Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis, 

Report on Additional Case Studies

Revised Final Report
EPA-420-R-13-008

April 2013

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Prepared for EPA by

FEV, Inc.

EPA Contract No. EP-C-07-069

Work Assignment No. 2-3

Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis, 

Report on Additional Case Studies

Revised Final Report

NOTICE

This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or 

positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data 

that are currently available. The purpose in the release of such reports is to 

facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public of 

technical developments.
 

i 

 

Report FEV 07-069-203 Rev. D 

Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis 

- Report on Additional Case Studies 

Contract No. EP-C-07-069 

Work Assignment 2-3 

Prepared for: 

Brian Nelson

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

2000 Traverwood Dr. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48105 

Submitted by: 

Greg Kolwich 

FEV, Inc. 

4554 Glenmeade Lane 

Auburn Hills, MI 48326 

April 12, 2013 
Analysis Report FEV 07-069-203 Rev D

April 22, 2013

ii

Updates to “Light-Dutry Vehicle Technology Cost Analysis, Report on Additional Case 

Studies” 

The overall goal of this study was to provide accurate technology assessments through highly 

detailed and transparent cost analysis methodologies that compare and contrast differences and 

similarities between these transmission systems. Based on that goal, FEV is hereby issuing an 

update to the previously released report dated 3/26/10. Minor revisions have been made to some 

of the electronic hardware and controls to more accurately account for all components as well as 

including required communication and feedback loops between these components with both highside and low-side electronic drivers. These updates are described below and are comprised of 

refinements in cost analysis results obtained as well as detailing the electronic control system 

differentials between the compared transmissions. This is done in an added table detailing the 

various solenoids, valves, sensors, wiring and various drivers that differentiate each unit. 

x Revision to List of Figures on page iii due to inclusion of new Figure 2-4 in report body. 

Electronic Hardware Comparison 

x This is done with the addition of a detailed paragraph on page 2-16 and Figure 2-4 on 

page 2-17 that detail a direct side-by-side comparison of the two transmission variations 

being studied. 

Updates to Previous Text Descriptions and Tables in the Report Body 

x Update Table ES-0-1 on page 2 due to the revision of the 6-Speed DCT vs. AT cost 

differential. 

x Revision to text at the top of page 2-16 describing the cost differential to the net 

incremental direct manufacturing cost. 

x Update Figure 2-5 on page 2-18 due to the insertion of electronic controls costs. 

 
i 

CONTENTS 

Section Page 

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1 

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................. 1-1 

1.2 Study Methodology .............................................................................................. 1-2 

1.3 Manufacturing Assumptions .................................................................................. 1-5 

1.4 Subsystem Categorization ..................................................................................... 1-6 

2 Case Study Results ......................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1 Case Study #0102 Results ........................................................................................ 2-2 

2.2 Case Study #0104 Results ........................................................................................ 2-7 

2.3 Case Study #0802 Results .......................................................................................2-10 

2.4 Case Study #0902 Results .......................................................................................2-15 

3 GLOSSARY OF TERMS .............................................................................................. 3-1 
ii

LIST OF APPENDICES 

A. Powertrain Package Specification Proformas 

B. System Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMATs) 

C. Subsystem Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMATs) 
iii

LIST OF FIGURES 

Number Page 

Figure 1-1: Cost Analysis Process Flow Steps and Document Interaction................................. 1-4 

Figure 2-1: System Cost Model Analysis Template Illustrating the Incremental Subsystem Costs 

Roll Up for V6 to I4, Turbo, GDI Downsizing, Case Study #0102 ......................... 2-5 

Figure 2-2: System Cost Model Analysis Template Illustrating the Incremental Subsystem Costs 

Roll Up for V8 to V6, Turbo, GDI Downsizing, Case Study #0104 ........................ 2-8 

Figure 2-3: System Cost Model Analysis Template Illustrating the Incremental Subsystem Costs 

Roll Up for a 6-Speed Automatic Transmission compared to a 5-Speed Automatic 

Transmission ........................................................................................................ 2-12

Figure 2-4: System Electronic Hardware & Controls Comparison Matrix for an 8-Speed DCT 

compared to a 6-Speed DCT .............................................................................. 2-127

Figure 2-5: System Cost Model Analysis Template Illustrating the Incremental Subsystem Costs 

Roll Up for a 6-Speed Wet DCT compared to a 6-Speed Automatic Transmission 2-18 
iv

LIST OF TABLES 

Number Page 

Table ES-0-1: Increment Unit Cost Impact – Five (5) New Technology Configurations ...............2 

Table 1-1: Vehicle Class and Corresponding Downsized, Turbocharged, Stoichiometric, GDI 

Engine Case Study Evaluated ................................................................................. 1-1 

Table 1-2: Engine System, Subsystem and Sub-Subsystem Classification ................................. 1-7 

Table 1-3: Transmission System, Subsystem and Sub-Subsystem Classification ........................ 1-8 

Table 2-1: Location of System and Subsystem CMATs within Appendix ................................ 2-2 

Table 2-2: Cost for Adding Turbocharging and GDI to a 2.0L, I4, NA, PFI engine and the 

Estimated Credit for Downsizing from a Conventional 3.0L V6 to 2.0L I4. ............ 2-6 

Table 2-3: Cost for Adding Turbocharging and GDI to a 3.5L, V6, NA, PFI engine and the 

Estimated Credit for Downsizing from a Conventional 5.4L V8 to 3.5L V4. ........... 2-9 
1 

Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis – Report on Additional Case Studies 

Executive Summary 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracted with FEV, Inc. to 

determine the incremental direct manufacturing costs for a set of advanced, light-duty 

vehicle technologies. The technologies selected are on the leading edge for reducing 

emissions of greenhouse gases in the future, primarily in the form of tailpipe carbon 

dioxide (CO2). 

This report, the second in a series of reports, addresses the direct incremental 

manufacturing cost of four (4) new powertrain configurations, relative to four (4) existing 

baseline configurations, with comparable driver performance metrics. The complete 

costing methodology used in the analysis of these configurations, as well as the pilot case 

study, is described in “Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Pilot Study (EPA-420-R09-020)”. 

The four (4) new powertrain technology configurations analyzed are: 

x 2.0L, I4, 4-valve, dual overhead cam (DOHC), dual variable valve timing (dVVT), turbocharged, gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine, compared to an 

equivalent conventional 3.0L, V6, 4-valve, DOHC, d-VVT, naturally aspirated 

(NA), port fuel injected (PFI) engine. 

x 3.5L, V6, 4-valve, dual overhead cam (DOHC), d-VVT, turbocharged, GDI 

engine, compared to an equivalent conventional 5.4L, V8, 3-valve, single overhead 

cam (SOHC), VVT, NA, PFI engine. 

x A 6-speed automatic transmission, compared to an equivalent 5-speed automatic 

transmission 

x A 6-speed wet dual clutch transmission (DCT), compared to an equivalent 6-speed 

automatic transmission 

The results for the four (4) case studies are shown in Table ES-0-1 along the results 

previously published for case study #0101. 
2

Table ES-0-1: Increment Unit Cost Impact – Five (5) New Technology Configurations 

Case 

Study 

Reference 

Technology 

Definition 

Vehicle 

Class 

Base 

Technology 

New 

Technology 

Incremental 

Unit Cost 

Impact 0101 Downsized 

Turbocharged 

Gasoline Direct 

Injection (Engine) 

