&EPA 

l 

' 

United States 

Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Air 

Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control 

Emission Control Technology Division 

2565 Plymouth Road 

Ann Arbor, Ml 48105 

Cost Estimations for 

EPA-460/3-80-001 

Fehruarv 1980 

Emission Control Related 

Components/Systems and 

Cost Methodology Description 

Heavy Duty Trucks 

... ::· ~. ··-~....- • ~ -,,}-- ';. ·~ .• • •• · ....... _':· •. ~ •• ·•· •.•• --· ~ •• ~:·· •. ," ... -· "' '.1 •. - .... --· ~ 

................................................................ ~---------------................................. rmi ... .. 

PiwDIJC! OF: 

NA. TIONAL TECHNICAL 

INFORMATION SERVICE U.S. NPAR!MEHT Qf COMMERCE 

SP~IN;FIELO. \A. 21161 
1--~ l .. 

I 

I l 

TECHNICAL REPORT DATA {Pf~ID# l'Hd /1UDUcn·OtU on tlr~ rt•rn.t /xfatt com(lltdn1t) 

l. REl'O"lT NO. ,2. J. l'IECIP'llNT"5 ACCESSIO.-.NO. 

EPA 460/3-78-002 PBB1 18~~() 1 ... TITLE .&"'O SUBTITLE 6. l'IEl'Ol'IT DATE 

December 1977 

Cost Esti:nations for 16. P'El'lf'Ol'IMINO Ol'IGANIZATION CODE 

Emission Control RelateJ Com~onents/Systems and Cost Methodolos:r Descrip ion 7. AuTi<ORISI 8. l'El'lfORMING OJlGAP<IZATION l'IEl'ORT NC 

LeRoy H. Lindgren Co~tract DP0-702-384B 

RFP O'WA- 77-B271 

9 l'ERF01'1"41NG OR(;ANIZATION NAME ANO AOOl'IESS 10. l'ROGl'IAM f.LIOMENT NO. 

Rath & Strong. Inc. 

21 Worthen Road 11. 1.uN7RAC1 /GRANT NO. 

Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 Modification No. 3 

Contract No. 68-03-3505 . 

12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANDACORESS 1l. TYl'E OF l'IEl'ORT ANO l'EAIOO COVE"lE!::> 

Environmental Protection Agency Final (July 1977-Nov. 1977) - Mobile Source Air Pollution Control lol. S"ONSOl'llNG AGENCY CODE 

2565 Plymouth Road 

Ann Arbor, MI 48105 'I keproduced from (~~ 

15. SUl'l'LEMENTARY NOTES 

' best available copy. ... 

Rath & Strong, Inc •• subcontractor to Mechanical Technology, Inc. 

16. AB5.TAACT • This (RP£) report presents estimates of the retail price equivalent or 

"sticker ?rice" for a variety of automotive exhaust emission control 

related cl"mponents/systems. The author began with a three-level assu~ption as tJ industry makeup (supplier, vehicle assembly, dealer) and used 

this standard approach along ~1th assumptions as to production volume 

and the amounts of labor, overhead, tooling, administrative, and depreciation expenses and profit at the supplier level, tooling, research .-i.nd 

development, and administrative expenses and profit at the vehicle 

asseobly level, and labor, overhead, and profit at the deale~ level to 

deter~ine the RPE. Where little physical description of a component 

could be found, a "b<?st guess" effort \.las made. A methodology description 

is also included. It should be noted that since a specific production 

volume was assumed in each case, the RPE estimates are valid only within 

some relevant range of production volumes. 

, 

17. KEY WOADS ANO DOCUMENT .-_NALYSIS .. ~ OESC~ll'TOl'IS b.tOENTIFIEl'IS/Ol'EN EN CEO TEl'l""S c. COSATI Field/Gro .. ;:> 

Ai:-: Pollution Manufacturing Co ts 

Ex~,aus t Systems Tooling 

C~st Estimates Methodology 

Labor Estil:lates 

~:aterial Estioates 

Catalytic Converters 

Air Injection 

11"'- O•STl'llBUTIONSTATEMENT Ill. SECUfllTY CLASS /TltU R~portJ :11. NO. Of PAGES I Release Unlimited 20. SECUfllTY CLASS (T1tiJ pqr} . "2:2. PAICE 

U'A l"orm IZZ~I (t·7~) . 

J 

I 

J 
EP A-460/3-80-001 

COST ESTIM.ATIONS FOR EMISSION 

t CONTROL REJ-'ATED COMPONENTS/SYSTEMS 

AND COST rvIETHODOLOGY DESCRIP'"flON 

HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS 

t 

by 

LeRoy H. Lindgren 

Rath & Strong, Inc. 

21 Wonhen Road 

Lexington, Massachusetts 

02173 

Order :-.'o. A-2002-NASX 

EPA Project Offic.er: Susan Vintilla 

Prepart>d for 

ENVIRONMENT AL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Office of Air, Noise and Radiation 

Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control 

Emission Control Technology Division 

Ann Arbor, \fichigan ..i8105 

February 1980 

/• ()__ 
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report technical data 

of interest to a limited number of readc-rs. Copies are available free of charge to Ftderal employees, current contractors and grantees, and nonprofit organizations - in limited quantities - from the Library Services Office (MD-35), Resear..:h Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 2":'711; or. for a fee, from the National Technical Infor.nation Service. 5285 Port Roya: Road. Springfield, Virginia 22161. 

This report was furnished ~o the Environmenral Protection Agency by Rath & Strong, Inc., 21 

Worthen Road. Lexini;ton. Massachusetts, in fulfillment of Order No. A-2002-NASX. The 

content~ of this report are reproduced herein as received from Rath & Strong, Inc. The opinions, 

findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the 

Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of company or product names is not to be 

considered as an endorsement hv the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Publication No. EPA-460/3-80-001 

ii 
' 

PREFACE 

This r~port r;onsists of the developmer.t of a manufacturing cost data 

base of a group of emission systems and components as specified by the 

Environmental Protection Agency. The cost methodology is included for 

each system. T;;e dollar amounts presented in this report are in tenis 

of 1977 dollars. 

RATH & STRONG 

INCDU'IUATl:D 

I// 
t 

t 

Scope of Work 

A. The contractor shall provide all of the necessary facilities, equipment, personnel, 

analysis, and reporting required to co'Tlplete the following tasks in an efficient 

and effective manner. 

8. Task l - Cost of Components/Systems 

1. The contractor shail provide cost estimates for the em1ss1on control or 

emission control related components/systems listed in Attachment A for 4, 

6, and 8-cyl inder engines with further cost breakdowns of these 

components/systems where indicated on the attachment. These individual 

costs shall include but not be limited to the following: a) material costs; b) 

labor costs; c) overhead costs, including indirect labor, supplies, electricity, 

heating, plant and equipment repairs, supervision, plant and equipment 

depreciation, insurance; and d) appropriate markup rates or factors. 

2. These costs shall reflect economies of scale, current material, labor, and 

overhead costs, appropriate manufacturing p!"ocesses, and sr1all be ranged to 

reflect a 3-year or a 12-year writeoff of lnvestment. 

J. The Project Officer must approve the choice of production volume used in 

calculating the effect due to economy of scale. 

C. Task 'Z - Description of Methodology 

1. The contractor shall provide a detailed description of the methodology used 

to determine the estimates in Task l above. Where possible, more than one 

method shall be used to increase the assurance of the estimates' accuracy. 

RATH & STRONG 
' 

t 

i' 

t 

!,' 

f 

Acknowledgements 

This report has been generated from engineering data available at this writing. 

Some of the data is based on industrial engineering judgment. The cost data is 

based on the be5t possible industrial engineering estimating procedures using 

product knowledge, manufacturing experience, and learning curve techniques. 

Whenever possible other estimati:ig work was used for comparative purposes. 

Also, the aftermarket selling price data was used to establish a frame of 

reference or an order of magni~.ude cost computation using known discount de.ta. 

The author would like to acknowledge the cooperation of EPA personnel Mr. 

Karl Hellman and Ms. Susan Vintilla. Mr. W. Leitch and Ms. S. Zemann of Rath & 

Strong were major contributors to this repcrt. The production office of Rath & 

Strong typed and edited the final report to a kvel of detail beyond the original 

plan of work. 

RATH & S"{RONG 

INCDRPDAATED 

,, 
Attachment A 

Compone:-its/Systems to be Cost-Estimated 

· l. PCV valve 

.2. TCS (thermal control switch) 

3. OSAC (orifice spark advance control) 

4. Deceleration valve 

5. Anti-dieseling l.Olenoi d 

6. Air injection system (breakdown by: pump, dump, lines, exh. man. mods.) 

7. Air s·-Ni tching system (breakdown by: approx. 3 foot of tubing, 2-way valve) 

8. Reed valve air system 

9. EGR system (types: sonic-electronic with and without cooler, sonic-pneumatic 

with and without :::ooler, back-pressure moddated, venturi vac amplified) 

10. Pelleted oxidation catalyst (as a function of volume, noble metal loading, and 

composition) 

11. Monolithic oxidation catalyst (as a function of volume, nol:!le metal loading, and 

composition) 

12. Pelleted reduction catalyst (as a function of volume, noble metal loadinc;, and 

composition) 

13. Monolithic reduction catalyst (as a function of volume, noble metal loading, and 

composition) 

14. Monolithic start catalyst (as a function of volume, noble metal loading, and 

composition) 

15. Monolithic 3-way catalyst (as a function of volume, noble metal loading, and 

composition) 

16. Metallic reduction catalyst (as a function of volume, noble metal loading, and 

composition) 

17. Oxygen sensor (as a function of Pt loading) 

18. Electronic fuel metering system (breakdown by: actuators, regulator, filters, 

tubing, pump, nozzles (IJ of cylinders plus one), vol air flow !ensor (L-Jetronit: 

and K-Jetronic type), mass air flow sensor (Chrysler type) 

RATH & STRONG 

INCIHFCllAT11:U 

Vi 
19. Thermal reactor (types: insulated with core, insulated without core) 

20. Exhaust manifold (stock) 

21. Port liners (types: cast in, inserted air-gap with and without locater ribs) 

22. Radiator (types: stock, with 20% weight reduction) 

23. Quick hea~ manifold (breakdown by: EFE valve with vacuu1 motor actuation and 

with 25 in wavy steel heat transfer surface replacing 25 in of cast iron) 

24. Super early fuel evaporation (breakdown by: 2 valves, heat transfer surface, 

tubing) 

25. Electric heated choke 

25. High energy ignition 

27. Breaker point ignition (breakdown by: centrifugal advance system, vai::uum 

advance system) 

28. Improved exhaust system (cost per foot of stainless steel from exhaust manifold 

to cat al ys t) 

29. Standard steel exhal.'st system (cost per foot of low carbon steel frcm exhaust 

manifold to approximate catalyst location) 

30. Insulated exhaust pipe (cost per foot of double wall sLainless steel) 

31. Carburetor modifications for altitude compensation (breakdown by: aneroid, 

linkage) 

32. Carburetor modifications for feedback control unit (1, 2, 4 barrels) 

33. Standard Carb (l, 2, 4 barrels) 

34. Electronic control unit (with sensor inputs for controlling modulated AIR, 

modulated EGR, modulated A/F, modulat€d spark advance) 

35. Air modulation system (with vacuum control) 

36. Spark knock sensor (with piezo-electric accelerometer or pickup) 

37. Transducers + Sensors (types: H2 0 temperattae, inlet air temperature, throttleposition, engine speed, engine Ibad, fuel flow, transmission gear, EGR pinto! 

position, crank angle, humidity) 

RATH & STRONG 

. '

\ill 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

HEAVY DUTY GASOLINE ENGINES 

Page 

INTRODUCTION 

IA Secondary Air Injection System 10 

I A - l Air Pump System 10 

IA-2 Air Switching System 29 

IA-3 Reed Air Valve 37 

IB Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) 47 

IC Catalytic Converters 62 

~ ID Air-Fuel Metering 124 

ID - l Electronic Fuel Injection 124 

ID - 3 Standard Carburetor 140 

ID - 3a Carburetor Modification for Altitude 149 

ID - 3b Carburetor Modification for Feed Back Control 159 

I E Electronic Control Unit (Microprocessor) 163 

IF Sens0rs 174 

IF - l Oxygen Sensor 174 

IF - 2 Spark Knock Sensor 183 

IF - 3 Sensors arid Transducers 186 

RATH & STRONG 

INCORPORATED 

... If I I I 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) 

HEAVY DUTY GASOLINE ENGINES 

Page 

IG Actuators 194 

I G - l EGR Valve Position Actuator 194 

I G - 2 Turbocharger Waste Gate Position Actuator 195 

IG-3 Secondary Air Modulation Valve Position Actuator 196 

IH Thermal Reactor 203 

I I Ignition Systems 211 

I I - l Breaker Point Ignition System 211 

I I - 2 High Energy (Electronic) Ignition System 220 

IK Turbocharger 227 

HEAVY DUTY DIESEL ENGINES 

II 8 Universal Fuel Injection System 237 

II E Positive Crankcase Ventilation Valve 242 

II G Particulate Trap 250 

APPENDIX - . METHODOLOGY COST DERIVATION 

RATH & STRONG 

INCORl'ORATID 

:v 
Introduction 

In its regulation of the heavy duty truck industry, the U.S. 

Er;'lironmental Protection Agency Is frequently confronted 

with the Issue of cost to the consumer of systems installed 

on automobiles for the purpose of controlling emissions. 

Ideally, it would be desirable to determine the economic 

impact on the cons~mer for any emission standard proposed 

and on any vehicle for which such a standard would be 

applicabie. Since such a task would involve a very high 

level of effort, a more real is tic goal would be to determine 

an aggregate cost estimate representative of the cost of 

all components or systems of a similar nature, for example, 

EGR valves or EGR systems. This wo:.Jld necessarily imply 

that many individual components or systems could be expected 

to cost more or less than the aggregate or weighted average 

cost estimate. 

I n mos t s i tu at ions a f u 1 1 cos t , as opposed to a d i ff e re n t i a I 

cost approach is more appropriate for determining the true 

cost of producing a particular component. This means that 

all components comprised by a truck must reflect a 

share of fixed overhead and corporate level costs such as 

RATH 4 STRONG 

lllCDl"DIATll:D 
salaries, malntenan~e, Insurance, heat, power, lighting, 

and so on. This approach ls consl5tent with changes made 

to a vehicle which are expected to be of a relatively longterm nature whereas the differential cost approach of merely 

reflecting the addition of direct material, direct labor, 

and variable overh~ad costs due to an added component is 

adequate only ior relati~ely short-term purposes. 

iaking Into account all of the variations in industry makeup 

which exist in the real world would present a very complex 

problem. For example, the number of !iuppliers supplying 

a corporation with~ given component varies not only among 

the different components on a given vehicle but among the 

different v~hicle manufacturer5 as well. Some suppliers 

are In turn supplied by other suppliers. Some suppliers 

supply components to mor2 than one manufacturer. These 

varratlons Influence production volume which in turn influences the economies of scale attainable by a manufacturer. 

To make t~e problem more manageable, assumptions have bee~ 

made which help simplify the cost estimate task. Figure 1, 

celow. depicts the industrial makeup assumed in this St!.!dy. 

2 

RATH 4 STRO="'IG 

llC cau•ri IATID 
Judicious choice of production volumes helps minimize 

cost differences due to the reliance upon more than one 

supplier. (Truck manufacturers are s-:>metimes supplied 

a given component by more than one supplier as a precaution 

agalnst labor strikes or other occurrences which might interrupc that supply.) 

Ful 1 Component/System 

Cost to Consumer 

(Retail Price Equiv.) 

I 

I 

I 

l 

'). 

I 

i 

! 

~ ) 

L)ealer Level 

Corporate Level 

(Vehicle Assembly) 

~~nufacturer Level 

(Supplier, Vendor, or 

Ci vision) 

Figure 1 - 3-Level lndustriai Makeup 

It should also be noted that suppli~r (or vendor) and division 

can be used synonymously since the cost to the corporate 

level will be the sam~ even though the division is a p<trt 

of the corporation. This is ~ecause the division is managed 

as a profit center, that is, the corporation has placed the 

3 

RATH 4 STRONG 

lllCDl .. GIATl:D 
div is ion In competi tlon wl th other sup.pliers as • means of 

assuring• high level of efficiency. Therefore, the division's 

tr ans fer pr i c e a s i t i s ca 1 I e d i s the & a me as an i n depend en t 

supplier's price to the vehicle manufacturer. 

With the three levels of Industry making up the major elements 

of cost to the consumer, or, as used in this study, retail 

price equivalent, the basic formula is: 

Retail 

Price 

Equivalent 

r 

• f [Direct + Direct 

l~terial Labor 

+ Fixed & ~ Va:r:iable 

Overhead 

x ll + 0. 2 for Corporate + 

Allocation 

0.2 for Supplie~ + Tooling 

Prof it J Expense 

+ 0.2 for Corporate+ 0.2 for Corporate 

Allocation Profit 

+ 0.4 for Dealerl 

Overhead & ~ Profit J 

Or, in abbreviated font: 

+ Research & + Tooling 

Development Expense 

RPE. {~M + DL + oHJ[ 1.4] +TE "I- LBE}{i.a} +RD+ TE 

4 

RATH 4 STRONG 

+Land & 1 

Buildingsj 

Expense 
....... 

Direct materials entai 1 those materials of which a given 

component is comprised. Where possible actual weights of 

materials were used, but in some instances, estimates based 

on drawings and sketches were made necessary because of a 

lack of data. To determine the cost of materials, prices 

per unit weight as quoted in American Metal Market* were 

used plus 10%** to account for material wa~te and scrappage. 

Direct labor includes the cost of laborers directly involved 

in the fabrication cf a given component. It has been de termined by using standard indu~trial engineering data and 

procedures. 

Overhead includes both the fixed and variable components of 

overhead. The fixed portion includes supervisory salaries, 

building maintenance, heat, power, lighting, and other costs 

which are substantially unaffected by production volume while 

the variable portion inc:udes small expendable tools, devices, 

and materials used in riroduction, repairs and maintenance 

made to machin~s directly involved, and other overhead costs 

** 

Metal Working News Edition 

Two exceptions ~re noteworthy: 1) exhaust systems ass~~e 

approxim•tely 35% scrap?age, and 2) noble metals used 

in catalysts assume no waste or scrappage. 

5 

RATH 4 STRONG 

INCDll'DU.TID 
which tend to v•ry with production volume. A stral~ht 40% 

of the direct lebor amount Is used to determine •11 overhead 

costs. 

A figure of 20% applied to the sum of material, labor, and 

overhead costs is used to determine corporate allocation, 

in other words, the amount needed to cover the supplier's 

support from its front office. Also to the sum of material, 

labor, and overhead costs, a figure of 20% ls applied to 

determine the supplier•s profit, approximately half of which 

is used to pay corporate taxes with the remaining portion 

being divided between dividend disbursements to stockholders 

and retained earnings, which are used to finance working 

capital requirements (increases in current assets and/or 

decreases In current liabilities) and/or new capital expenditures (long-term assets). 

Tooling expense consists of four components: one year recurring tooling expenses (tool bits, disposable jigs and 

fixtures, etc.); three year non-recurring tooling expenses 

(dies, etc.); twelve yt:ar machinery and equipment expenses; 

and twelve year launching costs (machinery foundations and 

other incidental set-wp cost~) which have been assumed to 

be lOt of the cost of machinery and equipment. 

6 

RATH 4 SiTRONC}l 
The construction of new production facilities has been 

assumed in some cases and their cost is amortized over 

40 years. In most Instances, however, space in existing 

facilities was assumed to have been made available for 

production purposes and, hence, is covered in the overhead 

costs. 

The sum of the above costs, that is, material, labor, pl~nt 

overhead, tooling e)(pense, corporate allocation, and profit, 

makes up the price (or, in the ~ase of a division, transfer 

price) which the supplier charges the vehicle manufacturer 

for a given component. At the vehicle assembly level, 20% 

of this price is charged or allocated for the vehicle 

manufacturer's corporate level support and 20% for corporate 

profit. To this is added research and d~velopment costs. 

(R & D may not wholly reflect all vehicle certification 

costs.) Also, a figure of 40% is applied to the supplier 

price to account for the dealer's ~argin which includes 

!iales commiss-ions, overhead, and profit. 

Because of the need, in many instances, to make modifications 

to the engine or body to incorporate a component and to assemble 

it into a vehicle, these have also been accounted for at the 

division level and transferred to the corporate level at 

vehicle assembly. 

7 

RATH a. STRONG 
Production volume Is •very lmportent 1ssumptlon since it 

dict1te$ not only over what number of units costs wi I I be 

amor-tizt,d or spread but also on what scale pr-oductlon wi II 

take pl;ace, in other words, the types and costs of machinery 

itnd equipment that 1o1ili be involved. For- this reason, the 

retai 1 price equlv1lent estimates determined in this study 

are meai;!rigless unless they are qualified with their associated pr~duction volume and are accurate only within some 

rel~vent ra~ge of volumes around that production volume. 

In some Instances, more than one production volume is 

assumed for the various Individual parts making up a given 

com~onent or system. ihis results from the assumption of 

necessary economies of scale for these parts where the 

vehicle manufacturer ls not the only customer for whom they 

are produced. For example, hoses are frequently produced 

at higher unit volumes In order to satisfy more than just 

a single customer or market. 

By discounting aftermarket selling prices, when available, 

by between 1/4 to 1/5, bracketing of the supplier's price 

had been expected to serve as a check against these estimates. 

However, because of differences between the assumptions inherent in this study and in actual' productio:i, variations 

may exist. It Is assum~d that these differences resu it from 

8 

RATH & STRONG 

lllCOH•QU,TID 
a given component either being of a somewhat proprietary 

11ature and hence pric:ed higher than assumed here (pos~ibly, 

at what the market wi 11 bear) or &re a result of subtle 

changes, for what~ver reason, whic:h do not allow full 

maximization of available economies of scale or a combination of the above two reasons. 

Al I of the RPE estimates contained herein are by definition 

subject to some error. Where little physical description 

was available, a "best guess•: effort was made and naturally 

these estimates are subject to more error. But, in general, 

those shown in greater detail are expected to be somewhat 

more accurate. To those critics who have significant disagre~ments with these estimates, it can be assumed that 

either their product1on assumptions are not at these assumed 

economies of scale or else they vary with respect to other 

specific assumptio11s made in this study regarding tooling 

costs, amortization• schedules, profit level, etc., howe,,er, 

it is expected that a number of vehicle manufacturers may 

be below these estimates and \I similar number above. 

9 

RATH 4 STRONG 

lllCOl~DIATl:D 
IA - SECONDARY AIR INJECTION SYSTEMS 

HEAVY DUTY GASOLINE ENGINES 

The detailed descriptions and calculetiona following thia page apply to passenger 

car parts, reprinted from a previous relJOrt EPA - 78 - 002, ~an:h, 1978. The 

costs shown L"lerein have beert edjuste•:l by usi'lg factors, described later In t',is 

report, that reflect differences in si:z:e ard in manufacturing volume (economy of 

scale) between automobiles and t:rucka. The EOS use:! for automobi!es la 350,000 

per year; for trucks, 50,000. 

The resulting 1'1!tail price equivalent costs for trucks are shown below. 

l. Air Pump System 

Material 

Labor and Overhead 

Equipment 

Tooling 

Automobile 

Unit Cost 

7.83 

3.00 

.30 

.66 

x 

Weighted EOS Factor 

Automobile Retail Price Equivalent 

= T::-uck Retail Price Equivalent 

* 350,000/50,000 = 2.81 Doublings 

10 

RATH a STRONG 

EDS* 

Factor 

1.3 

2.7 

2.4 

3.4 

1.8 

$31. BB 

$57.38 
Air Injection System 

Air Pump Systems--American Motors Air C•.1ard, Chrysler Air Injection, 

Ford Thermactor & C~neral Motors Air Injection Reactor (A. l.R.) 

All air pump systems, Figures 1 and 2, consist of an air injection pump, 

ilir injection tubes (one for each cylinder), a mixture control or backfire 

by-pass valve (added in 1966, '57), a diverter or air by-pass valve 

(added in 1968), check valves (one for in-line engines, two for V-8 ~ngines}, 

air manifolds, pipes and hoses necessary to connect the various components. 

Ct1rburetors and distributors for engines with an air pump system are 

designed especit1lly for these engines; and, they should not be interchanged 

with, or replaced by, carburetors or distributors for engines without the air 

pumps. 

. '""' 

The t1ir injection pump, Figures 3, 4, and 5, cor.1presses the air and injects 

it through the air manifolds, hoses, and injection tubes into the exhaust 

systiem, in the area of the exhaust valves. The fresh air burns ·.o1i th 

the unburned portion of the exhaust gases, thus minimizing CO and ~ C 

content of lhe exhaust. 

The mixture control or backfire by-pass valve, when tr i gge red by 

ii sharp increas~ !n manifold vacuum (as when the throttle is suddenly closed), 

supplies the intake manifold with fresh filtered air, to lean out the fuel-air 

mix tu re and prevent exhaust !System backfire. 

The diverter or llir by-pass valve, Figures 6 and 7, when similarly triggered 

by a sharp Increase in manifold vacuum, shuts off the injected air to the 

exhaust ports; and, helps to prever.~ backfiring during this period, when the 

mixture is exceptionally rich. During engine overrun, all the air from the 

11 

RATH & STRONG 
i 

""' 

pl.!mp h: dumped through the muffler on the dlverter or air by-pass valve. 

At high engine speeds, the pump produces more air than the engine can 

use, and th~ excess ls dumped through t!ie pressure relief valve, when that 

v2lve is part of the air pump, Figures 3 and Ll, or, through the diverter or 

air by-pass ..:a Ive when the pressure relief valve is part of that valve, Figure 7. 

The check valve or valves prevent exhaust gases from entering ancl damaging 

th' air injection pump, as back flow can occur even under normal operating 

conditions. 

When properly lnstall-:d and maintained, the system will effectively reduce 

t:xhaust emissions. However, i! any system components or any engine 

component that operat.es In conjunction with the air pump system should 

m~lf1..mc:tion, exhaust emissions might increase. 

Because of the relationship between engine operating condition and unburned 

exhaust gases, the condition of the engine Jnd tune-up should be checked 

whenever the air pump systl!m seems to be malfunctioning. P;rticular care 

should be wken in checking items that affect fuel-air ratio, such as crankcase: 

ventilation system {PCV), the carburetor and carburetor air cleaner. 

12 

RATH & STRONG 
Air in·-, ...... ... · ion Systems 

l'i• J 1 . YI .,. !i'P1C.:Jl instnll · turc control c;a.ce, . r otl1cru:ise ahon of kno an u;n . air as pump a bad..t:. system b u;itl1 a m1.r· . .,.rr. v-pa.ss oali;e 

IN Lll~E 

Al• 

.. JECTION l'\JW'-.--1 __ ..... 

.. UNI YD 

At• 1NJ !CT10N ~ 

Fi,, 2 1 . l o· yprcu installation of . ·----------~ I 

wloe • otl ieru:ue . known ai an an air air . pu bv-pau mp system u;itl d' l i a ioerter 

13 

RATH 6 STRONG 

l•CtlliPDUT&I 

"° ce. 1008-73 
Al r lnj ectlon Sy~~ 

Fi~. 3 Air injection pump u;itl1 separate 

ttir filter. 1960-67 

Fig. 4 Air inje:tion pump u;ith ir.tep,ral 

untrifuc.al air filler. Siartii1g l96S 

•111...,. 

V!NT HO'.t C10 f'«JT Oil ~--y· ..... 

--·; 

· / ~ --.· ·!-- I . • ./-!.-J. ·-")< HU~ 

I' /./ . l;--=·- ., \ ~ , - ROTOR 

• • - • I (~SliAFT 

-~~~··\ I: . 

L 

~;'· •• \ ........ J . .\1· - -.... , •• ~ 

/-~--~~ 

' • '~ ClHTRJFUGAL Film FAN 

HOUSING 

Fig. 5 Air injection pump u:ith integral 

"ntrifugal air filter u:itl1out pre.uure oalce 

2 

~ 

.... \ 

J 

J. 

.. 

• 

I llUf raeot nna _,,r:--..,. 

' ltur r.:";Or N>i and 

bwtlfl& HMtll~/ 

s 

14 

f!:! _I .. 

~=-- ~-. 

. -

I llur ul't)o" ..,.1 

i Ven• 1uamb41n 

1 YIM"--

RATH A STRONG 

.......... ". 

\-

7 ' 
A1r tnjectton Systems 

VA!.VE IN 

OPEt" 

P'OSl!10N 

V!tlVE rN o~:m POmJON 

15 

RATH & STRONG 

INCDUltllATlD 
Air Injection Systems 

OUTLETS 

Fig. a 

-v 

Fig. 9 

IAPHRAGM 

ASSEt.'.3lY 

TJi!'c.11 frwerter or 111r ll)'"f.llU wa:w •ith 

~al pr.LW11 r.W! val.o 

II 

16 

RATH 4 STRONG 
Air Inject' ion Syistems ·-

Pontiac 

Fig. 10 • Alfi PUMr SY STIM-COHrD 

117J YI air pump IJSNm 

17 

RATH a ST RONG 

INCCU•CllATID 
Air Injection System 

BILL OF MATERIAL 

Mat Labor Mfg 

Material we:~ht Costs Labor Overhead Costs Reference 

Pump Assem Assem 7.690 .1250 . 0500 . 1750 07817806 

Housing Ai um 3. 500 • 2. 1000 .1250 .0500 2.2750 

Hub Steel .200 .0400 .0625 . 0250 . 1275 

Shaft Steel .090 .0180 .0312 . 0125 . 0617 

Cover Alum 1. 000 • .6000 .0625 .0250 .6875 

Rotor ,,.. Steel .30~ .0600 .0312 .0125 . 1037 

Bearings Steel .400 .2000 . 0625 . 0250 .2875 

Vanes PM .300 . 1200 .0625 .0250 .2075 

Vane Sl-:<:>es PM .100 .0400 . 0312 .OlZS .~!137 

Shoe Springs Steel .oso .0100 . 0156 .0062 .0318 

Carbon Seal PM . 100 .0400 .0156 .0062 .0618 

Tubes Steel .300 .0600 .0156 .0062 . 081 a 

Relief V;itve Steel . 1 so .0300 . 1250 .0500 .2050 

Hardware Steel .lOO .0400 . 0156 .0062 . 0618 

Fan Plastic 1.000 .8000 .0625 .0250 . 8875 

4. 15 80 8433 . ~ 3 73 5.33BB 

Air Manifold Steel 2.000 1.0000 . 0625 .0250 1. 0875 

Hoses Rubber 0.500 . 1000 .0312 .0125 . 1 "37 

Pipes Steel .300 .0600 • 0156 .0062 .Od18 

A I Tubes Steel 1. 000 .5000 .0312 . 0125 . 5437 

Pulley Steel .950 • 1900 .0625 .0250 . ins 03927116 

Mtg. Brkt Steel 2.590 .5180 .0625 .0250 . 6055 4027214 

Hardware Steel 1. 500 .3000 • 0156 .0062 .3218 

A P Bracket Steel .250 .0500 . 0312 .0125 . 0937 

A 1P Belt Rubber .230 .0460 .0156 .0062 .0678 4027350 

2

• H 40 • 3? Zg • 1 31 1 3.2230 

18 

RATH A STRONG 

INt;D .. •DIATED 
Air Injection System 

Valves •nd Filter 

8! LL OF MATERIAL 

Mat 

Part Material Weight Costs Labor 

Air Pump Filter Assem .300 . 0312 

Air Horn Steel . 100 . 0200 .0625 

Filter P'.'lper . 100 .0400 .0312 

Bodt Steel . 100 .0200 . 0156 

(10 . 1405 

Mix Contr. Viv Ass em • 890 . 1250 

Valve PM . 090 .C360 .0625 

Valve! Spring Steel . 100 .0200 . 0156 

Housing Steel .200 • 0'~00 .0625 

Diaphr"agm Copper . 100 .0800 .0312 

Cap Steel .200 .0400 . 0312 

Oiaph"'agm Spr Steel . 100 .0200 . 0156 

Pin Steel .100 .0200 .0625 

0 4061 

Oiv~rter & Ass em 1. 230 . 1250 

Relief Valve 

Housing Steel .500 '1000 .0625 

Pin & Valve Steel .250 .0500 .0312 

Spring Steel .125 .0250 .0156 

Diaphragm Copper" .125 . 1000 .0312 

Relief Valve PM .052 .0200 .0312 

Rel Vive Spr Steel .!>63 .0120 .0156 

Rel Vive Cov.!r Steel . 115 . 0230 . 0312 

.3300 • 34 3 5 

19 

RATH a STRONG 

Labor Mfg 

Overheac Costs Refer<!nce 

. 0125 .0437 See Sketch 

.0250 . 1075 

. 0125 .0837 

. 0062 .04i8 

.Q562 2767 

. 0500 . 1750 3769895 

. 0250 . 1235 27.95 

.0062 .0418 

• 02 so . 1275 

. 0125 . 1237 

. 0125 .0837 

.0062 .0418 

. 0250 . 1075 

• 16 2 4 .8245 

. 0500 . 1750 7043229 

14.SO 

.0250 . 1875 3671044 

. 0125 .0937 16. 60 

. 0062 .0468 

. 0125 . 1437 

. 0125 .0637 04974265 

.0062 . 0338 4.80 

. 0125 .0667 

.i374 .8109 
Air Injection System •nd 

Bill of Material {cont'd) 

Part Material Weight 

Valve Hoses Rubber 1. 000 

Clamps Steel .200 

V~hicle Assem 

Engine Mod 

Assem Vehicle 

Total Vehicle 

A I-System 

20 

Mat 

Costs 

.2000 

. 0400 

.24 

RATH 4 STRONG 

Labor Mf3 

Labor Overh~ad Costs Reference 

.0625 .0250 .2875 

.0156 .. 0062 .0618 

.375:> • 1500 .5250 

. 1250 .0500 . 1750 

1.r;493 

).6111 
Ai_r_ __ Sy_st_!m- - Cosls--Amortization Per Part 

1 Year 3 Year Non- 12 Year 12 Year 

Economic Recurring Recurring Machinery Launching 

Part Volume Tooling Tooling £ Costs B

.0200 • .) 3 3 3 .0400 .0040 

Pump Assem 5,000,000 100,000 500,000 2,400,000 240,000 5

• Olf 00 . 0667 .GiJB • (J:l 83 

Housing 5,000,000 200,000 1,000,000 5,000,000 500,000 

.0100 . 0200 .0100 .0010 

Hub 5,000,000 50,000 300,000 600,000 60,000 

:0 .0020 . 0020 .0020 . 1)01).l 

)> Shaft 5,000,000 10,000 30,000 120,000 12, 000 "'4 

i I .0100 .0167 ... 

.0167 .0017 

a 9t Cover :i,000,000 50,000 250,000 1,000,000 100,000 • .. .. a II> .0040 . 0020 .0020 .0002 

• > -4 Rotor 5,000,000 20,000 30,000 120, 000 12,000 ... ;u a .0050 0 . 0050 .0083 .0008 

z Bearings 10,000,000 50,000 150,000 1,000,000 100,000 Ii) • OOllQ .0080 • OJ67 .. 0007 

Vanes 15,000,000 60,000 360,000 1,200,000 120,000 

.0010 . 00110 . 0033 .0003 

Vane Shoes 30,000,000 30,000 360,000 1,200,000 120,000 

.0007 .0013 .0007 .0001 

Shoe Springs 30.000,000 20,000 120,000 240,000 24,000 

.0020 . 0020 • 002 0 • 0002 

Caf"bon Seal 5,000,000 10,000 30,000 120,000 12,0'JO 

.0013' .OOG8 .0003 

-

Tubes 15,000,000 20,000 36,000 60,000 6,000 

.0100 . 0080 .0060 .0006 

Relief Valve 5,000,000 50,000 120,000 360,000 36,000 

.0067 .O•lil7 • '.)056 • 00 0') 

Hardware 15,000,000 100.000 300,000 1, 000, 000 100,000 

.00110 . 0024 .0020 .0002 

Fan 5,000,000 20.000 16,000 120,000 12,000 
lniection Systcm--Toollng Cosls--Amortlzallon Per Part 

1 Year l Year Non- 12 Year 11 Year 110 Vear 

Economic Recurring Recurring Machinery Launching Land & 

Part Volume Tooling Toolln9 & Egule Costs Building

.0100 .0067 .0042 .0004 - 

Air Manifold 1.ooo,000 10.000 20,000 50,000 S,000 

.00110 .0017 .0015 ,l)QJ,: 

Hoses 5,000,000 20,000 25,000 150,000 15,000 

:u .0020 .0008 .oooe .0001 

)> ?lpes 5,GOil,000 10,000 12,500 50,000 5,000 -I 

. OC60 .0060 .0020 . 0002 

ii :t 

n 

D Tubes 5,000,0QO 30,000 90,000 120,000 12,000 • N .. 

a m .0100 .0050 .0025 .0002 

• • ·• .. Pulley 2,000,000 20,000 30,000 60,000 6,000 .. :u .0100 .0050 . 0025 D .0002 

0 

z Mtg Bracket 2,000,000 20,000 30,000 60,000 6,000 

Ci> .0100 .0040 . 0020 .0002 

Hardware 5,000,000 50,000 60,000 120, 000 12,000 

.0100 .0050 . 0025 .0002 

A/P Bracket l_000,000 20,000 30,000 60,000 6,000 

.0020 .0020 .0010 .0001 

A/P Belt 5,900,000 10,000 30,000 60,000 6,000 

---

.0640 .0]62 .0200 1 00 

.0020 .0020 • 0010 . 0001 

Air Punt,> Fiiter 5,000,000 10,000 10.000 60,000 6,000 

.OOLfO .OMO .0020 • 0002 

Air liorn 5.ooo.ooo 20,0l'O 60,000 120,000 12,000 

.00110 .00110 . 0020 • 0002 

Fiiter 5,000,000 20.000 60,000 120,000 12,000 

.00110 .00110 . 0020 .0001 

Bodr: 5,000,000 20,000 60,000 120,000 12. 000 

.01rio .01i.1 • 00 ]Q ____ - .• 0007 
f Air Cosls--Amortizatlon Per Part 

I Year l Year Non- 12 Year 12 Year liO'Y

Economic Recurring Recurring Machinery Launching Land 

Volume Tooling Tooling & Equip Costs Build

-· .0100 .OlOO .0020 .0002 

Mix Cont Valve 2,500,006 25,000 75,GOO 60,000 6,000 

.0100 • 0100 .OOllO .oooq 

Valve 2,500.000 25,000 75,000 120,000 12,000 

.0020 .0020 .0010 .0001 

Valve Spring 5,000,000 10,000 30,000 60,000 6,000 

• 0100 • 0100 .0040 . oooq 

Housing 2,500,000 25,000 75,000 120,000 12, 000 

lJ . 3oqo .ooqo .0020 .0002 

)> Diaphragm 2,500,000 ?t\,000 36,000 60,000 6,000 

-t .nh:O .0100 .0020 .0002 

i :I 

n 75,900 Qt N Cap 2,500,000 25,0()0 60.000 6,000 a • VI .. .0100 .0020 .0010 . 0001 

a UI 

> • Diaphragm Spr 5,000,000 5ilJ, 000 30,000 60,000 6,000 

.. -t 

.. 

