Add Magnesium 96 96 158

Save -94 -94 -154

Total Savings 531 612 854

Revised Weight 1,644 1,563 1,475

Percent Saved 24.4 28 39

Estimated Cost $970 $1,130 $2,053 

Dollars/Pound Saved $1.79 $1.81 $2.40 

Notes: The base case keeps an open frame and employs an optimum amount of new steels in the body, frame and bumpers 

to save 180 pounds. To achieve an additional saving of 350 pounds the base case employs aluminum closures and a 

magnesium radiator support, cross car beam and several interior components. The moderate case adds 

more aluminum in the body and cargo box for some stiffness governed mild and HSLA steel parts. This moderate or mixed metal 

solution saves an additional 81 pounds, but could pose some mixed metal joining concerns. The extreme solution replaces an 

open frame with both an extruded aluminum open frame or a stamped and welded aluminum box beam. It also replaces 

essentially the entire original mild and HSLA body with aluminum. It also uses magnesium door and tailgate inners, and aluminum.

bumper, brake and suspension components. This saves an additional 240 to 312 pounds over the moderate case.

* Boron and Martensitic Steels **Dual Phase 590 and 780 Steel

Moderate 

Case 

$/lb.

Saved

UHSS & 

AHSS

0.53

Aluminum 2.22

Keeping the ladder frame 

from the Moderate Case

would still save 80 pounds,

and reduce the cost 

Premium by nearly $400.
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

Summary of Findings

27

Additional

Cost per Vehicle Base Case

Moderate 

Case

Extreme 

Case 

Most Likely 

Case

Aluminum $614 $774 $1,620 $1,231

Magnesium $260 $260 $433 $433

UHSS and AHSS $96 $96 Negligible $24

Total $970 $1,130 $2,053 $1,688 and 

• The above costs include all direct costs, tooling and fixtures. New investment in 

plant and equipment is not included

• UHSS and AHSS are very cost effective in reducing weight, but any direct weight 

savings of over 200 to 250 pounds requiring 800 AHSS pounds per truck is likely to 

require light metals such as aluminum and magnesium, but this will come at a higher cost

• Secondary weight savings cost reduction opportunities are also excluded from 

the above costs. Mass compounding and engine downsizing are very feasible with 

a primary weight savings of 500 to over 900 pounds per vehicle. Additional work is 

recommended 

• Polymeric and composite solutions were not part of this study, but for some 

interior and non structural applications they remain an option 

• Finally, this study only covered current metallic body, chassis, closure, bumper, 

interior brake and suspension components. Powertrain and driveline metallic 

components were not studied. Additional work is recommended

Keeping the ladder frame 

from the Moderate Case

would still save 784 pounds,

and reduce the cost 

premium by nearly $400.

SAVES 784 Lbs.

Does not include as much as 25% secondary 

weight savings and the associated cost savings 
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

28

We believe a full size four door pickup truck 

can be designed to achieve 35 MPG without 

sacrificing size, safety, functionality or 

towing capability. This will require at least a 

1,000 pound weight savings plus major 

powetrain changes. Doing this by 2020, is 

quite feasible. 

A practical first step would be to take 500 

pounds of direct weight and possibly 

another 100 to 150 pounds of secondary 

weight out of the trucks that come to market 

during the next five years. The cost for this 

and more importantly the in plant 

manufacturing changes required, such as 

warm forming, do not appear to be 

prohibitive

By 2020, a leap to a 4,000 pound fully 

functional work type pickup truck with a 

footprint of 75 square feet is within reach. 

We would avoid the mixed metal moderate 

or intermediate solution that many experts 

are recommending at the present time. 

Mixing UHSS and AHSS with a significant

number of aluminum structural parts, other 

than bolt on parts, in the same BIW would 

only save another 100 pounds and only 

delay the move to the true goal of a 4,000 

pound aluminum truck that gets 35 MPG 

Future Full Frame Pickup Trucks
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

For more information regarding Ducker Worldwide, 

or these slides, please contact:

Richard Schultz

Ducker Worldwide

1.724.940.9018

richards@ducker.com

This presentation was prepared by Ducker Worldwide LLC. Opinions and estimates

constitute judgment as of the date of this material and are subject to change without notice.

Any interpretations derived from these findings are the sole responsibility of the client. 

For over 50 years, Ducker Worldwide has enabled clients to navigate and thrive in a dynamic, global marketplace. Our unique and proven 

combination of custom market intelligence, critical thinking and strategic consulting create valuable opportunities that deliver critical results.

For more information regarding our strategic services, expertise and to learn how Ducker Worldwide can help you, please contact one of our team

members at 248-644-0086 or visit our website at www.ducker.com
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

Literature Review:

1. Lotus Engineering, Inc. --- An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities 

 for a 2017-2020 Model Year Vehicle Program, March 30, 2010

2. Multi-Material Light Weighting the Vehicle Structure – EU Super Light Car, 

 Volkswagen Group Research, May, 2008

3. Stiffness Relevance and Strength Relevance in the Crash of Car Body

 Components, University of Aachen Report Number 83440, May, 2010

4. Preliminary Vehicle Mass Estimation Using Empirical Subsystem Influence 

 Coefficients, Donald E. Mallen, University of Michigan, May 2007

Acknowledgements:

 The author wishes to thank Ford Motor Company, Honda Motor Company, 

 Chrysler Corporation, General Motors, American Iron and Steel Institute, 

 TATA Motors, The North American Aluminum Association, Compass Auto Group, 

 Meridian Technologies, Kobe Auto Aluminum Products, Revstone-Contech, 

 Kaiser Aluminum, Alcoa, Raufoss Technologies and Novelis for their help 

 with this report

30
1250 Maple lawn Troy Michigan 48084 PH. 248.644.0086

ducker.com

Transportation * CONSTRUCTION * INDUSTRIAL * materials * FINANCIAL 

About the Author

Dick Schultz, Managing Director of the Automotive Materials Practice for Ducker Worldwide

Prior to joining Ducker Worldwide , Dick was the President of Alcoa Automotive Structures and the 

Director of Worldwide Automotive Products for Alcoa in Farmington Hills, Michigan. He has over 

twenty years of experience in applying the latest aluminum, magnesium and steel technology to 

automotive applications around the world. After joining Ducker, Dick has managed over 50 research 

projects for the Aluminum Association, the AISI Automotive Applications Committee and numerous 

aluminum and steel component suppliers worldwide. 

Dick has a B.S. in Metallurgical Engineering from the University of Cincinnati and an MBA from the 

University of Pittsburgh. In 1990, he completed extensive course work in Managing Complex 

Organizations at the M.I.T. Sloan School. 

Under Dick’s guidance as both a client and team leader at Ducker:

 Ducker Worldwide has collected data on the growth and development of aluminum and 

magnesium content in automotive light vehicle applications on an annual basis since 1991. Data 

collection and analysis on steel for automotive began in 1998 

 Ducker started its systematic efforts in North America, expanded into Europe and Japan and then 

began collecting data for the remainder of the world in 2007 

 Data are collected on a “bottom-up” basis, meaning the market has been tracked on an OEM, 

platform-by-platform and product-by-product basis. With metallurgists, engineers, and component 

specialists on staff, Ducker has become a leading subject-matter-expert for the global automotive 

industry on light weighting by increasing aluminum content, magnesium content and the use of the 

“new “ steels across all light vehicle systems

31