Compact/ 

Budget/ 

Economy Car, 

Passenger. 2-4 

CS# B0101 

2.4L, I4, 4-V 

DOHC, d-VVT 

NA, PFI, 

CS# N0101 

1.6L, I4, 4-V 

DOHC, d-VVT, 

Turbo, GDI 

$531.57 

0102 Downsized 

Turbocharged 

Gasoline Direct 

Injection (Engine) 

Mid to Large 

Size Car, 

Passenger 4-6 

CS# B0102 

3.0L, V6, 4-V, 

DOHC, d-VVT, 

NA, PFI 

CS# N0102 

2.0L, I4, 4-V, 

DOHC, d-VVT 

Turbo, GDI 

$68.68 

0104 Downsized 

Turbocharged 

Gasoline Direct 

Injection (Engine) 

Passenger + 

Midsize Towing 

Capabilities 

Truck & SUV 

CS# B0104 

5.4L V8, 3-V, 

SOHC, VVT, 

NA, PFI 

CS# N0104 

3.5L V6, 4-V, 

DOHC, d-VVT 

Turbo, GDI 

$846.26 

0902 6-Speed Dual Clutch 

Transmission 

Replacing a 6-Speed 

Automatic 

Transmission 

Mid to Large 

Size Car, 

Passenger 4-6 

CS# B0801 

6-Speed 

Automatic 

Transmission 

CS# N0801 

6-Speed Wet 

Dual Clutch 

Transmission 

($97.34) 

0802 6-Speed replacing a 

5-Speed Automatic 

Transmission 

Mid to Large 

Size Car, 

Passenger 4-6 

CS# B0802 

5-Speed 

Automatic 

Transmission 

CS# N0802 

6-Speed 

Automatic 

Transmission 

($105.53)(1)

(1) The 6-speed automatic transmission evaluated incorporated a Ravigneaux gear set 

design, a major factor in the reduction of hardware and complexity in the 6-speed design 

over the 5-speed design. As such the 6-speed transmission was calculated to be less 

costly to manufacture than the 5-speed automatic transmission. 
1-1 

1 Introduction 

1.1 Objectives 

The objective of this work assignment was to determine the incremental direct 

manufacturing costs for four (4) new advanced light-duty vehicle technology 

configurations using the costing methodology, databases, and supporting worksheets 

developed in the previously concluded pilot study (Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis 

Pilot Study [EPA-420-R-09-020]). 

For the downsized, turbocharged, stoichiometric GDI engine case studies, careful 

consideration was given to the selection of vehicle classes analyzed to ensure that the 

developed costing models, at any analysis level (component, sub-subsystem, or 

subsystem) could be interpolated or extrapolated to other classes, configurations and/or 

content levels. 

Table 1-1 exhibits the five (5) vehicle classes considered in this work assignment and 

identifies those vehicles classes with actual teardown-based cost studies. 

Table 1-1: Vehicle Class and Corresponding Downsized, Turbocharged, Stoichiometric, 

GDI Engine Case Study Evaluated 

Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Description Completed 

Analysis 

Small Car subcompact or compact car typically powered by an inline 4 cylinder engine 

Case Study #0101 

(2.4L I4 » 1.6L I4) 

(§175 hp) 

(Pilot Study) 

Midsize Car midsize or large passenger car typically powered 

by a V6 engine 

Case Study #0102 

(3.0 V6 » 2.0L I4) 

(§225 hp)

Large 

Multipurpose 

Vehicle 

minivan or large cross-over vehicle with a large frontal 

area, typically powered by a V6 engine, capable of 

carrying ~ 6 or more passengers 

(Large V6»Small V6) 

Potential to scale 

costs from #0102 & 

#0104 

Small Truck small or mid-sized sports-utility or cross-over vehicle, 

or a small pickup truck, powered by a V6 or V8 engine 

Case Study #0104 

(5.4L V8 » 3.5L V6) 

(§330 hp)

Large Truck large sports-utility vehicles and large pickup trucks, 

typically powered by a V8 engine 

(Large V8»Small V8) 

Potential to scale 

costs from #0104
1-2

1.2 Study Methodology 

The first report published, “Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Pilot Study (EPA-420-

R-09-020)”, covers in great detail the overall costing methodology used to calculate an 

incremental cost delta between various technology configurations. In summary, the 

costing methodology is heavily based on teardowns of both new and baseline technology 

configurations having similar driver performance metrics. Only components identified as 

being different, within the selected new and baseline technology configurations, as a 

result of the new technology adaptation are evaluated for cost. Component costs are 

calculated using a ground-up costing methodology analogous to that employed in the 

automotive industry. All incremental costs for the new technology are calculated and 

presented using transparent cost models consisting of eight (8) core cost elements: 

material, labor, manufacturing overhead/burden, end item scrap, SG&A (selling general 

and administrative), profit, ED&T (engineering, design and testing) and packaging. 

Information on how additional associated manufacturing fixed and variable cost elements 

(e.g. shipping, tooling, OEM indirect costs) are accounted for within the cost analysis is 

also discussed in the initial report (EPA-420-R-09-020). 

Listed below, with the aid of Figure 1-1, is a high level summary of the ten (10) major 

steps taken during the cost analysis process. For additional information concerning the 

terminology used within the ten (10) steps, please reference the glossary of terms found at 

the end of this report. 

Step 1: Using the Powertrain-Vehicle Class Summary Matrix (P-VCSM), a technology 

is selected for cost analysis. 

Step 2: Existing vehicle models are identified for teardown to provide the basis for 

detailed incremental cost calculations. 

Step 3: Pre-teardown Comparison Bills of Materials (CBOM) are developed, covering 

hardware that exists in the new and base technology configurations. These high level 

CBOM’s are informed by the team’s understanding of the new and base technologies and 

serve to identify the major systems and components targeted for teardown.

Step 4: Phase 1 (high level) teardown is conducted for all subsystems identified in Step 3 

and the assemblies that comprise them. Using Design Profit® software, all high level 

processes (e.g. assembly process of the high pressure fuel pump onto the cylinder head 

assembly) are mapped during the disassembly. 
1-3

Step 5: A cross functional team (CFT) reviews all the data generated from the high level 

teardown and identifies which components and assumptions should be carried forward 

into the cost analysis. The CBOMs are updated to reflect the CFT input. 

Step 6: Phase 2 (component/assembly level) teardowns are initiated, based on the 

updated CBOM’s. Components and assemblies are disassembled, and processes and 

operations are mapped in full detail. The process mapping generates key process 

information for the quote worksheets. Several databases containing critical costing 

information provide support to the mapping process. 

Step 7: Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary (MAQS) worksheets are 

generated for all parts undergoing the cost analysis. The MAQS details all cost elements 

making up the final unit costs: material, labor, burden, end item scrap, SG&A, profit, 

ED&T, and packaging. 

Step 8: Parts with high or unexpected cost results are subjected to a marketplace crosscheck, such as comparison with supplier price quotes or wider consultation with company 

and industry resources (i.e. subject matter experts) beyond the CFT. 

Step 9: All costs calculated in the MAQS worksheets are automatically inputted into the 

Subsystem Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMAT). The Subsystem CMAT is used to 

display and roll up all the differential costs associated with a subsystem. All parts in a 

subsystem that are identified for costing in the CBOM are entered into the Subsystem 

CMAT. Also both the base and new technology configurations are included in the same 

CMAT to facilitate differential cost analysis. 