0 :n .0020 .0020 .0006 . 0001 

0 Pin 5,000,000 Hl,000 30,000 36,000 l,600 z 

Ci> as Ba .Ql66 ....Jl.O_)_]__ 

.0100 .0100 .0020 . 0002 

Div & Rel Valve 2,500,000 2S.,OOO 75,000 60,000 5,000 

• 0100 . 0100 .0040 .00011 

Housing 2,500,000 25,000 75,000 120,000 U,000 

.0200 .0200 .0040 .0004 

Pin & Valve 2,500,000 50,000 150,000 120, 000 n,ooo 

.0020 .0020 .0010 . 0001 

Spring 5,000,000 10,\!00 30,000 60,000 6,000 

.0040 .0040 • 002 0 .0002 

Diaphragm 2,500,000 l0,000 30,000 60,000 6,llOO 

.0100 .0100 . OCl'02 

Relief Valve 5,000,000 50,000 150,000 120,000 12,000 

.0020 .0020 .0010 .0001 

Rel Valve Spr 5,000,000 to. 000 30,000 60,000 6,000 

.0040 ,0040 • O'l2 0 .0002 

Rel Vive Cover 2,500,000 10,000 30,000 60,000 6,000 

• 0620 .0620 .0180 .votff 
:u 

)> 

-4 

i :I 

n 

a N 

.. p .. 

a (II • > -4 .. ;u ... a 

0 

z 

G> 

Air Injection_ System 

Tooling Costs 

Amortization Per Part 

Economic 

Part Volume 

Valve Hoses 5,000,000 

Clamps 10,000,000 

Vehicle Assem 300,000 

Engine Mod 300,000 

Assem Vehicle 

Total A I System 

1 Year 

Recurring 

Toolln9 

.0020 

10, GOO 

.0050 

50,000 

. 1 Q() 0 

30,000 

• 1000 

30,000 

1 Year Nori- 12 Year 12 Year 110 Ye;;;1r 

Recurring Machinery Launching Land & 

Tooling t Costs Buildings 

.0020 .0020 .0002 

10,000 120,000 12, 000 

.0050 • 0010 .0003 

150,000 360,000 36,000 

• 11)00 . l rv•o • 0 l 01) 

90,000 360,000 36,000 

• 1000 • 1011) .0100 

90,000 360,000 36,000 

--- ----
Air Injection System 

TOTAL MAN\.iFACTURING COSTS 

Plant . 20 MC Mfg/ 

Over- Fl ant Tooling .20 MC Corp Vendor 

Part Mat Labor Head Costs Exe. Inv. Core Profit Costs 

Pump 3.3280 5310 .2124 4.071.r, • 

.2085 • I 489 .8143 • 8 I 4 3 6.0574 

Pump Assem .0000 . 1250 . 0500 .1750 • 0533 .0690 .0350 . 0350 .367" 

Relief Valve .0300 . 1250 . 0500 .2050 .0180 .0066 . 0.1.ll 0 .0410 

Fan .sooo . 0625 . 0250 .8875 .00~4 .0022 .1775 . 1775 

Air Manifold 1. 0000 .0625 . 0250 1. 0875 .~167 .OJ46 • A: 175 • 2 I 7 5 1.5439 

I loses .1000 • c,;s n • 0125 .1437 .0057 .0027 .0287 . 0287 .2095 

Pipes & Tubes .5600 . 0468 .0187 .6255 .0148 .0031 .1251 . 125, .8936 

Pulley .1900 . 0625 . 0250 . 2775 .0150 • 002 7 .0555 . 0555 .4062 

Belt .0460 . 0156 . 0062 .0678 .0040 . 0011 . 0135 . 0135 . 1 000 

Mktg. Brkts. '5680 . 0937 . 0375 .6992 .0300 • 0054 • 1398 • 1398 1.0143 

Hardware .3000 . 0156 . 0062 • 3 2 1 e .0140 .0022 . 06 44 .0644 .466Z 

Air lnjec & Pume 6, 9220 l I 7 l l.i l.i68S 8 5 6 I 3l .3864 .2485 12.6215 

Air Pu!T!p Filter .0800 .1405 . 0!>62 .2767 .0280 .0077 .0553 .0553 . 42 31 

Mix Contr Vivi! .2560 . 4061 . 1624 .8245 • 1080 .0183 • I 649 .1649 I . 2 CO 6 

Oiverter f. .3300 

Relief Valve 

.3435 . 1 3 71.. .e109 • 1240 .019A • 1622 .1622 1. 2 791 

Valve Hoses .2000 . 0625 . 0250 .2875 .0040 .0022 . 0575 .0575 . 4087 

Clames .0400 . 0156 . 0062 .0618 .0100 . 0033 .0124 • 0 i 21.i .OS9~ 

Total Al S:tstem I~. l 1H 

25 

RATH 4 STRONG 

INCDa"DHTID 
Air Injection System 

Plant 

Vendor 

Part Costs 

Al Pump 12..6215 

Al Valves 3.1.+913 

Vehicle Assem . 5250 

Engine Mod. . 1750 

Total Vehicle 

Retail Price 

Equivalent 

RETAIL PRICE EQUIVALENT 

AT THE VEHICLE LEVEL 

Tools 

& Corp. Corp. 

R&D Equip Alice Profit 

1.000 2.5243 2.524~ 

• 5 933 • 0 3;3 

.;lJ~ . 1050 . 1050 

.:;1~0 .0350 .0350 

Vehicle 

Dealer Retail Price 

Markup Equivalent 

s.o4as 23.7117 

1. ~'.)SS l.c.a.:.3 

.2100 I. 25;0 

.0700 ~~25~ 

31.SS3~ 

R & 0 ls estimated to be $300,000 per year. Allocated over 300,000 

vehicles per year results in $1.00 per vehicle. 

26 

RATH a. STRONG 
Air- Injection System 

Cost Comparison to Aftermarket Selling Prices 

Using the 1ft::-.-mi1rket discount data and the aftermarket sellir.g prices, 

the Air Injection System costs are: 

Estimated 

Disc Disc Vendor 

1/4 1/ 5 Costs 

Nr Pump Assembly 62.95 15.74 12. 59 7.9874 

Pulley 2.64 .66 .53 .'+062 

Bracket Assembly 3.60 .90 • 72 1.0143 

Oiverter Valve 11.80 2.95 2.36 1.2791 

Mixture Controi Valve 14. 00 3.50 2.80 1. 2806 

27 

RATH 4 STRONG 
Air Injection System 

Cost Methodology 

The weight data were obtained from both the Chrysler data and the Oidsmobile 

data books. The material costs are compiled using the AMM mill prices. 

The labor casts are estimates based o:i mass production tooling and equipment. 

The economies of scale are specified iri the tooling estimates. The overhead data 

are based on the information s4=1plied from one of the automobile companie$. 

The tooling costs are based on mass production estimates of die, mold, and 

fixture costs. The equipment e.stimates are based on the current costs of new 

equipment. The land and building estimate is based on published information, on 

an actual production facility for General Motors. 

Air Injection System 

The installations in various engines, depending upon compa11y, vary significantly. 

Therefore, each system cost can be constructed from the prior detail data. See 

the inst~1llation sketches to confirm the data. 

28 

RATH 4 STRONG 

INCaa .. ailATKD 
HEAVY DUTY GASOLINE ENGINES 

z. Air Switching System 

The detailed descriptions and calculations following this page apply to pa5Senger 

car parts, reprinted from a previous report EPA - 78 - 002, March, 1978. The 

costs shown therein have been adjusted by using factors, described later in this 

report, that reflect differences in size and in manufacturing volurne (economy of 

scale) between automobiles end trucks. The EOS used for automobiles is 350,000 

per year; for trucks, 50,000. 

The resulting retail price equivalent costs for trucks are shown below. 

Material 

Labor and Overhead 

Equipment 

Tools 

Weighted Factor 

,l\utomobile 

Unit Cost 

.163 

.410 

.025 

.033 

X Automobile Retail Price Equivalent 

= Truck Retail Price Equivalent 

29 

RATH 4 STRONG 

EDS 

Factor 

1.3 

2.7 

2.4 

3.4 

2.4 

$2.08 

$4.99 
The air switching system Is• subsystem and Is usually 

associated with the 3-way plus oxidation cataly!t 

system. An air switching valve Is added to the air 

Injection line which supplies 1lr to the exhaust 

ports. When engine coolant temperature reaches a 

prr~determined level, the TVS al lows a vacuum signal to 

be sent to the switching valve which in turn diverts 

the air being Injected into the ports to a point 

downstream of the 3-way catalyst and just upstream of 

the o~id~tion catalyst~ In vehicles utilizing electronic 

control units {ECU), the ECU may receive signals from 

a temperature sensor that indicates whe~ engine temperature is high enough at which time the air is di~erted 

downstream by a solenoid switching valve. 

- ~rr& fr- CT'5 ~ EC(/ 

- ...,;,e.. f-. Ecl.l to ~~1•cill/ 

- $C'~Nc'd $wt''6:Jt("f ll~llC-

- ~, ..4C9'e ~ poCM:,,. .;rb~~re.-. 

- -

30 

RATH 4 STRONG 

l 

'1 
Air Switching System 

Component Material 

Solenoid Valve Steel 

Electric Wiring Plastic 

Copper 

Hose R\.obber 

Total 

Vehicle Assembly 

En9ine Modification 

Total Vehicle 

BILL OF MATERIAL 

MANUFACTURING COSTS ---

Mal 

Weight Costs Labor 

.316 . 0634 .2620 

.050 .C400 . 0010 

.300 . 0600 . 0300 

. 1634 .2930 

. 0625 

. 03, 2 

31 

RATH & STRONG 

Mfg 

Overhead Costs Reference 

.l'J43 • 4302 Sketch 

.0004 . 0414 and EPA 

Data 

.01~0 . 1020 

. 12 'i 2 • ~ 7 3: 

.0250 . 0875 

. 0125 .0437 

• 704 8 
Air SwHchlng Costs--A'!Jor:iz!!d Per Par_! 

Economic 1 Year 3 Year Non- 12 Year 12 Year Year 

Volume Recurring Recurring Machinery Launching Land & 

Part Per Year Tooling Tooling Equipment Costs Buildin

. 0100 .0167 .0200 .0020 

Solenoid Valve 5,000,000 50,000 250,000 1,20(1,000 120, 000 

.0002 .1Jon .11000 

;u Wiring 5,000,000 2,000 2,500 1!ii,000 1,500 

> -i .0040 .0017 .0025 • 0002 

i I Hose 5,000,000 20,000 25,000 150,000 15,000 n 

a Qlil • ' .. N Total .01qq __ ___!_ 0 18-li_ - -- - .llUJ • 0021 a 

Ill • 

.. -i 

... 

" ;u .0083 .0167 • 1)0 3 .0001 a 

0 Vehicle Assembly 100,000 2,500 15,000 10,000 000 z 

(;) .0167 • o I 1 I .0028 .0003 

Engine Modification 100,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 1, 000 

Total 

Research and Development Estimate: $210, 000 over 3 Years, or $70, 000 per year 

for 300, 000 vehicles per year, or . 2330 per vehlcle 
Air Switching Syster:::!_ 

TOTAL MANUFACTURING COSTS 

Plant 

Plant Mfsi . 20/MC . 20/MC Mfg/ 

Over- Co~;ts Tooling Corp Corp Vendo 

Part Mat Labor Head (MC) Exp. Inv. Costs Profit Costs 

Solenoid 

Valve . 0634 .2620 • 1 04 8 • 4 3 02 . n 57 .0220 .oS6:> .G350 .65~9 

Wiring & 

Hose . 1000 . 0310 . 0124 .1434 • J :) ~ 1 .:l029 .. : 2 J 7 ,,);_~7 .2100 

Total .snc; 

33 

RATH & STRONG 

INCDl~DU1TID 

......_,. .. ,-~------- ·-·-· --·· ----- ····---··----··· 
Air Switching System 

Plant 

Vendor 

Costs 

Part (VC) 

Solenoid Valve .6509 

Wiring & Ho!ie .2100 

Vehicle . 0875 

Assembly 

Engine .0437 

Modification 

Tota• RPE 

RETAIL PRICE EQUIVALENT 

AT THE VEHICLE LEVEL 

Tools Corp 

and Allocation 

R&O Equip .20 vc 

. 2330 • 1302 

.0420 

.0281 • 01 7 5 

.031J8 . 0087 

34 

RATH 4 STRONG 

111cra~CHATED 

Vehicle 

Corp Dealer Retail 

Profit Markup ?rice 

.20 vc . 40 vc Equivalf!nt 

.0302 • ~ 6 04 l. 4046 

. 0420 .0840 .3780 

• 01 7 5 .0330 • 1 g 5 6 

.0087 .0175 • 1 0 ~6 

2. '5777 
Air Switching System 

Cost Comparison to Aftermarket Selling Prices 

This particular valve design does not have an aftermarket pr'ice in 

cur source data {1977 catalogs). We can estimate the relative selling 

price by comparing selling prices for diverter valves and fGR valves 

($14.00- $18.05). 

Aftermarket Selling Price 

Discount (1/4 Selling Price) 

Discount (1/5 Selling Price) 

Oiverter 

$14.00 

3.50 

2.80 

EGR 

$18.05 

4. St 

3. 61 

The vehic1e retail pric•? equivalent (RPE) is estimated to 

be 2.0777 while the manufacturing costs are .860S for the 

valve and hoses (.6~0? for the valve). 

35 

RATH & STRONG 

1Ncaa11au.T111 
Al I" Switching System 

Cost. Methodology 

The w.-lght data Is estimated using similar valve data. The valve design 

wais;. usumed to be solenoid actuated. 

The labor- costs ilre estimates of production costs, usjng today'~' technology 

and assumed economies of scJle. The tooling estimates are based on 

knowledge of the mass production processes and equit')ment. 

The assemt:-ly co~ts and the engine modification costs were included in 

the costs at the vehicle level. 

Air- Switching System 

~plications In Various Engine C~nfigur-ations 

'Thisairswitchingsystemisassumed to be unaffected by ~ngl:ie size. 

36 

RATH a STRONG 

INCDlllOU•TID 
HEAVY DUTY GASOLINE ENGlf\.!E 

3. Reed Air Valve 

The detailed descriptions and calculations following this page apply to pRssenger 

car parts, reprinted from a previous report EPA - 76 - DOZ, March, 1976. · The 

costs shown therein have been adjusted by using factors, described later in th!s 

report, that reflect differences In size and in manufacturing 11olume (economy of 

scale) betwt.en automobiles and trucks. The EOS used for automobiles is 350,000 

per year; for trucks, 50,000. 

The resulting retail price equivalent costs for trucks are shown below. 

Automobile 

1

.Jnit Cost 

Material • 880 

.335 

.024 

.077 

Labor and Overhead 

Equipment 

Tooling 

x 

Weighted Factor 

Automobile Retail Price Equivalent 

Truck Retail Price Eguivalent 

37 

RATH a STRONG 

EOS 

Factor 

1.3 

2.7 

2.4 

3. ·~ 

1.8 

$4.64 

$8.35 
Reed Air Valve 

Pulse Air System 

The pulse air !ystem ls a simplified reed valve system 

that provides an air supply to the exhaust manifold to 

help oxidize unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. 

The air suction valve takes air from the air cleaner 

and Imposes a pulsated air flow at the exhaust valve. 

In some applications. this system is ~sed in place 

of an air pump system when lesser amounts of air are 

required than which would be provided by a~ air pump 

system. 

38 

RATH 4 STRONG 
,..., 

;u 

)o 

-t 

z :x: 

n 

: Ro .. 

: (I) 

!; ... 

:; :u 

0 

z 

G> 

(2} THERMAL 

VAC SWITCH 

CAJIISTER 

VENT 

LINE 

CDW MANlFOLD VACUUM 

c= POnTED VACUUM 

(t) THERMAL 

VAC swrrcn 

(1) JFOn THAl>PED VA(!. SPAnK " SEC. CHOKE PULL-OFF. 

(2) FOil ECl< COLD OVEfUUDE. 

-CARD 

'\._PU

I 140 C. I. D

Etv11SSION 

SCHEM

P-AI R/E
;u 

)> 

-i 

:I 

.. 

fl) 

!; -f 

s :u 

0 

z 

W> 

,i::. 

0 

CR1\NKCASE VENT PIPE 

AIR CLEANER 

PAIR RESTIUC'flON 

3/6" hol'3 In cylinder hc:nd (typical 4 places) 

SEC

1977 PULSE Am SYSTEM 140 C. I. D. VI F.:NGTNE 
.~Ir Suction V:ilve 

from Air Cleaner 

-- io :e:.x..iaust Po':"t 

.:\ir Suction r 1pe 

--io Exh:i.ust Port 

Valve ~al 

\_ V.vle Hou•~•!: 

• Calibratio01s : Flow res~stance ; 190 • 2CO ..L/m~/-500 ~lAq 

Max. O. 2 1/mi:l. /250 ?:ltnAq 

41 

RATH 4 STRONG 

INCQlllOU.TID 
Reed Air Valve 

Pulse Air Sy~t!!!l 

BILL OF MA''!"ERIAL 

MANUFACTURING COSTS 

4-CYLINOER ENGINE 

42 

RATH A STRONG 
... .. . .. ......... 

Air Valve--Tooling Costs--Amortizatlon P<!r Part 

1 Year 3 Year Non- 12 Year i2 Year 4·0 Y

Economic Recurring Recurring Machinery Launching Land 

Part Volume Tooling Tooling t Egulp Costs BuP!d

. 0100 .0100 .0050 • OO')lt 

Manifold 2,000,000 20,000 60,000 120, 000 10,000 

.0200 .0100 .0100 .oooe 

Reed Valve 2,000,000 40,000 60.000 240,000 20,000 lJ 

)> .0020 .0010 .0010 . 0001 -4 

ii :t Pipes 10,000,000 20,000 30,000 120,000 10, 000 - 

n 

a 

• Vl .0050 .ooqo . 0100 • a fJI • .. Fittings 10,000,000 50,000 120,000 1,200.000 150,000 - 

.. -4 

.. ll " .ClOO . 0050 . oorn . uuul 0 

z Air Intake 2,000,000 20,000 30,000 24,000 2,000 - 

jj) 

Total • 0470 .0300 . 0270 .0026 

.0500 . 0250 . 0250 . 0025 

Engine Head 400,000 20.000 30,000 120.000 12.000 - 

.0250 . 0250 • OC7 5 . 0008 

Vehicle Assembly 400,000 lG, 000 30,000 36,000 3.600 - 

--

Total Vehicle 

R&Destlrnates $900,000 for 3 years, or $. 75 per vehicle. 
Reed Air Valve 

TOTAL MANUFACTURING COSTS 

Plant Plant .20 MC Mfg/ 

Over- Mfg Tooling .20 MC Corp Vendor 

Part Mat Labor Head Costs Exp. Inv. Corp Profit Costs 

(MC) 

Reed Valve .880 .Z390 .o:s? 1;2146 .'J]]'"J .n.36 .2429 .2429 1.8~70 

44 

RATH 4 STRONG 
Reed Air Valve 

Plant 

Vendor 

Part Costs 

Reed Valve 1.8v70 

Engine Mod . 0875 

Assembl~ . 1750 

Total Vehicle 

Retail Price 

Equh·alent 

RETAIL PRICE EQUIVALENT 

AT THE VEHICLE LEVEL 

Tools Corp. Corp. 

& Allee. Profit 

R&D Equip .20 vc .20 vc 

. 7500 .3614 .3614 

• 1025 .0175 .0175 

. 05 83 • 0350 .0350 

45 

RATH & STRONG 

Dealer Vehicle 

Markup Retai I Price 

.40 vc Equivalent 

.722.s 4. on 7 

• 0 3 5 0 .2600 

.0700 • 3 733 

4.63Sc 

• 
Reed Air Valve 

Cost Com pa ri son to A ftenna rket Sel Iii ng Prices 

lJ s:ng the estimated costs, the aftermarket set ling prices could vary 

between $8. 95 and $17. 80. No aftermarket data was available at 

this writing. 

Reed Air Valve--Cost M''hodology 

The weight data was estimated using the sketches supplied by EPA. 

The material costs are compiled using the 1977 AMM mill prices. 

The labor costs are estimates of prod:..action costs using today's 

tec:hnolog1 and the assumed economies of scale. The tooling costs are 

estimates of the expendable tools and the machinery and equipment 

required to produce the components in a mass production environment. 

The assembly costs and the engine modification costs were included in 

the costs at the vehicle level. 

Reed Air Valve••Appllcations of the System 

Tne applications of the Reed Air Valve systems are on 

4-cylinder engines as a substitution of the fan air 

pump> normally used on :iome 6-cyl inder and 8-cyl inder 

engines. We h.ave assumed that this design is l imi teJ 

to 4-cylinder ~ngines. 

46 

RATH & STRONG 

n1ca .. •a•.&Tl:ll 

., 

........ 
IB EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION SYSTEMS 

HEAVY DUTY GASOLINE ENGINES 

The detailed descriptions end celculatioru following this page apply to passenger 

car parts, reprinted from a previous report EPA - 78 - OOZ, March, 1978. The 

costs shown therein have been !ldjusted by uaing factors, described later in this 

report, that reflect differences in size end in manufacturing volume (economy of 

scale) between autnmot:iles end trucks. The EOS used for automobiles is 350,000 

per year; for trucks, 50,000. 

The resulting retail !)rice equivalent costs for trucks are shown below. 

1. EGR System 

Automobile 

Unit Cost 

EOS 

Factor 

Material .573 1.3 

Labor and Overhead 1.148 2.7 

Equipment .068 2.4 

Tooling .209 3.4 

Weighted EOS Factor 2.4 

x Automobile Retail Price Equivalent $7.02 

= Truck Retail Price Equivalent $16.85 

47 

RATH a STRONG 

INCD .. •DIATID 
Exhaust gas recirculation fs used, primarily, to lower peak 

combustion temperatures, and to control the formation of NOx. 

NOx emission at low t~mperatures Is not severe; however, 

0 when the temperature exceeds about 2,500 F, the production 

of NOx In the combustion chamber, is rap;dly ~ccelerated 

to high levels. Peak combustion temperatures can be reduced 

by retarding the spark, or, by Introducing an Inert gas 

such as exhaust gas to di 1 ute the fue~ mixture. 

A small amount of exhaust gas is required to rap;dly cool 

peak combustion temperatures. T~erefore, the hole in the 

EGR valve Is, necessarily, very small even when open to 

full capacity. 

Chrysler, at one time, had one of the simplest exhaust 

recirculation systems. It had the floor jet under the 

carburetor. I n th I s s y s t em , h o l e s we re d r I I l e d I n to t h e 

bottom of the intake manifold; then, calibrated jets were 

screwed Into the holes.· These holes penetrated the exhaust 

cross-over passage, allowing exhaust gases to enter the 

tntake manifold constantly. The difficulty inherent In 

that system was exhaust gas recirculation at ?dle speeds. 

This was not only unnecessary for proper emissions control; 

but, unnecessarily caused rough idling engines. Host 

Chrysler engines now use a separate EGR valve, similar to 

thos~ employed by all other manufacturers. 

48 

RATH A STRONG 
EGR v~lves are normally mounted on the Intake manlfo~d. When 

the valve opens, exhaust gases are allowed to pass usually from 

the crossover passage Into the throat under the carburetor. The 

EGR valve is vacuum operated, by Intake manifold vacuum on some 

engines, and by ported vacuum on others, 

The ported vacuum systems are the simplest. At Idle speeds, the 

port Is avove the throttle blade, ke~ping the EGR valve closed. 

When the throttle is opened, vacuum acts on the port, and, the 

EGR valve opens. At full throttle, there Is no Intake manifold 

vacuum. This closes the EGR valve, giving the engine maximum power. 

The EGR valve, on some vehicles, is operated by intake manifold 

vacuum. These valves use an amplifier in the circuit. The 

amplifier, which Is controlled by venturi vacuum, operates the 

valve. A small hole In the carburetor venturi picks up vacuum, 

when the airflow through the carburetor is sufficient enough, arid, 

sends the vacuum signal to the amplifier. The amplifier then opens, 

to allow manifold vacuum to act on the EGR valve. This amplifier 

system is used to obtain precise timing of EGR valve operations; 

additionally, exhaust' recirculation does not commence, until 

engine speed is co:isiderable above idle. 

49 

.....-

RATH A STRONG 
However, these sy~tcms, were found to be sensitive to outside 

air temperatures as well; and, were discontinued after Harc:h 15, 1973, 

as a result of the EPA orler. 

• 

Ford uses a temperature control which resembles a PVS valve, except 

that It has two nozzles. This control shuts off the vacuum, to 

the EG; v~:ve, at low temperatures. 

When Chrysler stopped locating· their air temperature sensor within 

the plenum chanber, they began using a valve, similar to Ford's, 

except mounted In the radiator. The Chrysler valve has two nozzles, 

with a hose connected to one~ and a foam filter on the other. At 

low temperatures the valve opens, a11 lowing air to enter. 

weakens the vacuum, thus keeping the EGR valve c~osed. 

This 

Buick has changed their EGR temperature regulation considerably. 

In 1972~ they did not use a temperature control. In 1973 models, 

they used a temperature switch, located in the hose that shut off 

the vacuum to the EGR valve, at low temperatures. This switch was 

sensitive to engine compartment temperature, and was Judged to 

be a d~feat devlc~ by EPA. By March 15, 1973, Buick changed the 

switch to a coolant temperature switch, working with a vacuum 

solenoid. At low temperatures, this coolant switch caused the 

solenoid to shut off the vacuum to the EGR valve. In 1974, 

61..;ir:k ellmini!ted the electric components in their system, and 

employed 1 straight coolant-vacuum switch, closing off the vacuum 

to the EGR valve, at low engine temperatures. 

50 

RATH 4 STRONG 
Cadillac: used• switch in the hose simil<ir to Bulc:k 1 s first switch. 

After Harc:h 15, 1973, they enclosed the switch In a housing; so that, 

it ~as more sensitive to engine temperature, rather than underhood 

tt;mper•ture. 

Chevrolet does not use temperature control for their EGR system. 

This is surprising, considering all other General Motors divisions 

do use a temper~ture control. Oldsmobile uses a mechanical 

temperature control valve In the hose to the EGR vahe, similar 

to what Cadillac u~~s. 

Pontiac probably has the most complicated system of all. Before 

March 15, 1973, the EGR system was tied in with the transmission 

control spark system. The two systems were hooked together, 

so that, when vacuum spark advance was allowed, there was no EGR. 

When EGR was al lowed, there was no vacuum spark advance. This 

compllcatec! system wa3 eliminated on March 15, 1973; and, from 

then.on, the EGR and the transmission control spark systems were 

separate. 

51 

RATH 4 STRONG 
ECR Systems 

INTAKE 

MANIFOLD ... :· e•• I 

M.,.t ca" uu '" [Git ,,.1em •1!11 1 nl•• 11.d a pol\N ncuum 1ic,,.1. 11 1ll11Wn 119fa. Soma ca" UM venturi ••Cuum wrtll c Mpartll amplrlr9f Ill operate uie wal•• 

