# ANALYSIS OF LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE WEIGHT REDUCTION POTENTIAL

Draft Final Report

Submitted to: The US Department of Energy Office of Policy


# July 2007

Submitted By: Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. An ICF International Company

1655 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 600 Arlington, Virginia 22209 (703) 528

‐ 1900Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. i 

## Table of Contents

1 OVERVIEW

............................................................................................................................... .1 ‐ 1

2 OVERVIEW OF MATERIAL SUBSTITUTION POTENTIAL ........................................................ 2 ‐ 1 2.1 MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION AND BASIC PROPERTIES ....................................................... 2
‐ 1 2.2 MATERIAL SELECTION CRITER IA FOR AUTOMOTIVE DESIGN .......................................... 2
‐ 3 2.3 DOMINANT MATERIALS ..............................................................................................................2
‐ 5 2.4 MATERIALS PRICING ...................................................................................................................2
‐ 6 2.5 SECTION SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................2
‐ 9 3 COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES OF LIGHT WEIGHT MATERIALS ..............................................3 ‐ 1 3.1 ADVANCED STEELS .................................................................................................................... 3
‐ 1 3.1.1 Steel Types

............................................................................................................................... .. 3
‐ 1 3.1.2 Steel Processing Advancements .............................................................................................. 3
‐ 4 3.1.3 General Weight Reduct ion Feasibility for Steel ....................................................................... 3
‐ 5 3.2 ALUMINUM ALLOYS ..................................................................................................................... 3
‐ 7 3.2.1 Material Types ............................................................................................................................ 3
‐ 7 3.2.2 Aluminum Use and General Weight Implications .................................................................... 3
‐ 9 3.3 COMPOSITES/PLASTICS .......................................................................................................... 3
‐ 13 3.3.1 Material Types .......................................................................................................................... 3
‐ 13 3.3.2 Plastics/Composites Use and Weight Implications ............................................................... 3
‐ 15 3.4 MAGNESIUM ALLOYS ................................................................................................................ 3
‐ 20 3.4.1 Material Types .......................................................................................................................... 3
‐ 20 3.4.2 Magnesium Use and General Weight Implications ............................................................... 3
‐ 21 3.5 SECTION SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 3
‐ 24 4 COSTS AND WEIGHT REDUCTION FOR SPECIFIC COMPONENTS ....................................... 4 ‐ 1 4.1 COST IMPLICATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS ........................................................ 4
‐ 1 4.1.1 Advanced Steels ........................................................................................................................ 4
‐ 1 4.1.2 Aluminum

............................................................................................................................... .....4
‐ 4 4.1.3 Plastics/Composites .................................................................................................................. 4
‐ 7 4.1.4 Magnesium

............................................................................................................................... ..4
‐ 8 4.2 PRODUCTION VOLUME A ND COST RELATIONSHIP ........................................................... 4
‐ 11 4.3 SECTION SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 4
‐ 14 5 OVERVIEW OF OEM MATERIAL USE IN MY 2006 VEHICLES ..................................................5 ‐ 1

6 VEHICLE COST AND WEIGHT ANALYSIS FOR ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS ......................... 6

‐ 1 6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................6

‐ 1 6.2 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................6

‐ 2 6.3 RESULTS

............................................................................................................................... ....... 6

‐ 10 6.4 REFERENCES USED FOR WEIGHT AND COST ANALYSIS ..................................................6

‐ 1 7 APPENDIXES ............................................................................................................................7 ‐ 3 7.1 MATERIAL SELECTION FOR “BIG 6” ENGINES ....................................................................... 7
‐ 3 7.2 2006 MODEL YEAR THERMOSET COMPOSITE COMPONENTS ........................................ 7
‐ 12 7.3 2006 HIGH ALUMINUM CONTENT VEHICLES ........................................................................ 7
‐ 23ii Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. iiiiv Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. List of Figures

Figure 2
‐ 1 Current (2006) Average Car BIW Steel Selection ..........................................................2
‐ 5 Figure 2-2 World Steel Prices, 2000-2006. Steel Bench-markerTM HRB. .................................... 2
‐ 7 Figure 2
‐ 3 Average Material Expenditures per Vehicle and Price Volatility in 2004. .............................2
‐ 8 Figure 3-1: Elongation vs. Strength Relationship of Various Steels Used in Automotive Construction.