Step 10: The final step in the process is creating the System CMAT which rolls up all 

the subsystem differential costs to establish a final system unit cost. The System CMAT, 

similar in function to the subsystem CMAT, is the document used to display and roll-up 

all the subsystem costs associated within a system as defined by the CBOM. Within the 

scope of this cost analysis, the System CMAT provides the bottom line incremental unit 

cost between the base and new technology configurations under evaluation 
1-4

 

Figure 1-1: Cost Analysis Process Flow Steps and Document Interaction 

1. Technology 

Selection 

Powertrain Vehicle 

Class Summary Matrix 

(P-VCSM) 

2. Hardware 

Selection 

Powertrain Package 

Proforma 

3A. Generate Bill 

of Materials – 

Phase 1 

Comparison Bill of 

Materials (C-BOM)

Databases (Material, Labor, Manufacturing 

Overhead, Mark-up, & Packaging) 

5. Cross Functional 

Team (CFT)

Reviews 

7. Generate 

Manufacturing 

Assumption and 

Quote Summary 

(MAQS) 

Worksheets 

9. Subsystem Cost 

Roll Up 

Subsystem Cost Model 

Analysis Template

(Subsystem CMAT) 

10. System Cost 

Roll Up 

System Cost Model 

Analysis Template

(System CMAT) 

4. System/Subsystem 

Disassembly and 

Process Mapping – 

Phase 1 

(Design Profit®) 

6. Component/ 

Assembly 

Disassembly & 

Process Mapping – 

Phase 2 

(Design Profit®)

3B. Update Bill of Materials – Phase 2 

Comparison Bill of Materials (C-BOM)

8. Market Place 

Cross-check 

Process Flow 

Manual & Automated 

Document Links 
1-5

1.3 Manufacturing Assumptions 

When conducting the cost analysis for the various technology configurations, a number of 

assumptions are made in order to establish a consistent framework for all costing. The 

manufacturing assumptions can be broken into generic and specific case study 

assumptions. 

The generic manufacturing assumptions apply to all technology configurations under 

analysis and are carry-over from the pilot study. Listed below are the fundamental 

assumptions: 

1) Manufacturing rates are considered high volume (>450K Units/Year) and 

maintained throughout the product life. In the four (4) case studies which follow, 

a yearly capacity planning volume (CPV) of 450,000 units was assumed. 

2) All OEM and supplier manufacturing locations are in North America, unless 

otherwise stated. This serves to make the resulting costs conservative to the 

extent that OEMs use offshore suppliers to reduce costs. 

3) OEMs and suppliers have manufacturing equipment and facilities capable of 

handling required manufacturing processes and capacities unless otherwise stated. 

4) All manufacturing processes and operations are based on standard/mainstream 

industrial practices. 

5) Supplier and OEM manufacturing costs (material costs, labor rates, manufacturing 

overhead/burden rates) are based on 2008/2009 economics. 

6) Supplier mark-up rates (end-item scrap, SG&A, profit, and ED&T) are based on 

mature technology and manufacturing methods (e.g. mature product designs, high 

production volumes, significant marketplace competition, and established 

manufacturing processes) unless otherwise specified. 

7) All OEM mark-up will be applied using indirect cost (IC) multipliers. These are 

not within the scope of this analysis but should be separately determined and 

applied to the results of this analysis to obtain total (direct + indirect) 

manufacturing costs. 

The specific case study assumptions are those unique to a given technology and hardware 

configuration. Listed below are some of the case study specific considerations: 

1) Manufacturing site for defined operation or process; OEM, Tier 1 or Tier 2/3. 

2) Intellectual property expense. 
1-6

3) Neighboring system costs as a result of new technology adaptation. 

4) A new or modified, maintenance and/or end-of-life expense. 

5) Availability of significant material cost reductions (MCRs). 

6) Performance and/or cost implications of alternative new technology advances 

(NTAs). 

1.4 Subsystem Categorization 

As with the first case study analysis, a design based classification system was used to 

group the various components and assemblies making up the technology configurations. 

In general, every vehicle system (e.g. engine system, transmission system, etc.) is made 

up of several subsystems levels (e.g. the engine system includes a crank drive subsystem, 

cylinder head subsystem, lubrication subsystem, air induction subsystem, etc.), which inturn, is made up of several sub-subsystem levels (e.g. the air induction subsystem may 

include the following sub-subsystems: turbocharger, heat exchanger, pipes, hoses, and 

ducting). The sub-subsystem is the smallest classification level in which all components 

and assemblies are binned. 

Adding new technology to a system will also affect the primary subsystem(s). Also 

impacted are the neighboring subsystems which require additions and/or modification for 

successful integration of the new technology into the system. For example, to add a 

turbocharged air induction subsystem to a naturally aspirated engine, as many as ten (10) 

additional subsystems may be affected relative to cost, some in the positive direction 

(added cost), others in the negative direction (cost savings). Table 1-2 and Table 1-3 

provide an overview of the major subsystems and sub-subsystems included for each 

system (e.g. engine and transmission) evaluated within this analysis. In Section 2, Case 

Study Results, costs are presented for both the engine and transmission evaluations using 

these design subsystem categorizations. 
1-7

Table 1-2: Engine System, Subsystem and Sub-Subsystem Classification 

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem 

Engine Frames, Mountings & Brackets Engine Frames, Engine Mountings, Hanging Hardware 

Crank Drive Crankshaft, Flywheels/Flexplates, Connecting Rods, Pistons, 

Bearing Elements 

Counter Balance Dynamic Parts, Static Parts, Drives 

Cylinder Block Cylinder Block, Crankshaft Bearing Caps, Bedplate, Piston 

Cooling 

Cylinder Head 

Cylinder Head, Valve Guides & Seats, Guides for Valvetrain, 

Camshaft Bearing Housing, Camshaft Sensors, Camshaft 

Carrier, Cylinder Head Covers. 

Valvetrain Camshaft, Intake Valves, Exhaust Valves, Valve Springs, 

Spring Retainers & Keepers & Seats, 

Timing Drives Timing Wheels, Tensioners, Guides, Belts, Chains 

Accessory Drives Pulleys, Tensioners, Guides, Belts 

Intake Intake Manifold, Air Filter Box, Air Filters, Throttle Housing 

Assembly & Supplies, Pipes/Hoses/Ducting 

Fuel Induction Fuel Rails, Fuel Injectors, Pressure Regulators & Sensors, Fuel 

Injection Pumps, Pipes/Hoses, Brackets 

Exhaust Exhaust Manifold, Collector Pipes, Catalysts, Silencers 

(Mufflers), Oxygen Sensors, Pipes/Hoses, Brackets 

Lubrication Oil Pans, Oil pumps, Pressure Regulators& Sensors, Oil 

Filters, Pipes/Hoses, Sealing Elements, Heat Exchangers 

Cooling Water Pumps, Thermostat Housing, Heat Exchangers, Pressure 

Regulators, Pipes/Hoses/Ducting, Brackets 

Induction Air Charging Turbochargers, Heat Exchangers, Pipes/Hoses/Ducting, 

Brackets 

Breather Oil/Air Separator, Valves, Adapters, Pipes/Hoses/Ducting 

Electronic and Electrical 

Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Engine Electrical 

(e.g. Wiring, Ignition, Plugs, Coils, Powertrain Control 

Module) 