\'aC""""9i flAf C~C"D 

to flOIT • C&a~n 01 

/ 

Cu!•,.•Y of 1 typic:•I Genc:tl llotOB tGll waive. The 

C11rys1 .. inc r ~:ll \ll'fH .,, ~im~.u 

52 

RATH & STRONG 

llCCDR"DltATID 
I 

iLJ·~~S~ TO 

L'\"l([ ~u.1:FOl~ 

ECR Systems 

\'A~MT\IMC~ 

TO -·-\'~M IWTTQ4 

~~~~=!::!~~~~:===J· YAC'V\I .. "Ult 

EXHAUST FllO'll 

CR:SS·OVt~ 

53 

,,. ........ -~ 

RATH & STRONG 

tz;l"Jl',i;IL ....... IUT 

IPA..,.. .... l&Cf.~ 

COHICT1D T'O 

WTUl •M.-o...i 

WACWll 

Dual di.aplln.&fn [Cit VIM i:rtml Mdion 

T 

TO OISTIJIV'TOI S .. us:-

IQl'I THiii~ VACVUM 

VALVI 

!XP'05!Q TO tlHAUST 

G...S l'llUSull 

1 
ECR Systems 

Part Material 

ECR Valve Assy Assem. 

r Diaphragm Cover Steel 

l Diaphragm Spri" . ,..... t.,'!\;'.!. 

Valve i 1-••9• o;a. co "'· ~ ~tt:~~ 

Position Oiaphr.a.,.,,,.. 0~~Jt:l~-"'~'" Actuator 

Smail i. • •• , d>U:·n St::r;; 

Vac. -;- 1.'!y: Conn. ~~·~~~i 

S;:::ai $t~i--~ I 

-- r~ H~J- ~~ 

V~iYe Shaft 5ieel 

Valve P Metal 

V.:i!ve Seat P Metal 

EGR V('.l'ic ~\daptor Steel 

Hoses Rubber 

Gnkets Ase 

Exhaust B. P. Ass em 

Transducer 

Valve Cover Steel 

Fi I t:!r . Steel 

Spring Steel 

Piston Steel 

Pro bi:: Steel -

Total 

BILL OF MATERIAL 

MANUFACTURING COSTS 

Mat 

Weight Costs Labor 

. d8lJ . 1250 

:: .... , .:3400 . 1250 

,O\J o~c:> .0625 

. 090 • l)t GO . 0312 

. 050 '0200 .0156 

JI'"~ , 01 so . 0312 

. i ()0 . 0200 . 0156 

.050 .0~00 .0156 

.100 .0200 . 03 i2 

.050 . c~so . 0156 

.050 . 0250 • Oi 56 

.2260 . 4841 

1. 32-0 .2640 . 0625 

,050 . 0100 . 0156 

.030 .0120 . 0156 

.2860 .0937 

.304 .1250 

. 064 .0128 . 0156 

• 060 .0120 . 0156 

.060 . 0120 . 0156 

.020 . 0040 .0078 

.100 . 0200 .0625 

.0608 .2421 

54 

RATH 4 STROi".IG 

Labor Mfg 

Overhead Costs Reference 

.0500 . 1750 17053105 

01"' 

.0500 .2150 170523€4 

.0250 . 1075 $18.05 

. 0125 .0617 

.0062 .0418 .5713 

.0125 

.0617 J 33% of 

.0062 .0418 Total MC 

.0062 • 04 1 8 

. 0125 . 063 7 

.0062 .0468 

.0062 .0468 

. 1935 .9036 

• 0250 • 3515 416499 

. 0062 . 03 'IS 

.0062 . 0338 

. 0374 .4171 

.0500 . 1750 551083 

.0062 .1.3346 

.0062 .0338 

.0062 .0338 

.0031 .0149 

.0250 • 1075 

.0967 .3996 

1. 7203 
EGR System 

Bl LL OF MATERIAL 

Mat Labor Mfg 

Pa rt Material Weight Costs Labor Overhead Costs Reference 

Vehicle Assem .2500 . 1000 •. lSOO 

Eng; ne Ml)d. .0625 .0250 .0875 

Total Vehicle 2.1578 

I nsta II ation 

55 

RATH 4 STRONG 
....... 

:._uR Systems--Toollng Costs--Amortlzatlon Per Part 

' . 1 Year l Year Non- 12 Year 12 Year LIO Y

Economic Recurring Recurring Machinery Launching Land 

Part Volume Tooling Tooling t Equip Costs Build

-

.0200 .0200 .0100 .0010 

EGR Valve Assy 1,000,000 20,000 60,000 120,000 12. 000 

.0050 .0050 .0025 .0002 

Diaphragm Cover 2,000,00ll 10,000 30,000 60,000 6,000 

.0020 .0020 .0010 . 0001 

Diaphragm Spring 5,IJ00,000 10,000 30,000 60,000 6,000 

.0025 .0050 .0015 , 1)1)02 

Large Dia. Piston 2,C01J,000 5,000 30,000 36,000 3,600 

:u .0050 .0040 .0010 .0001 

)> Diaphragms s.000.000 25,000 60.000 60,000 6,000 -1 

i :I .0025 .ooso .0015 .uoo2 

n 

a Al V1 Small Dia. Piston 2,000,000 S,000 30,000 36,000 3,600 • °' .. .0025 . 0010 .0005 .oooo a en • > -I 

.. Vac. Tube Conn. 4,000,000 10,000 12, 000 24,000 2,400 .. ::0 a 

0 .0025 • 0025 .0012 .0001 

z Seal q,000,000 10,000 30,000 60,000 6,000 

Q .0050 .0025 .0025 .0003 

Valve Shart lf,000,000 20,000 30,000 120.000 12,000 

.ooqo . 0010 . 0020 .0002 

Valve s.rmo, ooo 20,000 30,000 120, 000 12,000 

.ooqo .0020 .0020 .0002 

Va:ve Seat S,000,000 20,000 30,000 120,000 12,000 

- 

.0550 .0510 .ozsz .0026 

• 0200 .0100 .0100 .0010 

EGR Vive Adaptor 1,000,000 20.000 30,000 120,000 12, 000 

.OMO .0017 • DGl 5 • 0002 

Hoses s.000.000 20,000 25,000 150,000 15,000 

.0040 • 00 I 7 .01)25 • 0002 

Gaskets 5,000,000 20,000 25,000 150,000 15.000 
.. 

... 

-

_, 

9.1 ·Tooling Per Part (Continued) 

1 Year 3 Year Non- 12 Year 12 Year 40 

Economic Recurring Recurring M::ichinery Launching Lan

Part Volume Tooling Tooling & Eguie Cos ls Bu

. 0200 .0100 .0050 . 0005 

Exh BP Transducer 1,000,000 20,000 30,000 60,000 6,000 

.0050 .0050 .0025 .0002 

Valve Cover 2,000,000 10,000 30,000 60,000 6,000 

.0050 .0050 .0015 • 0002 

filter 2,000,000 10,000 30,000 36,000 3,600 

.0020 .0020 .0010 . 0001 

Spring 5,000,000 10,000 30,000 60,000 6,00(1 

.0025 .0050 ot1015 .0002 

Piston 2,000,000 5,000 30,000 36,000 3,600 

\J1 

"' 

. 0333 .0657 .0167 • o JI 7 

Vehicle Assem 300,000 10,000 60,000 60,000 6,000 

.0667 .0667 .Olll . 0031 

Engine Mod 300,000 20,000 60,000 120, 000 12, 000 

Total EGR System 

on Vehicle 

R&D Estlmale: 000 for 2 years, or $1. 11 per vehicle for a 3-year payback. 
ECR Syitem 

TOTAL MANUFACTURING COSTS 

Plant Plant .20 MC Mfg/ 

Over- Mfg Tooling .20 MC Co.-p Vendor 

Part Mat Labor Head Costs Exp. Inv. Corp Profit Costs 

ECR Valve .2260 . 4841 . 1935 .9036 . 1060 .0233 • 1807 .1807 1.3995 

EGR Valve • 2640 • 0625 . 0250 .3515 .0300 . 01l0 .0703 • 0703 • 53 3 t 

Adaptor 

Hoses & Cask1~ts • 0220 . 0312 . 0124 . 0656 • 0 I 1 3 o 0 I 0 4 .0131 . 0131 • ; l 9 5 

BP Transducer . 0608 • 24:'1 . 0967 .3996 .0615 .0127 .0799 .0799 .6335 

Total Vehicle .5728 1.1475 .2088 .0684 2.63;7 

Mf Costs 

58 

RATH 4 STRONG 

lllCQU•G•ATCD 
EGR Systems 

Plant 

Vendor 

Part Costs 

EGR Valve 1.3995 

EGR Adaptor ,5331 

Hoses & • I 1 9 5 

Gaskets 

BP Transducer .6336 

Vehicle Assem .3500 

Engine Mod .0875 

Total Vehicle 

Price Equivalent 

RETAIL PRICE EQUIVALENT 

AT THE VEHICLE LEVEL 

Tools Corp. Corp. 

& Allee. Profit 

R&D Eguie . '2 v~ ? vc 

1.1111 .279: .2799 

• I 0 5 6 • 1 066 

• 02 39 • 1)2 33 

• 125 7 • IH7 

. 1 1 a 3 . 0700 . 0700 

. 1700 . 0175 . 0175 

59 

RATH 4 STRONG 

Dealer Vehicle 

Markup Retail Price 

.4VC Equivalent 

.5598 3.6302 

. 2 1 32 .9596 

.047G • 2 1 5 1 

.2534 ~. 1405 

. 1400 .:-~33 

. 03 so .3275 

7.0212 
EGR System 

Cost Comparison to Aftermarket - Seiling Price 

Using the aftermarket discount data and the aftermuket selling price, 

the following analysis is projected: 

Chilton 

Aftermarket 

Set Iino Price Ref!irence 

EGR Valve lB.OS 1705236~ 

Discount 1/ 4 ". 51 or 

Discount 1/5 3.61 17053105 

The estimated vendor costs arel. 393Sand the vehicle retail price 

equivalent is3. 6JJZ. This figure includes $1.11 of R&D allocation. 

60 

RA"!'H a STRONG 
EGR System--Cost Hethodology 

The weight data were obt~ined from tne Oldsmobile computer 

printout. The material costs are compiled using the 1977 Al'IH 

mi 1 I p r i c:e s , 

The labor costs are estimates of production costs using today's 

technology and the assumed ~conomies of scale. The overhead 

data are from a company communication. The tooling costs are 

estimates of expendable tools, fixtures, and dies, as well 

as estimates of equipment and machinery, to produce the components. 

It was assumed that no new buildings were required to produce 

these parts. 

The vehicle assembly costs and the engine changes were included 

in the costs at the vehicle ievel. 

EGR System--Application of the Systems 

Many domestic vehicles ·have engines equipped with an EGR 

valve similar to the d.!sign used in the estimate. The 

various applications to engines are numerous, due to 

the differences in locations in the 4, 6, and 8 cylinder 

engin~s. The hoses wi 11 vary due to the differences in 

locations. 

6.l 

RATH A STRONG 

INCQR~IUATl:D 
IC - CATALYTIC CONVERTERS 

HEAVY DUTY GASOLINE TRUCKS 

GENERAL 

For clarity of presentation, the vari1rns catalytic converters have been grouped 

into two major categories, Monolithic and PPlleted. 

The Monolithic ones are: 

Monolithic Oxidation Converters 

Monolithic Reduction Converters 

Monolithic Three-way Converters 

Monolithic Start-up Converters 

These are all similar physically, being cylindrical in configuration. They differ 

primarily only in their catalytic reagents. There can be different sizes, or 

capacities, in each type. 

The Pelleted ones are: 

Pelleted Oxidation Converters 

Pelleted Reduction Converters 

Here, also, the physical configurations are similar--a flat pan-sh2ped 

enclosure. The noble metals are different, and each can vary in size. 

The cost estimations quoted herein were calculated primarily by applying 

appropriate economy-of-scale factors to those costs estimated in detail and 

presented in the previous report on cars, EPA - 460/3 - 78 - 002. Costs are in 

1977 dollars. 

62 

RATH 4 STRONG 
OXIDIZING CAT AL V TIC CONVERTERS 

The oxidation of HC and CO in the exhaust stream can be accomplished at lower 

temperatures than the thermal reactor by using an appropriate catalyst. The 

catalyst is contained in a casing which directs the exhaust flow through the 

catalyst bed and protects the catalyst from mechanical damage. Compared with 

a thermal reactor, a catalytic converter can be placed further from the engine. 

Catalytic converters require the use of fuels with very low levels of lead, 

phosphorus, and sulphur; small amounts of these contaminants lead to rapid 

deterioration of catal~st performance. 

The catalyst consists of a thin layer of active material deposited on an inert 

support material. The catalytically active material is usually a noble metal such 

as platinum or a combination of transition metal oxides. 

To obtain effective performance as rapidly as possible after engine start--up, the 

density of the support material is kept as low as is practical. 

There are two basic configurntions for the support material in oxidizing catalytic 

converters: 

(1) Pellets of Alumina 

(2) Monolithic Honeycombs of Alumina 

63 

RATH & STRONG 

INCD .. 'Dl:ATIED 
MONOLITHIC CONVERTERS 

Monolithic Oxidizing Cata]l'.2t 

The monolith:c oxidizing catalyst converter consists of a noble metal wash coat 

on a ceramic or paper substrate mounted in an insulated metal container 

supported by a wire mesh screen. This construction is usually mounted close to 

the exhaust manifold ahead of the fire wall as an integral part of the exhaust 

pipe (either the Y-pipe or the straight pipe that connects to the muffler). 

Its function is to convert the HC and CO gases to H2o snd co2 in the exhaust 

system. 

A 63 cubic inch unit is used as a base to develop the detailed cost estimations. 

Such a unit is used on 6-cylinder, 250 cubic inch California cars. Costs for other 

sizes can be estimated according to the formulae presented. 

\ ..... _..._ .. ,.,.. lftOllalllllic ~""r1:«-<W•IJ ,,._ 

<C. f ortl Mctiw CoJ 

64 

RATH & STRONG 
NOl'E: 

ALL DIMENSIONS 

ARE IN JNCHES 

MANIFOLD CONVERTER 

63 cu. in. substrate volume 

I 

L5.21 

SUBSI'RATECATAL YST 9 .64 

COATED (Lower) 

RATH 4 STRONG 

INC!l .. •OllATl:D 

65 
MONOLITHIC OXIDIZING CATALYTIC CONVERTER, 63 CU. IN. SU£3STRA TE 

Specifications: 

A. Catalyst Supf)lier: 

AC Spark Plug Division 

1380 N. Dort Highway 

Flint, MI 46566 

Washcoat and Active Material Applied by: 

Engelhard Mineral and Chemical Corp. 

529 Delancy Street 

Newark, New Jersey 07105 

B. Number of converters used per vehicle: One 

C. General Type: Oxidation 

D. General Location: Attached to exhaust manifold 

E. Substrate 

1. Configuration: Monolith 

2. Construction Technique: Extruded 

3. Compositi:Jn: Major phase - Cordierite 

Minor phase - Mullite 

4. Supplier: AC Spark Plug 

1300 N. Dort Highway 

Flint, Ml 48556 

F. Washcoat: Alumina 

G. Active Material: 

1. Composition - Platinum and Palladium in 5.2 ratio 

2. Total Loading - .029 troy oz. 

66 

RATH 4 STRONG 
H. Container: 

1-2 See Schematic 

3 Volume - 2100 ml 

4-6 The container is constructed of steel by forming and welding. The 

monolith is contained by metal mesh. 

7 Canner: AC ::iμ.:.:-'' D~ug 

8 (a) Insulation: None 

(b) Shielding: None 

I. Physical Description (of substrate) 

1. Dimensions: 2 pieces 3.66" diameter x 3" long 

2. Weight: 1.9 lbs. (Modified to 1.3 per Corning Glass data) 

3. Volume: 63 cu. in. 

4. Total Surface Area (BET): 10,300M2 

5. Approximate Active Surface Area: 8,900M2 

67 

RAT~i & STRONG 

INCOU'ORATED 
Monolithic Oxidizing Catalyst, 63 cu. in. substrate 

BILL OF MATERIAL 

MANUF ACTUR~NG COSTS 

(63 cu. in. volume) 

Mat Labor Mfg. 

Part Material Weight Cos~s Labor Overhead Costs 

Converter Assem Assem 7.800 .68 • 27 .95 

Shell 409 SS 2.000 1.08 .17 .07 1.32 

Ring 409 SS 1.000 • 54 .08 .03 .65 

Inlet Cone 409 SS 1.000 • 54 .OB .03 .65 

Outlet Cone 409 SS 1.000 • 54 • 08 .03 .65 

Inlet Pipe 409 SS 1.000 • 54 .08 .03 .6) 

Flanges 409 SS .250 .14 .04 .02 .20 

Mesh 409 SS .150 .OB .04 .02 .14 

Hardware Steel .100 • 03 .04 .02 .09 

Substrate Ceramic 1.300 6.32 • 34 .14 6.80 

Washcaat AL2o3 .81 .17 .07 1.05 

Sub Total 10.62 1.80 .73 13.10 

Platinum Plat in • . 02075 T. oz 3.46 .06 .03 3.55 

Pala di um Pal ad. • 0083 T. oz .57 • 03 .01 .61 

Total 14.65 1.89 • 77 17 .. 31 

Vehicle Assem .13 .05 .18 

Body Modification .13 .05 .18 

Total Vehicle 14.65 2.15 .87 17.67 

68 

RATH 4 STRONG 
Monolithic Oxidation Catalyst--Tooling Costs--Amortization Per Piec:e 

(VOLUME AND $ INVESTED EXPRESSED IN THOUSANDS) 

1 Year · 3 Year Non- 12 Year 12 Year 40 Ye

Rec11rring Machinery Launching Land 

Part Volume Tooling Tooling lie Equip Costs Buildi

.30 .30 .OB .01 .01 

Converter Assem SU 15 45 50.4 500 

.30 .30 .08 .01 

Shell 50 15 45 50.4 5.0 

.07 .as .01 - 

Ring 100 7.5 15 16.8 1. 7 

.15 .10 .03 .01 

Inlet Crme so 7.S 15 16.8 1. 7 

:u .15 .10 .02 - 

)> Outlet Cone so 7.5 lS 16.0 1. 7 

-.15 .10 .03 - 

i :I 

n Inlet Pipe 50 7.5 15 16.8 1. 7 

a .05 .04 .01 

• .. - Flanges 100 5.0 11 7.C 0.8 a UI 

> • -i 

.. .15 .10 .03 - 

"' :0 " Mesh 50 7.S 15 16.8 1. 7 0 

z .01 .01 .01 - 

Cil Hardware 250 2.5 8 8.4 0.8 

Subtotal 1. 33 1.10 .31 • 03 .01 

.30 • 30 .13 .01 

Substrate 50 15 45 84 B.4 

.10 .10 .05 .01 

Washcoat 50 5 15 33.6 3.4 

.10 .10 .05 .01 

Platinum 50 5 15 33.6 3.4 

.10 .10 .OS .01 

Pala di um 50 5 15 33.6 3.4 

Subtotal .60 .60 . 28 .04 

.30 .30 .23 .02 

Vehicle Assem 50 15.3 46 136.8 13. 7 

.03 .03 .02 - 

Body Modification 50 1. 5 5 13.7 1.4 

Total 
Monolithic Oxidization Catalyst, 63 cu. in. 

TOTAL MANUFACTURING COSTS 

(63 cu. ir.. vol.) 

Plant Plant .20MC Mfg/ 

Over- Mfg Tooling .20 MC Corp Vendor 

Part Mat Labor Head Costs Exp. Inv. Corp Profit Costs 

Converter .68 • 27 .95 .60 .09 .19 .19 2.02 

Assem 

Converter Can 3.49 .6i .25 t,. 35 1.83 .Z3 .87 .87 B.15 

Substrate 11.16 .60 .25 12.01 1.20 .32 Z.40 2.40 18.33 

Total 14.65 l.89 • 77 17.31 3.63 .64 3.46 3.46 28.50 

70 

RATH A STRONG 
Monolithic Oxidation Catalyst, 63 cu. in. 

RETAIL PRICE EQUIVALENT 

AT THE VEHICLE LEVEL 

P!ant Tools Corp Corp Dealer Vehicle 

Vendor & .2 vc .2 \.IC .4 MC Retail Price 

Part Cos ls R&D Equip Allee Profit Markup Equivalent 

Converter 2.02 4.00 .46 .40 .80 7.62 

Assern 

Converter Can 8.15 1.63 1.63 3.26 14.67 

Substrate 18.33 3.67 3.67 7.34 33.01 

55.30 

Vehicle Assem .30 .85 .06 .06 .12 1.39 

Body Mod. .30 .08 .06 .06 .12 .62 

Total Vehicle 57.31 

Price Eguivalent 

71 

RATH & STRONG 
Monolithic Oxidation Catalyst--63 cu. in. Cost Methodology 

The weight data were obtained from the EPA and Chrysler data base. The 

material costs were computed using 1977 AMM mill prices. 

The labor costs are estimates of proc:Jction costs using today's technologf and 

assumed volume of 50,000 per year. 

The tooling costs are estimates of expendable fixtures, dies, and molds. 1 he 

mac'.linery and equipment are separate estima~,,.s bas~'d on 1977 costs of ;~ ew 

equipment. 

Same new building expenditures were included in the e:>timates since no prior 

capacity existed to produce the ceramic substrates. 

Some modi fic2tions to the body structure were includ:<)d in the est: n'ates of labor 

and tooling. 

72 

RATH 4 STRONG 
~ 

I 

.. 

. 

1 

~ VI 

j ... 

z 

, I.I.I 

• z 

0 ! e.. 

~ 

0 

u 

i u 

i= 

~ 

< 

l ... 

< u 

' ..J I.ii 

~~ ~w 

t-Z 

u~ 

e~ ... 0 

I.fl u .. -

I 

CALCULATION SHEET FOR 

PLANT MANUFACTURING COST 

AND RETAIL PRICE EQUIVALENT 

FORM A 

OF MONOLITHIC CATALYTIC CONVERTERS 

LOA.DI NC [;d VOLU 

DAiA: (CM/n3) 

+ x 

(IN. J) 

s ~ MS 

Pt/P · R1ti~1 • Pt/R\ Ratio • 

(Pt+P '.) Portion • (Pt+R J Portion • 

-~-- i . Pi-Ice I Pro- $ 

por- Cir ams per per 

M21t@,.ie I tlons r:<~o'n c,.em Urilt 

Flatinum I S.369 • 

Rhodium 14.628 

Palladium 2.220 

' Rhenium I 1.709 

Ruthenium Z.D09 

N lc:.kel .oos . - Total Cl"'ams - - Labor 'O.H. x·.14s 

Plant Manufacturing Cost $ 

Plant M1nuf1ctiJrlng Cost • 

$4.05 + .144 x volume s 

-

TOT AL PLAt-.'T MANUFACTURI NC COST 

- $ 

-=-- .GJ . 

,------, ~ 

~2.:_J= e__J 

73 

RATH & STRONG 

lllC:D•"IHATID 
:u 

> -4 

i J: 

n 

0 "' -..J • .p 'C 0 U> • .. 

.. -t 

.. 

a :u 

z 

"" 

Monolithic Oxidation Catalyst--Application of the Systems 

Refe-r to the enclosed schematic whkh illustrates the locations by engine type. 

TYPICAL INSTALLATIONS CATALYTIC CONVERTER 

IN-LINE ENGINE V-8 ENGINE 

SINGLE CONVERTER SINGLE CONVERTER 

J 

\ 

CAT AL VTIC CON VE RTE R __.,. 

V-8 ENGINE 

TWO CONVERTERS 

c:::: ::-if-'.:::--> 

V-8 ENGiNE 

CONVERTER 

r 
MONOLITHIC OXIDIZING CATALYTIC CONVERTERS w SIZE GRADUATIONS 

FORMULAE FOR MANUFACTURING COST AND RETAIL PRICE 

EQUIVALENT ESTIMATIONS OF MONOLITHIC CATALYTIC CONVERTERS 

Form A. attached, i~, in effect, an equation relating noble metal composition, 

loading, and volume to manufacturing cost and retail price equivalent. 

Form A applies to: 

a. Monolithic oxidation catalysts. 

b. Monolithic reduction Catalysts. 

c. Monolithic 3-way catalysts. 

d. Monolithic start catalysts. 

Derivation of the Form A equation for plant mam•facturing costs. 

Catalytic components--plant manufacturing costs. 

Grams of each ingredient are precisely defined when proportions, 

volume, and loading are specified. 

Prices are based on 1977 published quotations; 

Platinum (Pt) 

Rhodium (Rh) 

Palladium (Pd) 

Rhenium (Re) 

Ruthenium (Ru) 

Nickel (Ni) 

Copper (Cu) 

$167./Troy oz. 

$455./Troy oz. 

$ 69./Troy oz. 

$ 53./Troy oz. 

$ 62./Tro}' oz. 

$2.23/lb. 

$0.75/lb. 

Labor and overhead, $.14/gram, is used as a constant; taken from the 

63 cuoic inch converter previau_-:ly estimated in detail. (See Appendix 

A for detail calculations) 

75 

~ATH & STRONG 

INi:au•a•.t.TED 
Structural campanents--plant manufacturing cost~3. 

The preceding estimate for the 63 cubic inch oxidi:.:ing catalytic 

converter is used as the base for graduations to other sizes. 

To conform with the imposed maximums on di:imeter and length, 611 

and 24" respectively, two diameters have been incorporated. For 

volumes up to 150 cubic inches, a 4" diameter shell is specified: 

above 150 cubic inches up to 400 cubic inches, a 5.4 inch diameter is 

specified. (Work sheets appended) 

76 

RATH fl STRONG 
Other variations of these dimensions would have minimal effect on 

the final costs. 

The weights of the individual structural components of the basic 63 

cubic inch unit were extrapolated on the geometrical ratios 

applicable to other volumes. These ratios were (where D = Diametert 

L = Length, and V = Volume): 

2 

Shell - (D x L) + (Q_) 4 

Rings - D 

Inlet Cone - D 

OutlP.t Cone - D 

Inlet Pipe - D 

Flanges - D 

Mesh - D x L 

Hardware - D 

Substrate - V 

Wash Coat - V 

(one per 5" length) 

Material costs per pound were maintained as used in the basic unit. 

Labor costs for the components were computed on the generalized 

relationship that the rate of change of labor input is 60% that of the 

rate of change of weight, algebraically expressed: 

Lz Wz Wz - = 1 + 0.6 ( - - 1) = 0.4 + 0.6 

Ll Wl Wl 

Labor overhead held consistent at 40%. 

Plant manufacturing cost is the sum of material cost, labor cost, and 

labor overhead. 

77 

RA'i'H 4 STRONG 

INCD .. •DllATll:tl 
Using the above guides, the plant manufacturing costs for seven sizes 

were calculated: (Work shei=ts appended) Results were: 

Vulunie On1 Plant Manufacturing Cost 

10 $ 5.42 

63 (Basic) 13.15 

100 18.25 

150 25.68 

200 33.31 

250 39.87 

300 47.42 

400 61.48 

Applying linear regression, a best-fit line wae fou;1d. 

Plant Manufacturing Cost = $4.05 + ($.144 x Volume) 

A graph, appended, of the data points and the best-fit line indicates 

the error band around the line. 

(See Appendix B for details) 

Derivation of the Form .A. equation for conv~rting plant manufacturing 

to the Retail Price Equivalent. 

The equation is: 

Retail Price Equivaleont =(Plant Manufacturing Cost x 2.52) + $13.75 

The cost elements added to convert from plant manufacturing cost to retail 

price equivalent are: 

78 

RATH 4 STRONG 

I N;;Q IPOllATID 
Plant 

Manufacturing Plus 

Cost 

Expense Tooling 

Investment Tooling 

VendorG & A 

Vendor Prof it 

Equals Vendor Cost 

Vendor Cost Plus 

Equals 

Retail Price Equivalent 

R &: D 

Vehicle Assembly 

Body Modification 

Vehicle Corp G & A 

Vehicle Corp Profit 

Dealer Markup 

79 

RATH a STRONG 

t 

$3.63 

.64 

20% of Mfg. Cost 

20% of Mfg. Cost 

4.00 

1. 39 

.62 

1.4 (P.M.C.) + $4.27 

20% of Vendor Cost 

20% of Vendor Cost 

40% of Vendor Cost 

1.8 (V.C. j + $6.06 

= 1.8 (l.4 M.C.+ 4.23) $6.06 

= 2.5 Z (M.C.) + $13. 7.5 
Monolithic Reduction Catalvst (as a function of volume, noble metal 

loading and compostion) 

Reduction of nitric oxide ir. the exhaust gas in the presence of carbon monoxide 

and hydrogen can be accomplished with a suitable catalyst at typical exhaust-gas 

temperatures. 

The catalyst is usually made up of a small mass of active mater~al such as noble 

metal or a combination of transition and non-transition metals deposited on 

therma:ly stable support material.3 such as alumina. To prevent loss in catalytic 

activit/ due to mechanical damage, small spheric pellets or a honeycomb 

(monolithic structure) ha•we been fcund the most suitable geometries. The 

catalyst i3 contained in a metal casing desi~ned to direct the exhaust flow 

through the caralyst bed. Self-supporting metallic catalysts are also being 

developed. 

For high conv~.-sion efficiency throughout the test cycle, the catalyst must 

at ta in its "1ight-ofr1 temperature* as soon as possible after engine start-up. 

Considerable development work has, therefore, been done to reduce the density 

of the support material and increase the surface area of the active components. 

To maintain high catalytic activity with many of the catalysts being developed, 

the fuels employed must be low in concentr dtion of various catalyst poisons such 

as lead, phosphorus, and sulfur. 

Because maximum NOx reduction occurs in a reducing atmosphere, the reducing 

converter must be placed upstream of the final oxidation catalyst or reactor, and 

the engine must be operated with a fuel-rich fuel-air mixture. 

Same calculation as for oxidizing catalyst, except for loading. 

*The temperature at which the catalyst becomes effective. 

ea 

RA'!'H A STRONG 

INCDR,OIATEC 
Mor.olithic Three-Way Catalyst (as a function of volume, noble metal loading 

and composition.) 

When the exhaust gas composition is close to sto!chiometric (just enough air is 

present in the fuel-air mixture to fully burn the fu,~l) the simultaneous removal 

of HC, CO, and NOx can be achieved with a suitable catalyst material. These 

catalysts are similar in constrwction to the noble rr·ttal reducing and oxidizing 

catalysts. The three-way catalyst requires precise ccntrol of air-fuel ratio ta 

maintail"! high conversion ~ffic!encies for all three pollut<mts. 

Same calculation as for oxidizing ::atalyst except for loading. 

81 

~ATH & STRONG 
3-WAY CATALYST EMISSION COtlT'ROL 

UHAUST GAS ICCIACUli\TION 

\ _CLOSED lOOP CARBURlTOa 

., 'Id.I \. . \' .:: I "D )1) / 'iS .. :'I . . , . --- -:- _ .. .. "'1l - • • • r. ' . /- .. • • , lUCTRONIC .?\···· ': _,-:::STh--HIGH IHIRGY '/ l '.:1 I IGNlllON 

r . " I ) (•:;- 6. " ; 1 •'' 

.. OlYGlN SENSOR-. l' 

.._, . • -;-;.- f;I _.....,--- I _,. • 

. I ; ' ,, \\ :J Z 

; '.""' I 

CD a '\._ 'l • -.. •v .. ' ..._ "'-... {\ . ·" .. \\ / _ .1 t---r?;;-·f ............... 

N ; ,0 r:-1- • • \\ l'C.\ \ • Ul ,\ \\Ill •i.c .. ·l,: !J.: .... ,-1 -- ) NO• RCDUCIHG a o · • I'\.. j .o-· · AND HC-CO 

DXIDIZlllG CDHnRTll 

HE VALV( 

CARBON CANtST£R. 

FUNCTiOHAI. SCHEMATIC 

AIR FLOW •I CARBURETOR EHGIHC EXHAUST 

CLOSED 

THaOHLC 

SIGNAL 

RPM I 

.! llECT0HOl<IC )•__J COHTROLLER .. I 

\..-. SEllSO!t 

l·WAY 

CONVtRTCR 

OIYG!H 
Monolithic Start-up Catalyst 

The start-up catalyst, or the warm-up catalyst, is designed to provide 

catalytic conversion during the first two minutes of the engine warm up. It 

is during this period (quick light off) that major emissions of HC + CO are 

created. The start catalyst is designed to provide conversion at 400 degrees 

F or less while the main catalyst is still heating up. These catalysts were 

provided for California cars where standara formula HC + CO + NOx was 

more stringent than the Federal standard. 

Same calculation as for oxidizing catalysts, except for loading. 

83 

RATH .!:. STRONG 
WARM-UP CATALYST DESCRIPTION* 

AMC (California) used or. 304 and 360 cu. in. engines 

Catalyst Features, such asi 

\ 

BJ Catalyst supplier and address: Engelhard Industrias Division 

(Sole supplier) 

430 Mountain Avenue 

Murray Hill, New Jersay 07974 

b) Number of catalysts us~d per vehicle: 1 for 6 cyl, 1 for V-8 Hornet/Pacer 

c) General Type: Oxidation 

d) General Location: At exhaust manifold 

e) Substrate: 

(i) Cunfiguration - Monolithic, segmented 

(ii) •_:onstruction Technique - Extruded 

(iii) Comp~sition - Corderile 

2 for V-8 Matador 

(iv) Supplier and Address: Corning Glass Works Division 

(Sole supplier) 

Corning, New York 

f) Washcoat: Stabilized activated coating proprietary to manufacturer 

g) Active Material: 

(i) Composition of active constituents - Pt/Pd - 2/1 

(ii) Total active material loading (gms. or Troy oz.) - 50 gm/ft.3 

h) Container: 

(i) Configuration •· Cylindrical 

(ii) Dimensions - J.87 dia. x 6.6 overall length 

(iii) Volume - 48.13 In.3 

(iv) Materials used - 409 Stainless .054" min. 

(v) Technique of containment&: restraint - Compliant wire mesh 

(vi) Canner: Maremont Corporation 

(Sole supplier) 

250 East Kehoe Boulevard 

Carol Stream, Illinois 60187 

Mounting rings 

(viij) Insulation and shielding (catalyst and/or vehicles) - None 

84 

RATH A STRONG 
i) Physical Description: 

(i) Dimensions: 2 pieces, 3.56 dia. x 1.25; (3.31 EFF dia.) 

(ii) Weight (lbs): Catalyst only, 0.61 lbs. (Modified to .53 lbs. 

per corning Glass Data) 

(iii) Volume: EFF Catalyst 21.S In. 3, Total - 26.3 In. 

(i") Active surface area (bET): Proprietary t'..1 manufacturer 

j) Catalyst Assembly Part Number: To be supplied 

85 

RATH 8t STRONG 
- ·- • 

TWC Catalytic Converf·er Assembly 

SUBSTRAiE: EXHAUST 

CONVER=tOR CATALYST 

C H C /C 0) 

AIR MANIFOLD 

ASSY. <Sf1ACEP.> 

SUBSTR.ATE EXHAUST 

CONVERTEP. CATALYS1 

(TWC) 

•,• 

-~ 

• 

-

..,..C~.:.....:.:..~~.7:~~~ 

__.._ . ._.._._ 

--- ~11. :.::.,:-=7 --· --

~~.:.::..~~ 

--. --···-~ r ~ ~ 

· ==-~- . - ~~ ~ INLET 

I :~ ~ 

~~~~~J~· ~:7.__:;:>~. -~-~----·· -.:::~c:-~ --=.J: :~~~ l; ~~::::·:·;·; 1 :.::.:.:"·~~ - · ~It #~ 

~ SUPPORT 

SECO~DARY AIR . 

IN LF.T FITTING 

86 

RATH 4 STRONG 
PELLETED CONVERTERS 

PELLETED OXIDIZING CA I AL Y5T 

The pelleted oxidizing catalyst convert1~r consists of alumina pellets which have 

wash-coated with noble metals packed in a metal container which is in turn 

encased in an insulated outer metal shell. 

This construction, resembling a flat pan, is generally mounted beneath the floor 

board in the exhaust stream. Its function is to convert the HC and CO gasses to 

H2o and co2• 

A 260 cu. in. bed volume unit is used as a base to develop the datailed cost 

estimates. 

Cost for other sizes are estima~ed according to the formulae given. The 

methodology used in developing these formulae is analagous to that described in 

detail under Monolithic Converters. 

87 

RATH & STRONG 
UNDERFLOOR CONVE:RTER • FULL fLOW . 

2b0 CU. IN. 8EO VOLUME 

88 

RATH & STRONG 
EMISSION 

-

Fwtl tal'lk r.;1e• 111~ Nck for ~r1 wlucJu .q11lppe~ 

w1U> u~ltt•c '°n·•~•ra (T7p1c;al) 

ELEC:Tro•:·ro: BHllST 

COt-. 1 i.01. IJl-OIT A£S1S 1 OR 

\. .....---- ~ 

ICfHITIOH SWITCH 

J 

J 

CONTROL SYSTEMS 

,~tJ CSU'~·C COl'l .. l'\11 

witl'l lini;,. a11t.1l11tt c .. 11.a:711 

P'ood =-~•lft.c co-.ver11" 

witl'l 111111 l11~~r~t1 U!.a!)°lt 

,'?':!.=+:J ====-~ 

lllUN TO Ll T'TtRY 

Cl'lr')'11t· Ccrp. g:atylt prott'11on t!"lt~1 for all ftluCltl 

9qll•P?K ••lh uu:1iot 1;0nrtl"ltra 

89 

RATH & STRONC3 

INCOU•ORATED 

Reproduced from 

besl available copy. 
Pelleted Oxidation--Catalyst 260 cu. in. 

BILL OF MATERIAL 

MANL'F AC TURING COSTS 

(260 cu. in. volume) 

Mat Labor Mfg 

Part Material Weight Costs Labor Overhead Costs 

Converter Assembly Assem 26.20 3.10 1.24 4.34 

Outer Wrap 409 SS 8.00 5.36 • 92 • 37 6.65 

Shell 409 SS 4.00 2.68 .92 • 37 3.97 

... ,_ -· 409 SS .,. ""' ' ,.n ... ., 1 1 11u t'lpes Lo.JU i..oo .... , ~ J.. .I. 2.06 

Bed Support 409 SS 3.77 2.53 .92 • 37 3.82 

Insulation Fibre 1.50 2.01 .c:; .02 2.08 

Glass 

Pellets Alumina 6.43 12. 79 .05 .02 12.86 

PT 

Total 27.05 6.23 2.50 35.78 

Vehicle Assembly .34 .14 .48 

Body Modification .17 .07 .24 

Total Vehicle 27.05 6.74 2. 71 36.50 

s-o 

RATH 4 STRONG 
Pelleted Oxidation Catalyst--Tooling Costs--Amortization Per Piece 

(Volumes and Investment $ Expressed in l,OOOs) 

1 Year 3 Year Non- 12 Year 12 Year 40 Year 

Economic Recurring Recurring Machinery Launching Land&: 

Part Volume Tooling Tooling &: Eguip Costs Buildings 

1. 75 3.49 2.69 • 27 !.62 

Converter Assem 50 40 540 1,600 160 3,200 

1.75 3. li9 2.69 .27 

Outer Wrap 50 90 540 1,600 160 

l. 75 I. 75 1.35 .14 

:0 Shell 50 90 270 800 BO )> 

-t 

i :I .17 .17 .13 .01 

n \!) a 1/0 Pipes 100 18 54 160 16 • I-" 

... 

a (II • > 

.... 

-t 1.75 3.49 2.69 .27 

.. 

a ::u Bed Support so 90 540 1,600 160 0 

z .35 .35 .40 .04 

(j) 

Insulation 50 18 54 240 24 

.35 .35 .65 .07 

Pellets 50 18 54 400 40 

Total Converter 7.87 13.09 10.60 1.07 1.62 

.30 .09 .07 .01 

Vehicle As!:em 50 15 15 46 5 

.49 .49 .05 .OS 

Body Modification 50 13 37 17 z 

Total Vehicle 
Pelleted Oxidation Catalyst--260 cu. in. 

Part Mat Labor 

Conve!'ter 3.10 

Assembly 

Converter 14.26 3.0B 

Can 

Pellets 12.79 .05 

Total 27.05 6.23 

TOT Al MANUFACTURING COSTS 

(260 cu. in. volume) 

Plant Plant 

Over- Mfg. To~ling .20 MC 

Head Costs Exp. Inv. Corp 

1.24 4.34 5.24 4.58 .87 

1.24 18.58 15.02 7.99 3. 72 

.02 12.86 .70 • 72 2.57 

2.50 35.78 20.96 13.29 7.16 

92 

RATH a STRONG 

.20 MC Mfg./ 

Corp Vendor 

Profit Costs 

.87 15.90 

3. 72 49.03 

2.57 19.42 

7.16 84.35 
Pelleted Oxidation Catalyst--260 cu. in. 

Plant 

Vendo1· 

Part Costs 

Converter 84.35 

Vehicle .O.ssembly .48 

Bod~ Model .24 

Total Vehicle 

Price Equivalent 85.07 

RETAIL PRICE EQUIVALENT 

AT THE VEHICLE LEVEL 

(260 cu. in. volume) 

Tools Corp Corp 

& .2 vc .2 vc 

R&D Equip Alloc Profit 

l.60 16.87 16.87 

.47 .10 .10 

1.08 .05 .05 

1.60 1.55 17.02 17.02 

93 

RATH 4 STRONG 

INCDll'DRATlD 

Dealer Vehicl.e 

.4 vc Retail Price 

Markup Equivalent 

33. 74 153.43 

.20 1.35 

.lC 1. 52 

34.04 156.30 
PELLETED OXIDATION CATALYST 

Cost Methodology 

The weight data was obtained from the reference sketch. The pellet weight was 

also obtained from the sketch. The component weights are estimated by 

proportional methods. 

The labor costs are estimates based on kn::1wledge of the actual plant processes 

and manning. The economy of scale was established using the General Motor:; 

Milwaukee plant as the modei. 

The tooling and equipment costs are estimates using the General Motors plant as 

the reference. 

The vehicle assembly costs and the body changes are added to the converter 

costs at the vehicle level. 

94 

RATH & STRONG 

INcau•a•ATID 
PELLE TED CATALYTIC CONVER TE.RS - SIZE GRADUATIONS 

SIZE GRADATION CALCULATIONS 

The configuration is regarded as two rectangular boxes, orie centrally located 

within the other. The outer box is the housing and the inner is the catalyst. 

From the referenced sketch, these dimensions for the 260 cubic inch converter 

are used as basic: 

Height Width Length Area Volume 

Housing 3.5 12.3 18.7 677 

Catalyst 1.9 10.5 13.0 362 260 

In graduating the dimensions to accommodate varying volumes, the catalyst 

height is held constant (to give maximum cross-flow contact and also to fit tail 

pipe). Length and width ::if catalyst are held in the same proportion, 13.0/10.5. 

The housing length is constantly 5. 7 greater than the catalyst length; the width 

differential is held at 1.8. 

95 

RATH 4 STROMG 

INCQllPDllATED 
PELLETED CAT AL YTXC CONVERTERS - SIZE GRADUATIONS 

FORMULAE FOR MANUFACTURING COST AND RETAIL PRICE EQUIVALENT 

ESTIMATIONS FOR PELLETED CATALYTIC CONVERTERS 

Form B gives the equation relating noble metal composition, loading, and volume 

to plant manufacturing cost and retail price equivalent. 

It applies to: 

a. Pelleted oxidation catalysts. 

b. Pelleted reduction catalysts. 

The calculations a!"e based on extrapolation of the values given in the detailed 

estimate made on the 260 cubic inch under-floor oxidation catalyst. 

The noble metal prices and the overall logic employed are the same as presented 

in the section on monolithic catalysts. 

Work sheets are attached. 

96 

RATH A: STRONG 
-

~ 

Ill 

.... 

z 

~ 

z 

~ ~ 

0 

u 

u 

-

s 

< 

.... 

< 

u 

-... . ~ I- ,: :z: ~ ::::> 1..1 

·1 I- z ~ u 0 

::::> Q.. 

!." ~ ·1 I- 0 ~ Vl u 

~=-

OATA: 

CALCULATION 51-IEET FOR 

PLANT MANUFACTURING COST 

ANO RETAIL PRICE EQUIVALENT 

PELLETED CATALYSTS 

LO AO IN Ci Q (CM/FT1

) 

-- + 

Pt/Pd Ratio s Pt/Rh R;tio 

VOL~ME 

(IN. ) 

x 

: 

(Pt + Pd} Portion s (Pl + Rh} Portion s 

.. - . . . 

I Pro- Price $ 

por- Crams per per 

Material ~ \ions Req'd Cram Unit 

Platinum 5. 36~ 

Rhodium 14.62S 

I P1ll1dium 2.220 I 

!Renium I I 1.709 I 

R1.1thenium ! 2.009 -- Nickel I , • 005 

Tgtal Cr1ms -- -- LabortO.H. I )( . 12 s 

Plant Manufacturing Cost $ 

Plant M~nufac:turing Cost = 

$7.97 ( .057 x volume) $ 

·- .. - TOTAL PLANT MANUFACTURING COST s ·.-.. 

97 

RATH & STRONC.\i 

INCORl'DllATt:IJ 

FORM B 

TOTAL 

CRAMS 

lo c 
PELLETED CATALYTIC CONVERTERS 

DERIVATION OF THE FORM B EQUATION 

FOR MANUFACTURING COSTS 

Catalytic Components 

Same as described under Monolithic Oxidizing Converters. 

Structural Components 

The preceding estimate for the 260 cu. in. converter is used as the base for 

graduations to other sizes. 

Part weights were graduated by the appropriated geometrical paramei:ers. 

Material costs per pound held constant. 

Labor costs g1·aduated at 60% of the weight graduation. Overhead constant at 

40% of labor. 

Manufacturing costs on 5 sizes were calculated, and on linear regression, best fit, 

equation was found: 

Mfg. Cost, Structural Comps. :: ($.05 7 x vol.) + $7 .97 

98 

RATH & STRONG 

INCDRl'Q..,,TID 
PELLETED CATALYSTS 

DETERMINA TlON OF THE FORM B EQUATION FOR ESTIMATING 

THE RETAIL PRICE EQUIVALENT 

The following costs must be added to plant manufacturing cost tCJ get the vendor 

cost. 

Expense Tooling 

Investment Tooling 

Vendor G &: A 

Vendor Profit 

20.96 

J 3.29 

20% of Plant Manufacturing Cost 

20% of Plant Manufacturing Cost 

Vendor Cost = 1.4 (Manufacturing Cost) + 34.25 

To the vendor cost the following must be added to get Retail Price Equivalent. 

R&D 

Vehicle Assembly 

Body Modification 

Vehicle Corp. G &: A 

Vehicle Corp. Profit 

Dealer Markup 

$1.GO 

1.35 

1.52 

20% of Vendor Cost 

20% of Vendor Cost 

40% of Vendor Cost 

Retail Prh.:e Equivalent = 1.8 (Vendor Cost) + 4.47 

= l.s[i.4 (M.C.) + 34.2~ + 4.47 

= 2.52 (Plant Manufacturing Cost) + 66.12 

99 

RATH a STRONG 
PELLETED CAT AL YSTS--DIMENSIONS 

CATALYSTS HOUSING 

Vol. Hgt. Wdth. Lgth. Area Area Vol. Hgt. Wdth. Lgth. Area A

(in. 3) . (in.) (in.) (in.) (in. 2) Ratio Ratio (in.) (in.) (in. ) (in. 2 ) R

260 1.9 10.5 13.0 362 1.00 1.00 3.S 12.3 18.7 677 1

;o 320 1.9 11.6 14.4 433 1.20 1.23 3.S 13.4 20.1 773 1

)> 

-t 

i :I 

n 400 1.9 13.0 16.1 530 1.46 1.54 3.5 14.B 21.8 901 1

r-' D 9t 0 • .. 0 

D t" • > -I .. 

.. 

D :u 

0 

2 

!i> 
Appendix A 

FORMULAE FOR CALCULATION OF THE COST PER GRAM 

OF CATALYTIC COMPOUNDS 

Conversion Factors - Weight 

The material prices are typically quoted in varying units of weight. Herewith is 

a list of factors by which to convert each to grams. 

Avoirdupois pounds x 453.5924 

Avoirdupois ounces x 28.3495 

Troy pounds x 373.248 

Troy ounces x 31.104 

Conversion Factors p Volume 

Cubic feet x 1728 =cubic inches 

Square feet x 144 = square inches 

= grams 

= grams 

= grams 

= grams 

Cost Per Gram of a Compositi::in of Materials (Exact Method) 

To calculate the compound cost in dollars per gram, use the following format: 

Quoted Conversion Pro- Compound 

Price to $/Gram Portion 

Conv. in 

Material $ Unit Factor $/Gram Compound $/Gram 

A-1 B c D E 1:- H 

A-2 

A-3 

Etc. 

G J 

Total Compound 1.00 

101 

RATH 4 STRONG 

INCQRl'ORA'l'[Q 
A-1~ A-2~ Etc. - List ingredients 

B & C - Quoted $ and units in which quoted 

D - Appropriate conversion factor from l.l 

E- Divide B by D 

F - List proportion as decimals (10°~ = 0.10) 

G - Sum of column F must equal 1.000 

H - Multiply f by E 

J - Sum of column H equals compound cost per gram 

. -

102 

RATH 4 STRONG 
Example l 

What is the cost per gram of a compound which contains 2% rhemium; 0.4% 

ruthenium; 3% nickel; and in which the platinum-to-rhodium ratio is 25:1? 

Solution: Rhenium 

Ruthenium 

Nickel 

= .020 

= .004 

= .030 

SUBTOTAL = .054 

Remainder = 1. 000 - • 054 = • 946 

25 Platinum 3-:;:J x .946 = .910 

Rhodium ~ x • 946 = • 036 

TOTAL 1.000 

Quoted Conversion 

Price to $/Gram 

Material $ Unit Factor $/Gram 

Platinum 167.00 T. oz. 31.104 5.369 

Rhodium 455.00 T. oz. 31.104 14. 628 

Rhenium 775.00 Av. i.b. 453.5924 1. 709 

Nickel Z.23 Av. lb. 453.5924 .005 

ProPortion 

.910 

.036 

.020 

.030 

Compound 

$/Gram 

4.886 

.527 

.034 

-------------------------·---··-··----

Total Compound 1.000 5.447 

103 

RATH A STRONG 

INCOU•O•.t.Tl!D 
Cost per Gram of a Composition of Sub$trate Msteriats (Approximation Method) 

This short-cut method, within the proportion limits proscribed, wm de-1inte no 

more than 2% from the exact method described above. 

Procedure 

1. Calculate the cost per gram ras if platinum and rhlldium were the only 

ingredients (Pt + Rh = 100%). 

2. Multiply this by the proportion represented by the sum of platinum and 

rhodium. 

3. Add to this the product of the remaining proportion times $.67. 

Example 2 (Approximate method) 

What is the cost per gram of a compound which contains 2% rhenium; 0.4% 

ruthenium; 3% nickel; and in which the platinum-to-rho di urn ratio is 25:1? 

l. Platinum 

Rhodium 

Totals 

25 parts x $ 5. 369 = $134. 225 

l part x 14.628 = ___14.628 

26 parts $148.853 

Cost/gram of mix 14:6853 = $5.725 

2. Platinum 91.0% 

Rhodium 3.6% 

SUM 94.6% 

.946 x $5.725 = $5.416 

3. (1.000 - .946) x $.67 = $.036 

4. $5.416 + $.036 = $5.452 (answ~r) 

(Compare with $5.447 gotten by Exact Method, Example 1.) 

104 

RATH 4 ST~ONG 

I NCD•POIATED 
Discussiol} 

The short-cut method is made feashile because of two factors: 

a) Platinum snd rhodium constitute 64.5% or more of the mixture, and 

b) The unit price of these is much geater than of the other consi:.ituents. 

Typical Extreme Calculation 

Platinum to Rhodiun1 = 2:1 (upper cost l"atio) 

Platinum & Rhodium 

Rhenium 

Ruthenium 

Nickel 

Platinum 

Rhodium 

Rhenium 

Ruthenium 

Nickel 

= 84.5% Clower limit) 

= 5.0% (upper limit) 

= .05% (upper limit) 

= 10.0% (upper limit) 

100.0% 

$5.369 x Z/} x .845 

14.628 x 1/3 x .845 

Subtotal 

1. 709 x .050 

2.009 x .005 

.oos x .100 

= $3.025 

= 4.120 

$7.145 

= .OBS 

= .010 

= .001 

$7.241 

Nate that the last three ingredients which represented 15.5% of the total weight 

added only $.096 to the subtot3l cost of Platinum and Rhodium. 

The short-cut formula substitutes 15.5% x $.67 = $.104 for the calculated $.096, 

creating an error of $.008, which is only 0.11 % of the total. 

105 

RATH & STRONG 

INClllPOUon:D 
CALCULATlON OF THE WEJGHT OF CATALYTIC COMPOUND 

USED PER CONVERTER 

Volume used is expressed if'I cubic inches. 

Loading is spoken of in grams per cubic foot. For ease of calculation this is 

converted to grams per cubic inch. 

1 gram/ft3 x 1/1728 = .0005767 grn/in3 

Total weight equals volume times ioading. 

weight (grams) = volume (in3) x loading (gm/ft3) ~- 1726 

The matrix following gives grams required for various combination of volume and 

loading. 

106 

RATH & STRONG 
GRAMS OF COMPOUND REC1UIHED FOR VARIOUS VOLUMES AND LOAOll\4GS 

LOADING (G1n/Ft3 ) 

l 5 lG 15 20 30 40 50 60 

l .00058 .00289 .00579 .00868 .01157 .01736 .02315 .02894 .03472 

10 .00579 .029 .050 .087 .116 .174 .231 .289 .347 

20 .01157 .058 .116 .174 .231 .347 .463 .579 .694 

50 .02894 .145 .289 .434 .579 .868 1.16 1.45 1. 74 

100 .05787 .289 .579 .868 1.16 l. 74 2.31 2.89 3.47 

:u 

)> 150 .08681 .434 .868 1.30 

-I 

l. 74 2.60 3.47 4.34 5.21 

i I 200 .11574 .579 1.16 l. 74 2.32 3.47 4.63 5.79 6.94 

n 

...... a 

... to 0 

.. ....... 

a 

• Ul 250 .14460 • 723 1.45 2.17 2.89 4.34 5.79 7.23 8.68 

.. 

.. -I 

.. 

a :0 

0 300 .17361 .668 1. 74 2.60 3.47 5.21 6.94 8.68 10.42 

z 

(j) 350 .20255 1.01 2.03 3.04 4.05 6.08 8.10 10.13 12.15 

400 .23148 1.16 2.32 3.47 4.63 6.94 9.26 11.57 13.89 

Grams required ;:: Loading (grn/ft3) x Volume (in3) -:- 1728 
CALCULATION OF THE COST OF CATALYTIC COMPOUND 

PER CONVERTER 

Cost per converter equals grams re=luired times the cost per gram of the 

compound. 

r or purposes of ready reference, a table is presented giving substrate compound 

costs at selected values of platinum-rhodium ratio, grams required end tot.~11 

platinum-rhodium content. 

In this table the following material prices are used: 

Platinum $ 5.369/gm = $167/Troy oz. 

Rhodium 14.628/gm = 455/Troy oz. 

Rhen!um l. 709/gm = 53/Troy oz. 

Ruthenium 2.009/gm = 62/Troy oz. 

Nickel • 005/grn = 2.23/av • lb. 

Intermediate values may be interpolated, or calculated directly. 

Equation for calculating cost of substrate material per converter. 

COST= (Pp + Pr) 

where i:p = 

Pr = 

v = 

L = 

167Pp + 455Pr 

31.104 + ~l - (Pp + Pr)] 

when {Pp + Pr)~ .845 

Percent Platinum -:- 100 

Percent Rhodium -=- 100 

Volume in cubic inches 

Loading in grams per cubic foot 

108 

RATH 4 STRONG 

INCCNFORATED 

V L 

•

67 l.728 
COST OF SUBS TR A TE MATERIAL PER CONVERTER 

% Platinum + % Rhodiu

(See Note J if 100%) 

Tatel Ratio Platinum to Rhodium end Cost Per Gram (Note 2) 

Grams ' • Substrate 

Required 2:1 5:1 7:1 ' 9:1 11:1 19:1 

Line (Note l) $ 8.455 $ 6.912 $ 6.526 $ 6.295 $ 6.141 $ 5.032 

1 .029 $ .25 $ .20 $ .19 $ .18 $ .18 $ .17 

2 .059 .49 .40 .38 .37 .36 .34 J .116 .98 .00 .76 .73 .71 .68 

4 .174 1.20 1.14 1.10 1.07 1.01 

5 .289 2.44 2.00 1.89 1.82 1. 77 1.69 

:ti 

) 6 .579 4.90 4.00 3.78 3.64 3.56 3.38 

i I 7 1.16 9.81 8.02 7.57 7.30 7.12 6.77 

n f-' 

ai Cl 8 1. 74 14.71 12.03 11.36 10.95 10.69 10.15 

.. \£) 

a <n 

: 9 2.31 19.53 15.97 

... 

15.08 14.54 14.19 13.47 

a 10 "!i.47 29.34 ZJ.96 22.65 Zl.84 21.Jl 20.24 

0 

:z 11 4.05 54.24 27.99 26.43 25.49 24.07 23.62 

G) 

12 5.21 44.05 36.01 J4.00 32.00 31.99 30.38 

" 

lJ 6.08 51.41 42.0Z 39.68 38.27 37.34 35.46 

14 6.94 58.68 47.97 45.29 43.69 42.62 40.47 

15 7.23 61.13 49.97 47.18 45.51 44.40 42.17 

16 8.10 68.49 55.99 52.86 50.99 49074 47.24 

17 9.26 78.29 64.01 60.43 58.29 56.87 54.00 

18 10.13 85.65 70.0Z 66.11 63.77 62.21 59.0B 

19 11.57 97.82 79.97 75.51 72.83 71.05 67.48 

20 12.15 102.73 83.98 79.29 76.48 74.61 70.86 

21 13.89 117 .44 96.01 90.65 87.44 85.30 Bl.01 

22 14.lB 119.89 98.01 92.54 89.26 87.08 BZ.07 23 16.20 136.97 111. 97 105. 72 101.98 99.48 94.48 
Note 1: Determine grams required from the table or formula below it. Locate 

nearest line (or interpolate between two lines) and read $ in appropriate 

ratio column. 