............................................................................................................................... .......3
‐ 2 Figure 3-2 Aluminum Weight Reduction and Cost Penalty for Closures Compared to “Best Steel” Designs.

............................................................................................................................... ....3
‐ 6 Figure 3
‐ 3 Weight Comparison for aluminum and cast iron engine blocks, by displacement. ... 3
‐ 11 Figure 3-4 Suspension Mass Reduction in ES Exper imental Vehicle Compared to Toyota Yaris.

............................................................................................................................... ............................ 3
‐ 12 Figure 3-5: Composite Materials for Automotive Applications. .................................................... 3
‐ 15 Figure 3-6: Composite Material Application Targets. ................................................................... 3
‐ 16 Figure 3-7 Current and Future (2010) Steel Use in North American Car BIW. ..........................3
‐ 24 Figure 4-1 Skid Plate Redesign, Mild vs. Dual Phase steels. ........................................................4
‐ 4 Figure 4-2. Audi A8 Space Frame De sign by Aluminum Fabrication Process. ............................4
‐ 5 Figure 4-3 Bumper Corner Design Solution: Crush and Tuck, Cut and Cap, Net Shape Plastic Corner Module.

............................................................................................................................... ... 4
‐ 7 Figure 4-4 Pontiac G6 Bumper Corner Plastic/HSS Design Outcome. ........................................4
‐ 8 Figure 4-5 Aluminum A380 and Magnesium Alloy Ingot Prices in 2005-2006. ............................4
‐ 9 Figure 4-6 Cast Magnesium (AM60B alloy) IP Cross Beam. GM Epsilon Platform .................. 4
‐ 10 Figure 4-7 Steel and Magnesium IP Beam Cost Comparison. .................................................... 4
‐ 10 Figure 4-8 Ford 150 Radiator Support, Magnesium AM50A, Weight 6kg .................................. 4
‐ 11 Figure 4-9 Production Volume Sensitivity to IP Beam Material Selection. ................................ 4
‐ 12 Figure 4-10 Hood Analysis for Competing Materials .................................................................... 4
‐ 13 Figure 5
‐ 1 OEM Metallic Material Trends ..........................................................................................5
‐ 2 Figure 5
‐ 2 Steel Types in Selected 2006 Vehicle Bodies plus Closures ........................................ 5
‐ 3 Figure 5
‐ 3 2006 Light Duty Vehicle Wheel Rim Aluminum Penetration by OEM ...........................5
‐ 6 Figure 5-4. Examples of Typical Cast Magnesium Components. .................................................5
‐ 8 Figure 6-1 Component Weight Reduction Achieved by Material Substitution in the Prius II ......6

‐ 2Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. v List of Tables

Table 2-1: General Properties of Mainstream Automotive Materials. ........................................... 2
‐ 1 Table 2-2 Material Pricing Comparison ...........................................................................................2
‐ 6 Table 3-1 Wrought Aluminum Alloys and Their Typical Applications ...........................................3
‐ 8 Table 3
‐ 2 Aluminum Casting Alloys and Application Examples ............................................................3

‐ 9 Table 3-3: Aluminum Components in Motor Vehicles. ................................................................. 3
‐ 10 Table 3-4: Examples of Class-A Exterior Thermoset Panels Used in MY 2006 high volume vehicles.

............................................................................................................................... ..............3
‐ 17 Table 3-5 Examples of Structural MY 2006 Composites in High Volume Vehicles. .................. 3
‐ 18 Table 3-6 Magnesium Components Currently Used in Motor Vehicles, Competing Material and Relative Weight Reduction Potential (all figures are in pounds). ................................................ 3
‐ 23 Table 3-7 Competing Material Weight Reduction Estimates ....................................................... 3
‐ 25 Table 4-1 ULSAB-AVC AHSS-Intensive Body Manuf acturing Cost Comparison to Reference Case.