Accessory Starter Motors, Alternators, Power Steering Pumps, Air 

Conditioning Compressors 
1-8

Table 1-3: Transmission System, Subsystem and Sub-Subsystem Classification 

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem 

Externally Mounted Component Lift Eye, Vent Cap, Bracket, Bolting 

Case(s) Transaxle Case, Transaxle Housing, Covers, Bearing 

Race, Plug, Actuator 

Gear Train 

Input Shaft, Output Shaft, Transfer Shaft, Sun Gear, 

Planetary Gear, Ring Gear, Counter Gear, Differential 

Gear, Bearing (Roller, Needle) 

Internal Clutch 

Sprag Clutch, Clutch & Brake Hub, Disc and Plate, 

Piston, Snap Ring, Bearing (Roller, Needle), 

Synchronizer 

Launch Clutch Torque Converter, Clutch Assembly, Flexplate, Flywheel 

Oil Pump and Filter Oil pump, Cover, Oil Filter, Oil Cooler, Oil Squirter, 

Pipes/Tubes 

Mechanical Control 

Valve Body Assembly, Mechanical Controls (e.g. Shift 

Forks), Sealing Elements, Bearing Elements, Plugs & 

Cups 

Electrical Control Controller, Solenoid, Sensor, Switches, Wiring Harness 

Park Mechanism Rod/Shaft/Pin, Spring, Pawl, Bracket, Bolt 
2-1 

2 Case Study Results 

The results for the four (4) case studies analyzed within this work assignment. For each 

case study, a brief description of the technology and its associated hardware is provided. 

Additional general specifications for each case study can also be found in the Powetrain 

Packaging Specification Proformas in Appendix A. A scaled-down version of the System 

Cost Model Analysis Template (CMAT) is provided, summarizing the incremental direct 

manufacturing costs for each major subsystem that was affected by adaptation of the new 

technology. 

The full System CMATs for each case study can be found in Appendix B. The 

supporting Subsystem CMATs for each case study, which roll-up all the component and 

assembly costs for each subsystem, can be found in Appendix C. Table 2-1 provides a 

cross reference between each case study and the associated system and subsystem 

CMATs. 

Because each case study consists of a large quantity of component and assembly 

Manufacturing and Assumption Quote Summary (MAQS) worksheets, approximately 200 

pages per case study, hard copies were not included as part of this report. However, 

electronic copies of the MAQS worksheets, as well as all other supporting case study 

documents (e.g. CBOMs, Subsystem CMATs, System CMATs), can be accessed at 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/. 
2-2

Table 2-1: Location of System and Subsystem CMATs within Appendix 

Case 

Study 

Numbers

Case Study Description 

System 

CMAT 

Appendix

Section 

Subsystem 

CMAT 

Appendix 

Section 

N0102 

B0102 

2.0L, I4, 4-valve, dual overhead cam (DOHC), dual 

variable valve timing (d-VVT), turbocharged, 

gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine, compared to 

an equivalent conventional 3.0L, V6, 4-valve, 

DOHC, d-VVT, naturally aspirated (NA), port fuel 

injected (PFI) engine.a

B1 C1 

N0104 

B0104 

3.5L, V6, 4-valve, dual overhead cam (DOHC), dVVT, turbocharged, GDI engine, compared to an 

equivalent conventional 5.4L, V8, 3-valve, single 

overhead cam (SOHC), VVT, NA, PFI engine. 

B2 C2 

N0802 

B0802 

A 6-speed automatic transmission, compared to an 

equivalent 5-speed automatic transmission 

B3 C3 

N0902 

B0902 

A 6-speed wet dual clutch transmission (DCT), 

compared to an equivalent 6-speed automatic 

transmission. 

B4 C4 

a For the purpose of these case studies, “equivalent” means similar performance and/or capability 
2-2

2.1 Case Study #0102 Results 

(V6 Downsizing to I4)

Case Study #0102 analyzed the direct incremental manufacturing cost for downsizing 

from a conventional 3.0L, V6, 4-V, DOHC, d-VVT, NA, PFI engine to a 2.0L, I4, 4-V, 

DOHC, d-VVT, turbocharged, GDI engine. The performance specifications for both 

engine configurations were considered to be equivalent with a maximum power output of 

approximately 225 hp and maximum torque of approximately 210 lb-ft. 

Note that in this analysis, neither the new or base engine actual hardware had d-VVT. 

Both sets of hardware only consisted of intake-VVT. However, as part of the overall 

study assumptions, both technologies were assumed to have d-VVT. 

For the conventional/baseline engine configuration, a 2008 Ford Cyclone Duratec 35 (i.e. 

3.5L V6) engine was used in combination with a 2008 Ford Mondeo Duratec 30 (i.e., 

3.0L V6) engine. The 3.5L Duratec engine was the principal hardware referenced in this 

analysis, with the 3.0L Duratec engine primarily used to support size and weight scaling 

of the 3.5L V6 engine to a 3.0L V6 equivalent. This approach was taken for two main 

reasons: 1) the 3.5L Duratec is a relative new engine (launched in 2007 timeframe, 

winner of 2007 Ward’s Top 10 Best Engines) and, as such, is considered to contain some 

of the latest design and manufacturing advances for conventional V6 engines; and 2) 

much of this same base engine cost analysis could be reused in Case Study #0104 (5.4L 

V8, NA, PFI downsized to a 3.5L V6, Turbo, GDI engine), reducing analysis time. 

For the new technology configuration, the 2007 BMW/PSA Peugeot Citroën Prince 1.6L 

I4, Turbo, GDI engine (used in the 2008 Mini Cooper, S) was selected as the lead 

hardware, scaled up to a 2.0L I4, Turbo, GDI equivalent. Both the Chrysler GEMA 2.4L, 

I4, NA, PFI engine and GM Family II, Ecotec, 2.0L, I4, Turbocharged, GDI engine were 

used for size and weight scaling (e.g. pistons, connecting rods, cylinder head), feature 

counts (e.g. valve cover fasteners, oil sump fasteners), as well as for costing selected 

items not captured within the 1.6L I4 BOM (e.g. balance shaft). Because the 1.6L I4, 

Prince engine was used in a previous study (i.e. case study #0101), selected cost models 

for this previously completed work could be reprocessed with updated function and 

performance specifications, reducing analysis time. 

Features of the 2.0L I4, Turbo, GDI fuel induction subsystem include a direct rotary 

drive, swash plate, high pressure fuel pump assembly servicing four (4) side-mounted 

solenoid injectors (7-hole type) with a maximum operating pressure of 150 bar. The air 

induction subsystem includes a twin-scroll turbocharger assembly, featuring a vacuumactuated waste gate actuator, electronically-actuated anti-surge valve, along with a watercooled, pressure-lubricated bearing housing. The maximum exhaust gas temperature 

permitted at the turbine inlet is 950°C. Compressed air leaving the turbocharger 

assembly is cooled via an air-to-air heat exchanger prior to reaching the intake manifold. 
2-3

In this cost analysis, as well as in the V8 to V6 Turbo, GDI, engine downsizing analysis, 

no additional intellectual property expenses were identified beyond the typical 

contribution included in the selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expense. It is 

acknowledged that each supplier currently manufacturing air induction components (e.g. 

Honeywell-Garret, BorgWarner, Cummins) and/or high pressure fuel system components 

(e.g. Bosch, Continental, Delphi) will have a large number of patents to protect their 

intellectual property. Because of these patents, market-leading suppliers can recover 

some of their development costs in the short term. However the approach of this cost 

analysis assumes that a competitive supplier base will develop similar components 

(which do not infringe on the original developer’s patents), and that the value of the 

originator’s intellectual property will diminish, resulting in more modest intellectual 

property allowances as the technology matures. This allowance is captured by the 

assigned SG&A rate. 