Note 2: Cost per gram calculated at Platinum $167 /Troy oz. = $5.369/gram 

and Rhodium ~i455/Troy oz. ·"' $14.628/gram. 

Note 3: When Rhenium, Ruthenium of Nickel are also included in the compound, 

multiply the value from the table by the combined percentages of 

Platinum and Rhodium; add to this the remaining percentage times $,67 

times total grams required. 

llO 

RATH & STRONG 

INCO•POU•TIO 
NOBLE MET AL PRICES 

---------------Price--------------

per Troy Ounce* 

Metal 

Platinum 

Iridium 

Rhodium 

Paladium 

Ruthenium 

*Troy Ounce = 31.1035 grams 

Source: Matthey-Bishop, Inc. 

Wholesale 

$162 

300 

400 

60 

60 

111 

RATH 4 STRONG 

lllC>!ll"OIATl:D 

Retail 

--

$172 

310 

410 

65 

65 

MFG. COST CALCULATIONS - NONCA T AL YTIC COMPONENTS, MONOLITHIC CONVERTERS 

Vol. - 63 (Base) Dia. - 4 Lgth. - 7.2 

1Mat'l Mfg. 

2art Mat'l Weight Cost 2Labor OH Cost 

Cvtr. Assy. .68 .27 .95 

Shell 409 SS 2.00 1.08 .17 .07 1.32 

Rings (no.) 409 SS 1.00 .54 .OB .03 .65 

In. Cor.e 409 SS 1.00 .54 .OB .03 .65 

Out. Cone 409 SS 1.00 .54 .08 .03 .65 

In. Pipe 409 SS 1.00 .54 .08 .03 .65 

Flanges 409 SS .25 .14 .04 .02 .20 

Mesh 409 SS .15 .OB .04 .02 .lb 

Hdwr. Steel .10 .03 .04 .02 .09 

Substrt. Ceramic 1.30 6.32 .34 .14 6.80 

Wash Coat Al2 o3 • Bl .17 .07 1.05 

TOTALS 10.62 1.80 .73 13 .15 

113 

RATH & STRC:>NG 

INCDll'DU.Tl:D 
Vol. - 10 Dia. - 4 Lgth. - 2.1 

Mat'l Mfg. 

Weight Cost Labor OH Cost 

.76 .41 .51 .zo • 71 

.50 .Z7 .04 .oz .:n 

1.00 .54 .08 .03 .65 

l.JO .54 .OB .03 .65 

1.00 .54 .OB .03 .65 

.ZS .14 .04 .oz .zo 

.04 .03 .02 .01 .06 

.10 .03 .04 .02 .09 

.Zl 1.03 .17 .07 1.27 

.14 .08 .03 .25 

3.67 L25 .50 S.42 

114 

RATH 4 STRONG 

INCDll'DIATl:D 
Vol. - 100 Dia. - 4 Lgth. - 10.6 

Cvtr. Assy. 9.46 .77 .31 1.08 

Shell 409 SS 2.83 1.53 .21 .08 1.82 

Rings (no.) 409 SS l.00 .54 .08 .03 .65 

In. Cone 409 SS 1.00 .54 .08 .C3 .65 

Out. Cone 409 SS 1.00 .54 .OB .03 .65 

In. Pipe 409 SS 1.00 .54 .OB .03 .65 

Flanges 409 SS .25 .14 .04 .02 .20 

Mesh 409 SS .22 .12 .05 .02 .19 

Hi:hvr. Steel .10 .03 .04 .02 .09 

Substrt. Ceramic 2.06 10.03 .46 .18 10.67 

Wash Coat AI2 o3 i.za .23 .09 !.60 

TOTALS 15.29 2.12 .84 18.25 

115 

RATH 4 STRONG 

INCD•~D8.t.Tl:D 
Vol. - 150 Dia. - 4 Lgth. - 15.4 

12.27 .93 .37 1.30 

4.00 2.16 .27 .11 .54 

1.50 • Bl .13 .05 .99 

1.00 • ~·4 ,QB .03 .65 

1.00 .54 .OB .03 .65 

1.00 .54 .OB .03 .65 

.25 .14 .04 .02 .20 

.32 .18 .07 . o·c .., .28 

.10 .03 .04 .02 .09 

3.10 15.08 .62 .25 15.95 

1.95 .31 .12 2.38 

21. 97 2.65 1.06 25.66 

116 

RATH & STRONG 
MFG. COST CALCULATIONS - NONCA T AL YTIC COMPONENTS 

Vol. - 200 Dia. - 5.4 Lgth. - 12.5 

ly1at'l Mfg. 

Part Mat'l Weight Cost. Labor OH Cost 

Cvtr. Assy. 15.60 1.11 .44 1.55 

Shell 409 SS 4.56 2.46 .30 .12 2.88 

Rings (no.) 409 SS 2.03 1.09 .15 .06 1.36 

In. Cone 409 SS 1.35 .73 .10 .04 .87 

Out. Cone 409 SS 1.35 .73 .!O .04 .87 

In. Pipe 409 SS 1.35 .73 .10 .04 .87 

Flanges 409 SS .34 .19 .OS .02 .26 

Mesh 409 SS .35 .19 .08 .03 .30 

Hdwr. Steel .14 .04 .05 .02 .11 

Substrt. Ceramic 4.13 20.09 .78 .31 21.18 

Wash Coat Al2 o3 2.57 .39 .16 3.12 

TOTALS 28.82 3.21 1.28 33.:n 

117 

RATH 8& STRONG 

INCDll'DIATED 
Vol. - 300 Dia. - 5.4 Lgth. - 18.3 

Cvtr. Assy. 20.40 1.39 .56 1.95 

Shell 409 SS 6.47 3.50 .40 .16 4.06 

Rings (no.) 409 SS 2.70 1.46 .20 .OB 1.74 

In. Cone 409 SS 1.35 .73 .10 .04 .87 

Out. Cone 409 SS 1.35 .73 .10 .04 .87 

In. Pipe 4C9 SS 1.35 .73 .10 .04 .87 

Flanges 409 SS .34 .19 .05 .02 .26 

Mesh 409 SS .51 .. 27 .10 .04 .41 

Hdwr. Steel .14 .04 .05 .02 .11 

Substrt. Ceramic 6.19 3fl.ll 1.10 .44 31.65 

Wash Coat AI2 o3 3.86 .55 .22 4.63 

TOTALS 41.62 4.14 1.66 47 .4Z 

118 

RATH 4 STRONG 

INCDll'DIATED 
Vol. - 250 Dia. - 5.4 Lgth. - 15.4 

Mat'J Mfg. 

Weight Cost Labor OH Cost 

17.67 1.22 .49 l. 71 

5.52 2.99 .35 .14 3.48 

2.03 l.09 .15 .06 1.30 

1.35 .73 .10 .04 .87 

1.35 .73 .10 .04 .87 

1.35 .73 .10 .04 • 87 

.34 .19 .05 .02 .26 

.43 .23 .09 .04 .36 

.14 .G4 .05 .02 .11 

5.16 24.84 • 94 .38 26.16 

3.22 .47 .19 3.88 

34.79 3.62 1.46 39.87 

119 

RATH 4 STRONG 
Vol. - 400 Dia. - 5.4 Lgth. - 23. 9 

25.14 1.67 .67 2.34 

8.31 4.49 .49 .20 5.18 

3.38 1.82 .26 .10 2.18 

1.35 .73 .10 .04 .87 

1.35 .73 .10 .04 .87 

1.35 • 73 .10 0 04 .87 

.34 .19 .05 .02 .26 

.67 .36 .13 .05 .54 

.14 .04 .05 .02 .11 

8.25 40.14 1.42 .57 42.13 

5.14 • 71 .28 6.13 

54.37 5.0B 2.03 61.48 

Equation: Mfg. Cost = $4.05 + $.144 (Vol.) 

120 

RATH & STRONG 

INCOU•a••Tl!D 
DETERMINATION OF SUBSTRATE AND SHELL DIMENSIONS 

FOR MONOLITHIC CONVERTERS 

Imposed Space Limits to Shell 

Diameter Shell - 6.0" 

t.ength Shell - 24.0" 

Implied space lirr.its to substrate contained in shell. 

Diameter - 6.0 - 0.5 (metal mesh) = 5.5" 

Length - 24.0 - 1.1 (endcap) = 22.9" 

Two shell diameters were selected to accomodate the range oi substrate volumes: 

(refer to graph) 

Vol (in) 

0-150 

151-400 

Dia (in) 

4.0 

5.4 

Length of shell required at given substrate volume. 

Substrate Dia. Shell 

Volume (in) (incl. mesh) 

l 4.0 

10 4.0 

20 4.0 

50 4.0 

.100 4.0 

150 4.0 

151 5.4 

zoo 5.4 

250 5.4 

300 5.4 

350 5.4 

121 

RATH & STRONG 

INCD•"UIATlD 

Length (in) 

0-15.l 

~.7-24.0 

Length Shell 

(incl. cap) 

.10+1. l= 1.2 

• 95+1. l= 2.1 

1. 90+1.l= 3.0 

4.75+1.l= 5.9 

9 .50+1.1=10. ') 

14.2t:+l.1=15.4 

8.63+1.l= 9.7 

11.43+1.1=12.5 

14.29+1.1=15.4 

17 .15+1. l=lB.J 

20.00+1.1=21.l 
------

·----------

24 22 20 

:u 

18 

)> 

-t 

-

i 16 i I 

n 

at 

1--' 

N 

-

14 .. N a (JI 

: -t 

... 

:u UJ 12 0 ...I 

z UJ 

fj) 10 

0:: 

.,_ 

V) 8 CD 

:::> 

V) 

6 

4 

2 

0 

I I 

0 20 40 

LENGTH OF SUBSTRATE REQUIRED TO ATTAIN VOLUME 

AT THREE SPECIFIC DIAMETERS 

LIMITS: LENGTH 24" MAX. OVERALL SHELL; LESS I. I = 

VOLUME 400 IN3 MAX. 

22.9" MAX. LENG

OF SUBSTR

5.4911 DIA. = 6" SHE

4 

LENGTH= (VOL.) DIA.21T 

.---,--, I I I I I 9 I I I 

60 80 100 200 300 

VOLUME (CU. IN.) 
DETERMINA TJON OF RING DIAMETER 

Volume 

Substrate Dia. Ring 

In. In. 

0-150 4.0 

151-400 5.4 

123 

RATH 4 STRONG, 

INCCU'IHATIED 
i 

i 

I 

L 

~ 

10 AIR-FUEL METERING SYSTEMS 

HE~.VY DUTY GASOLINE ENGINES 

The detailed desc:riptiore mid celculetions following this page apply to pesseng~r 

car perts, reprinted from e previous report EPA • 70 • 002, March, 1978. Th-e 

costs ahown therein have been adjusted by using factora, described later in this 

report, that reflect differences in size end in manufacturing v~lume (economy of 

scale) between B1Jtomobiles end trucks. The EOS user for eutomobaes hs 3~0,000 

per year; for trucks, 50,000. 

The r~ulting :retail price equivslent costs for trucks ere ahown below. 

l. Electronic Fuel Injection 

Interpolation for an EOS of 50,000 from Table 1, using the .914 decrement 

factor: 

Truck OEM Cost = $162. 62 

Adding Mark-ups (x2. Z) 

Truck Retail Price Equivalent $357.76 

124 

RATH a STRONG 

111ca•11D•.t.TtD 
1., I; 

\ 

K-Jetronlc components 

The cone in which the sensor 

plate rises can be shaped for 

individual specifications of airfuel ratios for various load levels. 

Plate position is transmitted directly by lever to the fuel-distributor control plunger. 

System: Fuel metering - Gasoline 

Plunger movement is countered 

by a hydraulic fuel force which 

can be modulated by the warm-up 

regulator for mixture enriching. 

Full-load enrichment is also 

possible. 

125 

Reproduced from 

best available copy. 
System: Fuel metering - Gasoline 

K-J etronic from Bosch: 

Continuous Injection System (CIS) 

Schematic of K-Jetronlc 

In the K-Jetronic, the air-flow 

through the induction system is 

measured directly without electronics or mechanical drive. 

Elec:tri: fuel pump 

In the mixture control unit, ~he 

air-flow sensor p?ate is deflected 

against the hydraulic force of 

regulated fuel pressure. The fuel 

is continuously metered by control slits and downstream differentiaJ-pressurc valves. 

126 

At each cylinder, fuel is injected continuously at the proper 

rate through an injector at the 

intake port. 

.. 
Electronic Fuel Metering System 

(Bosch, Bendfx 5 and Chrysler System) 

The EFl-L (Electronically-Controlled Fuel !njection Syst-.;.m, 

Air-Flow Sensitive), Is an Intermittently operating systl!m, 

with, low-pressure Injection of fuel into the intake manifold. 

In this system, the quantity of air drawn in by the engine is 

measured directly, and Is used as the main control parameter 

for the quantl ty of fuel required. The fuel Is metered by 

solenoid-operated Injection valves. These valves are ~nder 

constant :ue~ pressure, and, their optimum opening period, 

which is proportional to the amount of fuel injected, is 

determined for every operating function of the engine by the 

electr~~ic contr~l unit on the basi~ of information received 

from various electrical sensors. 

The electronic: fuel injection systems for gasoline piston engines 

are primarily a development of European technology, although 

the Bendix Corporation In the U.S.A. has a cross licensing 

arrangement with ~osch in Germany for technology exc~ange. 

No mass production manufacturing facility exists in the U.S.A. 

to produce electronic fuel injection and electronic: emission 

control subsystems for gasoline piston engines. 

Fuel Pumps (39 PSIG)--an electrical ly·driven motor coupled to 

a constant•f low rotary pump. 

Fuel Fl lter--a close tolerance filter that eliminates particles 

that would clog the fuel nozzles. 

127 

RATH 4 STRONG 
Fuel lnt•ke man I fold wt th provision 'for mounting the fuel ral 1. 

Fuel nozzles--• precision solenoid operated by the electron!~ 

control unit. 

Throttle body--the basic air control unit that includes a 

throttle sensor and a cold-start air control. 

Speed sensor unit--the magnet assembly equipped with a reed 

switch assembly for sensing the engine R.P.M. 

Eltctronic control unit and subsystem·-this system provides 

the control signals and the feedback response from water and 

air sensors pressure sensors, and a fuel pressure regulator. 

When combined with most three-way catalyst systems, the ECU 

includes the capability of receiving feedback from an oxygen 

sensor and adjusts the air-fuel ratio accordingly. 

Oxygen·sen~or--the platinum-coated ceramic sensor located in 

the exhaust stream. This Is normal?y Included only with threeway catalyst systems. 

The EFI system coupled with a 3-way catalyst system is currently 

being installed In some European vehicles sold in the U.S.A. 

most of which are sold !n the State of California. 

128 

RATH a STRONG 
Currently, these ~~Its are manufactured and bought In 

relatlv~ly small annual quantities; and, consequently, unit 

costs are higher than they would be If quantities were 

increased by several m~gnitudes. In order to 3rrlve at a 

logical and consistent method, for realistically estimating 

future costs at higher purchase quantities, a learning curve 

methodology has been employed. 

Es~lmates of prices on 5,000; 200,000; and 500,000 lot 

sizes were solicited from U.S.A. and European sources. 

(These are shown In the first three columns of Table 1.) 

Analysis of these figures indicates a learning curve of 

9 1 • 4 % , w i t h i n d i v i d u a 1 I i: e m s de v i a t i n g , b u t n o t: s i g n i f i c a n t 1 y , 

in the overall. (A 91.4% curve means an 8.6% decrease in 

unit cost for each doubling of the quantity.) 

The last two columns in Table I are mathematical extrapolations 

of the 500,000 price by .914 and .742 respectively to estimate 

prices for 1,000,000 and s,000,000 units. 

129 

RATH A STRONG 

111ca11'0 IATll:a 
The plan for production of elec:tronlc fuel Injection systems 

at various volumes was proposed as: 

Year 

1975 

1976/77 

1978/79 

Volume 

5,000 

200,000 

500,000 

1979/80 J,000,000/ 

5,000,000 

Production Plan 

Purchase al I the components from 

known U.S.A. and European sources. 

Start manufacturing nozzles, throttle 

devices, fuel pumps, and ECU units. 

Purchase mass production loading. 

Redesign the ECU using integrated 

circuits and combine some of the~ 

external serve functions into the ECU. 

Provide for mass producticn facilities 

of the major components. Include the 

major valves as manufactured Items. 

Develop a new cost reduction design 

and Include the balance of the items 

In the manufacturing progr~m. Tool 

up the final mass productfol'i facilities 

for al I components. 

The total Investment for such a facility to produce 5,000,000 

units per year would be $55,000,000, which Includes launching 

costs arid equlpme.it costs. Ove!" $1!,300,000 would be expended 

for tooling the nozzles. 

130 

RATH A STRONG 

INCDl"DIATID 
T•b 1 e 1 - OC::M COSTS--8-CYLINOER SYSTEM 

Indus tr)'.'. Estimates Projected Estimates 

Quantity 5 K 200 K soa K 1, 000 K 5,000 K 

Injectors $ 56.00 $ '10.00 $ 32.00 $ 29.25 $ 23.74 

0 Sensor'" 2 

6.00 4.50 2.36 2. 16 1. 75 

ECU 75.00 45.00 45.00 41. 13 33.39 

Air Temperature 1. 75 1.75 1. 25 1. 14 . 93 

H2o Temperature 1. 75 1. 75 '3. 25 1. 14 . 93 

Throttle Switc:h 3.00 3.00 2.30 2. 11) 1. 71 

Fuel Pump Assembly 15. 00 15.00 12.00 10. 97 8.90 

Fuel Pressure Regulator 3.00 2.90 l.57 2.35 1. 91 

Fast Idle Valve 5.00 3. 51 2.00 1. 83 1. 48 

Throttle Body 1 O. OC1 8.78 5.00 4.57 3. 71 

Air Solenoid Valve 4.00 3.25 2.00 1. 83 1. 50 

Fuel Filter 3.50 2.00 1. 00 . 91 . 74 

Fuel Rail 13.50 6.00 5.00 4.57 3. 71 

Speed Sensor 1. so 1. 00 .75 . 69 . 56 

Intake Manifold 

Wiring Hairness 25. 20 10.00 5.00 4.57 3. 71 

$219.20 $148.44 $119.'48 $109.21 $ 88.67 

*Normal 1y used with three-way catalyst systems only. 

131 

RATH A STRONG 
The sticker prtc:e contribution for feedback controlled 

EFI systems lnsulled In various size vehicles and engines 

at a production volume of ~,000,000 un I ts wou 1 d be: 

Vehicle C:! 1 • CID IHS. Cost Markup Sticker Price 

Sub:ompact 4 - 140 $76.80 1. 8 $138.oo 

Compact 6 - 25 0 82.97 2.0 166.00 

Standard 8 - 350 88.67 2.2 195. 00 

When making comparisons to feedback control!eci carbureted 

systems for these same engines, the control valves, sensors, 

and feedback controls must be Included. Also, a more 

sophisticated carburetor, valued at $18 to $24 manufacturing 

costs, has to be considered. The author has tr~ated the delta 

costs to achieve several levels of emissions. When making 

comparisons of feedback controlled EFI anJ carbureted systems, 

to achieve the same levels of emissions, the cost deltas are 

not significantly different at the vehicle sticker price level, 

132 

RATH 4 STRONG 

lllCGll'GU.TtD 
I-' 

\,j 

F\JEL INJECTOR 

(4 REQ'O) 

,., 

'--J ISSUED AS OF 8/t.l/12 

t
""" "" .po 

EFI SYSTEM 

TRIGGER START 

UNIT 

-

M.A.P. 

- 

... 

-

.... 

SENSOR CONTROL 

-

-

- UNIT 

- 

.. 

IGNITION 

,_ 

j I j L 

SWITCH r----1------ ____ ------t--- _ I 

DECEL THR01TLE .AIR I I __... I

TEMP -- .SENSOQ. 

SENSOR -. 

·rH ROTTLE BODY 

l=AST COMBUSl.ION 

TEMP - IDLE AJR CONTROL --

SENSOR VALVE· VALVE 

i_ ___________________ _J 
Electronic Control Unit 

The Electronic Contrell Unit Is the heart of the EFI system. 

Its function Is to deliver fuel to the engine at• rate which 

Is • function of continuously measured engln~ Input and output 

parameter!. The current production model ECU also provides 

fuel 1lump power control, engine start auzitrary alir controlo 

ancl exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) cm/off control. 

The circuit design architecture of the Electronic Control 

Unit, relies on several production technologies. Four custom 

bipolar Integrated circuits lmpl;;;ment the con~ control l•w 

function th•t ls commun to ell ECU calibrations. These circuits 

are contained on a ceramic thick-film substrate modul~. Un 1 q ue 

circuit functions are Implemented using standard bipolar 

integrated circuits and discrete components. Thick-film laser 

trimmed passive resistor networks are incorporated to realize 

base calibration, and each Individual production unit ts final 

trimmed to meet performance speclficatJons. Addltlon•l components 

Include the Intake manlfo~d pressure sensor, two power relays, 

and a custom hard mounted connector. All components are mounted 

on two printed circuit boards, which are conformal coated for 

environmental protection. 

The Electronic Control Unit ls Installed In the passenger 

compartment behind the dash panel. It ls des!qned to function 

at a m~xrmum temperature of 185°F (Bs 0 c). In the current 

productlor1 model, no attempt was made to maximize compactness; 

rather, functional and callbri.tlon flexibility were deliberately 

designed Into the unit to accommodate anticipated changes and 

improvements which were Indeed made during the development stage. 

135 

RATH A STRONl3 

INCl:llflDIATID 
Sensors 

Intake 1N1nlfold 1bf.Olute pressure Is me11ured with 1n ac:curac:y of!:. 1 percent, 

using an 1nerold, linear variable differential transfon:ner senSJOr device. This 

sensor Is mounted on the ECU printed circuit board to Implement concurrent 

calibration of senior 11nd ECU 11nd to lnc:i-ease reliability t;;y minimizing the 

number of electrical connection:i between th~ se·nsor and the computing circuits. 

Engine speed Is sensed using two magnetic reed switches mounted on the 

Ignition distributor casting, .11djacent ~o the drive shaft. Installed on the 

drive shaft ls a magnet assembly. This sen"K>r provides t!ngine phasing as 

well as engine speed dtta. 

Engine water temperature and Intake manifold air temperature are sensed 

using a high temperature co~fficient precision resistor, form&!d from nickel 

wire wound on a bobbin, which is epoxy encased .. The sensor output is 

precise and linear over the temperatur~ range encountered. 

Data on throttle position and rate of change of throttle motion are provided by 

a rol,.ting shaft sensor. Mec:hanica! contacts on the shaft slide over a printed 

circuit board on which electric current carrying tracks are mounted. Rotational 

information Is reaii£ed when tracks are crossed H the throttle moves. The 

. discrete voltage levels :£!nscd are processed In.the ECU to yield the required 

data. 

injectors 

The fuel. valving, metering. and atomizing functions are performed by the 

Injectors, which are loated, one for Heh cylinder, in the vicinity of 

the Intake valves. These lnjector1 are essentl1lly solenoid 1ctuated on/off 

136 

RATH 4 STRONG 

lllCDllllUATl:D 
poppet valves lnc:orporating plntles dP.slgned for metering and atomization. 

Since a constant fuel pr~ssure dlffe. ·entlal Is maintained across; the Injector, 

the rate of fuel delivery Is proportional to the Injector open lime. which 

varl1es from 2.5 to 10 milliseconds. 

Air Flow Calculating Versus; Air' Flow Sensing EFI Systems 

The~ first gen1~ratlon of Bosch EFI systems were called the D-Jetronlc:, where 

D stands for Druck, which means pressure In German. This name Is derived 

from the fact that one of the main inputs to this syt~ Is intake manifold 

pressure. In this system the fut:I loop consists of the fuel pump, the fuel 

filter, and the fuel pressure regulator. With c;onstant fuel pressure applied 

to the injectors, the amount ol fuel Injected on a per stroke basis is pro!lOrtional 

to the timing of the regulator which can be contr~lled. Air flow c:an be 

calculated using displacement, engine speed and manifold density, and the 

desired air/fuel ratio can be obtained by changing the injector on time. 

The next generation of Bosch EFI system was the L-Jetronic syuem, where 

L stands foi- t.'uftrnengenmessung, which means air flow m~asurement in German. 

In this system the fuel loop Is basically the 5ame as In the 0-Jetronlc system 

l!xc:ept that the fuel pressure regulator Is connected by a hose to the Intake 

manifold so that the fuel pressure Is • function of the manifold pressure and 

the pressure loop across the Injectors Is thus kept constant. 

Also, In this system, tne air fltiw rete·ts mea-suTed by an air 

flow meter wnose moveable measuring plate Is opened by the air 

stream against the force of a spring. The position of the 

me a s u r i n g p I a t e l s s e n s e d by a po t e n ti o me t e r,. I t s v o I t a g e I s 

proportional to the volume of ai~ flow and is one of the main 

input signals Into the electronic: control unit. The second 

Input Is en~ .ne speed taken from the distributor. 

137 

RATH 4 STRONG 

UICl:HJIDIATI~ 
'' 

Meuurement of 1lr fki'N Is said by Bosch to exhibit the fellowing 1dv1nta9es. 

1. Compensation of toleranc:es which are due to wear, depo~lts In the 

combustion chamber, or chinges In the valve adjustments. 

2. Compensation of engine speed-depE~')dent volumetrJc effic:ienc:y. 

3. No necessity of acceleration enrkhment because the air flow signal 

precedes the filling of the cylinders. 

4. Improved idling stability. 

5. Insensitivity to changes in the exhaust back pressure caused by thermal 

or catalytic reactors. 

6. Insensitivity of the system to ECR because only the fresh air portion 

Is measured. 

Closed Loop/Elec:tronlc Fuel Injection Systems 

the terrri closed loop requl rH some di scusslon. One use ot the term closed 

loop Is to describe adaptive systems where feedback of output directly Influences 

the Input. This is so called extremum seeking adaptive control. Another 1.1se 

of the term closed loop Is ta describe systems where the output is used for error 

correction to some programmed parameter. Curr~t clos@d lcop fuei 

management systems are of this latter type. 

138 

RATH a STRONG 

IMCD•PO•ATED 
3. 

·~ 

''f• 

'{ 

HEAVY DUTY GASOLINE ENGINES 

Standard Carburetor 

The dotailed description• and e11lC"ulatioo11 following this page apply t() pu:ssenger 

c11r parta, reprinted from a previo1;s report EPA - 75 - 002, March, 1976. The 

costs shown therein have been adjusted by U3ing fs.ctora, described later in this 

report, that reflect differences in aize and in manufacturing volume (economy of 

scale) between automobilen and trucks. The EDS used for automobile~ ia 350,000 

per year; for trucks, 50,000. 

The resulting retail price equivalent costs for trucks are shown below. 

Automobile 

Unit Cost 

Material 3.78 

Labor and Overhead b.75 

Equipment 1.58 

Tooling .40 

Weighted EOS Factor 

Carb-1 Carb-2 Carb-3 

x Automobile RPE $22.60 $26.62 $35.15 

= Truck RPE $51. 98 $61. 23 $80. 85 

139 

RATH 4 STFiONG 

EOS 

Factor 

1.3 

2.7 

2.4 

3.4 

2.J 
Standard Carburetor 

The standard carburetor is a complex system of components that provides 

appropriate mixtures of air and fuel to the intake manifold throughout the various 

driving cycles of the vehicle. 

One of these carburetors is the Holley Model 1945. This carburetor is a single 

venturi concentric downdraft carburetor equipped on 225 CID 6-cy 11 nde r 

engines, It consists of th~ following subsystems: 

l. F'uf.l! inlet system 

2. Xdle system 

3. Main Metering system 

4. Power enrichment system 

5. Accelerating pump system 

6. Automatic Choke V~cuum Kick system 

The dual barrel carburetors such as Carters 880 and the Holley 2245 include an 

added subsystem called the idle enrichment system. This carburetor is used on 318-

va CID engines. 

The Carter TQ carburetor is e 4-barrel carburetor designed for 360, 400, and 440 

CID V8 engines. The subsystems include both low and high speed performance 

circuits. Thia carburetor is also designed to incorporate an altitude compensation 

system. Thissystemwillbetreated separately In another section of this 

report. 

140 

RATH & STRONG 

1111:1:im~a1ana 
The bllsic dat4' for 197.5 vehicles a re: 

Carbureto:.- Part No. List Price S Weight lbs. Vehicle 

3830576 $112.00 5.550 Valiant 225 

3830565 79.JS 4.510 Satellite 318 

3830563 87.Z4 6.710 Fury 36L1 

Choke Part No. List Price S Weight lbs. Vehicle 

3830549 $ 10.22 .250 Vali~nt 

3830512 7.Z.5 .190 Satellite 

3751476 12.55 .250 Fury (et al) 

Scurce: Chrysler Data 

The ccsts will be gross estimates since a complete analysis involves estimating 

between 100 to 230 components. 

These carburetors provide an interface subsystem for EGR systems. 

141 

RATH 4 STRONG 

INCa• .. ariAn:D 
Standard Carburetor 

Menuf ecturlng Costs 

Bill of Materiel 

Material Labor Labor Manufacturing 

Materiel Weight Costs £!!!!! Overhead Costs Re

Carburetor 1 4.510 

Primary Parts Alum. 4.014 2.4084 J.5000 1.4000 7.3084 

Secondary Parts .496 .0992 .4000 .1600 .6592 

;u 

Total 2.5076 J.9000 1.5600 7.9676 

ii I Carburetor 2 5.500 

n ...... 

0 .. • .. N Primary Parts Alum • 4.895 2.9370 4.2000 1.6800 8.0170 0 en • Secondary Perts ,.. .... .605 .1210 .5000 .2000 .8210 

.. 

.. 

0 :u ----

0 Total J.0580 4.7000 1.8600 9.6380 z 

Q 

Carburetor 4 6.710 

Primary Parts Alum. 5.472 J.2822 5.2500 2.1000 10.6322 

Intermediate Pts Phenolic .500 .3500 .3000 .1200 .7700 

Secondary Parts Steel .738 .1476 .7000 .2000 1.1276 

Total J. 7798 6.2500 2.5000 12.5298 

Choices Steel .250 .050 .3500 ,1400 .5400 
Standard Carburetor 

Tooling Costs 

Amortization Per Piece 

12 Veer 

1 Year 3 Year Machinery 12 Year l-10 Veer 

Economic Recurring Nonrecurring and Launching Land and 

Part Volume Tooling Equipment Costs Building 

.1000 .2000 1.0000 .1000 

:u Carburetor 1 1,000,000 100,000 

)> 

600,000 12,000,000 1,200,000 

i I .1000 • 133 3 1.0000 • 062 5 n 1--' a 

• +:- • vi Carburetor 2 2,000,000 200,000 800,000 24,000,000 1,500,000 

a (4) • .. -I o4 

.. 

a :u 

0 

z .1500 .2500 l.5000 "0833 

Ii> Carburetor 4 2,000,000 J00,000 1,500,000 36,000,000 2,000,000 
' • 

Materiel Labor 

Costs Costs 

:0 Carburetor l 2.5076 3.9000 

> -4 

i I 

n 

.... a Ill • .p 

a 

.. .p Carburetor ?. J.058i) 4.7000 (A • > -4 "4 

.. 

G :0 

0 

z Carburetor 4 J.7798 6.2500 Ci) 

Standard Carburetor 

Total Manufe.cturing Costs 

Plant Tooling 

Plant Mfg. 

Overhead Costs Exp. Inv. 

1.5600 7.9676 .JOOO 1.100 

1.8800 9.6380 .2333 1.0625 

2.5000 12.5298 .4000 1.5833 

Corp. Cor

Alloc. Pro

.20 MC .20M

1.59}5 1.59

1.9276 1.92

2.5060 i.50
\ 

,, 145 
Standard Carburetor 

Retail Price Equivalent at the Vehicle Level 

Tools 

Vendor and Alloc. Profit Markup Price 

Part Costs R&O Equip. .20VC• .20VC• .40VC• Equivalent 

Carb l 12.5546 2.5109 2.5109 5.0218 22.5983 

Carb 2 Pi. 7890 2.9578 2.9578 5.9l56 26.6202 

Carb 4 19.5250 3.9050 3.9050 7.8100 35. 1450 

146 - RATH A STRONG 
StSl'lderd Carburetor 

Cost Comparison to Aftermarket Selling Prices 

Using the aftermarket price-s and the discount data we can make the following 

comparison to the me 1facturing cost estimates. 

List Price 

Carb l 

Carb 2 

Carb 4 

79.35 

87.24 

112.00 

Standard Carburetor 

Cost Methodology 

i Discount 

l/~_ 1/5 

19.84 

21.81 

28.00 

15.87 

17.65 

22.40 

Estimates 

Vendor Cost 

12.. s 5 

14.79 

19.52 

RPE 

22.. 60 

26.62 

35. 14 

The weight and selling price data were obtaln~d from Chrysler engineering 

data and sal~s catalogs. 

The costs are estimates based on judgment. The estimates are not supported by 

detail costs of each component. Therefore, these estimates are gross estimates 

using weight data and material type selections. 

Standard Carburetor 

Applications 

As stated previol.'sly, the l, 2, &: 4 barrel carburetors are usually associated with 

225 CID, 318 CID, 360 CID and over engines. In. recent years, d om r 4 barre 1 

applications have been replaced by 2. barrel carburetors. 

The altitude compensation and electronic: feedback subsystems have been treated 

separately. 

147 

RATH Ill. STRONG 
HEAVY DUTY GASOLINE ENGINES 

3a Carburetor Modification For Altitude 

The detaHed descriptions and calculations following this page apply to paaaenger 

car perts, reprinted frorTI e previous report EPA - 78 - 002, March, 1978. The 

cost.a shown therein have been adjusted by using factors, descrbed leter ln this 

report, that reflect differ~nces in size and in manufacturing volume (economy of 

scale) between automobiles and trucks. The EOS used for automobiles is 350,000 

per year; for trucks, 50,000. 

The resulting retail price equivalent costs for trucks are shown below. 

Automubile 

Unit Cost 

Material .272 

Labor and Overhead 1.629 

Equipment .080 

Tooling .182 

Weighted EOS Factor 

x Automobile Retail Price Equivalent 

= Truck Retail Price Equivalent 

148 

RATH 4 STRONG 

INCD•P'DlllATU 

EDS 

Factor 

1.3 

2.7 

2.4 

3.4 

2.6 

$5.58 

$14.51 
Carburetor Modifications for Altitude Compensation 

In order to maintain the appropriate fuel/air mixture while under the infiuence of a 

thin atmosphere, a main system altitude compensation circuit has been incorporated into the design of the Thermo-Quad carburetor for most California models. 

The modi fi.:::ation affects the primary metering sy,tems as follows: 

A small cylindrical bellows chamber mounted on the front of carburetor, is vent~d 

directly to atmosphere. Atmospheric pressure changes expands or contracts the 

bellows. A small brass tapered-seat valve regulates air flow when it is raised off 

its seat by the expanding bellows. A amall spring is positioned on top of the 

tapered valve between the valve and housing. The function of the spring isi to help 

maintain the valve in the closed position when the system is exposed to a marginal 

pressure head (one which is neither sufficient to hold the valve at the proper 

altitude), and to mechanical vibrations which would tend to unseat the valve during 

the above condition. When the appropriate environment is encountered and ~xtra 

air is required, (as determined by the bellows) it is supplied to the primary main ~ir 

bleeds through a calibrated orifice that meters the proper amount of air to the air 

bleed. 

The system operates as follows: Some time curing engine operation a thin 

atmosphere is encountered, producing an increasingly rich ruel/air mixture. At a 

mechanically pre-determined point the bellows begin to expand allowing additional 

air to enter the main air bleeds. The auxiliary air, coupled with the present air 

source, provides the system with the proper amount of air necessary to maintain 

the correct fuel/air mixture. The system supplies varying amounts of additional air 

depending upon different altitudes. When sufficient atmospheric pressure is again 

restored, the valve closes and the system returns to its normal mode of operation. 

149 

RATH 4 STRONG 

lllCDaf'DIATIED 
CARBURETOR MODIFlCA TIONS F"OR ALTITUDE COMPENSA TJON 

150 

RATH 4 STRONG 
, ' ' 

i 

n 

a 

• .. 

a 

• "' ... .. 

a 

:u 

> -f 

I 

...... " V1 ...... (I! 

-f 

;a 

0 

z 

Cl) 

Part Material 

Altitude Comp. 

Asm. 

Carburetor Mod 

Aneroid Copper 

Valve Steel 

Cup Steel 

V.alve f-lsg. Alum 

Hardware 

Total 

Carburetor Modificaitons for Altitude Compensation 

Manufacturing Costs BHI of Material 

Material Labor Labor Manuf acturlng 

Weight Costs Costs Overhead Costs 

.400 - .1250 .0500 .175fJ 

.100 .0600 .2500 .1000 .4100 

.120 .0960 .2500 .1000 .4460 

.050 .0100 .1250 .0500 .1850 

.050 .0100 .0625 .0250 .0975 

.150 .0900 .3500 .1400 .5800 

.030 .0060 .0010 .0004 .0074 

1.9009 
.. A;W . 

Carburetor Modifications for Altitude Compensation 

Tooiing Costs Amortization Per Piece 

12 Year 

1 Vear 3 Veer Machinery 12 Year 40 Veer Am

Economic Recurring Nonrecurring and Launching Land and 

Part Volume Toolinq Tooling_ Equipment Costs Building Per 

.0100 .0100 .0020 .0002 

Alt. Comp. Asm. 1,000,000 10,000 30,000 24,000 24,000 - •.I 0

.0200 .0200 .0200 .0020 

:u Carburetor Mod 1,000,000 20,000 60,000 240,000 240000 - .0

) 

... .0300 .0300 .0100 .0010 

n 

; :I Aneroid 1,000,000 J0,000 90,000 120,000 12,000 - .

lo-' a 91 ....,, 

.. • N .0100 .0100 .0100 .0010 D UI • > ... Valve 1,000,000 10,000 30,000 120,000 12,000 - .O

... .. 

a ll 

0 

z .0100 .0100 .0100 .0010 

c:> Cup 1,0()0,000 10,000 J0,000 120,000 12,000 - .0

.0300 .OJOO .0200 • 0020 

Valve Hsg. l,OU0,000 JO,OOU 90,000 240,0DO 2!1 ,ooo - • 0

.0010 .0010 .0010 .O'lOl 

Hardware 10,000,000 10,000 30,000 l21J,OOO 12,000 - .0

Total :1

Hescarch &. Development - per year for J years for 1,000,000 units per yeAr - • 2S per ca
JJi.$£1$@£#4iWJKM# g 

·----

Carburetor Modifications for AltituJe Compensation 

Total Manufacturing Costs 

Tooling Corp. Corp. 

Plant Mfg. Alloc. Prom 

Part Moterial Labor Overhead Costs Inv. .ZOMC• .20MC• 

Alt. Comp. Asm. - .1250 .0500 .1750 .0200 • 0022 .OJSO 

:u Cerburetor Mod .0600 .2500 .1000 .4100 .0400 .0220 .0820 .062C 

)> Aneroid .0960 .2500 .1000 .4460 .0600 .0110 .0892 .0892 

... ii J: Valve .0100 .1250 .0500 .1850 .0200 .ouo .OJ70 .0370 

n D f-' • l.r. • l..N Cup .0100 .0625 .0250 .0975 .0200 .0110 .0195 

D UI • .. 

.... 

Valve Hsg. .0900 .3500 .1400 .SBOO .0600 .0220 .1160 .1160 

.. .. a lJ 0 

z Hardware .0060 .0010 .0004 .0074 .0020 .0011 .0015 .0015 

Ii) 

-

T.1tal . 272 1.6289 . rnz .OU03 
Part 

Alt. Comp.Asm. 

·-· Carburetor Modi ficalion for Altitude Compensation 

Retail Price Equivalent at the Vehicle Level 

Plant Tools Corp. Corp. Dealer 

Vendor and Alice. Profit Markup 

Costs R&D Egu~ .20VC* .20VC* .40VC* 

2.9636 .2500 .5927 • 592 7 1.1854 

154 

RATH 4 STRONG 

lll~DllPOllATID 

Vehicle 

Retail 

Price 

Eguivalent 

5.5844 
Carburetor Modification for Altitude Compenstion Cost Comparison 

to Aftermarket Selling Prices 

The only data obtainable for the delta incr!ase in carburetor aftermarl.:et selling 

prices is to compare the California 1977 system with the 49 state carburetor 

system. 

The 2 barrel carburetor prices show a delta of about $20 or abuut $5.00 if the 1/4 

discount is used. -:-tie manufacturing/vendor estimate is $2. 9636 and the RPE is 

$ 5 ~ 5 84 4. Since we do not know what the delta price includes this comparison is not 

conclusive. 

Carburetor Modification for Altitude Compensation Cost Methodology 

Using the Chrysler sketch the unit weight of the components was estimated. The 

matE:rials are also estimated. The costs are based on an ecomony of scale of 

1,000,000 units per year. 

Carburetor MoJ::lification f~r Altitude Compensation Applications 

It can be assumed that the altitude compensation system will be similar for 1, Z, 

and 4 barrel carburetors. The costs per system might be slightly less but not 

significant for this study. 