............................................................................................................................... ....................4
‐ 2 Table 4
‐ 2 Cost Comparison of ULSAC Stamped Outer Door Design against Generic Doors .....4
‐ 2 Table 4-3 Vehicle Front End Study, Conventional Steel vs. AHSS-Intensive Design, Assembly Weight and Production Cost Estimates. Source: MIT Material System Laboratory. ...................4
‐ 3 Table 4-4 Aluminum casting components and estimates for market penetration, weight reduction and costs.

............................................................................................................................... ............4
‐ 5 Table 4-5 Competing Material Weight Reduction Estimates and Relative Cost Comparison ..4
‐ 14 Table 5
‐ 1 Raw Materials Used in an Average North American Car. .............................................. 5
‐ 1 Table 5
‐ 2 Aluminum Component Production Volume in 2006 North America Vehicles and Average Weight Penetration. ............................................................................................................5
‐ 4 Table 5
‐ 3 MY 2006 Engine Aluminum Penetration in North America. ...............................................5
‐ 5 Table 5
‐ 4. Examples of High Volume MY 2006 Thermoset Composite Applications by Model and Process. ....................................................................................................................... ........................ 5
‐ 7 Table 6

‐ 1 Dominant Baseline and Alternative Materials for Selected Passenger Car Components.......6

‐ 4 Table 6

‐ 2 Hood Weight and Cost Data for Alternative Materials ....................................................6

‐ 5 Table 6

‐ 3 Weight and Cost Estimate Methodology for BIW ............................................................ 6

‐ 7 Table 6

‐ 4 Engine Block Weight/Cost Figures and Data Sources ................................................... 6

‐ 7 Table 6

‐ 5 Weight and Cost Data Estimates for Selected Components ..........................................6

‐ 9 Table 6

‐ 6 Weight and Cost Analysis for Selected Components – Mid-size Car Case ..................6

‐ 1 Table 6-7 Weight and Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Alternative Materials. Mid Size Car Case.

............................................................................................................................... ..............................6

‐ 1 Table 6-8 Dominant Baseline and Alternative Materials for Selected Pickup Components. ......6

‐ 2 Table 6

‐ 9 Weight and Cost Analysis for Selected Components – Pickup Case ............................6

‐ 1 Table 6-10 Weight and Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Alternative Materials. Pickup Case. ....6

‐ 1vi Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 1
‐ 1 

# 1 OVERVIEW

One of the principal determinants of vehicle fuel economy performance is the vehicle weight. Lower weight reduces the forces required to accelerate the vehicle and maintain steady speeds, which in turn improves fuel economy. Lower weight also improves the highly desirable “sportiness factor” through vehicle maneuverability, ride comfort and stability. Historically, the Department of Transportation’s rulemaking on Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) has not considered weight reduction in its analysis of fuel economy potential due to the potential adverse effect on safety. With more recent analysis indicating vehicle safety to be more size than weight related, the potential to reduce weight without decreasing size by using lighter weight materials is now a technology of interest in the DOT’s analysis of fuel economy, This report provides an analysis of vehicle weight reduction potential through the use of alternative materials, and the costs and benefits of the different material options available to manufacturers
in the short term.

The principle vehicle weight reduction methods can be grouped into following:

• material substitution
• improved packaging
• downsizing
• unit body construction
• parts consolidation

Material substitution involves the use of advanced material s for vehicle systems, including new high strength steels, aluminum and magnesium alloys, or plastics/composites, in place of
traditional heavier materials such as carbon steel or cast iron. This frequently involves the1
‐ 2 Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. redesign of parts to optimize for strength with the new material or even redesign of the entire vehicle to optimize the new structure. This option is the primary method explored in this report.

Packaging reflects the ratio of interior volume to exterior size and total weight. Improved packaging is estimated to be a zero variable cost technology. Although design costs are incurred, variable costs are potentially negative. Improved packaging is possible in all cars to some degree. This option is not considered in this report

Downsizing reduces vehicle weight since it takes less material to make a smaller car. This process, however, does not conserve interior room and results in a loss of consumer utility, and is not considered in this report.