As with the first pilot case study (#0101), new technology advances (NTAs) were 

identified as possible performance upgrades to the physical hardware of the turbocharged 

engines. These NTAs included the following: variable geometry turbochargers, water-toair charge air coolers, electric water pump (replacing the conventional mechanical water 

pump) paired with a smaller auxiliary after-run pump. At this time, these alternative 

technologies are recorded and identified (and may be evaluated at a later date when 

representative hardware is available), but are not included in the cost analysis. 

Many material cost reduction (MCR) ideas were identified in case study #0102, and these 

MCRs were incorporated at the beginning of this analysis. For example, certain 

manufacturing processes are sometimes better suited to lower-volume products due to 

lower tooling costs. An example of this would be a part manufactured using a powdered 

metal process; at low production volumes, this may result in the lowest cost, but at high 

production volumes, a fine blanking process may make better financial sense. Generally, 

anywhere a component design or manufacturing method was originally adopted based on 

low volume production, a revised design assumption and/or process suitable for high 

volume mass production was selected. A second example of where MCRs were directly 

implemented into the analysis was in the selection of “best practice” or “upward 

trending” manufacturing processes. An example of this is the replacement of a sandcast 

aluminum cylinder block with a diecast cylinder block. In this particular case study, the 

actual block for the 3.0L, V6, Ford Duratec block was sandcast, whereas the 3.5L block 

was diecast. For this reason, the 3.5L, V6, Ford Duratec diecast cylinder block was 

evaluated for cost and scaled down to a 3.0L V6 equivalent. 

In all of the turbo, GDI, engine downsizing studies (case studies #0101, #0102, and 

#0104), this same approach to NTAs and MCRs was utilized. 

Figure 2-1 shows the net incremental direct manufacturing cost of $68.68 for downsizing 

from a 3.0L V6, NA, PFI conventional engine to a 2.0L I4, Turbo, GDI engine. In 
2-4

addition to the subsystem cost breakdowns showing their net contribution to costs, the 

contribution from each cost element is also captured. Major incremental cost factors for 

the new technology were the fuel induction subsystem ($84.76) and air induction 

subsystem ($280.70). Major incremental cost savings for the new technology due to 

downsizing were the cylinder head subsystem ($158.70) and the valvetrain ($122.71). 
2-5 

Figure 2-1: System Cost Model Analysis Template Illustrating the Incremental Subsystem Costs Roll Up for V6 to I4, 

Turbo, GDI Downsizing, Case Study #0102 
2-6 

An alternative method of binning component and assembly incremental costs is based on 

their contribution to cost relative to downsizing, GDI, or turbocharging categories. In 

Table 2-2, the incremental subsystems costs are broken out into these three (3) alternative 

categories. The combined subsystems cost of adding GDI to a 2.0L I4 over a 

conventional PFI subsystem is $213. The combined subsystems cost for adding 

turbocharging to an I4 engine over a conventional NA subsystem is $403. Lastly, the 

credit for downsizing from a conventional V6 to a conventional I4 is $547. 

Table 2-2: Cost for Adding Turbocharging and GDI to a 2.0L, I4, NA, PFI engine and the 

Estimated Credit for Downsizing from a Conventional 3.0L V6 to 2.0L I4. 

Combine 

Subsystem 

Incremental 

Impact 

Direct Subsystem 

Incremental 

Contribution 

Indirect 

Subsystem 

Incremental 

Contribution 

GDI $213 $85 $128 

Turbo $403 $281 $122 

Downsizing (-$547) 

Net Incremental Cost $69 
2-7

2.2 Case Study #0104 Results 

(V8 Downsizing to V6) 

Case Study #0104 analyzed the direct incremental manufacturing cost for downsizing 

from a conventional 5.4L, V8, 3-V, SOHC, VVT, NA, PFI engine to a 3.5L V6, 4-V, 

DOHC, d-VVT, turbocharged, GDI engine. 

For the conventional/baseline engine configuration, a 2008 Ford Modular 5.4L V8 engine 

was selected. Standard features of this engine include a cast iron block, forged 

crankshaft, aluminum heads, variable valve timing and hydraulic, roller finger valve 

lifters. The maximum power output rating is 300 hp @ 5000 rpm with a maximum torque 

of 365 lb.-ft. @ 3750 rpm. 

For the new technology configuration, a 2008 Ford Cyclone Duratec 35 (i.e. 3.5L V6) 

base engine was selected for the foundation of the analysis. Utilizing the project team’s 

expertise, published data on Turbo, GDI, V6 engine architectures, surrogate component 

data from existing benchmarking evaluations, and previously completed cost studies (i.e., 

case study #0101 and #0102), the project team developed a 3.5L V6, Turbo, GDI engine 

Bill of Materials (BOM). In regards to a target performance specification, the Ford 

EcoBoost engine (3.5L V6, 4-V, DOHC, i-VVT, Turbo, GDI, engine) specification was 

used as a surrogate; maximum 355 hp @ 5000 rpm and 350 lb.-ft. @ 3500 rpm. 

Features of the 3.5L V6, Turbo, GDI fuel induction subsystem include a direct rotary 

drive, swash plate design, high-pressure fuel pump servicing six (6) side-mounted 

solenoid injectors (7-hole type), with a maximum operating pressure of 150 bar. The air 

induction subsystem features twin, single-scroll turbocharger assemblies. Each 

turbocharger assembly has a vacuum-actuated waste gate, an electronically-actuated antisurge valve, and a water-cooled, pressure-lubricated bearing housing. The maximum 

exhaust gas inlet temperature permitted at the turbine inlet is 950°C. Compressed air 

leaving the turbocharger assemblies is cooled prior to reaching the intake manifold via an 

air-to-air heat exchanger. 

Figure 2-2 shows the net incremental direct manufacturing cost of $846.26 for 

downsizing from a 5.4L V8, NA, PFI conventional engine to a 3.5L V6, Turbo, GDI 

engine. Major incremental cost factors for the new technology were the fuel induction 

subsystem ($124.59) and air induction subsystem ($448.79). The downsizing of many 

subsystems (e.g. intake, crank drive, cylinder block) resulted in a cost savings of $155. 
2-8 

Figure 2-2: System Cost Model Analysis Template Illustrating the Incremental Subsystem Costs Roll Up for V8 to V6, 

Turbo, GDI Downsizing, Case Study #0104 
2-9 

Similar to the V6 to I4 downsizing analysis, Table 2-3 breaks down the incremental 

component and subsystems costs into downsizing, GDI, and turbocharging categories. As 

shown in the table, the combined subsystem cost for adding GDI to a V6 (over a 

conventional PFI subsystem) is $321. The combined subsystem costs for adding 

turbocharging to a V6 engine over a conventional NA subsystem is $681. Lastly, the 

credit for downsizing from a conventional V8 to a conventional V6 is $155. 

Table 2-3: Cost for Adding Turbocharging and GDI to a 3.5L, V6, NA, PFI engine and 

the Estimated Credit for Downsizing from a Conventional 5.4L V8 to 3.5L V4. 