155 

RATH A STRONG 

INCCOCU.TED 
HEAVY DUTY GASOLINE ENGINES 

3b Carburetor Modification for Feedback Control 

The detailed descriptions and ct>lculationa following this page apply to passenger 

car parts, reprinted from a previous report EPA - 78 - OOZ, March, 1978. The 

costs shown therein have biren adjusted by usillQ factors, described later in l~is 

report, that refiect differences in size and In manufacturing volume (economy of 

BC'!:ile) between automobiles and trucks. The EDS used for automobiles is 350,000 

per year; far trucks, 50,0IJO. 

The resulting retail price equivalent costs for trucks ere shown below. 

Material 

Labor and Overhead 

Equipment 

Tooling 

Automobile 

Unit Cost 

.87 

2.00 

.10 

.26 

Weighted EDS Factor 

X Automobile Retail Price Equivalent 

EOS 

Factor 

1.3 

2.7 

2.4 

3.4 

2.4 

$8.17 

= Truck Retail Price Equivalent $19.61 

156 

RATH A STRONG 

llllCDH•oa .. Tl:D 
t 

Carburetor Modifications for Feedback Control 

The pictorial schematic in Figure Z shows the system elements of tile basic system. 

The Dz sensor, located in the exhaust stream between the engine and the catalyst, 

produces a voltage of about BOO millivolts in the absence of oxygen in the exhaust. 

This voltage decreases to zero as the oxygen in the exhaust stream increases from 0 

to 1!%. 

The voltage signal from the sensor is the prime control input to the electronic control 

lSlit which provides a square wave output signal of constant frequency, but of variable 

band width depending on the o

2 sensor voltage. The ECU is designed so that at low 

values of oxygen in the exhaust (highest level of sensor voltage output), the output 

signal band width is the greate.st. Conversely, as the oxygen concentration increases 

in the exhaust and the sensor voltage decreases, the band width decreases. 

This variable width output signal operates the vacuum control valve, which serves to 

modulate the vacuum that is applied to the carburetor from the vacuum storage 

canister. Because the "on time" of the valve is a function of Oz sensor signal, the 

modulated vacuum resulting from variable "on time" is also a function of o2

• 

The sensor shows the two systems in the carburetor that are controlled by the 

moddated vacuum. The iclie system is controlled by providing a variable air bleed 

parallel with the normal air bleed to control idle metering forces. 

Control of the main system is accomplished by varying the fuel orifice in parallel 

with the main metering jet. This construction is a refinement of today's power 

enrichment system. 

In operation, when a high vacuum is applied to the carburetor, it will tend to meter 

lean. This is accomplished when the !IOlenoid has a high percent.age of "on" time. 

Conversely, when the solenoid is off or operating at a low "on" time level, the control 

vacuum is low and the carburetor metering will enrichen. 

157 

RATH 4 STRONG 
HOLLEY FEEDBACK CARBURETOR ENGINE 

VACUUM OONTROL VALVE 

- -··---· 

,. ;... -- l 

WOT SENSOR ____ t il:t"* .----w 

:u 

> 

... 

i I 

n 

D It ...... • V1 .. OJ 

a Ill • .. 

.. -t 

.. 

G :u 

0 

z 

G> 

PATENT PENDING Ut76 HOLLEY CARBURETOR DIVIS

: j 
Carh11retor Mmfificalions for Feedback Control Unit 

TOOLING COSTS 

Amortization per Piece 

Economic 1-Yeor J-Year Non 12-Yeer 

Volume Recurring Recurring Machinery 

Part Per Year Tooling Tooling Equipment 

.0500 .0500 .0200 

Mod Carb Assy l,000,000 50,000 150,000 240,000 

:u .0500 .0500 .O'JOO 

lio Mod Carb 1,000,000 50,000 150,000 600,000 -f 

i :I 

n .0050 .0050 .0010 

...... a at \J1 f Ix Idle Bleed 1,000,000 5000 15,000 12,000 • .. '° a UI • .. .0100 .0100 .0100 -f 

... 

.. :u Idle FB Valve 1,000,000 10,000 J0,000 120,000 a 

0 

z .0100 .0100 .0100 

Ii) f"B Main Valve 1,000,000 10,000 30,000 120,000 

.0050 .0050 .0010 

Conti Vee Conn 1,000,000 5000 15,000 12,000 

Total • 1300 .IJOO • 092 0 

H&O - JOO, 000/yeur for J years for l ,OOO, OUU uniis/ptf "' $. 30/unit 

12-Year 

Launching 

Costs 

.0020 

24,000 

.0050 

60,000 

.. 0001 

1200 

.0010 

12,000 

.0010 

12,000 

.0001 

12,000 

• 00 92 

40-Yea

Lend & 

Buildin
Carburetor Modifications for Feedback Control Unit 

TOT AL MANUF' ACTURING COSTS 

Plant 

Plant Mfg .20/MC 

Over- Costs Tooling Corp. 

Part Mat Labor Head (MC) Exp. Inv. Costs 

F.B. Carburetor .8700 1.4250 • 5700 2.8650 .2600 • 1 0 12 .5730 

Carburetor Modifications for Feedback Control Unit 

RETAIL PRICE EQUIVALENT AT THE VEHICLE LEVEL 

Part 

FB Carburetor 

Vendor 

Costs 

(VC) 

4. 3 722 

R&:D 

.3000 

Tools 

and 

Equip 

160 

Corp 

Allocation 

.zo vc 

.874'4 

RATH 4 STRONG 

Corp 

Profit 

.20 vc 

.8744 

Dealer 

Markup 

.40 VC 

1 • 7 4 89 

.20/MC Mfg/ 

Corp. Vend 

Profit Cost: 

.5730 4. 3 722 

RPE 

Vehicle 

Level 

8.1700 
Cart:uretor Modification for Feedback Control Unit 

COST COMr-·ARISON TO AFTERMARKET SELLING ~ICES 

No afte~rmarket selling prices are available for a feedback carburetor. 

An estimated aftermarket delta might be: 4 x (VC Costs)= 4 x ( VC Cos ts) • 

4 x 4.37. $17.49. 

Carburetor Modification for Feedback Control Unit 

COST METHODOLOGY 

Since we are dealing with a delta change for the carburetor modifications to provide 

feedback capabilities, all the costs are based on assumptions. 

The weight and cost data are estimates based on judgments using the Chrysler 

sketches. 

Carburetor Hodlfication for Feedback Control Unit 

APPLICATIONS 

The feedback carburetor Is associated with the 3-way catalysts 

systems. The applications to various engi~es Is similar 

to the design riresented by Holley. 

161 

RATH & STRONG 

INCDIPDIATIED 
;u 

-i 

r J: I-' 

n 

D ""' CJ'\ 

.. • "" N 

D UI 

: -i 

;; :0 

0 

z 

FEEDBACI( CARBURETOR SCHEMATIC DRA

FEEDBACK CONTROLLED 

IDLE AIR BLEED 

Ci> r /I \ / /18 Ill/ / /I V /1 r. I /1 MAIN M

FEEDBA

MAIN S
IE - HE.A. VY DUTY GASOLINE ENGINES 

l. Electronic Control Unit (Microprocessor) 

The detailed descriptions Bild calculations following this page apply to passenger 

car parts, reprinted from a previous report EPA - 78 - 002, March, 1978. The 

costs shewn therein have been adjusted by using factors, desCTibed later in this 

report, that reflect differences in size and in manufacturing volume (economy of 

scale) between automobiles and trucks. The EOS used for automobiles is 350,000 

per year; for trucks, 50,000. 

The resulting retail price equi ... s.lent costs for trucks are 9h:Jwn below. 

Automobile 

Unit Cost 

Material 18.00 

Labor and Overhead 21.70 

Equipment 

Tooling .09 

Weighted EOS Factor 

x Automobile Retail Price Equivalent 

= Truck Retail Price Equivalent 

163 

RATH A STRONG 

EOS 

Factor 

1.3 

2.7 

2.4 

3.4 

2.1 

$101. 21 

$212.54 
Electr-onic Contr-ol Unit (with sensor Inputs for controlling modula:;.!:d 

AIR. modulated ECR, modulated A/F, and-'Tloduiated spark adva~c.«::) 

Electronic Cont:-ol Unit 

MANUF'ACTURit·..:G COSTS 

Bill of Material 

Mat 

Costs Mfg. 

Part Purch. Labor Overhead Costs 

ECU Assy 15.50 6.200 Zl.70 

Power Transistor 2.00 2.00 

Rectifier 1.00 1.00 

T2L 14 Pin DIP 2.00 2.00 

Low Power Trans • 80 .80 

Signal Trans 2.00 2.00 

Carbon Resist .80 .80 

Capacitor 2.00 2.00 

Ceramic Resistor .50 • 50 

PC Boards 2.00 2.00 

Conn and Pins 1.00 1.00 

Press Transducer 1.00 1.00 

Outer Shell 1.00 1.00 

Other 1.90 1.90 

Totals 18.00 15.50 6.20 39.70 

Based on current technology- -not on LSI technology- -LSI technology would probably 

be 30 to 50% less. 

164 

RATH & STRONG 

Test 
' n 

n . , 

[ledronic Conl rnl Unit 

TOOL li\IG COS TS 

Amor ti zat ion per Pie ct! 

Economic 1-Year 3-Yenr Non 12-Year 12-Yeor 40-Year 

Volume Recurring Recurring Machinery Launchir.g Land & 

Part Per Year Tooling Toolinq Equipment Costs Buildings 

ECU Unit 2,ono,000 

.0100 

20,000 

.0100 

60, [][JO 

• nr.2 5 

l , SOD, Ollll 

.006?.. 

150,000 

Am
Electronic Control Unit 

TOTAL MANUFACTURING COSTS 

Mfg. Corp. Corp. P!ar.t/ 

Mat. Labor Over- (MC) .20MC .20MC Vendor 

Costs Costs Head Costs Tooling Allee Profit Co:; ts 

ECU 18.00 15.50 6.20 39.70 .0887 7.940 7.940 55.67 

21.70 

R &: D - 2,000,000/year for 3 years for 2,000,000/year • 1.0~00 R&D per vehicle. 

166 

RATH A STRONG 
Electr1Jnic Control Unit 

RETAIL PRICE EQUIV ALE NT AT THE VEHICLE LEVEL 

Vendor/ Vehicle 

Mfg. Tools Corp Corp Dealer Retail 

Costs and Allocation Profit Markup Price 

(VC) R&D Equip .zo vc .20 vc • 40 vc Equiv . 

ECU Unit 55.67 LOO 11.13 11.!3 22.27 I 0 I~ 2 I 

This es ti mate is based on today's technology. Using learning cu..-ve data from the electronics 

industry, we can assume a 28% cost improvement for every doubled quantity. (Includes LSI 

technology). 

Volume RPE 

2,000,0jO 101.21 

4,000~000 72.87 

8,00J,000 52.47 

16,000,000 37.78 

32,000,000 2 7' 2 0 

167 

RATH A STR:ONG 
Electronic Control Unit 

AFTERMARKET ANALYSIS 

The ECU units are being so!d for $60 to $90 in the aftermarket with the VW unit at 

$222. The discount formula of lo compl·~es the following: 

1/4...Qiscount 

AFT SP $60.00 15.00 (modulator) 

AFT SP 90.GO 25. 00 (Ford modulator) 

AFT SP 222.00 55.50 (VW - ECU) 

Electronic Control Unit 

COST METHODOLOGY 

The material cost data are estimates from a plant visitation. The tooling and 

process data were obtained from the same source. 

16B 

RATH 6 STRONG 

lllC:Ql!"Q8ATlll 
Electronic Control Unit 

COST METHODOLOGY 

126' 196& 1968 197;.? 

2 5 10 20 100 200 500 1,000 2.000 

INDUSTRY'S ACCUMUl..ATEO EXPERIENCE (MIU.IONS Of= UNITS) 

PRJCES OF L'TIGJU TED CTR.Cl lTS !l.•• colll"""ed to .. apmcact tQl"ft commoa to muy lJ>dustri-. dt<Uai•& abou1 :ti p«rcnat witli •d1 doublia& ol UH Lochatry'I cumulatlu apa1•an (• 

169 

meuurtod lty die nmber el wll produced). It ii tht particularly l"llPld sro· '111 °' ta• 111lcrod1tc1ro1R.it.1 i.iid mtry that h.u madt th~ 1"1111 of 

If Kllil • Ill pric 1111 ap p car lo l>e ~er I.baa tllc l"&f c ia otll « 1.Dch.11tri a 

RATH & STRONG 
Fig. 1 Operational Flow Diagram 

Operation 

Incoming (10) 

Inspection 

Board 1 Board 2 

Automatic 

Component insertion ( i S) 

Individual semi-automatic 

insertion or pow-er I ~emi -

conductor & iC's (7) 

Flow Solder (2) 

1st unit test (parts test) 

antj print out for trouble 

shoot (2) 

2nd unit test 

(functiona I) (2) 

Laser trim of ceramic resistol"' 

(trim to functional performani:e 

& tro•Jbl e Slhoot) (4) 

Automatic potting (4} 

Post pat test (2) 

ECU Assembly (6) 

Test (2) 

Burn in (2) 

Te: st (2) 

Rack ~Ship (2) 

170 

RATH & STRONG 

Remarks 

100\ temperature test 

of all semiconductors 

about SO parts per board, 1 

part per station 

Silicone 

as 0 c 

Ss 0 c 8 hrs 

Total production operators 

per shift (63) 

+undefined of 12 = 75 total 
Test Equipment Estimate 

Incoming Inspection 

1st unit test - P3rts 

2nd u~it test 

Laser resister term 

Post potting test 

Burn in racks & 

test monitor 

Total unit test 

171 

Table I 

6 units ill 40K each $lQO, ooo 

2 units at 40K BO, 000 

2 units plus computer 100,0CO 

1 unit 1s;ooo 

2 units at 25K 50,000 

4 at 30, 000 120.000 

1 at 30, 000 30,000 

695,000 

+undefined 305,000 

1,000,000 

RATH & STRONt3 
Table II 

Estimated Production Equipment 

Automaiic: pal"'ts Insertion 

Parts Insertion transport line 

Automatic Potting line 

Flow Soldex Machin~ 

(2 parallel lines In 1 machine) 

Special sotepplng, assembly stations 

172 

100 e 1000 each 

2 i)20,000 

1 Ii) so, 000 

other und~fined 

~ATH 4 STRONG 

100.000 

Q0,000 

50, 000 

30,000 

100.000 

320,000 

180,tl~ 

500,000 
Electron Control Unit 

APPLICATIONS 

The variations in costs of ECU units wl I! be deperident on the 

number of cylinders. The deltas will not be significant at this 

stage of technology. 

173 

RATH & STRONG 
IF - SENSORS, HEAVY DUTY GASOLINE ENGINES 

l. Oxygen Sensor 

The detailed descriptiona and calculations following thla page apply to passenger 

cir parts, reprinted from a previous report EPA - 76 - 002, March, 1978. The 

costs st-own therein have been adjusted by using factors, described later in this 

report, that reflect differences in size and in manufacturing volume (economy of 

scale) between eutomobllea and trucks. The EDS used for automobiles ia 350,000 

per year; for trucks, 50,000. 

The resulting retail price equivalent costs for trucks are shown below. 

Automobile 

Unit Cost 

Material .484 

Labor and Overhead .131 

Equipment .090 

Tooling .033 

Weighted EDS Factor 

x Automobile Retail Price Equivalent 

= Truck Retail Price Equi\Jalent 

17/i 

RATH 4 STRONG 

lllCDU•D•ATIU 

EDS 

Factor 

1.3 

2.. 7 

2.4 

3.4 

1.8 

$2.70 

$5.00 
The oxygen sensor !s an essential component of most 

three-way catalyst systems and ls used to maintain 

z control of air-fuel ratio at or near stoichiometric. 

With most catalysts, this "window11 for effective 

performance is exceedingly narrow, being the order 

of+ o. 1 A/F ratic. units. The oxygen sensor provides 

a feedback loop to an electronic control unit. 

175 

RATH & STRONG 
- 176 

LU 

0 

z 

UJ 

CL Cf. 

LUU... <l: 

w 

a: 

V) 

L!J 

0 

0 c_y• 

' -.-@ 

...J 

UJ 
Oxygen Sensor 

BILL OF MATERIAL 

Labor 

Mat Over- Mfg 

Part Material Weight Costs Labor Head Costs RE'ference 

Oxygen Sensor Ass em . 100 . 0312 . 0125 . 0437 Bendix 

Air Inlet Brass .020 . :noo . 0156 .0062 .0418 

Insulator Plastic .015 . 0150 . 0078 . 0031 • ~2 59 

Nut. Body Brass .oso . 0500 . 0156 .0062 • 0 71 8 

Electrodes Copper .ODS • 01 co .0078 . 003, . 0209 

Zirconium Dioxide Zr02 .010 .0500 . 0078 . 0031 .0609 

Platinum Platin .000016 .0397 .0078 . 0031 .0506 See RHF 2 '77 

Total . , 84 7 . 0936 . 03 '73 

Hose . 100 . j 00 . 1000 

Electric Wire & .200 .200 .2000 

Insulator 

Total Oxygen • 3 1 ; 6 

Vehicle Assem .0312 . 0125 . 0 ij3 7 

Encine Modification .0625 .0250 .0875 ECU Unit 

Total Vehicle .7468 

I nsta 11 at ion 

177 

RATH & STRONG 
System--Toollng Costs--Amorllzatlon f•er Part 

1 Year 3 Year Non- 12 Year 12 Year qo Ye

Economic Recurring Recurring Machinery Launching Land 

Part Volume Tooling Tooling - & Equip Costs Buildi

.0100 .OGSO .0020 . 0002 - 

Oxygen Sensor s.000,000 so.ooo 75.000 120.000 12.000 

. 001.0 .0040 .0020 . 0002 

Air Inlet 5,000,000 20,000 60,000 120,000 12,000 

. ooqo .0040 .0020 . 0002 

Insulator 5,000,000 20,000 60,000 120,000 12.000 

. 0100 . 0100 .0040 .0004 

Nut-Body 5,000,000 50,000 150,000 ZLI0,000 24,000 

.0020 .0020 . 0010 . 0001 

Electroc!es 5,000,000 w, ooc; 30,000 60,or.o 6,000 

.0020 .0020 .0010 • 0001 

ZrO 5,000,000 10,000 30,000 60,000 6,000 

-..J 2 

c:c . 0100 .0100 .OOLIO . 0004 

Platinum 5,000,000 50,000 150,000 240,000 24,000 

Total . 0420 .0370 . 0160 .0016 

.DOLIO .0017 .0025 • 0002 

Hose 5,000,000 20,000 25,000 150,000 15,000 

.00110 • Oil I 7 .0025 • 0002 

Electric 5,000,000 20,000 25,000 150,000 15,000 

Total 

• 016 7 .0333 .0056 . 0006 

Vehicle Assem 300,000 5,000 30,000 20,000 2,000 

• 0333 .0222 • 0083 ,0006 

Engine Modification 300,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 2,000 

Total Vehicle Systems 

R&D $600, 000 for 3 years, or . 67 per vehicle for engineering development. 
Oxygen Sensor System 

TOTAL MANUFACTURING COSTS 

Plant Plant .20 MC Mfg/ 

Over- Mfg Tooling .20 MC Corp Vendor 

Part Mat Labor Head Costs Exp. Inv. Corp Profit Costs 

Oxygen Sensor . 184 7 . 0936 .0374 0 3 157 .0790 . 0176 .0631 • 0 6 3 1 • 5 38 5 

Hose . 100 . 1000 .OJ57 .0027 .0200 .0200 • 1 4 84 

Electric .200 .2000 .oo;z • 0 ~2 z .0400 . 0400 • 2 88 4 

Total Ststem • ~ 7;; 

179 

RATl"'i A STRONG 
Oxygen Sensor Sy!tem 

Plant 

Vendor 

Part Costs 

Oxygen Sensor •. s 3 8 5 

Hose .1484 

Electric .2884 

Vehicle Assem . 0437 

Engine Mod . 0875 

Total Vehicle 

Price Equivalent 

RETAIL PRICE EQUIVALENT 

AT THE VEHICLE LEVEL 

Tools Corp Corp 

& Allee Profit 

R&D Equip .20 VC .20 vc 

• 66 6 7 • I 077 .1077 

.0297 .0297 

.0577 .0577 

• 05 62 . 0087 .0087 

.0644 . 0175 . 0175 

180 

RATH a. STRONG 

Dealer Vehic:le 

Markup Retail Prke 

.40VC Equivalent 

• 215 4 1.6360 

.0594 .2671 

.1154 • 5 1 91 

.0175 • '349 

. 0350 • 2 2 \ 9 

2. 7 7 90 
Oxygen Sensor System 

Cost Comparison to Aftermarket Selling Prices 

Using the afterrnarket selling price:i obt~ined from vc.rious company 

sources and aftermarket discount dat<1, the following analysis is projected: 

Mathey 

Bis hop Mercedes 

M/B M/B 

Oxygen Sensor 6.00 12.00 

Discount 1/4 1. 50 3.00 

Discount 1/ S 1. 40 2.40 

The estimated vendor costs are. 5 3 8 5. The retail price equivalent for 

the valve on the vehicle is 1. 53 60. 

181 

R.ATl-4 & STRONG 

lllCO:OOIATlD 
Oxygen Sensor System 

Cost Methodology 

The weight data was obtained us in; a Chrysler weight 

table for a sp&rk plug. The mat~rial colts are 

compiled using the 1977 AHH mill prices. 

The labor costs are estimates of production costs 

using today's technology and the assumed economies 

of scale. The platinum loading was obtained 'from 

EPA (Mr. Field) computations. The tooling costs are 

estimates of the expendable tools and the machinery 

and equipment required to produce the components. 

The assembly costs and the engine changes were 

Included In the costs at the vehicle level. 

Oxyger: Sensor System 

Applications of the o2 System 

The Bendix and Bosch systems are similar designs. We have assumed 

that this sensor will not vary by engine size although it is possible that 

more than one aensor could be used in an electronically control led 

three-way catalyst system. 

182 

RATM A STRONG 
HEAVY DUTY GASOLINE ENGINES 

2. Spark Knock Sensor 

The detailed descriptions and calculations following this p•.,.ge apply to passenger 

car parts, reprinted from a previous N!port EPA - 78 - 002, March, 1978. The 

costs shown therein have been adjusted by using factors, described later in this 

report, that N!f!ect differences in size and in manufacturing volume (economy of 

scale) between automobiles and trucks. The EDS used for automobiies is 350,000 

per year; for trucks, 50,000. 

The resulting retail price equivalent costs for trucks are shown belcw. 

Weighted EOS Factor 2.1 

Automobile Retail Price Eciuivalent $60 p ~~o 

Truck Retail Price Equivalent $126 p 189 

183 

RATH & STRONG 
Spark Knoch: Sensor (with piezoelectric accelerometer or pickup) 

The data for these systems are very limited at the time of this report. 

Detailed bills of material are not available so only a gross estimate is 

feasible. [tis only a judgement cost estimate based on experience. 

Spark Knock Sensor 

The manufacturing costs of the knock sensor based on the schematic 

drawing indicates that a $40 to $60 cost will be a likely cost. 

The RPE costs including the accelerometer is estimated to be $60 to $90 

per unit. 

No aftermarket data are available at this date. 

Further work is necessary to develop specific cost data. 

184 

RATH a STRONG 
..:I 

0 

Cl: 

~ 0 

u 

~ c.: ..... 0... ... Ill 

t: f, 

~ .... 

-c 

2, ::> 

~I ~I ~! "' I 

iv. 

~ 

KNOCK SENSOR 

(Nonproduction Item) 

... 

~ w 

l.f.I 

w 

~ .,.. 

::> ~ 

~ ~ ~:llC 

~ ~ ~8 

inQ 

IAI 

WCI: 

8 ~ ei:.: 6 w 'J u Q 

rrr 

•' J I I 

..:I ,..l 

<0 

:::~ c.:i 7. .... 0 Cl u 

MW "' ~ :; 

"' -

"" 

v. ~ u Ill ,., ;.-: 

'2 ~ 

en 

...l 

~ 

:z: 

u 

.... 

Ill 

I&: 

Ci 

.... 

~ 

~ 

.... 

:;:) 

... "' 

~ l'l 

.... 

Q 

.J ~o 

c.. ~~ •• Ill 0 

u 

: 

._ ____ __. 

185 

RATH & STRONG 
if" - HEAVY DUTY GASOLINE ENGINE 

3. Sensors and Transducers 

The detailed descriptions and calculation& following this page apply to pas.senger 

cai' parts, reprinted from a previous report EPA - 78 - 002, March, 1978. The 

costs shown therein have been adjusted by using factors, described later in this 

report, that reflect differences in size and in manufacturing volume (economy of 

scale) between automobiles and trucks. The EOS user for automobiles is 350,000 

per year; for trucks, 50,000. 

The resulting retail price equivalent costs for trucks are shown below. 

Ai.;\:omobile EDS 

Sensor RPE x Factor = 

Air Temperature $1.67 2.1 

Water· Temperature 1.67 2.1 

Pressure Regulator 3.43 2.1 

Speed 1.00 2.1 

Throttle Switch 3.07 2.1 

186 

RATH &: STRONG 

Truck 

RPE 

$3.51 

3.51 

7.20 

2.10 

6.45 
\ 

.. .. 

" 

-. -

187 

RATH • ~TRONG 

1•co11to1.&n• 
Trar.sducers and Sensors 

(Types H20 temperature, inlet air temperature, throttle oosltlon, 

transmission gear, EGR plntol position, crank angle, humidity.) 

Some of these sensors are Included in the cost analysis of EFI 

and ECU data. 

37.1 Transducers and Sensors 

37. 2 Transducers and Sensors 

37. 3 Transducers and Sensors 

37 .4 Transducers and Sensors--Manufacturing Costs and RPE Costs 

Using data from the Electronic fut!l metering system , we have: 

5000 K 

Sensor Mfg./Vendor RPE 

O., Sensor 1. 75 3.15 .. Air Temperature .93 1.67 

H20 • 93 1.67 

Pressure Regulator 1.91 3.43 

Speed Sensor .56 1.00 

Throttle Switch 1.71 3.07 

Thf!se data include tooling P..-nortization. 

188 

RATH la STRONG 
Transducers and Sensors 

The aftermarket cost comparison data are l tmited to foreign car data and 

are not useful for analysis. 

Transducers and Sensors 

Cost Methodology. The learning curve analysis was used in these units. 

Applications 

The engine applica~ions are similar except for the number of injectors. 

189 

RATH 4 STRONG 

11u:a• .. GIATID 
ELECTRONIC EMGH~E CONTROLS 

INJECTC:<.S 

190 
OEM COSTS--8-CYLINDER SYSTEM 

Industry Estimates Projected Estimates 

Quantity 5 K 200 K 500 K 1,000 K S,000 K 

lnjector:i $ 56.00 $ ~0.00 $ 32.00 $ 29.25 $ 23.74 

o2 Sensor 6.00 4.50 2.36 2. 16 1. 75 

ECU 75.00 45.00 45.00 41 . 13 33.39 

Air Temperature 1. 75 1. 75 1. 25 1. 14 .93 

H2o Temperature 1. 75 1. 75 1. 25 1. 14 .93 

Throttle Switch 3.00 3.00 2.30 2. 10 1. 71 

Fuel Pump Assembly 15.00 1s.00 12.00 1o.97 8.90 

Fuel Pressure Regulator 3.00 2.90 2.57 2.35 1. 91 

Fast Idle Valve 5.00 3. 51 2.00 1. 83 1. 48 

Throttle Body 10.00 8. 78 5.00 4.57 3.71 

Air Solenoid Valve 'LOO 3.25 2.00 1. 83 1. so 

Fuel Filter 3.50 2.00 1. 00 . 91 .74 

Fuel Rail 8.50 6.00 5.00 4.57 3.71 

Speed Sensor 1. so t. 00 .75 . 69 .56 

Intake Manifold 

Wiring Harness 25. 20 10.00 5.00 4.57 3.71 

$219.20 $148.44 $119.48 $109.21 $ &8.67 

191 

RATH & STRQNG 
Sundstrand Data Control, Inc. Q 

r···4 .. _,,, __ 4·--------, 

: Y.TLI• · ~·....._.....~ .. ~ ,..._,.t t ~Series · ....... ...J 

PIEZOTRONti 

• UJI. "a!tn1No.3.sei,747 

' 

I f I• p ~-1 ye ra.t111c _,;,ressu re Gage~ 

. ,_ .._......,.. __ -·-· ··-

~-I> ~.c .... ~ .......... ~'.,I --~ . ,)_,:. .··."\ ·~-. 

,~~-.,,·· .. , \ r~ . < o 

t... 

. . 

.... / C'.' . ..... ~.,.·· . . .=.;.. 

I -~ - ;, ~· 

~~--~ a ~· .:_·1~ • . ~ f'!'-...... .- · . • 1 J I : ., ·,~ _,r•. . . ... ,.,. -.J'· '· t , .' , 

• tt+to ,,. 

Features 

• RUGGED & AELIABLE100,000,000 CYCLES 

. ,;. 

, 

• SMALL SIZE-MOUNTS IN 1/4" LINES 

• HIGH LEVEL OUTPUTS VOLTS FULL SCALE 

•HIGH RESOLUTION 

MEASURES 10,000 to 0.5 psi, or 

1,000 to 0.0~ with one sensor 

•EASE OF INSTALLATION 

The 205 Series Hydraulic Pressure .. Gage was 

specifically designed FOR DYNAMIC HYDRAULIC 

PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS. Practically indestructit:·le, with a hardened 17-4 PH stainless steel 

body, and tested for 100,000.000 cycles. r ey com1/4 I. 0. 1.INE 

ADAPTOR 

bir.e thJ stability, wide fr(fquericy response and 

high resolution of a quartz e!ement with a high teve: 

output aigna!, compatible with most readout equipment. This is made possible with our revolutionary Piezotrcm concept whereby a mir.inture circuit is built into the ho1.Jsing tc convert the quartz 

piezoelectric99enerated charge to a robust, low 

impedance voltage. 

UNLIKE A STRAIN GAGE, the ~05 Gages are 

deslgned for f11Jsh mounting in lines as small as 

1/4" 1.0., where its sensing surface "sees" the 

pressure changes l~ need to lmow, thereby eliminating cavitation effects. A trnly dynamic instrument, with natural freq1.Jency of more than 250,000 

Hz, IT DOESN'T MISS HALF YOUR DATA. A 25,000 

to 1 ~ignal-to-noise ratio with an output of 5 volts 

fl.JI! 1caltt a:rows you to read your whole dynamic 

pressure spectrum, accurately, with one zcinsor. 

Ce~igned to Measure Pump Ripple-Hydraulic Line Surges 

Pipe Line Pulsations-Actuator Performance-F'1.Jel Injection Pressure 

Bra.ke Systems Efficiency-Hydraulic Controls-Tubing Endurance 

192 
..., r 

• 

.... ... 

j 

. -

..... r.---~--.... ~I 

193 

I 

' 

~ 

' l 

• 

-~ a 

~ 
IG ~ ACTUA TOrtS~~HEAVY DUTY GASOLINE ENGINE 

1. EGR Valv.o ?osition Actuator 

This is included in Section IB~l, EGR systems, representing 33% of the 

:-;ystem. 

194 

RATH 4 STRONG 
IG - HEAVY DUTY GASOLINE ENGINE 

2. Turbocharger Wasteqate Position Actuator 

This '.s a portion of the turbocharger estimate, Section IK. 

195 

RAT'-f & STRONG 
IG ·· HEAVY DUTY GASOLINE ENGINE 

3. Secondary Air Modulation, Vacuum Control 

The detailed descrlptiona and calculations following this page apply to pauenger 

Clll' part.a, reprinted from a previous report EPA - 18 - 002, March, 1978. The 

cost3 shown therein have been adjusted by using factors, described later in this 

report, that reflect differences in size and in manufacturing volume (economy of 

'csle) between automobiles and truck~. The EOS used for automobiles is 350,000 

per year; fOZ" trucks, 50,000. 

ihe resulting retail price eGuivalent costs for truc:k1 ere shown below. 

Automobile EOS 

Unit Costs Fac~ar 

Material .460 1.3 

Labor and Overhead .574 2.7 

Equipment .027 2.4 

Tooling .152 3.4 

Weighted EOS Factor 2.3 

X Automobile Retail Price Equivalent $3.22 

= Truck Retail Price Equivalent $7.41 

196 

RATH A STRONG 

lllCD8"111lATID 
AIR MODULATION SYSTEM WITH VACUUM CONTROL 

The air modulatlcn 'Yttem provides an approprfate volume of 

secondary 1f r to the exhaust ports (or to• point between 

tha J-way catalyst and the oxf datlon catalyst) dependent 

upon both engine speed and load or, In other words, the 

volume of engine exhau!t. Thfs system attempt, to more 

nearly match this air supply with engine needs for optimum 

oxidation of HC and CO while minimizing the cooling effect 

this air has on the exhaust gases. It consists of 1 dlverter 

type valve that Is actuated by •vacuum slg~at from Intake 

manifold that In turn provides air to the e~h•u~t stream. 

iY.S' 

V:ac.. 

,,e •• ,.,d,. 

'"'/'•WI ~,·Cfl 

197 

-"-A~c'r __ H_o:l_u_!a_...t._t. _c·o_Y? _ _.S_ys-!. e m 

Same as air Injection syste~ except: 

va.:. (irte. -&, IV~ 

- -rvs 

V2C, (iHt!! t.ci VQe. Kei. 

}'°ac. Res. (n,., .. a. .OC..) 

irae. /,'.," .fro,.. Vu_ P.:s. -to 11~. v.~~ 

rlod" lat?°"' Velr'f' { &.1,. • u 

~i~rler _.'..::, •'llC.>'t w~ 

12/t'b~f!~ ':~"'1"1 r«(ir 11.n# 

nte>rt! d1JraJ,le tJ1'1.ph~j""') 

RATH A STRONQ 
Air Modulation System 

Tooling Cmits--Amortization Per Pert 

12 Year 

l Year J Year Mar.hinery 12 Year 40 Year Amortiza

Economic Recurring Nonrecurring and Launching Lend end 

Part Volume Too.!!!!g_ Tooling Eguipment Costs Building Per Piece 

Dlverter Valve 2,500,000 • 0580 .0580 .0167 • 0017 - .1343 

;u 145,000 435,000 soo,ooo 50,000 

)lo 

... Converter Hose 2,500,000 .oolio .0016 • 0026 • 0003 .ooa5 

• I 10 0 000 12,GQO 78,000 7,800 • • .. t;:; • : 111 co Vacuum Hose 2,500,000 .0004 0 0002 .0003 .0001 .0010 

.. •

.. ... I, ooo I , 500 7,800 3,00() .. Xt • 0 • 0200 .0100 .0050 • 0005 .0355 

z 

G> 

Air Manifold 2,500,000 50,000 75,000 120,000 12,000 

Total • 0824 .0698 .0247 • 0026 • 1793 

Vehicle Assem. 500,000 

Engine Hod. 500,000 

Research aod Development Estimate: $150,00C for 3 years, or $.1000 Per Piece 
Port Material 

Diverter Valve Steel 

lJ Converter Hose Rubber 

;-. Vacuum Hose Rubber 

... 

i J: 

n ....... Air Manifold Steel 

a lit '-.:J • '-0 .. a Total (/I . • .. 

... 

.. 

.. 

a l1 

0 Vehicle Assem. z 

Ii) Engine Mod. 

Vehicle Total 

Air Modulation System 

Uill of Material 

Mnnufacturing Costs 

Weiqht 

Material 

Costs 

Labor 

Costs 

l.ZJO ,JJOO • 34 J5 

.500 .1000 .0512 .050 .0100 • Of, i I 

.100 .0200 .OH2 

- .0625 

- .0156 

Lahar 

Overhead 

.1374 

.Ol2S 

.0012 .0125 

.0250 

• 0062 

Manufacturing 

Costg 

.8109 .1437 

.0)43 

.0637 

1.0326 

.UB75 

.0218 

l.fltl9 
Part Material 

Air Modulation System--Total Manufacturing Costs 

Plant 

Labor Overhead 

Plant 

Mfg. 

Costs 

Tooling 

Exp. Inv. 

Corp. 

Alloc. 

.20MC* 

Corp. 

Profit 

.20MC

JI Diverter Valve .JJOO .J4JS .1374 .8109 .1160 .0184 .1622 .1622 

> 

-i Converter Hose .1000 .0312 .0125 .14J7 .0056 .0029 .0287 .0267 

ii :I 

,. N ! .. § Hose .0100 .0031 .0012 .014J .0006 .0004 • 002 9 • 0029 

: ra 

Air Manifold .0200 .0321 .0125 .0637 .0300 .0055 .0127 .0127 

0 

z Total 

{j) 
t' 

Air Modulation System Retail Price Equivalent At The Vehicle Level 

Vehicle 

Plant Tools Corp. Corp. Dealer Retail 

Vendor and Alloc. Profit Markup Price 

Part Costs R&:O Equip. . zovc• . zovc• .40VC• Equivalent ---

ll 

> ; Air Mod. System 1.6251 .1000 - .3250 • 32 50 .6500 3.0252 

i J: 

n 

a N Vehicle Assem. .0875 - - .0175 • 0175 .0350 .1575 • CJ 

.. ....... 

a UI • 

.. 

.. ; Engine Mod. ,02!8 - - .0044 .0044 .0087 .0392 

.. lJ a 

0 Totnl RPE 3.2219 z 

Ci> 
AIR MODULATION SYSTEM COST COMPARISON 

TO AFTERMARKET SELLING PRICES 

An assumption was made that the air modulation valve would be similar to a 

di .. erter vel...,e. (See E.P.A. sketch) 

A diverter valve is priced at 

l/ 4 discount :: 

1/5 discount :: 

$18.05 

4.51 

3.61 

The RPE estimate ls 3.0252 for the valve and the hoses. The 

manufacturing (vendor) estimate is 1.6251 for the valve and an 

.added .1093 for the engine and assembly costs. 

AIR MODULATION SYSTEM COST METHODOLOGY 

The estimates were based on the diverter valve cost3 developed in the air injection 

section 6.0. 

Otner costs of the engine modifications and the assembly are estimates of the 

lnc:remental changes required fo1· this system. 

AIR MODULATION SYSTEM 

APPLICATIONS TO VARIOUS ENGINES 

No significant engine-to-engine costs are evident. 

202 

RATH & STRONG 

111c:oal'aa.ana 
x 

= 

I H - THERMAL REACTOR 

r-iEAVY DUTY GASOLINE ENGINE 

The det;:-iled descriptions end calculation 1 following this page apply to passenger 

car parts, reprinted from a previous report EPA - 78 - 002, March, 1978. The 

costs shown therein have been adjusted by using factors, described later in this 

report, that reflect dift::rences in size and in manufacturing volume (economy of 

acale) between automobiles end truck!'!. The EDS used for automobiles is 350,000 

per year; for trucks, 50,000. 

The resulting retail price equivalent costs for trucks are chown below. 

Material 

l_abor and Overhead 

Equipment 

Tooling 

Automobile 

Unit Costs 

12.93 

.52 

.65 

.43 

Weighted EOS Factor 

Automobile Retail Price Equivalent 

Truck Retail Price Equivalent 

203 

RATH a STRONG 

INCDIPDIATl:D 

EOS 

Factor 

1.3 

2.7 

2 .l~ 

1.5 

$37.62 

$56.43 
I 

. I 

Thermal Reactor (Insulated With Core and Insulated Without Core} 

Thermal reactors have been used to promote the gas-phaH oxidation 

of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Excess oxygen and high 

temperatures are required to insure effici~nt oxidation. Early versions 

have required a fuel-rich l!.<haust and air Injection to insure that high 

thermal-reactor temperatures could be maintalined. Such a system was 

particularly suited to the rotary engine because of its inherently high 

hydrocarbon exhaust levels. Unfortunately, the requlre:ment to operate 

the engine fuel rich necessarily results in de<:r~ased fuel economy. 

Better d~sign of the thermal-reactor sy~tem appears to allow use of a lean 

thermal ·reactor which would not suffer the fuel economy penalty of the 

rich thermal reactor. Air Injection might still be required to insure that 

the oxidizing mixture is available at all enginll! operating conditions. 

Many lean-burn engines also include a simple thermal reactor, often no 

more than a somewhat enlarged, thermally insulated exhaust miJnifold. 

Because of the lower exhaust temperatures of the lean-burn engines, 

thermal reactor performance is limited but usually adequate to give 

approximately a SO\ reduction in hydrocarbons. Since the introduction 

of the oxidation catalyst, thermal reactors are now found primarily on 

rotary, lean-burn, and stratified-cha!"'ge engines. 

204 

RATH & STRONG 
( 

., 

~(. 

Slit,;: 

Thermal Reactor 

Thermal ~eact~r Conficur~tio~ 

I 

Core 

Hut Control V ''''t: 

205 

RATH & STRONG 
. 

Thermal Reactor Manufacturing Costs 

Bill of Material 

4-Cylinder Engine 

Material Labor Laber Manufacturing 

Part Material Weight Costs Costs Overhead Costs R

---- -

Exhaust Manifold Cast Iron 14.75 4.4250 .l2.50 .0500 li.6000 • 3

:u Liners Ceramic 2.00 4.0000 .0413 • 0165 lt.0578 $2

) 

-t Core Liners li.T. Steel 2.00 2.0000 13 • 0165 2.0578 $

i :I 

n N Core H. T. Steel 3.00 2.0000 .1250 • 0500 2 .17.50 S

a 0 • °' .. a (/I Insulation Asbestos i.00 .5000 .0413 • .0165 _....s..s.z.a_ $5

> 

... 