Unit body construction refers to the elimination of the conventional chassis/body structure. 1 A unit body utilizes the body panels themselves as stressed members to carry the static and dynamic loads. By the year 2000, the majority of cars were manufactured with unit bodies. The product trend for trucks and SUVs has also moved strongly toward unit body construction for compact and mid-size vehicles, or so–called cro ssover vehicles, while the full size trucks have retained the chassis/body frame configuration due to their design targets for heavy load carrying, towing and off-road capability.

Parts integration is an opportunity to integrate functions of previously separate parts into combined unit eliminating joint flanges, fasteners, welds for structural or semi-structural components. The reduction of wiring circuits also falls under this category. 2 This option is considered as part of material substitution, especially for deriving costs.

Broadly speaking, new generation high strength steels, plastics, composites, aluminum and magnesium alloys are already being used in mass production in specific components in various vehicle models. Other materials, like carbon fiber composites or ceramics, are more likely to be used in very specific low sales volume applications. Each of these alternative materials has specific advantages and design constraints, and, more importantly, cost/sales volume implications in different parts of the vehicle. Also, as components are designed using alternative materials, additional cost savings can be achieved by parts integration. This report focuses only on those materials that can be implemented at ‘reasonable’ costs in mass production, since the issues surrounding low volume production of components for specialty vehicles are too complex to be included in this report.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 1
‐ 3 The estimates of the fuel economy benefit of weight reduction cited publicly in reports vary widely and range from a 4.5% benefit to a 10% benefit for a 10% reduction in weight. EEA analysis shows that this range is explainable from first principles. If vehicle weight is reduced, but no changes are made to the drivetrain, vehicle performance is increased but the fuel economy benefit is around 4.7 + 0.2 %, depending on the vehicle’s drag coefficient and tire rolling resistance. If the vehicle axle ratio and gear shift points/ gear ratios are adjusted to maintain performance constant, then the benefit increases to 6.0 + 0.2 %. If instead of changing gear ratios and shift points, the engine is downsized by 10% to maintain constant performance, then there is additional fuel economy benefit associated with reduced idle, braking and cold start fuel consumption that are engine size dependent, and the fuel economy benefit increases to 6.6

+ 0.2 %. Finally, the 10% primary weight reduction can lead to additional secondary weight reductions associated with a smaller engine, smaller tries and brakes, lighter engine cradle, etc,. The secondary weight reductions are quite difficult to quantify as it depends on the starting point for the vehicle. For example, if the original engine is a 2.7L V-6, a 10 % size reduction would reduce displacement to 2.4L, and four-cylinder engine can be substituted for a six cylinder with significant weight reduction. Secondary weight reductions of an additional 5% for the 10% primary reduction can be realized in such cases, and total fuel benefit climbs to 9.9 + 0.2 % (which is 6.6 x 1.5) if the vehicle is then fully optimiz ed for the new weight. Typically, such large secondary weight reductions are not realized in most cases.

Section 2 of this report provides an overview of materials classification and pricing. Section 3 expands into major automotive light weight materials alternatives, their applications and general weight implications. Section 4 provides a discussion on material costs and its relationship to production volumes. An overview of manufacturer material selection practices is provided in Section 5. The analysis of vehicle-level weight and cost effectiveness is presented in section 6.

.

1 Danyo, M., Young, C., Cornille, H., Porcari, J., “The P2000s Unitized Sport Utility Vehicle Body Structure”, SAE Technical Paper 2003
‐ 01
‐ 0573.

2 S. Kobuki, “Reduction of Vehicle Mass”, Toyota Technical Review, Volume 52, September 2002.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 2
‐ 1 

# 2 OVERVIEW OF MATERIAL SUBSTITUTION POTENTIAL

2.1 Material Classification and Basic Properties

Automotive materials can be classified according to one of four categories. Each of these, in turn, includes various sub-classifications:

• Metals: wrought, rolled, cast, sintered and others.