Combine 

Subsystem 

Incremental 

Impact 

Direct Subsystem 

Incremental 

Contribution 

Indirect 

Subsystem 

Incremental 

Contribution 

GDI $321 $125 $196 

Turbo $681 $449 $232 

Downsizing (-$155) 

Net Incremental Cost $846 
2-10

2.3 Case Study #0802 Results 

(6-Speed versus 5-Speed Automatic Transmission) 

Case Study #0802 analyzed the direct incremental manufacturing cost for updating from a 

conventional 5-speed automatic transmission to a next generation 6-speed automatic 

transmission. 

The 5-speed automatic transmission selected for the analysis was the Toyota U151E 

FWD transmission. This transmission was used in various applications including the 

Toyota Camry through the 2005-2006 timeframe. The main construction of the 

transmission includes three (3) full planetary gear sets. The front and rear planetary gear 

sets are positioned in series along a common intermediate shaft assembly. Adjacent to 

the front and rear planetary sets, and mounted in series to the counter shaft assembly, is a 

third underdrive planetary set. The transmission contains a total of nine (9) shift 

elements, four (4) disc clutches, three (3) disc brakes, and two (2) one-way-clutches. The 

hydraulic valve body assembly, containing a total of seven (7) shift solenoid valves is 

controlled directly by the engine control module (ECM). The total weight of the 

transmission, including Automatic Transmission Fluid (ATF), is approximately 221 lbs. 

The maximum output torque rating for the U151E is 258 lb-ft. 

The 6-speed automatic transmission selected for the analysis was the replacement 

transmission to the Toyota 5-speed. The Toyota 6-speed FWD transmission (U660E) 

was a complete redesign of the existing U151E transmission, which launched in the 2007 

timeframe. Employing a Ravigneaux and underdrive planetary gear set, positioned along 

a common intermediate shaft assembly, the U660E gear driveline is much simpler 

compared to its predecessor. Only six (6) shift elements are required for operation of the 

transmission; two (2) disc clutches, three (3) disc brakes, and one (1) one-way-clutch. 

The U660E valve body assembly also contains a total of seven (7) shift solenoid valves 

interfacing with an exterior-mount transmission control module (TCM), which in-turn 

communicates with the engine control module (ECM). The total weight of the 

transmission, including ATF, is 208 lbs. The maximum output torque rating for the 

U660E is 295 lb.-ft. 

As discussed in the initial report (EPA-420-R-09-020), the costing methodology employs 

an exclusion approach to costing. Following completion of the comparison bill of 

materials (CBOMs), the cross functional team began the process of rationalizing 

similarities and differences between hardware on the five (5) and six (6) speed 

transmissions. A combination of component function and content exclusion analysis was 

conducted, eliminating the majority of components which required costing. Since the 5- 

speed transmission contained more hardware (i.e., approximately 150 more parts), and 

was generally more complex, the 6-speed established a zero cost baseline from which an 

incremental cost for the 5-speed was established. The majority of incremental cost 
2-11

increase of the five 5-speed over the 6-speed was associated with the two (2) additional 

clutch packs, the need for a counter shaft assembly, and some additional gearing. 

According to the SAE Technical Paper 2006-01-0847 (“Toyota’s New 6-Speed 

Automatic Transaxle U660E for FWD Vehicles”), the U660E’s transmission geartrain 

structure, consisting of a Ravigneaux gear set and simpler planetary set, was Toyota’s 

original invention. As such, there was no patent royalty fee penalization assessed against 

the 6-speed design. The patent rights for similar 6-speed transmission designs (e.g. 

Lepelletier) are due to expire in 2010. Therefore we do not expect royalty fees to be a 

significant part of the cost for 6-speed transmissions. 

For the 6-speed automatic transmission, there were no NTA or MCR ideas identified as 

part of the cost analysis. It was obvious from the transmission teardown assessment that 

in addition to Toyota’s goal for improving overall performance with their new 6-speed 

automatic transmission relative to the 5-speed predecessor, keeping costs at or below the 

existing manufacturing cost was a key metric. In regard to the 5-speed automatic 

transmission, many of innovative ideas implemented into the 6-speed automatic could 

have been incorporated into a new 5-speed if it were to be redesigned). The most 

obvious NTA would be adopting a similar Ravigneaux geartrain design, which could 

conceivably have the same financial benefit recognized by the 6-speed automatic. As 

part of this analysis, no additional work was conducted to determine what the financial 

impact would be on the 5-speed automatic by employing some of these NTA and MCRs 

concepts. As such, the net incremental direct manufacturing cost shown below is solely 

based on the physical hardware evaluated. 

Figure 2-3 shows the net incremental direct manufacturing cost between the six (6) and 

five (5) speed automatic transmissions. In evaluating the physical hardware, the 6-speed 

automatic was analyzed to be less expensive to manufacture by approximately $105. 

Note that when the 6-speed transmission was redesigned, several other functional and 

performance updates not driven by the added 6th-gear ratio were incorporated (e.g. 

modified hydraulic control strategy, spool valve material, and friction discs, as well as a 

newly-developed torque converter). These modifications were not costed in the analysis 

since they are independent of the gear ratio addition and modifications. 
2-12 

Figure 2-3: System Cost Model Analysis Template Illustrating the Incremental Subsystem Costs Roll Up for a 6-Speed 

Automatic Transmission compared to a 5-Speed Automatic Transmission 
2-15 

2.4 Case Study #0902 Results 

(6-Speed Wet Dual Clutch Transmission versus 6-Speed Automatic Transmission) 

Case Study #0902 analyzed the direct incremental manufacturing cost for updating from a 

conventional 6-speed automatic transmission to a 6-speed, wet, dual clutch transmission. 

The baseline technology configuration selected for the analysis was the Toyota 6-speed 

automatic transmission (U660E) of case study #0802. General design parameters of the 

U660E transmission can be found in section 2.3 of this report. 

The new technology configuration selected for the analysis was the Volkswagen (VW) 

six 6-speed, wet, dual clutch transmission (DCT); model number DQ250. Other industry 

naming conventions for this technology configuration include twin-clutch gearbox or dual 

shift gearbox (DSG). The basic components of the DCT include a twin clutch pack 

assembly driving two (2) coaxial input shafts. Power from the engine is transmitted to 

the input shafts through a dual-mass flywheel which is connected in series to the twinclutch pack. Each input shaft, dependent on the selected gear, is designed to mesh with 

one (1) of two (2) output shafts. Upon reverse gear selection, there is an intermediate 

shaft which engages with both input shaft one (1) and output shaft two (2). There are 

four (4) shift forks, two (2) on each output shaft, hydraulically activated into one of two 

positions from their neutral home position. The controls for the DCT, which include the 

hydraulic controls, electronic controls, and various sensors and actuators, are integrated 

into a single module VW refers to as a Mechatronic unit. The total weight of the 

transmission module, including the dual-mass flywheel, is approximately 207 lbs. The 

maximum output torque rating for the DQ250 transmission is 258 lb.-ft. 

Relative to intellectual property costs, no additional allowances were provided, outside 

the general allowance covered as part of the selling, general and administrative (SG&A) 

expense, for protecting intellectual property. It is acknowledged that each supplier 

currently making a version of a DCT (e.g. BorgWarner, Getrag, ZF, LuK) will have a 

large number of patents on their own technology. Because of these patents, suppliers 

who are considered to be market leaders in DCT technology will certainly recover some 

of their development costs in the short term. However, it is assumed that as the supplier 

base and associated technologies mature, the value (i.e. function/cost) each supplier 

provides will begin to equalize, resulting in a diminishing intellectual property cost 

allowance for each design. 