... ;u a 

0 

z Total 13.4484 

Ci) 

Vehicle ASM .1250 .0500 .1750 

fng. Mod .1250 .0500 .1750 

Total t 13.7984 

.... 
.• 4!@l45.A.¢1k 1£-,,)$11!4:.£4 pp;;;; '"" .. ., ... " .. -···· . ,, ... ··· .... 

Therrnnl Reaclor Tooling 

Arnortizntion Per Piece 

12 Year 

l Year 3 Year Machinery 12 Year 40 Year A

Economic Recurring Nonrecurring and Launching Land and p

Part Volume Tooling Tooling fJU!Pc:!le1,l Co::ils Building P

-

.1250 .1250 .5000 .0500 

Exhaust Mani fol rJ 400,000 50,000 150,000 2,400,000 240,000 - 

.ozoo .0200 .0200 .0020 

lJ Liners 1,000,000 20,000 60,000 240,000 24,000 - 

)> 

-i .0100 .0100 .0100 .0010 i :r 

n N 

a Core Liners 1,000,000 10,000 30,000 120,000 12,000 - 

Qt 0 

.. • -J 

a (JI • ,...0500 .0'>00 .0500 .0050 -i -4 

.. lJ Core 400,000 20,000 W,000 240,000 24,000 - 

a 

0 

z .0100 .0100 .0100 .0010 Cil Insulation 1,000,000 10 ,ODO J0,000 120,000 12,000 - 

-

Total 

.0250 .0250 .0250 .. 002 ') 

Vehicle ASM 400,000 10, Olli) 30,000 120,000 12,000 -

.0250 .0250 .0250 .0025 

Engine Mud 400,000 10,000 30,000 120,000 12,000 - Research & Development - $4UO, 000 per year for 3 years for 400, 000 pieces per yr.ar 0 r $1.00
Thermal Reactor Total Manufaci.urin:,i Costs 

Plant Tooling Corp. Corp

Plant Mfg. Alloc. Prof

Part Material Labor Overhead Costs Inv. .20MC• . 20M

:u Exhaust Manifold 4.4250 .1250 .0500 fi.6000 .2500 .5500 • 9200 .9'20

)> 

-i i....iners 4.0000 .0413 .0165 fi.0578 .0400 .0220 • 8 116 • 8 I

z I N n 

Q IP Cl • OJ Core Liners 2.0000 .0413 .0165 2.0578 .0200 .0110 • 411 6 .ltl l

.. 

a (/) • > -i Core 2.0000 .1250 .0500 2.1750 .1000 .0550 .4350 .435\

.. .. 

a lJ 

0 

2 Insulation .5000 .0413 /0165 .5578 .0200 .0110 • 111 6 • 111fi) 

Total i3.lt'4Alt 

•MC= Manufacturing Costs 
Thermal Reactor r\elai I Price Equi vnlent 

Vehicle 

Pl&;1t Tools Corp. Corp. Dealer Retail 

Ver,dor and Alloc. Profit Markup Price 

Part Costs R&D .20VC* .20VC* .40VC* Equivalent 

Thermal Reactor 19.9067 l.000 - 3.9813 J.98i3 8/9627 36.8321 

:u 

)> 

-I 

i :I N Vehicle .1750 .0775 .0350 .OJSO .0700 •· 3 92 5 n 

a At D • \0 

.. 

a (J) • > Engine Mod .1750 .0775 .0350 .0350 .0700 I 3 92 5 .... 

... 

.. 

a ll 

0 

z Total 37.6171 Ci> 

The uninsulated thermal reactor costs are$35.J7 excluding vehicle assembly and en

*VC = Vendor Costs 
Thermal Reactor Cost Comparison To Aftermarket Selling Prices 

The Mazda Rotary Engines are eelling the thermal reactors for $186.93 to $255.19 

for RX-2 amd RX-3 1!:ngines. This selling price includes a five year warrar.ty. 

Using dbcount data: 

186.93 

4t:..73 

37.40 

Est. Vendor Cost!> Retai~ Price Equivalent 

Discount 1/4 

o;scount 1/5 19.83 37.~9 

The exhal~St manifold on a CVCC Honda sells for $79. 20. Using the discount 

formula, the vendor cost is 79.20 -t 4 = $19.80. 

Thermal Reactor Cost Methodology 

The weight data are estimates based on 4 cylinder exhaust data. The material 

costs are estimates based on material selections. 

The design data are from the sketch in 19.0. 

210 

RATH 4 STRONG 

INCCIU'DRATIED 
I I - IGNITION SYSTEMS 

HEAVY DUTY GASOLINE ENGINE 

1. Breaker Point Ignition System 

x 

= 

The detailed ciesc:ription8 and calculations following this page apply to passenger 

CN' parts, reprinted from a previou' report EPA - 78 - 002, Marci', 1978. The 

costs srcwn therein hsve been adjusted by Ulling factors, describej later in this 

report, that reflect differences in size 1<nd in manufacturing volume (economy of 

scale) between automobiles and trucks. The EDS used for automobilas i~ 350,000 

per year; for trucks, 50,000. 

The resulting retail price equivalent cost! for trucks are shown below. 

Material 

Labor and Overhead 

Equipment 

Tooling 

Automobile 

Unit Costs 

2.35 

6.41 

.09 

• 53 

Weighted EOS Fc.;ctor 

Automobile Retail Price Equivalent 

Truck Retail Price Equivalent 

211 

RATH & STRONG 

EOS 

Factor 

1.3 

2.7 

2.-4 

3.4 

2.4 

$23.28 

$55.87 
Breal<erpoint Ignition System 

The bre1kerpolnt dlstrlbytor has been the mainstay of Ignition 

~ystems. The •dvent of the emissions requirements created the 

need for lmproveci designs such 1s th~ electronic fgltron system 

defined In 26.o. 

Reproduced from 

best available copy. 

212 

F;iATH A STRONG 

INCa•~aH.Tl:[I 
i 

! 

Breakerpoint Ignition System 

MANLF ACTURING COSTS 

Bill of Material 

Mat. Labor 

Part Mat. Weight Casts Costs 

Distributor Plastic 

Assembly Steel 2.000 1.000 2.800 

Cap Plastic .150 .1200 .3500 

Plastic 

Rotor Copper .050 .0100 .1000 

BreC:1kerpoints Copper .010 .0080 .1200 

Plastic 

Condenser Copper .050 .0400 .1100 

Vacuum Steel 

Control Copper .200 .1000 .3500 

Ignition Copper 

Coil 01astic l. 790 1.0680 .7500 

Total 

213 

RATH & STRONG 

Overhead Mfg. 

Labor Plant 

Costs Costs 

1.1200 4.9200 

.1400 .6100 

.0400 .1500 

.0480 .1760 

.0440 .1940 

.1400 . 5900 

.3000 2 .1180 

8.758C) 
Breakerpoint Ignition Systeru 

TOOLING COSTS 

Amortization per Piece 

Economic 1-Year 3-Year Non 12-Year 12-Year 40-Year 

Volume Recurring Recurring Machinery Launching Land &: 

Part ___ Pe_r_)'_ear_ __ _Tooling Tooling _ Eqttll>_ment Costs Buildings 

------

.0500 .0500 .osoo .0050 

Distributor A.ssembly 1,000 ,UDO 50,000 150,000 600,000 60,000 -- 

.0100 .OluO .0100 .0010 

Cap l,000,000 10,000 J0,000 120,000 12,000 -- 

ll 

> .0050 .0100 .0050 .0005 -f Rotor 1,000,000 5000 30,000 60,000 6000 -- 

;: J: 

n 

8> D .0050 .0100 .0050 .0005 :a 

.. Breakerpoints l,000,000 5000 J0,000 60,000 60:JO 

a rn .s::- --

• .. -f 

... .0300 .0300 .ooso .ooos 

a " Conderser 1,000,000 30,000 90,000 60,000 6000 -- 

0 

z .moo .0300 .ooso .onos 

fj) Vacuum Conti 1,000,000 30,000 90,000 60,000 6000 -- 

.0300 .OJOO .0050 .0005 

Ignition Coil 1,000,000 J0,000 'J0,000 60,000 6000 -- 

-Total 
Breakerpoint Ignition System 

TOT AL MANUFACTURING COSTS 

Plant 

Plant Mfg .20/MC .20/MC 

Over- Costs Tooling Corp. Corp. 

Part Mat Labor Head (MC) Exp. Inv. Alloc. Profit Dist. Assembly 1.000 2.8000 1.1200 4. .1000 .0550 .9840 .9840 

). 

-I Cap .1200 .3500 .1400 .6100 .0200 .0110 .1220 • 122 0 

i J: 

n 

N Rotor .0100 .1000 .0400 .1500 .0150 .0055 .0300 .0300 D Ail 

.. • V1 D 

• UI Breaker Points .0080 .1200 .0400 • 1760 .0150 .ooss • 0 352 .0352 

... 

.. -I 

.. 

0 ;u Condenser .0400 .1100 .0440 .1940 .0600 • 0055 .0388 .0388 

0 

z Vacuum Coil .1000 .3500 .1400 .5900 .0600 .0055 .1180 .1180 

Ci) Ignition Coil 1.0680 .7500 .3000 2.1180 .0600 .0055 .4236 .4236 

Total 8.7580 
:0 

)> 

-I 

it :c 

n 

0 N At • I-' .. "' a (/) • !'i -f 

.. ;u a 

0 

z 

!i) 

Breakerpoint Ignition System 

RETAIL PRICE EQUIVALENT AT THE VEHICLE LEVEL 

Vendor 

Costs 

(VC) R&D 

Dist. System 12.6847 

Vehicle Assy .2500 

Total RPE 

Ve

Tools Corp Corp Dealer Re

and Allocation Profit Markup Pri

Eg_l.l_iQ_____ ___ ._Z_Q_\t'I;__ .20 VC .40 VC Equ

2.5369 

.0500 

z.5369 s.0739 

.osoo .1000 

22

.

23
I 

·-..-. ............................. ................ ________________ . ____ _,_ -··-- --

:u 

)> 

-I 

i I 

n 

a Aio l'J • lo-- .. 

D Ill -...J • > -I .. 

.. 

g :u 

0 

z 

Ci) 

Oreukerpoint lqnit ion Systr.rn 

Breakerless Distribution Assembly 

1972 Data 

Si1C Cyl 

8 Cyl 318 

8 Cyl 400 

39.80 

46.25 

53.15 

Distribution Cap 

Points 

Condenser 

Dist Leed Wires 

Rotor 

Reluctor 

Pick up end Plate 

Breaker Plates 

Vacuum Control Unit 

Coil 

Resistors 

Governor Shaft Assembly 

Dist Housing 

6 Cyl 

4.25 

3.30 

1.60 

.82 

1. 25 

10. 50 

5.JS 

14.92 

2.55 

14.95 

6.07 

Group 2 (Chilton) 

Ignition System (Chrysler rht::i) 

Aftermarl<et Selling Price Analysis 

B C..Y! 

4.85 

3.30 

1.60 

.82 

l. 25 

10.50 

5.35 

14.92 

2.55 

14. 95 

8.69 

High Energy Ignition 

1977 Data 

Total Assembly 

45.00 47.55 

54.75 

3.81 

1.92 1.92 

13.45 

S.35 

l''· 95 

6.07 
Breakpoint Ignition System 

Analysis of Artermar\<et Selling Prices 

Group 2 (Chilton) G. M. Data 

Breakerless Assembly Electronic: Ignition 

(1972 car data) ( 19i7 car data) 

6 Cyl 8 Cyl 6 Cyl 

Distributor Assembly 54.05 58.30 (Total Distributor) 138.75 

Points 3.68 5.60 

Condenser 1.71 1. 71 

Rotor 1.35 2.31 3.65 

Cap 4.07 6.55 Cap 8.63 

Cover 3.09 

Coil 16.40 16.40 Coil 32.90 

Breaker Plate 3.00 3.29 Poll! Piece & Plate 20.70 

Vacuum Control 4.02 4.02 5.85 

Shaft (Included in Assy.) 23.50 23.50 23.50 

Capacitor 2.67 

Module 15.70 

Housing Included Item l 14.90 

Harness 9.80 

Total 11!. 78 121.68 

Less Shaft 23 •. 50 23.50 --- d8.ZB 98.18 DB.75 

218 

RATH A STRONG 

8 Cyl 

170.50 

J.90 

ll.65 

3.09 

27.80 

20.70 

5.85 

23.50 

2.67 

53 .10 

20.25 

9.80 

170 .50 
Breakerpoint Ignition System 

COST METHODOLOGY 

Th~ weight data was obtained from Chrysler data. The cost estimates are gross; not 

based on a part by part operational analysis. 

The analysis of various systems--breake~oint varsus electronic--provides a top down 

reference cost. 

Breakerpoint Ignition System 

APPUCA TIONS 

Using the aftermarket dala, the delta difference !:>y engine size is proportional to the 

number of i::y!!!"lcfo:-s. 

219 

RATH & STRONG 
HEAVY DUTY GASOLINE ENGiNES 

2. High Energy (Electronic) Ignition System 

x 

= 

The cietailad desc:riptillnl and calculation& following this page apply to pa8Senger 

car parts, reprinted from a previous report EPA - 78 - 002, March, 1978. The 

::osta shown therein ha11e been adjusted by using factors, described later in this 

report, that reflect differences in size and in manufactu.ring 11olume (economy of 

scale) between eutornobilea end trucks. The EDS used for automobiles ia 350,000 

per year; for trucks, 50,000. 

The resulting retail price equi11&Ient costs for trucks g.~e shown below. 

Material 

Labor and Overhead 

Equipment 

Tooling 

Automobile 

Unit Costs 

2.68 

17.45 

.28 

.62 

Weighted EDS Factor 

Automobile Retail Price Equivalent 

Truck Retail Frice Equivalent 

220 

RATH A ST~ONG 

lllCOl .. OIATID 

EDS 

Factor 

1.3 

2.7 

2.4 

3.4 

2.5 

$53.13 

$132. 83 
~·· 

High Energy Ignition 

Group 2 - EtECTRONIC IGNITION - Parts 

~Assy. 

J...oin 

~'"'·' 1r.-"' T ................. 111~ !:id 75 • M 1 .................. _ ...• 1110066 14-0.00 

ll! rncl 

1r."-1<below .............. 111297i 17050 

Calif w•A.T ................. 1112999 180.00 

;:.'.ltncl 

:T~~ ............................ 1112&!!0 170.50 

IXl '"'' l9'.'4-2bbl... ................... l!l2.866 18000 

4 bbl .............................. 1112865 180 00 

~r.!>-76 ............................. 1112882. 180.00 

~ ... ,\ 

t>'.'+-2 bbl tC&lif.l ......... llLZ.527 170.50 

tn. 76 ................ -... - .. 1112886 170.50 

c.mte 

1~5-uc be low ···········--1112888 170. 50 

w!Sp h1 perf ·····-······---1112883 180.00 

Calaf ............ - .... ···-·---111295Q 172..2.5 

!9':'&-~ -ac below ....... -1103200 180.00 

•iA.T ......... - ... ·---····-·111~ 180.00 

nier..r 

ir.-+..77 ...................... _ ... 1875960 3.0'3 

01 Leod .luy. 

lT.'+-7'7 ........................... 1&'76155 ..56 

ill c.41 

lT~77-xcbelow ...... •l~ 2'1.80 

lr.:'-2.50 ens, ...... - ...... tlll5444 ~.00 

1')5.al 

:97+-77 ........................... 1875962. 2.51 

:S)Cap 

1974-77-xc below ...... •187596.l i L6S 

:r.": .... 2,&>en" ............... •l~ 8.63 

16)1etor 

:n ........... -............... -.. •1891080 3.6S 

:r.> r.-u: below ....•.. •1891080 3.6.5 

l977-2SQ en1 ................. l8Q2S62 3.llO 

(12) v~vm Control 

Clw""T~let 

(25() engl 

l'wrt lie. 

l977-e1cbtlow ............ •l!r.~ 5 . .50 

w.'lnt cyl h<i ................. 19':"35! 7 5.85 

(3{)5. 350 engs) 

1977 ................. _ .............. 197~17 5.8:5 

1400 en1' 

1974-tta ..,., 

"' 4 bbl.. ..•. - .................. 1973:507 5 8:5 

i<J7.5-76 .............. _, __ ., ....... 1973-4512 5.85 

(45-f engl 

!975-76 ........ _,,,._.,, .• _ ... tlr.3Sl7 5.8:5 

C......ette 

197.5-77 -lie below ......... I 973482 4 .41 

w1Dut no. 

l l 112888) ............... - ...• 19'i3Sl 7 5.85 

197~ 77 -3.50 tn1 (C&lil.) 

w/Sp h1 perl .................. 197~ 5.85 '"""' ............................... .,,.,.._ 

Reproduced frcm 

best available copy, 

l'lrt Ill. ""'' 

(7) SJ-.t 

Chevnsl!!t 

(2.50 eng) 

llr.7-ic belo ...... - ... - .. 18"1! 145 

w/lru~I hd ............... tl891100 

(w/1110166 dutl ....... •lllf:2542 

(305ena) 

1977 ....... ·-·--····· ... -1~8 (3.50 en&) 

1fl.!>-76 .... , ______ ............... &300'l'2 

(400enll) 

19'74-2 bbl ...................... 1880113 

4 bbl ...................... _ ...... 1880115 

- ..... ·····-·--·-··----1876.324 

(....s.4msJ 

197"'"""2 bbl (CJJif.} ·--... 1!1'16404 

197~77 ----···-----!!301.21 

Corvette 

1975-77 ~ b.low ·--··8:)()165 

Sp hi per{ ··-·--·--·8:)()110 

(U) S.ol 

1974-77 ........... - .............. •1 Q5056Q 

(14) HevMnv 

1Q7 4-77-esc btlcw ......... 187e22!2 

1977-2.50 ens. .............. • 1880038 

(15) Hom.t-1 

197+-77-scb.low ....... f18760!8 

1977-2.50cn1-............... •l~l 

(16)Wah.ir 

197~ 77 ........................... tlS.17617 

(l'.'}W..Mr 

llr14-77 ........................... tl~ 

(II) 0.. 

1974-77-scbtlow ....... t•l~ 

--··......-·-- --········· ·---· 

RATH 4 STRONG 

221 

ZJ50 

:13.30 

:l.5.00 

27.00 

2.3.50 

23.50 

2.3.50 

23.50 

13.50 

23.50 

23.50 

13.50 

l'nCI 

.OQ 

20..25 

1'4.90 

9.80 

9.80 

.ar 

.41 

5..15 

l 9i 5--C&l i ( .................... 1891 :94 2.J SQ 

1976-w.'Sp h1 P"rf 

ulif ............................. 181ll':"IQ 2.JS.O 

(I) letainet" 

OwYnlltt 

197 4-77 ............................. .aJ04.46 .ZS 

C«v~t 

197!>-~ .................................... S.I.. 

(9) Pole l'iea l l'lcm ~y. 

1974-77 .......................... •1875981 2070 

(10) Module 

1974-77.-sc below ...... •187SQ90 5.3.10 

lll77--2SO mi, .............. •1880040 1570 

(11)Ca~ 

1'17+.77 _______ ..........• 1876154 1.57 

hrl ~ •. ..._ 

l!r.7-2..50 '""' .... w/lnt c:yl h<i ............... 01~6 i(J) w.l/lnt cyl hd .............. ti 96.!~ S.!! 

14 

ltnitioti Wins 90 

~ltt 3() 

(J.50, 400 ~np I 85 

197-1-76 .......................... tB~l JO C.'.'! (454 engl 90 !ll74 (C~Jif) .................... 891~ 4-l l! JO 197.5-76 ............................. 89!~ '11! C-ettt 00 

90 197.5-77 ............................. ~7 ~.!I) 90 

30 

lgnitien Switm 

197+.77-eu: belo .. -. ...... •1990096 rn 

bit whl ........................ •I 99<XJ99 6.lll 13 

90 
Part Materiel 

Distrib. Asm. - 2.000 

lJ Cap .200 )> -f Cover Plastic .100 i I 

n N Copper a lai N • .. N 

a UI Coil Plastic .200 • > -f .. 

.. Copper a :u 

0 Pole Pc & Plast. ic Iron .100 

z Steel (j) Vacuum Cont Copper .200 

Shaft Steel .3000 

Plastic 

Capacitor Copper .1000 

Copper 

Plastic 

Module Ceramic .2000 

Housing Plastic .4000 

Harness Copper .2000 

High Energy Ignition System 

Manufacturing costs 

Bill of Mi:tterial 

Material Labor Labor 

Costs Costs Overhead 

- .3500 .1400 

.1600 .4000 .1600 

.0800 .1500 .0600 

.1600 2.2500 .9000 

.ilOOO 1.2500 .5000 

.1000 .8500 .J400 

.1200 .7500 .3000 

.5000 .5000 .2000 

1.0000 4.0000 1 .6000 

.3200 .7500 .JOOO 

.1600 .5000 .woo 

Manufacturing 

Costs Re

.4900 Ele

• 7200 See 

.2900 

3.3100 

1.BJOO 

1.2900 1.1700 

1.2000 

6.6000 

1. 3700 

.8600 

19.1300 
Hiqli r:nerl)y l<j11ition :.y!;tem 

Tooling Co!;ls 

Amortization Per 

12 Year 

1 Yeur J Year Machinery 12 Year 40 Year A

f::conomic Recurring Nonrecurring and Launching Land and 

Part Vol Lille Tooling Tooling _ EqlJiJJment Cosls Building_ Pe

.0500 .0500 .osno .ooso 

Distrib. Assern. 1,000,000 50,000 150,000 600,000 60,000 

Cap .0200 .0200 .0200 .0020 

1,000,000 20,000 60,000 240,000 24,000 

.0100 .0100 .0100 .0010 

)> Cover l,000,000 10,000 30,000 120,000 12,000 

i I .0300 .0300 .0050 .0005 

n 

a Q!il N Coil 1,000,000 30,000 90,000 60,000 6,000 • N .. 1...-1 

a (/) • .0300 .0300 .0050 .0005 

> ..... .. 

.. Pole Pc & Plate 1,000,000 30,000 90,000 60,000 6,000 a 

0 .0500 .0500 .0500 .0050 

z 

Ii'! Vacuum Cont l,000,000 50,000 150,000 600,000 (,0, 000 

.0200 .0200 .lHOO .0010 

Shaft l,000,000 20,000 60,000 120,000 12,000 

.0100 .0100 .0100 .0010 

Capacitor 1,000,000 10,000 30,000 120,000 12,000 

.0500 .0500 .1000 .0100 .

Module l,000,000 50,000 150,000 1,200,000 120,UOO 

.0300 .0300 .OJOO .00}0 

HousimJ 1,000,000 30,000 90,000 360,000 36,000 

.0100 .0100 .0100 .0010 

Harness 1,000,000 10,000 30,000 120,000 12,000 

Total 

R&D 1,500,000/year for 3 years for 1,000,000 unils per year or $1.50 per piece. 
High Energy Ignition System 

Total Manufacturing Costs 

Plant Tooling Corp. Corp. 

Plant Mf9. Alloc. Profit 

Pare. Material Labor Overhead Costs Exp. Inv. .20MC* .20MC* 

::u 

)> Dist. Assem. - .3500 .1400 .4900 .1000 .0550 .0980 .0980 

-t 

i :I Cap n N .1(,00 .4000 .1600 • 7200 .0400 .0220 .1440 .1440 

a 8' N • .i:- Cover .oeoo .1500 .0600 .2900 .0200 .0110 .0580 .osao 

.. 

a en • > • 6620 .6620 -t Coil .1600 2.2500 I. 9000 4. 3100 .0600 .0055 

o4 

.. ;o D 

0 Pole Pc & Plate .oeoo 1.250 .5000 1.8300 .0600 .0055 .3660 .3660 

z Vacuum Cont .1000 .8500 .3400 1.2900 .1000 .0055 .2500 .2580 

r;> 

Shaft .1200 .7500 .3000 1.1700 .0400 .0110 .2340 .2340 

Capacitor .5000 .5000 .2000 1.2000 .0200 .0110 .2400 .2400 

Module 1.0000 4.0000 1.6000 6.6000 • I 000 • 1 I 00 1. 3200 l.J200 

Housing .3200 .7500 .3000 l.3700 .0600 .0330 .2740 .2740 

Harness .1600 .5000 .2000 .8600 .0200 .0110 .1720 .1720 

20.1300 
lJ 

)lo Part 

-i 

i :t 

n N D lit • N .. V1 

D Ul • > -i -i 

.. lJ " 

HE 

0 

z 

G> 

High Energy Ignition System 

Retail Price Equivalent al the Vehicle Level 

Plant 

Vendor 

Costs R&D 

Tools 

and 

Equip. 

Corp. 

Alloc. 

.20VC* 

Corp. 

Profit 

. 20VC* 

Dealer 

Markup 

.40VC* 

Vehicle 

Retail Price 

Equivalent 

28.6825 5. 7365 2.7365 ll.0730 53.1285 
High Energy tgnition Sy!tem 

Cost Comparison to Aftermarket Selling Prices 

The manufacturing vendor costs for the system is$ 27.6325. Using the 4 to 1 

Discount the estimated eftermarket comparison price is $117.7428. The CNlton 

price for this system can vary bet weer. $138. 75 for the 6 cylinder to $170.56 for 8 

cylinder engines. 

High Energy Ignition System 

Cost Methodology 

The wei~.1t data and material costs are estimates. The labor costs are estimates 

for a given economy of scale (l,000,000 units/year). The bill of material data was 

limi tad to the G.M. Chilton data. 

High Energy Ignition System 

Applications 

The applications of these costs to engines will be proportional to the number of 

cylinders per engines. 

226 

RATH A STRONG 

lllCDll'DIATID 
I K - TURBOCHARGER 

HEAVY DUTY GASOLINE ENGINES 

The detailed descriptiona and calcul!!tions following this page apply to passenger 

car parts. The costs shown therein have been adju~te'1 by using factors, 

described later in this report, that reflect ditference11 in size and i;i 

maiufacturing volume (economy of scale) between automobiles end trucks. The 

EOS used for autDmobiles is 350,000 per year; for trucks, 50,000. 

The resulting retail price equivalent costs for truc:lts are shown below. 