• Nonmetallic inorganic materials: ceramics and glass.

• Nonmetallic organic materials: natural materials, plastics and elastomers.

• Composites.

Metals (steel/iron, aluminum, copper, magnes ium and others) and their alloys, plastics and composites are the dominant materials used in automotive construction. Table 2-1 compares these materials in terms of selected engineering properties crucial in automotive design.

Table 2-1: General Properties of Mainstream Automotive Materials.
Aluminum Alloys Composites / Plastics Magnesium Alloys Property Units

Steel 1010 A380 HPDC A356 T6 Nylon + 30% Glass ABS (1) AZ91D AM 60B
Density g/cm 3 7.9 2.74 2.69 1.4 1.05 1.81 1.79

Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) MPa ~365 320 262 195 45 230 220

Coefficient of Thermal Expansion μ m/mK 12 22 21.5 34.5 76.5 26 25.6

(1) ABS - Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene plasticEnergy and Environmental Analysis 2
‐ 2 The weight reduction available from any of these materials is quite dependent on the specific part or part group that is under consideration. If a lighter weight material can be substituted with no dimensional change, then the density provides an indication of the weight reduction potential. Based on the density figures, basic mild 1010 steel is by far the heaviest structural material used in automotive sheet construction. Aluminum alloys are about 60% lighter, nylon/glass based composites are 80% lighter, and magnesium alloys are 75% lighter. Of course, in engineering practice these weight reductions can not be realized due to other material property differences. For example, the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) figures indicate that the 1010 steel and aluminum A380 respond better to tensile stress compared to other materials listed.Furthermore, as illustrated in subsequent sections, the 365MPa UTS steel is really the lowerend strength steel used in modern construction. The UTS for martensitic grade steels can go as high as 1,700MPa, for example. Similarly, aluminum can be formulated with other alloying elements to provide very high UTS properties. If the tensile strength is the determinant factor in material selection, alternative materials may not be economically competitive with steel or
aluminum.

Note that un-reinforced ABS plastics have very lo w UTS, which renders the material impractical for structural applications. Other materials, including reinforced plastics (i.e., composites) and magnesium alloys, have UTS reasonably close to lower-end strength steels and aluminum A380, so structural and semi-structural applications are generally feasible.

The thermal stability, commonly expressed in terms of the coefficient of expansion, is important material property, especially for close-fit large components such as exterior panels. Note that the expansion coefficient for 1010 steel is desirably low, while other materials have comparable values. However, plastics (as illustrated by ABS) have very high rate of expansion, which requires design adjustments, such as large expansion gap allowances and special fastening techniques.

In addition to the weight disadvantage, steel is easily corroded and difficult to process, especially in cases of complex sheet part shapes. The resulting tooling and capital costs to manufacture steel assemblies need to be offset by high production volumes. If these mass volumes for a particular program can not be realized, the alternative materials can find competitive advantage in spite of higher material costs. Good examples are instrument panelEnergy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 2
‐ 3 (IP) beams where magnesium is used and front end carriers which can be made from magnesium or composites. Advanced composites can further take advantage of parts consolidation opportunities. 

## 2.2 Material Selection Criteria for Automotive Design

The component functional environment dictates what materials can be applied for acceptable performance. From a general point of view, the material selection criteria can be based the following groupings (commonly used in the automotive materials industry) which exhibit similar design, functional, manufacturing and material selection constraints.

• Exterior Body Panels, Class-A Finish: doors, hoods, fenders, roofs and rear closures. These are fully finished exterior surfaces with finish quality, corrosion and dent resistance and fit precision being critical design parameters.

• Exterior Body Parts, Non-Class-A Finish: pickup truck boxes, removable or convertible roof structures, running boards. Exhibit similar design parameters to Class A panels with somewhat relaxed surface quality requirements but have additional high durability criteria.

• Structural Components: body in white (BIW), bumper systems, reinforcements, and other structures. Designed to provide primary static and dynamic load carrying with durability, rigidity, and crash energy absorption being critical design parameters.