As part of the hardware review and evaluation, no NTA or MCR ideas were considered in 

the final cost analysis. The evaluation team felt that in general, both transmissions were 

robustly designed, with each consisting of a high level of component and function 

integration, which resulted in two financially competitive solutions. 
2-16

In this analysis, approximately seventy-five (75) percent of the components on both the 6-

speed automatic transmission and 6-speed wet DCT were evaluated for cost. This level 

of analysis was required due to the inherent differences between the automatic versus 

DCT components. The only subsystems identified as common in function and cost 

between the two (2) transmissions were the oil pump, filter, park mechanism, and 

external components. 

Figure 2-5 shows the net, incremental, direct manufacturing cost between the 6-speed wet 

DCT and 6-speed automatic transmissions. In evaluating the physical hardware, the 6-

speed wet DCT was analyzed to be less expensive to manufacture by approximately $97. 

The major cost increment of the 6-speed wet DCT was the launch clutch system ($64.79), 

which included a dual-mass flywheel and twin clutch assembly. The major incremental 

cost savings for the new technology were the internal clutches ($132.35) and the geartrain 

($38.04). 

Also shown in Figure 2-5, a differential exist between the electronic hardware and 

controls in the two transmission systems. Differences including Gear Selecting Solenoids 

and Sensors and well as wiring harnesses and communication drivers can be clearly 

identified in Figure 2-4 below. These components and controls account for an additional 

cost differential of $46.99 contributing to the net incremental direct manufacturing cost of 

$-97.34. 
2-17

Gearbox Input Speed Sensor (G182) Cost Neutral Counter Gear Speed Sensor Cost Neutral

Multi Plate Clutch Oil Temperature Sender (G509) Cost Neutral AFT Temperature Sensor Cost Neutral

Drive Shaft 1 Speed Sensor (G501) Cost Neutral Input Turbine Speed Sensor Cost Neutral

Drive Shaft 2 Speed Sensor (G502) Cost

Gearbox Output Speed Sensor (G195) Cost

Gearbox Output Direction Sensor (G196) Cost

Automatic Gearbox Hydraulic Pressure Sender -1- 

(G193) Cost Neutral AFT Pressure Switch 1 Cost Neutral

Automatic Gearbox Hydraulic Pressure Sender -2- 

(G194) Cost Neutral AFT Pressure Switch 2 Cost Neutral

AFT Pressure Switch 3 Cost

Solenoid Valve 1 (N88) Cost Shift Solenoid Valve SL1 Cost

Solenoid Valve 2 (N89) Cost Shift Solenoid Valve SL2 Cost

Solenoid Valve 3 (N90) Cost Shift Solenoid Valve SL3 Cost

Solenoid Valve 4 (N91) Cost Shift Solenoid Valve SL4 Cost

Solenoid Valve 5 (N92) Cost Shift Solenoid Valve SLU Cost

Shift Solenoid Valve SLT Cost

Shift Solenoid Valve SL Cost

Electrical Pressure Control Valve 1 (N215) Cost

Electrical Pressure Control Valve 2 (N216) Cost

Electrical Pressure Control Valve 3 (N217) Cost

Electrical Pressure Control Valve 4 (N218) Cost

Electrical Pressure Control Valve 5 (N233) Cost

Electrical Pressure Control Valve 6 (N371) Cost

Gear Selector Travel Sensor -1- (G487) Cost

Gear Selector Travel Sensor -2- (G488) Cost

Gear Selector Travel Sensor -3- (G489) Cost

Gear Selector Travel Sensor -4- (G490) Cost

Mechatronic Control Unit Cost Mechatronic Control Unit Cost

Mechatronic Control Unit - Wiring Harness Cost Mechatronic Control Unit - Wiring Harness Cost

6-Speed DSG

Device Description

Device 

Captured In 

MAQS

6-Speed AT

Device Description

Device 

Captured In 

MAQS

Figure 2-4: System Electronic Hardware & Controls Comparison Matrix for a 6-Speed 

DSG compared to a 6-Speed Automatic Transmission
2-18 

Material Labor Burden End Item 

Scrap SG&A Profit ED&TR&D

0200 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

1 01 EXTERNAL COMPONENTS: Consists of installation of oil coolers, lift 

eyes, vent caps. $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - -$ $ - $ - $ -

2 02 CASE(S): Includes pressed in components (i.e., bearing races), 

plugs, and associated hardware. $ 5.82 $ (3.19) $ (32.86) $ (30.24) $ 3.49 $ (1.88) $ (1.73) $ (1.94) $ (2.06) $ 0.39 $ (31.91)

3 03 GEAR TRAIN: Includes Input Shafts, Output Shafts, Differential and 

all associated gears and bearings on the shaft. $ 9.38 $ (17.50) $ (16.25) $ (24.37) $ (1.99) $ (7.08) $ (4.20) $ 0.31 $ (12.96) $ 1.76 $ (35.57)

4 04 INTERNAL CLUTCHES: Internal for Gears, Synchronizers, Bands, 

etc. $ (44.06) $ (22.63) $ (37.74) $ (104.43) $ (1.32) $ (12.82) $ (13.06) $ (4.30) $ (31.49) $ (2.26) $ (138.19)

5 05 LAUNCH CLUTCHES: Torque Converter $ (42.83) $ 28.06 $ 60.71 $ 45.94 $ 0.99 $ 7.94 $ 7.48 $ 1.31 $ 17.71 $ 0.72 $ 64.37

6 06

OIL PUMP & FILTER: Includes Pump, Pump Shaft/Drive 

Mechanism, Oil Filters (Internal or External), Pick-up Tube, and Oil 

Baffles.

$ - -$ $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - -$ $ - $ - $ -

7 07 MECHANICAL CONTROLS $ 8.41 $ (7.79) $ 1.21 $ 1.83 $ 0.37 $ (1.98) $ (1.95) $ (0.34) $ (3.89) $ 0.37 $ (1.69)

8 08 ELECTRICAL CONTROLS $ 30.89 $ 2.79 $ 5.88 $ 39.56 $ 0.21 $ 2.68 $ 2.48 $ 1.06 $ 6.43 $ 0.00 $ 45.99

9 09 PARK MECHANISM: Includes Park & Lock Pawl Mechanism and 

Actuating Levers $ (0.20) $ (0.16) $ 0.04 $ (0.32) $ (0.00) $ (0.01) $ (0.01) $ (0.01) $ (0.03) $ - $ (0.34)

10 10 MISCELLANEOUS: $ - -$ $ - $ - $ - -$ $ - -$ $ - $ - $ -

11

12 

$ (32.59) $ (20.42) $ (19.01) $ (72.03) $ 1.75 $ (13.14) $ (11.00) $ (3.91) $ (26.29) $ 0.98 $ (97.34)

Total Markup 

Cost 

(Component/ 

Assembly)

Total 

Packaging 

Cost 

(Component/ 

Assembly)

Net 

Component/ 

Assembly 

Cost Impact to 

OEM

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP

Manufacturing Total 

Manufacturing 

Cost 

(Component/ 

Assembly)

Markup

Item

Subsystem

Subsystem Description

INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE COST INFORMATION

6 Speed Direct Shift Gearbox (dual clutch): 2007-2009 VW Jetta SportWagen

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION BASE TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE COST INFORMATION

6 Speed Automatic Transmission: 2007-2009 Toyota Camry

Technology Level: 09 - 6 Speed Automatic versus 6 Speed Direct Shift Transmission

Vehicle Class: 02- Mid to Large Size Passenger Vehicle, 4-6 Passengers

Study Case#: 0902 ( N0902 New Technology Configuration)

( B0902 Baseline Technology Configuration)

Figure 2-5: System Cost Model Analysis Template Illustrating the Incremental Subsystem Costs Roll Up for a 6-Speed Wet 

DCT compared to a 6-Speed Automatic Transmission 
3-1 

3 GLOSSARY OF TERMS 

Assembly: generally refers to a group of interdependent components joined together to 

perform a defined function (e.g. turbocharger assembly, high pressure fuel pump 

assembly, high pressure fuel injector assembly). 