Automobile Unit Costs 

lDOHP 220HP 250HP 35DHP 450HP 

Material 8.98 20. 21 21.89 23 .57 24.13 

Labor &: O.H. 7.57 13.25 14.10 14. 95 15.23 

E".:juipment . 94 .94 .94 .94 .94 

Tooling .66 .66 .66 .66 .66 

Weighted EOS 

Factors 2.0 1.9 1. 9 1.9 1.9 

X Auto RPE 46.47 88. 70 95.09 101.45 103.56 

= Truck RPE 92.94 168.53 180.67 192. 76 196.76 

227 

RATH 4 STRONG 

EOS 

Factor 

1.3 

2.7 

2.4 

3.4 
r"l-H•"'r _ t:f.• ., ,,..,.1r- ,, ,. - ~.-£, 

..___ 

Fig•re 24 - New aad ledeslgHd T•rboclulrgd Y·6 bglae C:o•p••••h 

228 

RATH 4 STRONG 

lllCDU•aa&TID 

~ A11Z 

4i- ~/e,7' I/,/<€, 

Sc.lltHtJ~ 

.~""=""~:... n.- ~,,~ t'11 

Cc'llTX-4 '- 'I/,.,.., .. 

~~~/C-(j) 

~rv~Bo 

e~"''•'' C.-1 ... t'• .... 

@ J!' ....... ~ ~..,.+"" 

~N1' MeJf1.-S.{I ... 

e. s e- - FZ.c.1. If r 

£ .. q,1'1.£. !-li,.,,,~,J 
c. 

c 

0 

Engine Coverage With AiResearch Turbocharger Models 

80 

I 

w 70--· \:l . < 

- 60 z 

w 5 50 co 

(/) 

w 

c:: 

0. 40 0 

_, 

0 

.... 

U.J 

~ 

< 20 .... 

z 

10. 

60 

INTERMITTENT RATING BSAC 10 LB/H.P. - HR 

I BO 100 1so I 200 300 500 

I 1 DiESEL ENGINE RATED BHP 

T04B I 

I 

I 

TV61 TV71 TV81 

229 

RATH & STRONG 

INCau•au.T[D 

600 \ 700 BOO 

\ 

\ 

Q 

--- .3 ~ 

a: 

w 

0:: 

:::l 

(/) 

(/) 

w 

c.. 

a: 

0 

<O 

(/) 

u. 

0:: 

--2 ~ 

c 

u 
~-·· 

The¥&~the 

Technological advances resulting from aggressive devr;lopment 

programs have provided and are expected to continue to provide: 

• Reductions in turbocharger weight relative to engine horsepower 

• Reductions in turbocharger cost relative to engine horsepower 

• Improvements in application techniques and turbocharger configurations to permit 

efficient use of a small number of models on a wide range of engine sizes 

200 

·----= 

11175 

Dimensions are in inches 

MODEL A 8 c 0 E F G H POUNDS 

T048 7.43 1.50 8.23 5.25 3.00 4.35 8.73 6.3 16 

TV61 12.07 3.10 12.46 7.34 4.25 5.50 10.93 9.0 36 

-· -

TV71 10.93 1.96 11.33 7.34 4.25 5.50 10.93 9 50 39 

TV81 10.93 1.96 11.33 7.34 4.25 5.50 10.93 100 42 

T1B.~ 11.25 2.50 11.25 9.25 4.25 5.75 12.00 100 43 

230 

RATH 4 STRONG 

INCDU•OIATID 
•. --.. 

TURBOCHAHGER 

T03 

MANUFACTURING COST 

Material Labor Overhead 

Component Weight Material Costs Hrs. Labor 40% 

Turbocharger Assern. 17.00 - - .067 .5025 .2010 Turbine Wheel • 70 Cr-N. St! . .8400 .134 1.0050 .4020 

Impeller .23 Alum. .1610 .016 .1200 . 0480 

AJ Shaft 1.41 Cr-l'J.Stl. 1.1280 .067 .5025 .2010 

)Ii Balancing - - - .134 l. 0050 .4020 

... Bearings .30 52100 .3900 .067 .5025 .2010 

i :r Impeller Hsg. 3.00 Alum. 2.1o:io .050 .3750 . 1500 

n N 0 llt l..>l Impeller Hsg. Gv. .25 Alum. .1750 • OOl[l .0075 .0003 

• .. I-' 

0 "' Oil 1/0 Hsg. 1.00 Cl .4000 .0330 .2475 .0990 

• > -4 .. Turbine Hsg. 8.61 Cl 3.4440 .083 .6225 .2490 

.. :u 0 

0 8.638 4.890 l.95J 

z 

Ii) Was tegate VI v. 1.00 Steel .2000 .0670 .5025 .2010 

Wastegate Brkt. .10 Steel .0200 .00080 .0060 .0002 

Wastegate Linkage .15 St.eel .0300 .00080 .0060 .0002 

Hardware .25 Steei .0500 .00010 .0075 .0003 Hose & Fit ting .20 Rub St!. .0400 .0010 .0075 .0003 

.340 .530 .202 

Total 8.978 5.420 2.155 

Summary Manufacturing Costs $16.55 

Tooling l. 79 

OH & Prod. 9.93 

OEM Costs $28.27 at $1,00
. ... _;: .. ','-

T03TURUOCHARGER 

TOOLING 

Economy Recurring Nonrecurring Land&

of· Tooling Tooling Equipment Launching Buildin

Scale 1 Yr. 3 Yrs. 12 Yr. 12 Yr. 40 Yr. 

Turbocharger l,000,000 36.0 360.0 1,800.0 180.0 10,000 Turbine Wheel 24.0 240.0 1,200.0 120.0 

Impeller 16.8 168.0 840.0 84.0 

Shaft 12.0 120.0 600.0 60.0 

Balancing 9.6 96.0 480.G 48.0 

Bearings 4.B 48.0 24.0 

Impeller Hsg. 7.2 72.0 360.0 36.0 

:u Impeller Hsg. Cov. .7 7.2 36.0 3.6 

> Oil 1/0 Hsg. 3.6 36.0 180.0 18.0 ... 

ii J: Turbine l-lsg. 24.0 240.0 1,200.0 120.0 

n 

a N Ii. • ...,. • N Was tegate VI v. 7.2 72.0 360.0 36.0 a UI 

: ... Wastegate Brkt. 3.6 36.0 120.0 12.0 

.. 

: :u Wastegate Linkage .7 7.2 36.0 3.6 

0 Hardware .7 7.2 36.0 3.6 

z Hose & Fit tinQ 1.4 14.4 72.0 7.2 6> 

Totals 151.5 1,524.0 7,560.0 756.0 10,000 

Cost Per Unit .152 .508 .630 .063 .250 
~. 

t 

{ 

: I 

·' 

Part Mat! 

Turbocharger 8.64 

Waste Gate Valve .34 

TOTAL 8.98 

T03 TURBOCHARGER 

VENDOR COST 

Plant 

Plant Mfg. 

Labor O.H. Cost Exp 

4.89 l. 95 15.48 .60 

.53 .20 1.07 .06 

5.42 2.15 16.55 .66 

233 

~ATH & STRONG 

INCD•1tD•ATll:D 

.20 .20 

Tooling MC Corp Vendor 

Inv ~ Pft Cost 

.89 3 .10 3.10 23.17 

.05 .21 .21 1.60 

.94 3.31 3.31 24. 77 
RET.l\IL PRICE EQUIVALENT 

.20 .20 .40 

Vendor Tools & Corp Corp Dealer 

Cost R&D Equip Alloc Profit M/U RPE 

Turbocharger 23.17 1.00 4.63 4.63 9.26 42.69 

Waste Gate 1.60 .32 .32 .64 2.88 

Ve!iicle Assy .25 .05 .05 .10 .45 

Engine Mod. .25 .05 .05 .10 .45 

TOTAL RETAIL PRICE EQUIPMENT 46.47 

234 

RATH a STRONG 
\. 

,; 

·~f. 

TURBOCHARGERS - VARIOUS SIZES 

The detailed cost estimate for the T03 Turbocharger h2s been shown on the 

preceeding pages. To arrive at estimates for larger sizes, these principl•;:> ,,.::;re 

followed: 

Same economy of scale as the T03 (l,OOC,000). 

Material costs increased by weight. 

Labor and overt-.saj increased at 60% the rate material was 

increased. 

Tools, equipment, launching, land, and building unit costs unchanged. 

Horsepower ratings read from chart at the 55-inch intake manifold 

pressure level. 

235 

RATH & STRONG 

l~CDU DilATID 
TURBOCHARGERS 

Engine HP 100 220 250 350 4SO 

Turbocharger Model T03 

T04B TV61 TV71 TV Bl TlBA 

Weight Obs) 16 36 39 42 43 

Material 8.98 20.21 21.89 23.S7 24.13 

Labor and Overhead 7.57 13.25 14.10 14.95 lS.23 

Plant Manufacturing Cost 16.S5 33.46 35.99 38.52 39.36 

Tools, Equipment, Bldgs 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 

Corp. O.H. & Profit 6.62 13.38 14.40 15.41 15.74 

Vendor Cost 24.77 48.44 51. 99 55.53 56.70 

R&D 1.00 1. 00 1.00 l. 00 1.00 

Vehicle ASS]' Tooling .so .so .so .so .so 

Corp. Alloc. & Profit 10.10 19.38 20.80 22.21 22.68 

Dealer M/U 10.10 19.38 20.80 22.21 22.68 

Retail Price Equivalent 46.47 88.70 9S.09 101.45 103.S6 

236 

RATH & STRONG 

lllCIHl'O•ATlD 
II B - UNIVERSAL FUEL INJECTION SYSTEM 

HEAVY DUTY DIESEL ENGINES 

The manufacturing and tooling costs estimates on the following !Jages have been taken 

from a 1Jrevious report submitted to 0.0.T. They were based on passenger car quantities. 

The retail price equivalents for truck quantities (50,000/yr.) are given below. 

Automobile Unit Costs 

EDS 

4-Cyl 6-Cyl 8-Cyl Factor 

Material 18.88 24.36 29.96 l. 3 

L3bor and Overhead 3.75 4.83 6.16 Z.7 

Equipment 2.11 2.11 2.11 Z.4 

Teo ling 4.26 4.26 4.26 3.4 

Weighted EOS Factors 1.9 1.8 l. 8 

X Automobile R.P.E. 70.00 86 .54 103.83 

= Truck R. P. E. 133.00 155. 77 186.89 

237 

RATH & STRONG 

INCD.,•DIATED 
UNIVERSAL FUEL INJECTION SYSTEM 

MANUFACTURING COST 

Plant 

Over- Mfg. 

Material Labor head Cost 

Fuel Filter (Bosch) .35 • 05 .02 .42 

Low Pres. Fuel Pump 1. 75 .25 .10 2.10 

Fuel Piping 2.10 .30 .12 2.52 

HP Nozzles - 4 Cyl 4.88 • 68 .27 5.83 

II II - 6 Cy! 7.32 1. 02 .40 8.74 

" II - 8 Cy! 9.76 1. 36 .54 11. 66 

Hi Pres. Fuel Pump - 4 Cyl 9.80 1.40 • 56 11. 76 

II II II II 6 Cyl 12.84 1. 84 • 73 15.41 

II II II II 8 Cyl 16.00 2.40 .96 19.)6 

Totals - 4 Cy! 18.88 2.68 1.07 22 .63 

II - 6 Cy! 24.36 3.46 1. 37 29.19 

II - 8 Cyl 29.96 4.36 1. 74 36.06 

238 

RATH & STRONG 

INCDlllDIATED 
, . 

; .. 

FlJI l IN.llTJll)N W'illM rorn INC f1MIJIUl/ATJ()N 

Non 

Hl!currinq recurrinq Machinl!ry Launt·h 

Toolinq Toolinq [quip. Cost 

Part [()') (I Yr) (J Yr) (12 Yr) (12 Yr) 

Fuel Filter 1,400 ,ooo 150 3'>0 1000 200 

Low Pres Pump 500,000 )0 2)0 600 100 

Fuel Piping 500,000 20 50 130 20 

Hi Pressure Nozzles 500,000 250 650 1600 300 

Hi Pressure Pump 5110' 000 41100 1000 

:u 

)> Total/System Z.25 <'.02 I. 25 .25 

-t 

i :t 

n N D It V.1 II \D 

... 

D en • • -t .. 

.. 

D :u 

0 

z 

G) 
LJNJV[HSAL FUEL INJ[CTION SYSffM 

MFG/VENOOH COST 

Mfg Tooling Corp 

Cost f-:.!£ Inv Cost 

Fuel Filter .42 .19 . ll .OB 

Low Preseure Pump 2.10 .27 .23 .42 

Fuel Piping 2. S2 .07 .04 • 51 

:u Hi Pressure - 4 Cyl 5.B3 .93 .47 1.17 

)> " II II • 6 Cyl B. 74 .93 .47 l. 75 

-4 

i I " II II • B Cyl il. 66 .93 .47 2.n 

n 

a N 

• p .. 0 

a UI Hi Pressure Pump • 4 Cyl 11. 76 2.BO 1. 26 2.35 

• ,. -t -4 

.. :u " II II • 6 Cyl 15.41 2.110 1. 26 3.0B 

D 

0 " II II • B Cyl 19.36 2.BO 1.26 J.B7 

z 

Ii> 

Totels - 4 Cyl 22.63 4.26 2.11 4.53 

II 

- 6 Cyl 29.19 4.26 2.11 S.04 

" - B Cyl 36.06 4.26 2.11 7.21 

• 
tJNIVLHS/\L HJ[L IN.JI CTI! IN 

HUl\IL PfUC[ IOUIVALTNT 

Mfq/ Ret

Vendor Corp Corp o.,aler Pr

Cost H & D Aline Profit Mark-lJp fgu

4 Cyl System JB.06 I. '>O 7.61 7.61 15.22 70.

6 Cyl System 47.24 l. 50 9.45 9.45 18.90 86.

8 Cyl System 56.BS 1. 50 11. J7 11. J7 22. 7t1 lOJ

;u 

)> 

-f 

i :r N n .p. a 

f--' • .. 

en a • -f ,... 

.. ;u a 

0 

z 

(j) 

t 
x 

= 

llE - HEAVY DUTY DIESEL ENGINE 

POSITIVE CRANKCASE VENTILATION VALVE (PCV) 

The detailed descriptions and calculations folldwing thia page apply to passenger 

car parta, reprinted from a previO<Js report EPA - 78 - 002, March, 1978. The 

costs shown t.'"terein have been adjusted by using fsctore, described latf!,. in this 

report, that reflect differences in size and in manufacturing volume (economy of 

scale) between automobiles end trucks. The EDS used for automobiles ia 350,000 

per year; for trucks, 50,000. 

The resulting retail price equivalent costs for tr.ucks are shown below. 

Material 

Labor and Overhead 

Equipment 

Tooling 

Weighted EDS Factor 

Automobile 

Unit Cast 

$.088 

.175 

.096 

.036 

Automobile Retail Price Equivalent 

Truck Retail Price Equivalent 

242 

RATH 4 STRONG 

EDS 

Factor 

l.J 

2.7 

2.4 

J.4 

2.4 

$1.14 

$2.74 
COST ESTIMATES 

PCV Valve System 

All engines produce small amounts of blowby gase5, which seep past the piston 

rings, and into the crankcase. These blowby gases are the .result of the high 

pressures developed within the combustion chamber, during the combustion 

process, and contain undesirable pollutants. To prevent blowby gases from 

entering the atmosphere, while allowing proper crankcase ventilation, all 

engines use a PCV system • 

The PCV system prevents blowby gases from escaping by routing them through 

a vacuum controlled ventilating valve, and a hose, into the intake manifold. The 

blowby gases mix with the air/fuel mixture and are burned in the combustion 

chambers. When the engine is running, fresh air is drawn into the crankcase 

through a tube or hose connected to the air cleaner housing. 

ThePCVvalve consists of a needle valve, soring and housing. 

the engine is off, the spring holds the needle valve closed to stop vapors from 

entering the intake mani!old. When ~he engine is running, manifold vacuum 

unseats the valve i911owing crankcase vapors to enter the intake manifold. In 

case of a backfire (in the intake manifold) the valve closes, stopping the backflow 

and preventing ignition of fumes in the crankcase. During certain engine 

conditions, more blowby gases are created than the ventilator valve can handle. 

The excess is returned, through the air intake tube, ir.to the air cleaner and 

carburetor, where it is disbursed in the air/fuel mixture, and, combusted 

within the engine. 

243 

RATH & STRONG 
~ V•lve System 

0Uc:l"lptlon lbtel"lel 

POI Valve 

Housing Stael 

Spring ;p,.lno 

Stael 

.,.Mdle Steel 

Pipe Stael 

Crammet.s ltubbel" 

C1UTWT1e11 lll&.ibber 

<VC &o ACI 

Total '11ru 

Venlc:le Ansnbty 

Valve 

,,~ 

EnglM Modiflc;atlon -oTotal M1nuf1c:turlng Colts 

111t Plant L.evel 

-Oldsimblte R1f1r~ Ml.llftbers 

c:=t P• ... TDDY 

~ .•·anr.&&m 

~·· ... 

@ILL Of' MATERIAl. 

IUt 

Weight Costs 

·'" .154 .111 

.01 .to2 

.OU .to3 

.e11 

.200 .MO 

.120 • to• 

• .-0 .tol 

-o- -o-

~.m:mr 

It.DI IT WU 

Labor 

Owrhe~ 

... 2 

.Hi 

.IU 

.1121 

.1•0 

.120 

.to5 

.110 

.126 

.Ml 

.Ml 

.OU 

~ CM:nw.t mTW ·: .. : . .,. ..... ·~· .· - . . .. -. .. . . 

244 

RATH w STRONG 

111ca11 .. a11AT10 

Mfg 

Costa tlef•~· 

.w Ml7tl5 

.M7 

·'" 

.031 

.156 

.110 .. ,,.., 

.tot Hnl ... 

·'" .. 12125 

. 107 

.126 

.011 

.•OJ 
PCV Valve Systcm--Toolin<J Costs--Amortized Per Piece 

Econom:c 1 Year 3 Year Non- j2 Year 4 Year 40 Y

Volume Recurring Recurring Machinery Launching Land 

Per Yc?ar Toolin9 Tool Equipment Costs __ Bui ld

Valve Assembly 

Housing . 050 .017 .020 .006 

Amortized 1,000,000 5::-1, 000 50,000 250,000 25,000 

Spring .002 .002 .003 - 

:u Amortized 3,000,000 5,000 15,000 100,000 5,000 )> 

-f Needle .005 .002 .002 - 

+:-

Ni 

n 

I Amortized 2,000,000 10,000 12,000 50,000 5,000 

VI a Qt • .. .057 . 021 .025 .006 

a (/I • Valve II> -f 

... 

.. :u Pipe .005 . 001 . 001 - 

a 

0 Amortized 2,000,000 10,000 5,000 25,000 2,000 z Grommets .004 .002 .002 - 

jj) Amortized 4,000,000 15,000 20,000 100,000 5,000 

Grommets .ooq .002 . 002 - 

Amortized il,000,000 15,000 20,000 100,000 5,000 

Total . 01 3 .005 . - 

Vehicle Assembly .001 . 001 "0003 

Amortized 300,000 3,000 5,000 10,000 2,000 

Engine Modification .002 . 001 .0015 - 

Amortized 300,000 6,000 12 I 000 60,000 5,000 

Total--Tool ing/J>iece • OQ 3 • 0'.HB - 

Research and Oevelopmenl by Vehicle Manufacturing: $100, 000 ror 2 Years. 

Using a 3-year amortizing rule, the R/D per piece= $.022. 
l 

(> 

r 

' " 

... 

1:. 

~.· 

~ t 

~· 

~'· '· 

' 

>· 

'!; 

.. 

·.' 

PCV Valve System 

TOTAL MANUFACTURING COSTS 

Plant 

Over- Plant 

Head Mfg Tooling 

Part Mat Labor 1. 40 Costs Exp. Inv. 

PCV Valve . 016 . 100 .040 .156 .078 . 031 

Pipe . 060 . 0143 . 0057 .080 .006 . 001 

Grommets . 012 . 0107 .D04 . 0267 .012 .004 

246 

RATH 4 STRONG 

Venda 

.20 MC .20 MC Corp 

Corp Corp Sellin 

Costs Profit Price 

.030 .030 .325 

. 016 .016 . 119 

.006 .005 .055 
0 

c 

PCV Valve System 

Plant 

or 

Vendor 

Selling 

Part Price 

PCV Valve .325 

Pipe .119 

Grommets .055 

Vehicle . 126 

Assembly 

Engine Mod .014 

RETAIL PRICE EQUIVALENT 

AT THE VEHICLE LEVEL 

Invest 

Tools Corp 

& Allocation 

R&O Equip . 2 0 vc 

. 022 -o- .0652 

-o- -o- .02~a 

-o- -0- . 011 

-Q- . 0023 .Oi3 

-o- . 0045 .003 

Total PCV System Retail Price Equivalent 

247 

RATH & STRONC3 

Vehicle 

Corp .40sp Retail 

Profit Dealer Price 

.20vc Markup Equivalent 

. 0652 . 1304 .€08 

.0238 .0576 . 224 

. 011 . 022 .099 

. 013 . 026 • 180 

. 003 .006 . 031 

l . 142 
, 

( .. 

PCV Valve System 

Cost Comparison to Aftermarket Selling Prices 

Using the aftermarket discount data in the refel"'ences, we can conclude that 

the vendor selling price is about 1/4 to 1/S of the aftermarkel selling price. 

This rule is applicable if the part requires a minimum of packaging and 

hancling costs. in relation to the value of the part and if the production 

vo1um.:s .ir~ ~·1it11in close agreement. 

Using the following aftermarket prices for the PCV valve: 

Chilton Sears 

3. 12 1. 76 

Vendor Cost 1 /4 • 78 .44 

Vendor Cost 1/5 • 62 .35 

Theestimatedvendorcostis$.326forthePCVvalve. This Chilton price 

is the cost to the customer at the service station. 

248 

RATH & STRONG 

INCDU•DRATl:D 
' • ..; :f··: 

., 

·<.:: 

.. ~ : 

PCV Valve System 

Cost Methodology 

The weight data for the components was obtained from r.n Oldsmobile parts 

computer documer1t. The material costs are computed by using the 1977 

mi 11 prices, obtained from Metalworking News' metals market data. The 

labor costs are estimates of production, using today's technology. with a 

relatively high level of automation. The overhead and corporate cost data 

was obtained from a U.S.A. company. 

The te.->ling costs are estimates of :xpendable tooling, i.e., jigs. fixtures, 

molds, or dies; and machinery or equipment. launching costs. to put the 

pr-oduct into production at the plant level. 

Judgment was used in assessing whether land or building investments were 

requiredtoputthisproductintop.-oduction and it was -:o;iclud~d that 

they were not. 

The engirie was modified to accept the valve and the piping, so, these costs 

ar-e consider-ed as part of the total cost. 

The vehicle assembly r-equir-ed the addition of labor- to install the valve and 

the piping. 

Applications of ?CV Valve systems to vehicle and engine configurations, 

regarding 4, 6, and 8 cylinder models, was assumed to be equivalent. 

249 

RATH & STRONG 
IIG ~PARTICULATE TRAP~ HEAVY DUTY DIESEL ENGINE 

Retail Price Equivalents for Various Filter Materials and Volumes 

Filter Volume (Cu. In.) 

Filter (Base) 

Price Per Lb. 1133 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 

(Base) 

$15 $116. 89 $89 $103 $11? $134 $149 $164 $179 $194 $209 

$ 5 78 so 64 BG 95 110 125 140 155 170 

$1U 97 70 84 100 115 130 145 160 175 190 

$2L1 136 108 122 138 153 168 183 198 213 228 

$25 156 128 142 158 173 188 203 218 233 248 

$30 175 147 161 177 192 207 222 237 252 267 

$35 194 167 181 197 212 227 242 257 272 287 

250 

RATH & STRONG 
PARTICULATE TRAP - AIR MAZE (HC - 127) 

Included are: 

a. Pictorial illustration 

b. Bill of Materials end Manufacturing Cost Estimates for an 1133 

. 3 

in. trap 

c. Estimates of other costs and profits to achieve the Vehicle Retail 

Price EQuivalent (same page as b, above) 

d Detail of estimates of investments for tooling and equipment 

e. Derivation of formulae for size extrapolations 

Two formulae are pertinent: 

I. Manufacturi~ Cost (MC) for another size trap= $5.08 + (33.89) F where 

F =new volume >-1133 

II. Retail Price Equivalent= (2.52) MC+ $15.48 

For ready reference, a table of retail or·i:e equivalents for a range of sizes 

and prices of filter materials is presented. 

251 

RATH 4 STRONG 
\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

252 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

' \ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

' \ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

' 

,....~ 

N,_. I IU 

u (.) :I:= 
PARTICULATE TRAPS - AIR MAZE, HC -127 

Derivation Of Formula For Size Variation By Adjusting Length Only 

Structural Parts 

The basic costed unit has 1133 in.3 filter chamber volume. This chamber is 

cylindrically shaped: 

42" Long x 5.86 Diameter = 1133 in.3 

Assume that any increases or decreases in this volume will be made by changing 

the length of the cylinder (Diameter unchanged) 

Then the only structural components changed will be: (a) Outer cylinder and (b) 

Perforated metal cylinder. 

Referring to the Manufacturing Cost Estimate: 

Structural 

Components Mfg. Cost LengtJ:! 

Outer Cy!. $ 9.77 48" 

Perf. Metal Cy!. 2.73 42" 

Sub Total $12.50 (=76%) 

Other 3.90 

Total $16.40 

If we shorten the Perforated Metal Cylinder by Z%, the filter chamber volume 

is reduced Z%. 

Simultaneously, this shortens the Outer Cylinder by 42/ 48 X Z%, or 0.875 X Z%. 

253 

RATH & STRONG 
The net effect on Manufacturing Cost of Structural Components caused by a 

reduction (or an increase) of Z% in filter c:1arnber volume will be: 

$ M.C. = [s1s ($9.77) + $2.72) (Z%) 

$ M. C. = $11.28 (Z%) 

This amount, related to the M. C. of the 1133 in3 unit, can be stated as a 

proportional change in the total M. C. 

% change in M. C. of structural components = 11.28/ 16.40 Z% "' .69 Z% 

The manufacturing cost of structural components resulting from changing the 

filter volume by a factor F can therefore be calculated by this equation: 

Total Mfg. Cost= 16.40 (2 + .69 (F - i'O 

Total Mfg. Cost= 16.40 (.31 + .69F) 

Total Mfg. Cost= 5.08 + 11.32 F 

Where F = New volume-+-1133 

Example: 

What is the e5timated total manufacturing cost at a particulate trap having an 

800 in. 3 filter chamber? 

Relative change in vol.= 800/1133 = .706 = F 

Put F into the structural components equation: 

New mfg. cost of structural components = 5.08 + 11.32 (. 706) = $13.07 

254 

RATH 4 STRONG 

INCDll'OIATl:D 
add proportional cost for filter 

22.57 x .706 = 

Total Mfg. Cost $29.00 

Derivation 

A1rmaze Particulate Trap. (HC - 127) Converting Manufacturing Cost (MC) 

To Vehicle Retail Price Equivalent (RPE) 

Computation 

a. MC of unit (formula) 

b. + MC of Vehicle Ass'n. and Body Mod. $ .36 

c. + Tooling 6.57 

d. + o. H. .20 (a + b) 

e. + Profit .20 (a + b) 

f. + R & D 2.00 

g. + T & E .93 

h. + Corp. Alloc .20 (a+b+c+d+e) 

j • + Corp. Profit .20 (a+b+c+d+e) 

k. + Dealer M/U .40 (a+b+c+d+e) 

= RPE 

Combining: 

RPE = ~C + .36 + 6.47 + .4 (MC + .36~ (LB) + 2.93 

RPE = 2.52 MC + 15.48 255 

RATH & STRONG 
PARTICULATE THAP - AIR MAZE HC-127 

( UJJ cu. in. filter chamber) 

COSTS PER UNIT 

Fin. 

Wgt. Mfg. Cost Tooling Corporate Plant/ 

Port Mat'I. (Lb11.) Mall. Labor O.H. Tot. Exp. Inv. Tut. O.H. Profit Vendor Corp. Corp. 

• ( .20 (. 20 Cost Tools Alloc Profit 

Mfg. Mfg. R&D Equip ( .2 Vend (.2 Ve

Cost) Coat) Cost) Cost) 

Col.I 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 lJ 14 15 16 

Derlv'n (J+4+5) (7+8) (6+9+10+1l) 

Structural Elements 

Out11r Cylinder SS 11.1 $9.56 $.15 $.06 $9. Ti 

Outer End (2) SS 1.z .65 .OJ .01 .69 

Inlet Pipe SS 0.6 • JZ .00 .OJ .4' 

.,. 

Outlet Pipe SS 1.1 • 59 .oe .DJ .70 

Inlet Shroud SS .. , .70 .08 .UJ • 81 

Outlet Shroud Cyl. SS l.J .70 .00 ,OJ .81 

N 

VI Outlet Stvoud Cap °' Bot SS O.J .16 .OJ .01 .20 

Outlet Shroud Cep 

Shoulder SS 0.2 .11 .o, .01 .15 

Perf. Metil.I Cyl. SS 2.z 2.J8 .25 .10 2.7J 

End Sealant Ceremlc 0.2 .10 .01 - .11 

Componenta 25.9 15.27 .oz ,Jl 16.40 J.l6 .44 J.80 J.28 J.28 26.76 2.00 5.J5 5.J5 

Aaembly - .eo .J2 1.12 .60 .19 .79 .2J .2} 2.H .47 .47 

f"/GLS 1.5 22.50 .05 .02 22.57 .60 .18 .78 4.51 4.51 J2.J7 6.47 6.47 

-

TOTAL 'L7. fJ J7.77 1.67 .65 40.09 4.56 .Bl 5.J7 8.02 e.02 61. 50 2.00 12.29 12.29 

Vehlcle Assembly .lJ .05 .18 .60 .2J .BJ .04 .04 1.09 .85 .zz .22 

Body Modification -- .n .05 .18 .n .o4 .J7 .04 .04 .6J .OIJ • l} .l} 

GRAN) TOTAL J7.77 l.9J • J'j 40.45 5.49 l.OB 6.57 B.10 B.10 6J.22 2.00 .9J 12.64 12.64 
AIR - MAZE PARTICULATE TRAP HC - 127 - TOOLING COST AMORTIZATION PER PIECE 

(1133 cu. in. filter chamber) 

3 Year 12 Year 40 Year Amortil Year Non- Machinery 12 Year Land zation 

(Volume And $ Yearly Recurring Recurring And Launching and Per 

Expressed ir1 lOO's) Volume Tooling Tooling Equipment Cost Building Piece 

Structural E.lements 

.30 .30 .DB .07 .69 

Outer Cylinder 50 15 45 50 5 115 

.05 .03 .01 .09 

Outer Cy!. End (2) 100 5 10 10 1 26 

.10 .10 .03 .01 .24 

Inlet Pipe 50 5 15 15 1 36 

.10 .10 .03 .23 

Outlet Pipe 50 5 15 15 1 36 

.20 .17 .04 .01 .42 

Inlet Shroud Cyl. 50 10 25 25 2 62 

.20 .17 .04 .41 

Outlet Shroud Cy!. 50 10 25 25 2 62 

.10 .07 .02 . 01 .20 

Outlet Cap - Body 50 5 10 10 1 26 

.10 .07 .02 .19 

Outlet Cap-Shoulder 50 5 10 10 1 26 

.30 .30 .08 'Cll .69 

Perf. Metal Cyl. 50 15 45 50 5 115 

.30 .30 .03 .01 .64 

End Sealant 50 15 45 15 <;. 80 _, 

.30 .30 .08 .01 .10 .79 

Assembly 50 15 45 50 5 200 315 

SUB TOTAL 2.05 l. 91 ,q6 . (!7 .10 4.59 

105 290 275 29 200 1899 

Filter Elements 

• 3(1 .30 .17 .01 .78 

Accordion Tube 50 15 45 100 5 165 

.30 • 30 .17 .01 .78 

SUB TOTAL 15 45 100 5 165 

.30 • 30 .21 .02 .83 I Vehicle Assembly 50 15 45 125 15 200 

.30 .03 .03 .01 .37 

Bod:z: Modification 50 15 5 15 2 37 

2.95 2.54 .87 .11 .10 6.57 

', GRAND TOTAL 150 385 515 51 200 1301 
APPEl'~DIX 

METHODOLOGY 

COST DERIVATION 

RATH & STRONG 
DEVELOPMENT OF USEFULLY AC CURA TE 

METHODOLOGIES FOR ESTIMATING MANUFACTURING 

COSTS OF AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS 

General Discussion 

It must be recognized as a reality that the manufacturing cost of a component 

can never be pinpointed. 

Vendor qualifications (quality, delivery pE'rformance, second-source 

considerations) contribute to variation in the cost of the component. Internal 

operations also contribute to the variation (method change:>, scrap rates, 

tolerance adjustments). 

The point being made is that ~ estimate of a component's cost is suuj~cl Lu 

some error. 

The question tl":en becomes, "How big an error is allowable?" ("Can I t 

be accepted?") 

COST VERSUS WEIGHT METHODOLOGY 

Logic dictates that, all things being equal, the manufacturing costs of parts of a 

given material should bear soma rational relationship to their weights: there is 

more material in the heavier piece; its very weight or size should tend to slow 

doNn the rate at which it can be processed. 

Of course all things are not equal. One pie::e is more complex than another, 

requiring additional operations, thereby pushing up its cost. And this means that 

although, in aggregate, a good correlation between weight and cost does exist, 

the estimated cost of a single item based on its weight alone is subject to a 

measurable degree of probable inaccuracy. 

To clarify a bit the laws of inaccuracy (generally called laws of probability; 

consider the following synthetic example: 

INCDR .. DU,TED 

11 • 
Suppose a formula says that 95% of the one-pound pieces cost $1.00 plus or minus 

$.ZO. 

l. This means that were you to select one piece, weigh :t, find that it 

weighed one pound and so cost it at $1.00, you could be incorrect by 

$.20. 

z. The vP.ry same formula inherently implies that were 25 different onepound pieces priced, the total would be in error by only plus or minus 

$1.00, since some would err on the high side and others on the low. 

3. The average per-piece error decreases by the square root of the numb~r 

of pieces averaged, 

WEIGHT-COST CORRELATION FORMULAE 

The Manufacturing Costs used in the data base are, for the most part, derived 

from mathematical equations that relate the weight of a piece to its 

Manufacturing Cost. The equations are all linear and of the familiar- slope-andintercep t form y = ax + b. 

The equations, the development of which is described in subsequent text, are 

given in Exhibit 1. 

RATH A STRONG 
i 

n 

0 

• 

.. 

a 

• > 

... ... 

n 

, 

. 

ll 

)> 

-t 

J: 

l!o 

(/I 

-f 

;u 

0 

z 

G> 

. 

VJ 

• 

MateriLJl 

Stamped Slccl 

Stamped Swel Stamped Steel 

Ster.I Wire 

Aluminum 

Plastic 

Plastic 

Die Cast Linc 

Rubber 

nJHMLlLAE FOR FSTIMATING THE cosr 

or A PAIH WHCN ITS WEICHT IS KNOWN 

$ Cost Equals 

Wgt x Slope 

formula Modifiers Lbs Factor 

(a) 

Simple Parts: up to 4 lbs.• (W x $ .233) 

Medium Parts: up to 4 lbs.• (W x •• JO ) 

Complex: up tu 4 lbs.• (W x .367) 

(W x .439) (W x • 238) 

Light: up to 0.1 lbs. (W x 2.03 ) 

Heavy: over 0.1 lbs. (W x .438) 

(W x 1.19 ) 

(W x l.109) 

•Beyond this limit, enqineering estimates should be marle. 

+ 

+ 

+ + 

+ 

+ 

+ + 

+ 

+ 
DEVELOPMENT OF THE WEIGHT -COST CORRELATION FORMULAE 

Data Sources 

Three separate sets of cost i::stimations, each from a different source, were used 

in arri v in') at the equations presented. On all three, the cost of a part was 

established by the universally-used industrial engineering technique: an 

experienced machine tool engineer, having a wide background knowledge of 

processing methods ar.d rates end having information on the dimensions and 

configuration of a given piece, can predict its cost within close limits. 

The three sources: 

A. Pioneer Engineering and Manufacturing Corporation report, February 

1976; Report No. DOT-HS-5-01081. 

B. Budd Minicar study (DOT /HTSA). 

C. Ratti & Strong report (DOT /TSC 1067). 

Computation Procedures - General 

Each set of data was analyzed separately. The three analyses were compared 

and found to be in good agreement, with some isolated instances of parts not 

fitting the overall weight-cost correlation pattern. These relatively few 

significant deviations WP.re individually examined and virtually all were rationally 

explained. (Main causes were (1) erroneous classification of assemblies as parts 

and (2) heavier steel parts, over 5 pounds, do not exhibit a close enough 

relationship between weight and cost.) 

The three analyses were: then amalgamated into one best solution, resulting in 

the formulae presented previously in Exhibit 1. 

IJ.4 

RATH a STRONQ 
:l.' 

:·1 

. ' 

COMPUTATION PROCEDUR.E - SPECIFIC EXAMPLES 

Example l - Stamped Steel - Pioneer Data 

(.C..s describ~d ir. the referenced Pioneer report, a 1975 Chevelle Coupe was 

completely dismantled and a C:etailed analysis made of each component; weights 

were recorded and manufacturing costs were estimated, using "procedures and 

techniques adapted from the automotive industry;" with 350,000 ur.its per year 

and September l, 1975 labor rates and material cost as a base.) 

The weigl,t and cost figures given were first graphed in"to a scatter plot. 

Visual analysis of the plotted points indicated that while a weight-cost 

correlation clearly existed, the points were not normally distributed about any 

"best-fit" central line. In other words, two families of parts existed--J so-called 

bimodal distribution of ""imple" and "complex" parts. 

Exhibit Z, which covers the weight range from 0 to 1.5 pounds, most clearly 

demonstrates this bimodal characterisdc. The same distinctness of families 

pertains t.ip to 4 pounds; beyond this weight the correlation of weight and cost 

becomes too weak to be us\!ful. 

Two linear regression lines are required; one for the "simple" family ano one fo:-

the "complex," as shown in Exhibit 3. 

Exhibit 4 displays the 0-3.99 pounds raw jatca from the Picmeer report and also 

the part-by-part comparison with ther.· ar d the values derived from the best fit 

lines. As can be seen, SZ parts are involved which, on a oneueach basis, are 

estimated to cost $14.33, against which the weight-cost correlation equations 

give an estimate of $14.60; a difference in total of only $.27 and the largest 

single part error is $.13. 

fl. 5 

,qAT H &: STRONG 

INCDlil'IU.t.TlD 
i : I ti I I a I 

i I I 

I 

I 

. 

I 

f 

i 

l 

• ;;J: 

""" 4 :':\• £ 

• ~; 

• z 

. i 

;; 

i 

I 

Ii 

.. 

• I 

i 

; 

• • • 

i 

; 

; 

ii 

! 

• .. 

" i 

.I J i ' ,- I I - I ' ~ ~ I I 

ll 1_..._- • ' _.,.I ~ • - ' 

I _..ti ,, - ·~ I ~- - I - I 

I I I I : +- -- ' I 

I 

_1 l : ' I J.._1;:. :i:~·+,•~~I..:,·:,_~· J--+'-i-:'L:-1,-t+i'-t-t-tt:t~', :trJ-!!!!L]-=- • : I ; _[ 

; ' l I I !"": ·- ' I I I ;_~ -l-4-+ ... ·f'f-tti--t111"jTTll_.,_._..,_.,._1.._1H1r-:-:-1-i 

I 'l J 

I _l ,~ 'l:J:J.HH:+++~+=R~·-~·-\j'·"~..!-~~~~·t't1j:t±ttolt1n:;:·~ I , , I , , • 

r-t±Dl_,-.'l'"-~_'_I'"'~;.. _! : l ~ -- I I : I ~ I ~ -' .. ~ ' I ' I ' I ; : 

' I 

-r-;-.~ 

I ' I 

t~:!:".:l~~~·:..L"~~~~\ l .... • .- . '~ ', "•~ ....... +~ha-r:.lll"'111; I I ._ ... .-.._it:':--4::1::i~:t:+:+:+:::'~~:+=i~~~~;:::~..&~~lt::t:Jt::1~l~+=i+=Jo~=1f::'=~li:_:t:l~~~-- • _l ' ' ' , t ' _. ._-- • ; '_l ' ' ', , _J .~ ....... ' _1 ·i I I I 1 "11 I : 1 I : _ 

I I - .ft _l ; ... t l I I l ' 1 I l J. 1 ·= .. -~ I I ' ' .... 

........ _. ........ ,--Tl(.J · ' I . '.!:. . _,. 1 ' ' 

1 

- 1111 

-= ' II 1 ' ·• ,' -\, "'~ _... ,..., I I ~I;·. ~I; 0 1

' • ·-r-:.;::: ' 

1-·:... -~ ---~f-.;-i--:::;.;f-..~_:-'-:;./rt"J1::=:•;: II ' L I '~ \•" ./ P' I ~ ~ I ,Vl I .J'. \ I I llllt. • 9 t-....,.~ ...-.. ·. -- I" .. V '/1 \, I ' _J/I,. Z' I ~ ! I I 

r-;--...., A "I T •' I / '"' '\.. • f• .YI'" 1 I .. .... j ' _,I I/ ' ,,, \ "_/ _..Yl n I 

l' _a_. - I_\" ,\ y 

L 

• ...! 

· • / 

L_ 

11; 

• I ,' ' ' ' "'~·VI 'L / :.r , J 

, _.,, ~ _.w.: 

- a I ~ ~ 

; >,'· .1 t • I' ' ' . 1 y . ~ I I I I ·.I I 

1 

, 

~~t:~l::~:E:~l=~l~l:~'~l~•~:~~·~~-·~~V~'=A~:·j~' ' .L 'L'f•' >,.· ~~il:~'~~l£~~~~-'~;~~,,r..~~~~~'~l~=l~l~==~jl:~J~~~~~il:==~~~~ ,~,.,~ _,,,.__ ,, ,,, , - I 1 I '\ ' .., y'. II' 1 _ •• " ..-< r o _, ' ~" • - -

-;-- - I ' ' I r ' 1,• I ,I I/' , , A '\ ~ .... "'/ ~,, V _r ~ '\ \ I • -

' ' ',., " ' • • .. • " ' • • " ... ' l;"l ' V1 / I '/,\. I I : _[ ll/1}.ll,l.ffll'-' _JVI •I 

I y t I"\. _ "-1 V I ~;~~·__.~:;('.:i,.;~~i-t~++-t-t-' ~l~=-i:t:: 1 =r~ ·~·ll~::i IP)' V ..L_l/l\111 

~~=+=~!f:+:p''p=J+J_l_:::r~++~tl :t±t!:'t~~-::;~'/j~.i'fj~t Vtzl~t·~~~ll~:J .. ~~:..-'!; V ' '/1 ' ' I I - t' ':I __ '. : I'' ' '' I I '1 '' ;,.[LJ ')"~ ~ /'·~ Y:.. r• ,,. ._.. ' -

1 , 1 i 

1 

• 11 1, , r L A , t1 • • ·"" ' /' ' _,, , , • 1-1..4''-+-t:,.I +-fl ,-f-'1-:~,-f-7"..._-·..,.-I __ !~I--._ I t j.,. y ~ ~ ~ ~;.,.. f ,._~ ,/ ./ ': ;_,,;~ • ~, 1 I I 

I 

' I 

'1 J_ --' I • I 

_..... . ' ' 

0 I ' [ .:::: - , / I ,1 v; /' ' ' . , .. "" . ,I" ./ _. • I A , , I 

~:tj:j:t=~~l:t:~l~=t=~l~_.!~~=~·~-~l~~ ... ;:.,i-a.1!9-t-:-t':d'::::t:rl Jl~I ~ I,/ /' I~ 1 ,,A ' ._ _A - ,..., L.o"' L.i' iL_ I' 

• I' l .. - I I I' V ltf • 'ti I ;"- '1\1 11 'I I ,r· / .I\ 

I;: I I I: I I I I I ' ' I' I ~ ~ T I'.._~ / ~ ~·" I y- , Al. ./ './' _, 

l I ; l I .I _.t • , • '1 '/ ' I ,~ ,_.... C / [/' o ,I 

' I ! I I ; l J ,. ' -· -·, I 

._1~...,.' -r"1-'t-lh,'-.l•-~+-+-':-14.,.' _,.... - I ' J • ' I I ~ I I I ' ' I .....:.....!... .. 

t~~:t:+::~:~~=-1i::ctt::+=:+:~F-1--:i:~...;:~I:::t:J~:±:t±:t::~e~~t~t:t~t:~~+r:+:;~·~=r::i:+=t:=F!:'!:'El~::i:±:±:t:~:t:+f::·~~,~,~=-1' ' (:f~:!:f~~i':t~·~~~:i·:·t:~:~:=t:j~~=~=t·~~~j~I::t:~Ej:!:E~~±::-E~:t:!:t::c~4-+-+-+-'~-f-..,~~r•-.:-i,-~···l,..J..~,-.;....~'~.:...+-+-:r_J::!:~~:::~r::1_·-::-~:;·.;·--::~ ·': ~: 8=t:l:tf: ~;' ~:i:t~·P·:+:t:++:F=:H',::t=t· B:t:t±i·:±:·a:J!:~a~·:t:tt.t~~~~:tt~· ~·~·i· if~·~if~,a:r· :I · : : I , , It ;_ 11 •ol llo• I .. _l-IAji1•4l'.,. I II •'I I 

l-H!-~~~.++-1+-H-t-M.,~-;--.r,ri-:-.-r I I ' ..... 

rjr-t~~'~f;:~,.f : I.~,- ... 1~~-~~jp •• ... ~~i·:·~t:~~t~"~"'~i±~~~~~ I 11 f 11 11 -~'"'t~ 111-p ·3·~~ 1 : ·~ i~: -~~''I P~~tt' '11 ±±:EE·::±'±~ I 

1 { I 1 I I I 1 •I I I f I J I 1 1 I I I I 

f}. 6 

.: 
Exhibit 4 

STAMPED STEEL--COMPARISON OF PIONEER ESTIMATES 