• Under-hood Parts: engine accessories, air intake, cooling and exhaust management systems and other components found in engi ne compartment. Temperature extremes and harsh vibration are additional design criteria. Parts must have uncompromised dimensional stability, excellent dynamic and fatigue strengths and resistance to chemicals, such as fuel, coolant and other fluids.

• Power-train: engine, transmission, drive shaft, front and rear axles and other engine-towheels power transmission devices. As with under-hood parts, power-train components must be designed for durability at extreme temperatures, vibration response, and ease
of maintenance.

• Chassis : wheels, brakes, suspension arms, engine and rear axle cross members with durability, vibration, weight and corrosion resistance being some of the key factors.Energy and Environmental Analysis 2
‐ 4 • Interior Components: seats, instrument panels, trim panels, head liners designed for feel and fit, aesthetic appearance, sound insulation and other consumer oriented designed parameters.

Table 2-2 below details material distribution in an example vehicle, following a similar grouping logic. It is obvious that the Body-In-White (BIW) with closures, chassis and the power-train are the heaviest vehicle systems and therefore, offer the highest absolute potential for weight
reduction.

Table 2-2 Weight Distribution among Automobile Systems System Dominant Materials Weight [lbs] Percent of Total Body In White (including closures) Steel 988 29.8 Exterior Systems (including glazing) Steel, plastics, glass 179 5.4

Chassis (including suspension, wheels and brakes) Steel, iron, aluminum 836 25.2
Power-train (including engine and transaxle) Steel, iron, aluminum 640 19.3
Interior (including seats, instrument panel, console and trim) Steel, plastics, composites 408 12.3

Electrical (includes alternator, wiring, battery) Steel, plastics, aluminum 86 2.6

Other 179 5.4 Total 3,316 100

Source: DaimlerChrysler 1 Analysis based on MY 2001-2006 Chrysler Sebring LXi Sedan, Curb Weight 3,316 lbs (2.7L V6)

While weight reduction can be considered feasible for virtually every component, it should be noted that large scale powertrain weight reduction is limited mainly to remaining cast iron conversion to aluminum (and perhaps magnesium) castings, since its size is dictated by performance and consumer preference. Furthermore, both chassis and powertrain systems are engineered for maximum gross vehicle weight loading, rather than curb weight, so physical downsizing of these systems is not desir able option for many vehicle platforms. 2 As shown in subsequent sections, vehicle body and closures is the most attractive area for specific weight reduction opportunities. 3Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 2
‐ 5 

## 2.3 Dominant Materials

As shown above, steel is the dominant material used in automotive construction, especially structural and closure applications. Structural aluminum is not widely used but examples do exist primarily in luxury and sports vehicles. Figure 2-1 shows the average steel distribution in
current car BIW

. While mild steels dominate the BIW steel selection, the moderate strength (up to 340 and 380 MPa) steels also have significant penetration.



### 270MPa 69% 340/380B H 8% 340HSS 21% AHSS 2% 

### 270MPa

340/380 BH

340HSS

AHSS 

## C urren t

Figure 2 ‐ 1 Current (2006) Average Car BIW Steel Selection
Source: US Steel

Exterior Class-A vehicle closure panels, and doors in particular, are constructed from steel in vast majority of vehicles. Once again, aluminum closures are being used in selected premium vehicles. Also engine compartment hoods are some times switched to aluminum on mainstream vehicles on case-by-case basis. Vehicle fascia systems are predominately constructed from thermoplastics.

Exterior, non-class-A panels are attractive for alternative materials since surface quality requirements are somewhat relaxed. Fenders are sometimes switched to non-class A quality plastics (a good example is Honda Element). Fascia systems on trucks have variety of material choices, including steel and plastics/composites . Pickup truck bed inner panels are constructed mainly from steel, but composites also have some penetration.Energy and Environmental Analysis 2
‐ 6 Under-hood components have significant plastics penet ration, as well as aluminum (castings), steel and variety of other materials. Powertrain components are dominated by metallic materials. Transmission cases are almost 100% constructed from aluminum, as well as the engine cylinder heads (about 92%). On average, about 52% of engine blocks in the US are cast
from aluminum. 4 About 56% of intake manifolds are cast from aluminum, while the rest are dominated by plastics with some magnesium manifolds found in luxury vehicles.