Buy: is the terminology used to identify those components or assemblies as ones in which 

a manufacturer would purchase versus manufacture. All parts designated as a “buy” part, 

within the analysis, only have a net component cost presented. Typically these types of 

parts are considered commodity purchase parts having industry established pricing. 

CBOM (Comparison Bill of Materials): is a system bill of materials, identifying all the 

subsystems, assemblies and components associated with the technology configurations 

under evaluation. The CBOM records all the high level details of the technology 

configurations under study, identifies those items which have cost implications as a result 

of the new versus base technology differences, documents the study assumptions, and is 

the primary document for capturing input from the cross functional team. 

Component: is the lowest level part within the cost analysis. An assembly is typically 

made up of several components acting together to perform a function (e.g. the turbine 

wheel in a turbocharger assembly). However, in some cases a component can act 

independently performing a function within a sub-subsystem or subsystem (e.g. exhaust 

manifold within the exhaust subsystem). 

Cost Estimating Models: are cost estimating tools, external to the Design Profit® 

software, used to calculate operation and process parameters for primary manufacturing 

processes (e.g. injection molding, die casting, metal stamping, forging). Key information 

calculated from the costing estimating tools (e.g. cycle times, raw material usage, 

equipment size) is inputted into the Lean Design® process maps supporting the cost 

analysis. The Excel base cost estimating models are developed and validated by Munro 

& Associates. 

Costing Databases: refer to the five (5) core databases which contain all the cost rates 

for the analysis. The material database lists all the materials used throughout the analysis 

along with the estimated price/pound for each. The labor database captures various 

automotive, direct labor, manufacturing jobs (supplier and OEM), along with the 

associated mean hourly labor rates. The manufacturing overhead rate database contains 

the cost/hour for the various pieces of manufacturing equipment assumed in the analysis. 

A mark-up database assigns a percentage of mark-up for each of the four (4) main markup categories (i.e. end-item scrap, SG&A, profit, and ED&T), based on the industry, 

supplier size, and complexity classification. The fifth database, the packaging database, 

contains packaging options and costs for each case.
3-2

Lean Design® (a module within the Design Profit® software): is used to create detailed 

process flow charts/process maps. Lean Design® uses a series of standardized symbols, 

each base symbol representing a group of similar manufacturing procedures (e.g. 

fastening, material modifications, inspection). For each group, a Lean Design® 

library/database exists containing standardized operations along with the associated 

manufacturing information and specifications for each operation. The information and 

specifications are used to generate a net operation cycle time. Each operation on a 

process flow chart is represented by a base symbol, operation description, and operation 

time, all linked to a Lean Design® library/database. 

Make: is the terminology used to identify those components or assemblies as ones in 

which a manufacturer would produce internally versus purchase. All parts designated as 

a “make” part, within the analysis, are costed in full detail. 

MAQS (Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary) Worksheet: is the 

standardized template used in the analysis to calculate the mass production manufacturing 

cost, including supplier mark-up, for each system, subsystem and assembly quoted in the 

analysis. Every component and assembly costed in the analysis will have a MAQS 

worksheet. The worksheet is based on a standard OEM (original equipment 

manufacturer) quote sheet modified for improved costing transparency and flexibility in 

sensitivity studies. The main feeder documents to the MAQS worksheets are process 

maps and the costing databases. 

MCRs (Material Cost Reductions): is a process employed to identify and capture 

potential design and/or manufacturing optimization ideas with the hardware under 

evaluation. These savings could potentially reduce or increase the differential costs 

between the new and base technology configurations, depending on whether an MCR 

idea is for the new or the base technology. 

Net Component/Assembly Cost Impact to OEM: is defined as the net manufacturing 

cost impact per unit, to the OEM, for a defined component, assembly, subsystem or 

system. For components produced by the supplier base, the net manufacturing cost 

impact to the OEM includes total manufacturing costs (material, labor, and manufacturing 

overhead), mark-up (end-item scrap costs, selling, general and administrative costs, 

profit, and engineering design and testing costs) and packaging costs. For OEM 

internally manufactured components, the net manufacturing cost impact to the OEM 

includes total manufacturing costs and packaging costs; mark-up costs are addressed 

through the application of an indirect cost multiplier. 

NTAs (New Technology Advances): is a process employed to identify and capture 

alternative advance technology ideas which could be substituted for some of the existing 

hardware under evaluation. These advanced technologies, through improved function and 
3-3

performance, and/or cost reductions, could help increase the overall value of the 

technology configuration. 

Powertrain Package Proforma: is a summary worksheet comparing the key physical and 

performance attributes of the technology under study with those of the corresponding 

base configuration. 

Process Maps: are detailed process flow charts used to capture the operations and 

processes, and associated key manufacturing variables, involved in manufacturing 

products at any level (e.g. vehicle, system, subsystem, assembly, component). 

P-VCSM (Powertrain–Vehicle Class Summary Matrix): records the technologies 

being evaluated, the applicable vehicle classes for each technology, and key parameters 

for vehicles or vehicle systems that have been selected to represent the new technology 

and baseline configurations in each vehicle class to be costed. 

Quote: refers to the analytical process of establishing a cost for a component or 

assembly.

Sub-subsystem: refers to a group of interdependent assemblies and/or components, 

required to create a functioning sub-subsystem. For example, the air induction subsystem 

contains several sub-subsystems including the following: turbocharging, heat exchangers, 

and pipes, hoses and ducting.

Subsystem: refers to a group of interdependent sub-subsystems, assemblies and/or 

components, required to create a functioning subsystem. For example, the engine system 

contains several subsystems including the following: crank drive subsystem, cylinder 

block subsystem, cylinder head subsystem, fuel induction subsystem, and air induction 

subsystem. 

Subsystem CMAT (Cost Model Analysis Templates): is the document used to display 

and roll up all the sub-subsystem, assembly and component incremental costs associated 

with a subsystem (e.g. fuel induction, air induction, exhaust), as defined by the 

Comparison Bill of Material (CBOM). 

Surrogate part: refers to a part similar in fit, form and function as the part required for 

the cost analysis. Surrogate parts are sometimes used in the cost analysis when actual 

parts are unavailable. The cost of a surrogate part is considered equivalent to the cost of 

the actual part. 

System: refers to a group of interdependent subsystems, sub-subsystems, assemblies 

and/or components, working together to create a vehicle primary function (e.g. engine 

system, transmission system, brake system, fuel system, suspension system). 
3-4

System CMAT (Cost Model Analysis Template): is the document used to display and 

roll up all the subsystem incremental costs associated with a system (e.g. engine, 

transmission, steering), as defined by the CBOMs.