ANO WEIGHT-COST EQUATIONS VALUES (0-3.99 POUNDS2 

Pioneer Pioneer 

Data Weight-Cost Data Weight-Cost 

(Ranked Class* Equation (Ranked Class• Equation 

by Wgt) of Di ff. by Wgt) of Diff. 

Lbs. $ Part $ (Over) Lbs. $ Part $ (Over) 

.03 $.06 s $.04 $-.02 2.81 $ .SS s $ .68 $ .13 

.04 .03 5 .04 .01 2.91 .SS s .68 .13 

.06 .02 s .04 .02 Subtotal 

.09 .04 s .05 .01 $6.23 5 $6.35 $ .12 

.09 .04 s .05 .01 .06 .15 c .15 

.10 .07 s .05 - • 02 .09 .14 c .16 .02 

.11 .10 5 .06 - • 04 .09 .15 c .16 .01 

.12 .07 s .06 -.01 .13 .lS c .18 .03 

.13 .07 s .06 -.01 .16 .16 c .19 .03 

.13 .09 s .06 -.03 .22 .22 c .21 -.01 

.16 .08 s .07 -.01 .25 .25 c .22 -.03 

.:6 .08 s .07 -.01 .38 .25 c .27 .02 

.20 .08 5 .08 .41 .26 c .ZS .02 

.25 .12 s .09 -.03 .44 .34 c .29 -.05 

.25 .11 s .09 -.02 .63 .30 c .36 .06 

.28 .07 s .10 .03 .64 .38 c .36 -.02 

.31 .09 s .10 .01 .64 .32 c .36 • 04. 

.32 .10 s .10 .n .39 c .39 

. 3.:0 .13 s .11 -.02 .81 .35 c .43 .08 

.50 .16 s .15 -.01 .94 .48 c .47 -.01 

. 60 .13 s .17 .04 1. 75 . 91 c .77 -.14 

.62 .19 s .17 -.02 1. 91 .82 c .83 .01 

.94 .29 s .25 -.04 2.25 .89 c .96 .Oi 

. 97 .20 s .26 .06 2.93 1.19 c 1. 21 .02 

1.13 .27 s .29 .02 Sub~otal 

l. 21 .34 5 .31 -.03 $8.10 c $8.25 $ .15 

l.88 .45 s .47 .oz Grar.d Total 

1.97 .55 s .49 -.06 $14.33 $14.60 $ .27 

2.16 .46 s .53 . IJ7 

> !c 2.38 .64 s .58 -.06 

f' ~:. ~. ,, *Simple= S Complex= C t 

,, 

f fl . 7 
Example Z - Plastic 

The data on plastic perts given in the Pioneer report was analyzed in a manner 

eimilar to that described in Example l. 

Here, the scatter-piotted points, Exhibit 5, showed a clear delineation between 

the lighter (up to 0.1 pounds) and the heavier parts. Two be~t-fit lines describe 

closely the relations between weight and estimated cost. 

Exhibit 6 presents the raw data and the comparable mathematically-generated 

values. On a one-each basis, both rr.ethods give a total of $3.69 for the 19 pieces 

involved, and the greatest individual deviation is $.07. 

~ATH a S'TRONG 
"'. "'. ;.")a. 

-! 

(I ; 

.. ; 

:i 

.. 

. 

.. 

u 

= ; 0 • - 1 . 0 -

-:: 

" 

: ! 

' ., .. ~ 

lf·9 

Exhibit 5 

-----= 

··.- -- . -=- =-=-==.::...... 

·-= ~-= 

= 

--

>-

a. 

E 8 0 

..!:: "' '"'0:0 

.,~ 

~·re 

-0 > 0 f1l 

~-a.~ 

.x...o "' "' -
Exhibit 6 

PLASTIC--COMPARISON OF' PIONEER ESTIMATES 

AND WEIGHT~COST EQUATIONS VALUES 

Weight-Cost 

Pioneer Equation 

Data Weight S Diff. 

Lbs. $ Class $ (Over) 

.005 $ .005 Light s .02 s .015 

.005 .05 Light .02 -.03 

.01 .005 Light .03 .02S 

.01 .01 Light .03 .02 

.01 .05 Light .03 -.02 

.03 .10 Light .07 -.03 

.06 .15 Light ~14 -.01 

.08 .17 light .18 .01 

.09 .20 Light .20 

.09 .20 Light .20 

.10 • 20 Light .22 .02 

Subtotal 

$1.14 Light $1.14 

.19 .15 Heavy .19 .04 

.32 .30 Heavy .24 -.06 

.34 .25 Heavy .ZS 

.44 .30 Heavy .29 - .01 

.47 .30 Heavy .31 .01 

.5~ .30 Heavy .35 . ;:is 

. 75 .so Heavy .43 - .07 

.88 .45 . _!-ieavy .49 .04 

~ubtotal 

$2.55 Heavl $2.55 

Grand Total 

$3.69 $3.69 

li·lD 

RATH a STRONG 

Budd Company Rieport 0323-1 (DOT-HS-S-0121 S) 

RESEARCH SAFETY VEHICLE PRODUCIBILITY AND 

COST STUDY FOR MINICARS, INC.--Novembei- 5, 1976 

Volume Basis - 300, 000 Units/Year 

All Costs In 1975 Dollars 

Co:sting Data Developed from 1'975 Pinto. 

- <Data Obtained from NH'TSA Contract HS ·5-00153> 

1975 Pintn Cost Data: 

V ar I a bl e C ost 

$1674.59 (81. 3%) }- Mfg. Cost 

2059.76 

Fixed Cost 

$385.17 ( 18. 7%) 

I Tooling Cost I -

$t:i2. 58 

J Other Cost & Profit 

I $232.68 ( 10. 46\) Dealer 

Wholesale 

2355.02 - Consumer 

~ Cost 

2769.00 

Dealer 

Mar!<up i.-

q1], 98 

{ 17. 58\) 

A· 12 

RATH 4 STRONG 
Budd Company_ (Continued) 

Baseline data generated by Pioneer Engineering and Manufacturing Corporation, 

DOT-HS-5-01153. 

Each part of th~ Minicar reviewed c;s to number of operations to form it and the 

tooling costs--then compared to similar Pinto parts and comparative costs 

established. 

In-depth study of Pinto data made to accommodate manufacturing s<equenc:e differences 

between Pinto and Minicar. 

H • 13 

RATH & STRONG 

INCDU•QRAT~D 
24 GA. CRS 

48 GA. CRS 

0 - 2# 

( 2# - 5# 

Si - l.lO# 

FORMULAE FOR BUDD DAT A 

$/Pc= $.10 + ($.25) WGT 

$/Pc = $. 20 + ($. 29) WCT 

FORMULAE FOR PIONEER DAT A 

STAMPED STEEL 

y = .07 + . 32 x 

y = • 75 + 0 x 

y = • 14 + . 22 x 

\Final Revision: --

0 - 2# y = • 08 + .33 x 

+ .30 + • 22 x :i t- 40# y = 

.4·14 

RATH 4 STRONG 
i 

i 

I 

.! 

~. 

t 

; 

" r L' 

I 

1,. 1--

1 

I 

,'.::f:..-:-1(-i:~" :-:=r~~r:.~~r:::-:-: .:7,~-: ·::-1 ·-: ::.--=::\:" ~=-.:\ · ....;.....:::= .. _ -=- =--:.: ·=:-: :--_ 

---~.-:- r;i :.: ·: Q ··I··~· ·t .. , .... . I . 

·.1 .... 1 . : ;.- -:-d=;::;;--: ....... -::-.:.._-.:1..z. :..· L-:: ... ;;i -- - . . . .. -- ·-·~·- - --- -- :r:: . . -- . ·r- - I ·. ·: •. L:::... :··j·._: :.::=J. ·:.. ~ ............ __ -.... ~ ;§ ---= -- ~,.:i:--r.-:'\.._·'=-: :: ~ .,. :~:.r.__ ·-.:::...;_:' :..[:;:: ... :;_-:_~, _..,_; -.: :: .~.::.. ~= 1 ·:· .·..:~:.: "-::1·'-';~ £='~ ct=:.i:=.:..:-- .::!:::· 

- - - :::.=::-::. - ·- .f.:::: ·_ ;··::· -=~:~=-: · ,. ·: :-~:::.: .:.-::-::- =:=::μ :>T:-.: ·,:f::: :=fa:.::.::.: ~;:1:_~ .::.=~....$-7 ::... .:-, ~- -- -·.-:; ... -:.::_· i' :-. ·-· 1:.:-:.::.- -·:..t..__ -- - :'. ·--~-. -=-r=t:-.::,...;.=. - --:r· --t;=I=·-+.-- - = .· :- ·. c:. · ·· - • .... -·· .. 4 "7 :··:-:~.: • .• --:.·-~ •.•• ' -'='·-·· -. c •· T.-.. _. --~ .:..:r.:-- -=:== . ·;. . :· :1 .. , , ... :: .. :·~::. ·- ~ -; ·-::..=;:::, :~:!:=-:[. ~_-..: ~:--:::::· :~·~=- . .:..-::::~ 1::.::;: __ -~_:.._-: ~I\. =~==~t:= ~-= 

.: ::: -=~-::-: .... .: :. --· :-.J;,:.I::::: ~=~ -~:-! >:-.~:~;~- .μ .>. .::.-: ::.:;..:: :-:7~-"==-=:~ 

. ··-- .=r::.:~ · ..-~:t=---· ~-:r:::.~_::+=:.- - =:;:~~::=- __ .. :E::..~ ~=- ~~ -_ ·.t.:: -...___ 

~~-- - -~-~-;:-· -~~r --~--:-- .;r- -__ 1::: ?.-:=.:-~~~ .::~ 

w .. - - .. ~ . ::__ ~p i:--:E.:.: : . . .... ....::.=. ~ t:""- ~ ~ -.:...__.-:---

,9-15 

>- 0.. 

eo 

Ou 

..!: d> 

""O:D 

QJ~ 

~·ro 

-0 > 0 '° ~­a.~ 

QJ "' c£...D 
ii 

t. 

PIONEER ENCINEERINC & MANUFACTURINC CORPORATION 

February 1976 

OOT-HS-5-01081 

(Note: This one, ~sed on Intermediate Type Car, Is not the same one referred 

to by Budd, which spoke of a 1975 Pinto.) 

1975 Chevelle Coupe 

Car dismantled, detailed analysis of components made; w~ights recorded; ml.lnufacturlng 

costs estimated. 

"Cost estimating procedur~s and techniques adapted from the automotive industry. 11 

(Gives bibliography of other studies using same estimating practices.) 

Final Assembly Labor = 2q Hours 

Volume - 350, 000 Unlts/Ye~r 

September 1, 1975 Labor Rates and Materials Costs 

A·l6 

RATH & STf'?ONG 
Graphical analysis of the "Stamped Steel" data In the Pioneer report DOT-HS-5-01081 

leads to these observations and conclusions: 

1. A simple linear regression, ("best fit") line relating piece cost and 

piece weight Is not a practical model. 

2. The data are not sc-.::ittered about this central line in a normal distribution 

pattern. Rather, they form a Bi- or Multi~Modal distribution. 

3. This Multi-Modal character of the data is a natural reflection of the various 

complexities of the pieces (complexity here Implies number and types of 

operations as well as skeleton scrap at blanking and piercing. 

lL Three levels of complexity classification are recommended: 

{a) Simple 

'~/Pc= $. 03 + ($. 233 x lbs.) 

(b} Mediu11'I 

$/Pc= $.(;8.,. {$.jO x lbs.} 

(c) Complex 

$/Pc= $.13 + ($.367 x lbs.) 

If· 17 

RATH & STRONG 
>· 

0. 

eo 

Ou 

.!: Cl> 

-OJ:i 

.,.!'! 

~·~ 

-u > 0 IO 

a.~ 

<>'....0 "'"' 

----.. -----:~~ 

I - : .. .. .... - .- .. -- ....... -

11-18 

: .. 1<:f~~ ;~. ~\\ . . . 

. :. -: :!~~ 

~ r--r:: 

' - ----- . . .. :; F :~ 

. :.· :,. 

·-:-::-i ~~~:-

.... . ~ 

·-1~ 

~i~=1- .- -fA--~~.-= i ... 1 "" 

:~-f :,..i~~· :-: ... : ·;.J- ··· ... . -=---: T:-.:- · ·~...: 

:~4~~~1:~~ -~·~~---~ 

--r-· .. ·-- ..... --: .:-:1 .•. 

-~·- ··' - ~ ..... . _LJ ... ~_ .... I_, 

-~-~~;~: f( : r·. ::. 

·:.. ::- 1.\-'-

·_ :_,:..:·.L1.: 

-_j:~:i~> ......... 

.. ·--· .... '!:-·~· . -:-:-:- I ·- • 1". .! -~ - ...;...;J.;..:..~-

-..::. :~:.L:--: ~ --·TI-... -- - .. -·- ........ 
-

.'( -- +- >---;i;;; 

i~=-~ 

... '""1~ .... 

.... 

-

~~-­

' ....__.. - _. r-- ~- "' I 

. 

r:- .... ~-- 4 -

- .. - - . -i-- ..-

•-·t- .. 
1-).20 
.... 

v 

~ ... 

,..~ 

I-

"' '\ 

"-' 

I iJ 

" - "- . ... _ 

F,. 

.,,.. 

~ ----3 \-

't~ 

A 

\V - '1.J -.:. 

ll.} 

('--

()~ 

(\ 

. - ...,._ -- ~ :::.. ''-

"" .__..._~ 

_, 

-~ 

~~ 

_ _._ 

-

.... 

.. '-' 

-- - -

·-

-

·-

.... 

'- -- ·-

-

-

.-:-;: 

' ":::;::::,, 

-

-

-

'" 

----·-

c:_ 

·-

- __ ,.... 

--

-:-· 

-

-= 

-

-.._ 

-

-

-

.... .._ 

·-~. 

= 

-

--1! 

----
- ~= 

- ..... 

----~ 

- I -· -

~ - --=-..;..;;... 

- --~ - - -- - - - - -

.;... 

----~ 

..,;.. 

- - - - -

Ll. ?? 

-

-~ ...... ,.- -- ...... -

-

-. 

-; 

-
ECONOMY OF SCALE EFFECT Of'~ COSTS 

To a large degree, this report is an extenion of an earlier one (EPA-460/2-79-002) 

which dealt with emission controls for automobiles rather than truckg. Some of 

the devices are identical for autos and trucks. Some are similar, but larger for 

trucks. 

The size differential has been reflected in the unit cost estimations on a pieceby-piece basis, so that were size the only factor, the cost data herein would be a 

relatively straightforward extrapolation of the automobile estimates. 

Another factor, however, '.ntrudes: that of volume. Automobile manufacturing 

quantities are several times as great as truck quantities. This affects the 

manner in which a product is most economically manufactured, the larger 

quantities employing more automated equipment and less manual work plus some 

reduction in raw material costs. Overall, the unit cost is less for the high voiume 

product. 

Based on separate studies, the following learning curve type relationships have 

been developed and have been used in this report, where appropriate, to extend 

the automotive costs to cover trucks. 

11·23 

RATH & STRONG 

INCQ .. •QRATID 

---_.,.~ 

i 
Equipment 

Tooling 

Labor 

Material 

TOTAL 

For Each Doubling of Capacity, 

Multiply by: 

Investment Cost/Unit 

1.45 0.73 

1.30 0.65 

0.70 

0.90 

0.80 

/}. 24 

RATH Ba STRONG 

lllCD•~O•AT!D 
DESCRIPTION OF USE OF THE FACTORS 

Typical Annual Auto Capacity 

Typical Annual Basic Truck Capacity 

Ratio= 350,000 

50,000 = 7 

A multiple oi 7 is equi.valent to 2.81 dcublings. 

Derivation: 

x log 2 = log 7 

x = ~ log 2 = 2.81 

22.a1 = 7 

Example 

350,000 

50,000 

Suppo!;e the equipment ~nvestment to make 350,000 per year of a given part is 

$10,000,000. Unit cost (12 year write-off) is therefore $10,000,000 + (12 x 

350,000) = $2.38. 

Were this ider.tical part to be made at a rate of only 50,000 per year, the 

resultant costs would be: 

Investment - $10,000,000 + (l.45) 2•

81 = $3,520,000 

Cost/Unit - $2.38 + (. 73) 2•

81 = $5. 76 

fl. 25 

RATH & STRONG 
INFLATION EFFECT ON COSTS 

All costs shown in this report are quoted in 1977 dollar:5. This has been done to 

maintain continuity and consistency with the similar report, (EPA-460/3-78-002) 

made on automobiles in 1977. 

In order to convert the quoted costs to any current year basis, some inflation 

rate must be selected, and the following equation used: 

C = Q (1 + R)N 

Where, 

C =Current Year Cost 

Q = Cost Quoted in this Report 

R = Selected Average Annual Inflation Rate 

N = Number of Years since 1977 

/!. 26 

RATH 4 STRONG 
Number of 

Years 

(N) 

Summary 

Equipment 

Tooling 

Labor 

Materials 

TOTAL 

TABLE OF TYPICAL MULTIPLYING FACTORS (l+R)N 

2-

3-

4-

5-

6-

Average Inflation Rate 

2% 4% 6% 8% 

1.04 l.OB 1.12 1.17 

1.06 l.12 1.19 1. 26 

1.08 1.17 1.26 1.36 

l.10 1.22 1.34 1.47 

1.13 1.27 1.42 l.59 

DERIVATION OF THE ECONOMY 

OF SCALE, EFFECTS ON cosr 

(R) 

10% 12% 

l.21 l.25 

1.33 1.40 

1.46 l. 57 

1.61 1. 76 

1. 77 1.97 

For Each Doubling of Capacity, 

Multiply by these Factors 

Investment Cost/Unit 

1.45 0.73 

1.30 0.65 

o.7a 

0.90 

O.BO 

A· 27 

RATH & STRONG 
DATA RECAP 

57 000/YR 50,000/YR 150z000/YR 

Equip. $/Unit $156.99 $58.26 $34.59 

Equip. Investment( 12-Yr) $9,419,400 $34,956,000 $62,262,000 

Tooling $/Unit $424.51 $82.74 $46.12 

Tooling lnvestmP.ntO-Yr) $6,367,650 $12,4ll,OJO $20,754,000 

Labor $/Unit $2, 221. 68 $1,110.48 $497.68 

Material $/Unit $1,927.23 $1,349.08 $1,156.33 

Total $/Unit $5,619.07 $3,044.75 $1,933.79 

Qty. Ratios Doub lings (N) 

150z000 = 30 zn = ;o n = 4.91 s,ooo 

50z000 = 10 2" = 10 n = 3. 71 s,ooo 

150 1000 = J z" = J n ::: 1.58 50,000 

A. ZB 

RATH 4 STRONG 
EQUIPMENT 

Qty. Invest. 

Ratio Ratio Use 

30 6.61 F4.91 = 6.61 F: 1.47 

10 3. 71 l F3. 71 = 3. 71 F: 1.48 1.45 

3 l. 78 Fl.58 = 1. 78 F: l .4l~ ) 

u . c 1. lJ. 5 nit ost-2 = .73 

TOOLING 

Qty. Invest. 

Ratio Ratio 

30 3.26 F4.91 = 3.26 F: 1.27 

10 l. 95 F3. 71 = 1. 95 F= 1.22 1. 30 

3 1.67 Fl.58 = 1.67 F: 1.38 

u . c t i. 3o nit OS zz = .65 

LABOR 

Qty. Invest. 

Ratio Ratio 

30 .22 F4.91 = .22 F:: .73 

10 .so FJ.32 

= .so F= .81 .70 

• 

3 .45 Fl.58 = .45 F: .60 

f}. 29 

RATH & STRONG 

INCCIR"a•.u1ta 
MATERIAL 

Qty. $/Unit 

Ratio Ratio Use 

30 .60 i:-4.91 

= .60 F= .90 

10 .70 FJ.32 = .70 F: .91 .90 

3 .86 Fl.56 

= .. 86 F= .91 

TOTAL 

Qty. $/Unit 

Ratio Ratio 

30 .35 F4.91 = .35 F: .Bl 

10 .54 F3.32 

= .54 F: .83 .80 

3 .64 F.l.58 = .64 F= .75 

A- 30 

RATH A STRONG 
INTRODUCTORY SUMMARY TO COVER ITEMS 10-16 

CATALYTIC CONVERTERS--GENERAL 

There are seven types of catalyt:c;; c:onverters to be considered. 

Categorized by function, they fal I into four classes: 3-way, oxida~ion, reduction, 

and stal"t. Categorized by physic:al configuration, there are only two classes: 

in-line cylindrical and under-floor pan. 

Configuration Class 

ln-L.lne Under-Floor 

Cata!r;t Functior~_J2!!.~. Cylindrical Pan 

Monolithic 3-Way x 

Monolithic Oxidation x 

Monolithic Red1.1ction x 

Mono I ithic ~ta rt x 

Pelleted Oxidation x 

Pelleted Reduction x 

Metallic Reduction x 

For purposes of cost estimating, lh~ configurati.;in classification is by far th~ more 

applicable, and has been used In the methodology underl•flng the sections following. 

The first section, "Monolithic 3-Way Catalysts," presents In detailed fashion the 

step-by-step logic employed in the estimations. Subsequent sections refer to this 

logic where applicable, and expand only on putinent details. 

In each ease, an equation Is pl"'ovided by which, when the catalytic content and 

the volume are specified, the estimated plant m~nufacturing c:ost and retail 

price equivalent can be calculated. These equations are ~mbodied in forms A, 

B, a~d C. 

A- 31 

RATH c!& STRONG 
CALCUL,TION OF THE COST PER GRAM OF CAT.~LYTIC COMPOUNDS 

Conver"sion Factors - Weight 

The matel"'ial prices are typically quoted in val"'yi:;g units of weight. 

Hel"'ewith is a list.-; ;IJl'!"::ol"'s ;:,y which to convert each to gn1ms. 

Avoirdupois pour.cls x 453. 5924 = grams 

Avoirdupois ounces x 28. 3495 = grams 

Troy pounds x 373. 248 = grams 

Trey ounces x 31.104 =grams 

Conversion Factors - Volume 

Cubic feet x 1728 = cubic inches 

Square feet x 144 = square inches 

Cost Pel"' Gram of a Composition of Materials - (Exact Method) 

To c:alci.:late the compour :'.cost in dollars per gram, use the following 

.format: 

Quoted Conversion Pro- Compound 

Price to $/Craro •• 

Conv. 

Material $ Unit Factor $/Gram 

A-1 B c D E 

A-2 

A-3 

Etc. 

Total Compound 

A-1, A-2, Etc. - List ingrecli~nts 

B & C - Quoted $and units in which quoted 

D -Appropriate co:wersion fac(cr from 1.1 

E - Divide B by n 

F - List proportion as decimals (10% = 0.10) 

C - Sum of colunn F •nuJt equal 1. \100 

H - Multiply F ~y E 

Portion • it1 

Compound $/Cram 

F H 

c . J 

1.000 

J - Sum of column H equals compt-und cost per gl"'am 

A· 32 

RATH a STRONG 

INCGU•GIATIG 
Example 1 

What Is the cost per gram of 1 compound which contains 2\ rhemium; 

n. 4\ ruthenium; 3\ nickel; and in which the platinum-to-rhodium ratio 

Is 25: 1? 

Solution - Rhenium = .020 

Ruthenium = . 004 

Nickel = .030 

Subtotal = .054 

Remainder= 1.000-.054 = .946 

Material 

Platinum 

Rhodium 

Rhenium 

Nickel 

25 

Platinum 25•1 x .946 = .910 

1 

Rhcx;iiwn 25+1 x .946 = .0.!6 

Total 

Quoted 

Price 

$ Unit 

167.00 

455.00 

775.00 

2.23 

T. oz 

T. oz. 

Av. lb. 

Av. lb. 

1. 000 

Conversion 

to $/Gram 

Factor $/Gram 

31.104 5.369 

31.104 14.628 

453.5924 1.709 

453.5924 .cos 

Total Compound 

ProPortion 

.910 

.036 

.020 

.030 

1. 000 

Compound 

$/Gram 

4.886 

.527 

.034 

s.447 

Cost per Cram of a Composition of Substrate Materials - (Approximation 

Method) 

This short-cut method, within the proportion limits proscribed, will 

deviate no more than 2% from the exact method described above. 

Procedure 

I. Calculate the cost per gram as if platinum and rhodium were the 

only ingredients (Pt + Rh = 100%). 

2. Multiply this by the proportion represented by the sum of 

platinum and rhodium. 

3. Add to this the product of the remaining proportion times $. 67. 

Ii. 33 

RATH 4 STRONG 

1 N CCI• •ti •ATICI 
Example 2. 

What is the cost per gram of a compound which con ta ins 2\ rhenium; o. 4% 

ruthenium; 3\ nickel; lrld in which the platirium-to-rhodium ratio i:s 2S: 1? 

1. 

2. 

Platinum 25 parts x $5. 369 

Rhodium _!part x 14.628 

Totals 26 parts 

148.853 

Cost/gram of mix 26 = $5. 725 

Platinum 91.0 

Rhodium 3.6% 

Sum 94.6% 

.946 x $5.725 = $5.416 

= $134.225 

= 14.628 

$148.853 

3. (1.000 - .946) x $.67 = $.036 

4. $5.416 + $.036 = $5.452 (answer) 

(Compare with ~5.447gotten by Exact Method, Example 1, 

Section 1. 3. 2.) 

Discussbn - The short-cut method is made feasible because of two 

factors: 

(a) Platinum and rhodium constitute 84. 5\ or more of the mixtur"e, 

and 

(b) The unit price of these is much greater than of the other constituents. 

Typical Extreme Calculation 

Platinum to Rhodium = 2: 1 (upper cost ratio) 

Platinum & Rhodium = 84.5\ (lower limit) 

Rhenium = 5.0\ (upper limit) 

Ruthenium = 0. 5\ (upper limit} 

Nickel = 10.0\ (upper limit) 

100. 0% 

Platinum $5.369 x 2/3 x .845 = $3.025 

Rhodium 14.628 x 1/3 x .845 = 4., 20 

Subtotal $7. 145 

Rhenium 1. 709 x .050 = .085 

Ruthenium 2.009 x .005 = .010 

Nickel .005 x .100 = .001 

A· 34 

$i.241 

RATH a. STRONG 

111 ca ... a ••TID 
GHAMS OF COM1 0LJNL1 REQUIRED FOH. VAHIOLJS VOUJMES .O.NO LOADI

-

- -

} LOADING (Gm/Ft ) 

l s 10 15 20 30 40 50 

1 .0111)58 .00209 .00579 .OOR6B . 01157 .0173( • . 02 31 s .02094 

10 .00579 .029 .058 . 087 .116 .174 . 231 .2B9 

20 .OllS7 .050 .116 .174 .231 .347 .463 .579 

;u 

)> 

-t 

i :I 

50 .02894 .145 .289 .434 .579 .868 l. 16 1.45 

n 

c 100 .O'.J7B7 .289 .579 .068 l.16 l. 74 Z.31 2.89 

n :t::. 0 at 

.. • VJ 

a (/I \J1 • .. -t -4 

.. ;u 0 

0 

....... 

Ill 150 .08601 .434 .068 l.JO. l. 74 2.60 J.47 4.34 

E 

:J 200 .11574 .579 1.16 l. 74 z. 32 }.47 4.6} 5.79 

a -

> zso .14468 • 723 1.45 2. 17 2.69 4.34 5.79 7. 2J 

z 

(i) 

300 . l 7361 .060 1. 74 2.60 J.47 5.21 6.94 B.60 

-

350 .202'>5 l.01 2.03 J. Oti 4.05 6.08 8.10 10. lJ 

400 . 23148 l. 16 2. J2 }.47 4.6J 6 .9'' 9.26 11. 57 

. 

Grams required= Lnarling (<Jrn/ft 3) x Volume (in3) -:- 1728 
Note that the last three ingredients which represented 15.5% of the 

total weight added only $.096 to the subtotal cost of Platinum and 

Rhodium. 

The short-cut formula substitutes 15.5% x $.67 = $.104 for the 

calculated $.096, creating an error of $.008, which is only 0.11 % of the 

total. 

CALCULATION OF THE WEICHT OF CATALYTIC COMPOUND USED PER 

CONVERTER 

Volume used is cpressed in cubic inches. 

Leading is spoken of In grams per cubic foot. For ease of calculation 

this is converted to grams per cubic inch. 

1 gram/ft3 X 1/1728 = .0005787 gm/in3 

Total weight equals volume times loading. 

weight (grams) = volume (in3) X loading (gm/ft 3) "<- 1728 

The matrix given in this section gives grams required for various 

combinations of volume and loading . 

. ,rl· 36 

RATH A STRONG 
CALCULA.TION OF THE COST OF CATALYTIC COMPOUND PER 

CONVEFlTER 

Cost per converter ~uals grams required (Section 2) times the cost per 

gram of the compound (Se<:tlon 1) . 

For purposes of ready reference, the table on the following page is presented 

giving sl.bstrate compound costs at selected values of platinurn-rhodium 

ratio, grams required, and total platinum-rhodium content. 

Also in that table the following material prices are used: 

Platinum $ S .369/gm = $167 /Troy oz. 

Rhodium 14. 628/gm = 455/Troy CZ. 

Rhenium 1. 709/gm = 53/Troy oz. 

Ruthenium 2. 009/gm = 62/Troy oz. 

Nickel . 005/gm ·- 2.23/av. lb. 

Intermediate values may be Interpolated, or calculated directly. 

Equation for calculating cost of substrate material per converter. 

{ 

167Pp + 455Pr -..( V L] 

COST= (Pp+ Pr) 31.103 + [1-(Pp +Pr}] .67s, 1728 

where 

when (Pe + Pr).) .845 

Pp 

Pr 

v 

L 

= Percent Platinum ~ 100 

= Percent Rhodium ~ 100 

= Volume in cubic inches 

= Loading in grams per cubic foot 

It· 37 

RATH 4 STRONG 

INCDIPOIATID 
Total 

Grams 

Substrate 

Required 

Line (Note l) 

' l .029 

2 .058 J .116 

:u 4 .114 

> -f '::::;. 

i J: . 

5 .289 

n 

;:: " \>I • CD ... 6 .579 7 1.1<1 0 (I) • • -f ... 

.. :u 0 

0 

8 l. 74 

9 2.Jl 

10 J.47 

z 

G) 11 4.05 

12 5.21 

u 6.08 

14 6.94 

15 7.23 

16 8.10 

17 9. 25 

18 10. IJ 

19 11.57 

£0 12.15 

21 IJ.89 

n J/1. 18 

2j 16.20 

l :os T OF SUBS l HA TL MA lEIUAL PEH C:ONVEH TEH 

2:1 

$ 8.4'.J'j 

$ .ZS 

.49 

• 98 

1.47 

2.44 

4.90 

9.81 

14.71 

19.SJ 

29.J4 

34.24 

44.05 

51.41 58.6!1 

6l.1J 

69.49 

71J.29 

85.65 

97.82 

102. 73 

117 .44 

ll 9. O'J 

lJ6.97 

% Plalinum + % Rhodium -= 100% 

(See Mole J if(i00%) 

-

Hatio Platinurn to Hhodium and Cost Pr.r Gram (Note 2) 

5:1 7:1 9:1 11:1 19:1 

$ 6.912 $ 6.526 $ 6.295 $ 6 .141 $ 5.8J2 

$ .20 $ .19 $ .18 $ • lH $ .17 

.40 • J8 • 37 ,J6 • J4 .80 .76 .73 • 71 .68 

1.20 1.14 l .10 l.07 l.01 

2.0U 1.69 l .62 l. 77 1.69 

4.00 J.78 J.64 J.56 J.38 

e.02 7.57 7.30 7.12 6.77 

12.0J ll.J6 10.95 10.69 10.15 

15.97 l S.08 14. 54 14.19 lJ.47 

2J.98 22.65 21.84 21.31 20.24 

27.99 26.43 25.49 24.EJ7 23.62 

J6.0l J4.00 32.80 I 31.99 J:J.38 42.02 39.68 39.27 J7.J4 35.46 4i' .97 45.29 4J.69 42.62 40.47 

49.97 47.18 45.H 44.40 42.17 

SS.99 52.06 50.99 49.74 47.24 

64.01 60.4J 58.29 56.87 54.00 

70.02 66.11 6J. 77 62.21 59.08 

79.97 75. SI n.0J 71.05 67 .48 

83.98 79.29 76.48 74.61 70.86 

96.0l 90.65 67.44 e5. 30 I 81.01 

98.0l 92.54 (]9.26 01 .oo I 62 .07 

111.97 105. 72 101.98 99.48 i 94.48 

I 

2

$ 5

$ 

l

l

J

69

lJ

19

23

29

34

39

41

46

5357

66

69

79

01

92
Note 1: Determin~ gram,; required from the table or formula below it. Lor:ate 

nearest llne (o,. interpolate beh~een two lines) and read $ In 1pproprlate ratio column. 

Note 2: Cost per gram calculated at Platinum $167/Troy oz.= $5.369/gram and 

Rhodium $455/Troy o<t. = $ 1IL628/gram. 

Note 3: When Rh~rilum, Ruthenium of Nickel are also included in the compound, 

multiply the value from the table by the combin~d percentages .:>f 

Platinum and Rhodium; add to this the remaining percentage times 

$. 67 times total grams required. 

~. ... _,.. 

t-1· 39 

RATH & STRONG 

--·-···-----, --...... ~,,._.., ... ,....,. -·· --~·---- ··- - --
DETERMINATION OF MONOLITHIC SUBSTRATE SHELL DIMENSIONS 

lmpo~ccf Spsc.e :. '•:1its lo Shel I 

Oian•e~ ... ,. c;hcll 

L ... nsth ShE:ll 

- 6.011 

- 240 11 

Implied space limits to substrate 

Diameter ~· 6. 0 - 0. S (metal mesh) = 5. S" 

Length - 24.0 - 1.1 (endc:ap) = 22.911 

Two selected shell ;.iiameters to accommodate the ra;;ge of substrate 

vol um~~= (refer to graph 4. 3) 

Vol (in 

0-150 

151-400 

Dia (in.) 

4.0 

5.4 

Length (in.) 

0-15.1 

9.7-24.0 

Length of shell required at given substrate volume. 

Substrate Dia. Shell Length Shell 

Volume (in (incl. mesh) (incl. ca2) 

1 4.0 • 1 O+ 1 • 1 = 1 . 1 

10 4.0 .9S•1.1= 2.1 

20 4.0 1 . 90+ 1. 1 = 3. 0 

so 4.0 4. 75+1. 1 = s. 9 

100 4.0 9. 50+1.1=10. 6 

150 4.0 14.l6•1.1=15.4 

151 5.4 8 • 63+1 . 1 = 9 . 7 

200 5.4 11 . 43+1 • 1 = 12 . 5 

250 5. 'I 14.29+1.1=15.4 

300 S.4 17.15+1.1=18.3 

350 5.4 2 0 . 00+ 1 • 1 =21 . 1 

~00 S.4 22.86•1.1=23.9 

A· 40 

RATH 4 STRONG 
,'\ 

.... 

-

··-··· I ----·---•• 

I i . I 

·-~i -~ --+- ··l·-· ~--,--

- -. -··---+-----+- ., . . .i . i . I- - : \ \ ----- ¥~~ ~ ,-

\ I 

Ill • I.. - -- . 

~ ·- \ " ·-·~ ---·-! ·-- ·---·-r-...,.1--l.-- : ' ,,,,--.. Q ...J ~ --:--1 ---1 t; -- . 4 

::> .J. ' _.,,. 

--· ----,. ........ --- ----· - J " ~ ; ,. . ? . . rr· "--. -.:,-----.,,. -----~ ~ Q '" , .: ,. . j:ll. ··-- - - ~ ···-- -

1--< -~ - __ _:_ .. ··1 I .... : ~ .,, 

. I- : -I : ! ·-. _ __.i. ' ,. ....; ' r" I- .... , ... --- ., 

c( 

... . ., ... ·1' ··- -· . --~--.·- ·-.-. -- ···--

- '" I : ~ -~ ·', ... ~ ii I 

: ----i-c:t-. J: ---+--....;._- j I 11!.._ 1 • ~ I 

. ·Q W j '(' ! . ~ ~ ......_, I 

1-1- : .J ··-l··-:·-···- I I~ -t· 

r e i: ~ -'~ ~+- :: ! :·--,~" . .;· i --: j --_ _L _ _.__ 

. 

~ 5 .._ 

~ ; ~ JP( ~ft·.: ~ ! ~ j }-rv"\\-;-·-:~~---5.s~----~ r- - : I · .. ..1 i -· ~ • 

---~::. i l.J 1 x. ~ < -· 0 - .. . . I .,. ----~ i -.....,....--.--·-+--__:. _ _J_ '' .. ·"< 

_ ___.~,.j.._~Ll.I', ~fl!_-- ~ -\ ... ·- -· I rl ·~ • '~ ::;---~~~~~.l-.--+--_J_ _ _\. - --~ _.,., --~_; .. --~-~ ! . J \~.:-,----~- ·- ---:·~. H __:: ; . . . -~ --- ---- ~ 

\fl ... t ; ! . --- -· ----···-- _ _j,. -····- ·- - • i ~ . ~ ~ ---1 ,~ _:--- ' - - ---~-- ~-- . ~-· -

~ -- l--. i ____ '· \ -:- j : --- 1 -----------~ - I 

~ ... - t ~ 

r-,....-+--,- ·~ - -! . --- ---;l:---r--;_-~_ . ~ 

::·-__ -~:-:~T:~-~-~--jj~-~--~---.?::.,~--~~~-.. · ..~~:0~··_··:_~~1 -·--··-··~-~--~-~~·-~·· ~·~~..,.."°' ....... ·~-.-~0~1-~--=-ja:i:~·=··-:':;.~.~·~'±-:~~-~~~---~~-~--9-, -, 

~--;-t-~----,-- --lr---:--t-....,.-..;,__:._.;._, l I 

-:-· . . . --, (1"' ii) l K J:i!l,., ~ 1 !iv,ll ;~' S ----- -

·1··-·-·.l··-- : ! : : i ,· . 1' . I . I I . j ..... -.---·- . I . . ·,-·-·--1 ··-··- '· ······· : ·-···· .: . I · ····.·_··- . ···· .. I .· ........ . i ····i ··:-. . . . .. (·- .. l , =~:_ ... 

____ -

-,·- --

t -- ' 

I 

1!1 

.. <: I J 

i .J 

0 

I > ; 

J. a ' -
r· 

DETERMINATION OF RINC DIAMETER 

Volume 

Sub,trate 

In. 

0.-1 50 

151-400 

Dia. Ring 

In. 

4.0 

5. II 

A·42 

RATH & STRONG 

INCOalla llATID 
.,,, 

-....:.-:::...-:;~:.:•- .· --- -... ··- .... 

__ .. :'.:~::j:i~;;;;:~·==-==:=:.:~--s=A ·-··· ---·· . ~··-·-···· -·· :,._"'== -~-!:--= :: ::-:-: . . ::..:. ·:7-t=:-: :: :_ ·: -~: . .. -----1 -··---··-. -····· . . . 

. . 

..... -. -~---· ·-.. ____ . ·--·------~------

... _.._ . -·-·-

--- ________ ---

-··----· ---~ 

.. __ ~ 

f----'-l-""--'-'·-1 .. --------.. -.-.• -_-_...,.._-_-_-_-_-.---.-. -.. -__ -_. -;-:::-:-. -_--.. -. --- : =-.. 1 •• - .:-·.:-:-:: :-:~ 7--:-:_- --:-••• ··:- •• : .•• : :: : • 

/}· 43 
.. .. 

::0 

.:p i :c 

:; 

.. 

Cl Ul 

: -c 

;;: ::0 

a 0 

z 

Ci) 

-· 

Part 

_, . ..,,. 

C11tr. Assy. 

Shell 

Kings (No.) 

In. Cone 

Out. Cone 

In. Pipe 

Flanges Mesh 

Hdwr. 

1 Subslrt • t'•"' Coal 

Cvlr. Assy. 

Shell 

Rings ;"No.) 

In. Corr. 

Out. l"rme 

In. Pi1m 

flanges 

Mesh 

Hdwr. 

Suhslrl. 

Wash Cont 

Mat'I 

4C'J SS 409 SS 

409 SS 

409 SS 

409 SS 409 55 409 55 

Steel 

Ceramic 

Al 2 0 3 

TOTALS 

409 SS 40'J SS 

40'J SS 40? SS 409 SS 409 SS 

4m1 SS 

'ilc:cl 

Ceramic 

Al 2 n5 

l<HALS 

Mfl;. C:()Sf CALCUl.ATH>NS - NUNC/\TALYTIC COMPUNLNVi 

Vul. - t,J (Buse) Dit1. - 4 LCJlh. - 7.Z Vol. - Ill Dia. - 4 

. 

-

Mal'I Mf«J. Mal'I 

Weight Co:;t Lalior OH Cmt WeilJhl Cost Lab

- .2500 .1000 .3'l00 - .Hl

2.00 .BO .0625 .02';() .BU75 .76 .JO .03

J. on .4U 

I 

.OJJ 2 .0125 .44H 

1. 00 .40 .0312 .0125 .44n 

1.00 .40 .OJ12 .0125 .4437 

.50 .20 .Ol

1.00 .40 .OJ1.00 .40 .03

l.00 .40 I .0312 .0125 .4437 .ZS • lG .0156 .0062 .1218 I 

.15 .06 .0156 .0062 .OlllB 

J.00 .40 .03

.2S .10 ,OI

.Ol. .02 .OC

• HI .02 .OlS6 .0062 .041E .!O .02 .01

1. 3 0 4.68 .1250 .osoo 4.8550 • 2 I .76 .06

- • 611 .ll62S .DL:.>0 .6875 .10 .03

7.86 .6716 .26BtJ B.8002 2. 70 .46

Vol. - llJO Dia. - 4 Lglh. - 10.6 Vol. - J 50 Dia. - 4 

--

9.46 - .2B'>7 .114.S .41!00 IZ.27 - .34

2.BJ l. ll .0781 .0312 1. 2 j'J 3 4.00 1.60 .10

l . IJIJ .40 .OJ12 .0125 .4437 l. )0 .60 .04

1.IJO .40 .UH2 .0125 .4l1J7 1.110 .40 .OJ

1. (JO .40 .OJ12 .0125 .4437 I.no .40 .0J

l.GO .40 .UJJ 2 .Ol25 i .4437 .10 .0156 .0067 .J 2!3 J.00 .40 .llH

.25 • lO .01

.22 • U'I .0200 .omrn .1100 .n . n .02

• IO .U2 . n J 'J6 .0062 • 04111 • llJ .07. • U I 

2. 06 7. It 2 • l6U4 .0674 7.6SSS 3. I O I I • I 6 .22

• 'J'j .OJH l .1167') J.43 • ll

11. 31 . 7'124 • H 711 12.919, 

·-

J6.Zli • 98
AMQt@;;ll!l,,,,ti#A@MUi-44, 

]J 

)> 

-t 

:i::, i :I 

. . 

: .. 

.. 

: UI 

-t 

: lJ 

0 

z 

(j) 

Port 

C\llr. Assy. 

5hell 

Rings (No.) 

In. Cone 

Out. Cone 

In. Pipe 

Flanges 

Mesh 

Hdwr. 

Substrt. 

Wash Coat 

Cvlr. Assy. 

She ii 

Rings (No.) 

In. Cone 

Out. Cone 

In. Pipe 

· Flanqes 

Mesh 

HcJwr. 

Substrt. 

Wash Coat 

Mat'I 

409 SS 4ll9 SS 409 SS 409 SS 

409 SS 409 SS 409 SS 

5teel 

Ceramic 

Al 2 OJ 

TOTALS 

409 

409 SS 

409 SS 

409 SS 409 SS 409 55 

409 SS 

Steel 

Ceramic 

Al2 OJ 

TOTl\LS 

MrG. COST CALCULAllONS - NUNCATALYTIC COMfJONENTS 

Vol • .1 200 Dia. - 5.4 L9th. - · l 2. 5 Vol. - 2SO - 5.4 

I Weight 

Mat'l Mfq. 

Cosi Labor OH Cost 

Mat'I 

Weight Cost Labor 

IS.60 - .412':1 • 1650 .577) 17.67 - .4500 

4.">6 l.02 .110"> .0442 1. 9747 5.52 2.21 .12BS 

2.ff5 .81 .0227 .RB94 2.03 .81 .0567 

1. 35 .S4 .OJ7B .015! .592'J l.J5 .54 .one 

1. JS .54 .OJ78 .0151 .S129 l.J5 .54 .OJ7B 

J. JS .S4 .0370 .01 )J .)929 l.J5 .54 .OJ7B 

• J4 .14 .0190 .0076 .1666 .J4 .14 .0190 

• J5 .14 .0201 .0112 .1793 .43 .17 .0331 

.14 .OJ .0193 .0078 .0571 .14 .OJ .Ol9J 

I 3 1ft.8 7 .2880 .11 ';2 15.2732 

1.90 .1440 .0'.>76 2 .1016 

2 I. 3 3 1.1915 .4766 tl2.9981 

5. I 6 I 8. 38 .J476 

- 2.JB .1738 

25,9lt 1.3494 

.... 

--

Vul. - JOO Dia. - 5.4 Lgth. - IB. J Vol. - 400 Dia. - S.4 

20. ftO - .515) .2061 .7214 125. lft - .6175 

6.47 2.59 .1463 • O'JO') 2.7948 B. JI J.32 .!BOB 

2.70 1.08 .0756 .OJG2 i. rn5o J.J8 l. J5 .0945 

LJ5 .54 .0378 .0151 .5929 I.JS .54 .OJ7B 

I.JS .54 .OJ78 .0151 

!.J5 .54 .OJ78 .01">1 • ';929 

.J4 .14 .0190 .U076 .1666 

.51 .20 • 0 Jtll .0152 .2S3J 

I.JS .54 .0378 

I 1. J'.) .54 .OJ70 

• 34 .14 .0190 

.67 .27 .04BO 

.14 • (IJ .Oi9J .01178 .OS71 • 14 .OJ .0193 

6. I 9 .4072 .1629 8.25 .5261 

- 2.86 .?.036 .0014 J.1450 - 3.01 .2630 

30.80 1. SJ78 .l! l '>0 l12. 9SH lt_ . , .. 1.8816 
Noble Metal Prices 

Metal 

Platinum 

Iridiut:1 

Rh<Jdium 

Palad:ium 

Ruthenium 

*Troy Ounce ~ 31.1035 grams 

Source: Matthey-Bishop, Inc. 

----------·-Pr 1 ce--------

p er troy Ounce* 

Wholesale Retail 

$162 

300 

400 

60 

60 

A·46 

R.4.TH a STRONG 

INCOH•O•ATl:D 

$172 

310 

410 

65 

65 
.AUTOHO'T I VE. 

l~c..s-- ,a,a.o 

l~4c- l~ S"c 

l~S'o- 1~t..::io 

-ro INCL Ll?lG:.. : 

IH E "1.::Ti-lODO I.. 0~ '( 

Ti+e Ec..o N. OM' c..s. 

]Ell'Qc:..~ ~ ·Di ~1:.1<:.vTot.: ~s r 1T1JTE. 

'tJ;z~r.~ ~oT£1..-

C\..\ c.c..'\ o 

K ... ClClol '\ I \~1 • 

If. 47 

'St 10&. I 
$, 

Mti..~Uf .,.,C\..., t£ ~ 

,.b.. \.. \.. TY?•~ 

r 

j I I 

~~._.vi , Co\rr(.Q<...a~ 111'" i~~u"'c.:,o.,. LA~-=.. 

.j"oBSl!.C. - - ~911"'"- - - .:ro&'!SC:Q.. --"9 FL~I!~ 4 I 

A·48 

1to1tT,ll.t.l..,,·iJ G.1.oc&&'f 

- $"4C'P ._ ~12\j(q 

l•',·J>W~, ;..T~ 

• ,~ .. 'T"'~~.._,.._, c~. 

Sl.1.~e:. <.. 

~· ... eiT \ 
YI/, 1/ //, 

~~ E' 1-k>\l.SE 

I) I$~ \?;<I lo' 

'* I 

eo•o? 

W///11 t 

,,, 

,___,_ .. "" -

\f • ! 

tSG:>o-191/ 

M"l'JUFACT u t:.E~ 

Ii>.\.. L T Y?Ji. s. 

' 

, . , 

'~/ //,' ·'/ //, 

?{!f/. ,'// !,{ 

LA.~:. 

1-J Fle l!"T'" 

(i.tA.1Zk.T!: ~ 1 s ~IC~ C::ot..is u'-o=~·-SL 

I. 14.'!>CE'l) C\o\A~...,c1..s. oe 1>•.srg,.~.,.•oN. 

7.. Nii....., FLli'IC•~'L.'T'•CS '~ ~,c. ... Gi. 

{i!;:L?M 

\I" I TAI.~ .. i.iJ 

.$riQP 

I ..I... • \ t 3. N£ ....... ~Q •C.•'-le.i 9\o\S~·Qt-\ aN~~ "S~~ Q~ Ccl~"T'- ru~•·-· C:.C'-T'Q~ -- H~ .... """·~c.. 

I I ' I 

""?Q,...,~£ e~-~1>•~'i - 'S1DO•MC:.. 

~. E'L..1~' ... A'T10r..) Q~ Q~~llTllo..I~ FO~ f:'IJf.)C:"'no~~ '- ~"""'~s ~\~a.l. . . s .. ~~~IJJ:AC."T'u~1£1ts LOS:!. 01= Coto...>'T•OL.. cc 'bdS'T1it.,':;&o,,JT'10N• 

SL,~~ G:io 

b' OP~~\ti.J~ oc- 'N·,~~ ~~e~tt..l 'il&Tv.JSliUJ 1'-\A ... HJl=°AC,.Ut£ia.s '?Ae:r 3 

~s c.c..,..-.-;...,t)C'b c:..:,,.,, So...>t-\•ra.. "?-~~ .. ~HA.~"\ ;;t.a:TA..,LllUt.~ Cci~T. 

1, • ... ~ Q. 1 SS L. .. -11.) .$,_..._u.. .. ~ '- 11.~v & ~'T\ ~,..;q - S'i't:> RE. 

t\C.l•c .... 1Z..A.T':ow - roQJ.:asa.r t2G;w~c~ • ...,· ... ~l:.T'~•t- s~'2\f1ce \\E~. SL•J:>e. ~ * ~\.so ..,.'T'T"SMP'I"• ,.. SaL\.. La.a ... ~Lc.a.T'.S A•l) '~•"T~'-La..,...~ ~~.s. 
W.D .. 

--------r--. G::i 0 

/ 

/ 

1S II. .. \. ••• u: I.) 

C! t.l~y 

11.----Is, +o IS Ye ~It 1..0..U ~ 't> 

,q.50 

/ / 

I 0 +o '3.o'ro 

~LO-.,J 

""l '!:) ,_ ____ __..__ __________ _ 

T""os •&.Q.. 

_, ' ( < / 
w. t>. 

'\:l'a \..,A~ 'S a~'!) 

~leO'thJc.~-- U~y At..L:( 

So.,..,e.. Q"" ~.._,,.~ -1 ~~r&&""l..I IQ-3C'/• ~ ..... , <:a:. '3!!: I.A...,,. ...,..,..~ 

1-----' ... R~ •OW ... '-

.-.--.:t~~aJ°t> 1£ ~~ca. 

r i..a. ~. -ha To~ c.. '?2 w:.tL 

J:;:l"'9"!' ....... ..::2' FLDt\~ L ~ P~C"""' 

•&\.OW l)&AL.'I&.. "j"o 

'0.,.1' L\:tT• ~'•""'• ~ .. ~oc.~ 

•L.o!H :.; • , •1t... 

A·5l 

WALC.olt O\JS 

:TC>9&~1:. 

+o L1~Lf 

A~o-1~ 

\/r.:. IE.r 

'Ft, .. ""'li'-e 

cc...., .,.,_. .. 

l"oG~S~ "r. ' 

"l)C~CL