Chassis components are also constructed from mixt ure of metallic materials. Aluminum, by far, has the largest penetration in wheel rims (about 65%) in the US, not including spares. Aluminum is also used in suspension arms, steering knuckles, and brake actuators but penetration is mostly concentrated in premium vehicles.

Vehicle interiors are constructed from variety of materials but plastics and composites have very significant penetration for the door inserts, seats(except frames), instrument panel and
headliner.



## 2.4 Materials Pricing

Cost of materials is a critical selection criterion in high volume automotive design. Raw material prices are typically compared on weight basis. Table 2-2 provides a snapshot of prices (3 rd Quarter of 2006) for metallic materials analyzed in this report.

Table 2-2 Material Pricing Comparison
Material Material Price per Unit of Weight [$/lb] Weightbased Price Difference [%] Typical Density [lb/in 3 ] Price per Unit of Volume [$/in 3 ] Volumebased Price Difference[%]

Regular Steel Sheet 0.39 Base 0.29 0.111 Base
High/Medium Strength Steel 0.40 3 0.29 0.114 3

Iron 0.10 -74 0.26 0.026 -76

Aluminum 1.13 190 0.10 0.110 -1
Magnesium 1.16 197 0.07 0.075 -32
Source for $/lb figures: Morgan Stanley Research 5Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 2
‐ 7 The data shows that that the lighter materials, such as aluminum or magnesium, have a very high price disadvantage, on a weight basis , compared to mainstream steel. However, when prices are converted to a volume-based metric (using average density figures), the price relationship becomes quite different. On volume tric basis, aluminum approaches break- even, compared to steel price, whereas magnesium becomes about 30% less expensive. In the case of castings, the volume-based comparison can be a useful metric when cast iron is compared to, for example, aluminum or magnesium. In the case of sheet metal applications, and closures in particular, the volume or weight-based metrics are not useful since alternative materials can not be substituted on constant gage basis. In many sheet metal parts, there is practical limit to how thin the material gage can be, due to, for example stiffness and dent resistance requirements or crash energy absorption capacity.

The raw material price volatility further complicates material selection, especially taking into account long life planning horizon for automotiv e designs. As an example, Figure 2-2 below shows the historical steel price trend, as repor ted by the Steel Bench-markerTM. The data shows that 2004 was the year of unprecedented price volatility for steel. 6 Although prices have moderated from historical highs, the future is uncertain.

Figure 2-2 World Steel Prices, 2000-2006. Steel Bench-markerTM HRB. In the long term, prices for other automotive materials tend to follow the trend established by steel. However, in near term, this might not hold true and short term price relationships amongEnergy and Environmental Analysis 2
‐ 8 competing materials can vary significantly. Figure 2-3 illustrates the price increases for selected
materials that occurred in 2004.

Figure 2 ‐ 3 Average Material Expenditures per Vehicle and Price Volatility in 2004.
Source: Alix Partners

In 2004 steels, plastics and iron experienced similar price rise, on average about 40% compared to 2003. During the same time, aluminum rose by about 20%, and rubber by about 15%. Copper/brass alloys experienced over 60% price increase. The data shows that raw material price uncertainty, compared to steel, adds another layer of complication into material selection decisions. Automotive designers often choose familiar materials (steel, or, for example, aluminum instead of magnesium for casti ngs) as the safest material choice for long term price competitiveness, even though in shor t term other materials can appear attractive.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 2
‐ 9 

## 2.5 Section Summary

For an average North American production vehicle, steel is the dominant material used, especially in power-train, suspension, closures and structural components. Steel exhibits excellent strength and dimensional stability properties but is heavier than other materials in many applications and requires expensive tooling for high volume fabrication. As a result, other higher cost materials can have a competitive advant age in specific applications, especially in low to medium production volumes.

If a unit of weight is used as a proxy for cost comparison, steel and iron are, by far, the least cost materials for automotive construction. While this hold true for only applications where a weight based price comparison is applicable, this comparison is not valid in most cases as the requirements are defined by strength, stiffnes s and formability or even volume (for example, cast iron or aluminum engine blocks and heads). If a volumetric price comparison is used in material selection, the relative costs are very different from a weight-based comparison and magnesium appears to be the cheapest material at current prices.

In virtually all design cases, material costs per unit of weight must be evaluated together with wide range of other properties, on case by case basis, before weight reduction and cost effectiveness relationships can be determined. Howe ver, another factor to be considered is the recent price volatility of raw materials that has resulted in significant changes in both absolute and relative material prices. It is not clear that current costs (4Q 2006 and 1Q 2007) provide the correct guide to long range material choices, but this is another risk factor to be accounted for in this analysis.Energy and Environmental Analysis 2
‐ 10 References for Section 2

1 S. Logan, A. Kizyma, C. Patterson, S. Rama, “Lightweight Magnesium Intensive Body Structure”, SAE Paper 2006

‐ 01
‐ 0523.

2 B. DePompolo, “Advances in Automotive Sheet Steel Technologies”, Presentation to EEA, United States Steel Corporation, November 28, 2006

3 M. Lee, “Advanced High Strength Steel Technology in the Ford 500 and Freestyle”, PPT Presentation, Ford Motor Company, March 9, 2005.

4 Ducker Worldwide, “Aluminum Content for Light Non Commercial Vehicles to Be Assembled in North America, Japan and the European Union in 2006”. Available on the web at: http://www.aluminum.org/Content/ContentGroups/News_Releases1/March_20061/exec utivesummary.ppt

5 MorganStanley Research, “Autos and Auto Parts Manufacturers”, Presentation to the OESA, November 9, 2006.

6 AlixPartners, “Identifying the Signs of a Distressed Market Place”, June 14, 2005.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 3
‐ 1 

# 3 COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES OF LIGHT WEIGHT MATERIALS

3.1 Advanced Steels
3.1.1 Steel Types As with any group of materials, steel is formulated to large variety of grades with a wide range of properties. 1 Since most automotive structures are fabricated using sheet press-forming and related fabrication processes, formability properties and simultaneous high strength are crucial for material selection. As a result, recent steel developments have targeted improvements in formability through multi-phase microstructures.

Steels can be defined in several different ways. The first is by metallurgical designation. Common descriptions include low-strength steels (interstitial-free (IF) and mild steels); conventional high-strength steels (carbon-manga nese, bake hardenable, isotropic, high-strength IF, and high-strength-low-alloy steels); and the newer types of advanced high-strength steels (dual phase, transformation induced plasticity, complex phase, and martensitic steels).

The second classification method is based on strength. High- Strength Steels (HSS) are defined as those with tensile strengths from 270–700 MPa. Ultra-High-Strength Steels (UHSS) are defined as steels with tensile strengths greater than 700 MPa.

A third classification method uses elongation to differentiate among steel grades. As an example, Figure 3-1 compares total elongation which is a crucial steel property related to formability, for different steel types as a function of tensile strength. As can be seen, there is a significant trade-off between the two properties.Energy and Environmental Analysis 3
‐ 2 Figure 3-1: Elongation vs. Strength Relationship of Various Steels Used in Automotive Construction.
Source: Automotive Group of Inter national Iron and Steel Institute

.

The following is a list of the most common steels used in automotive construction from Figure 3-1. The definitions are listed in the approx imate order of increasing tensile strength.

I nterstitial Free (IF) steels: have ultra-low carbon levels and primary strengthening due to a combination of elements in solid solution, precipitation of carbides and/or nitrides, and grain refinement. In this steel category, one common element added to increase strength is phosphorous (a solid solution strengthener). This steel type is widely used for both structural and closure applications.

Mild Steels: have an essentially ferritic microstructure. The main strengthening is due to a combination of elements in solid solution, precipitation of carbides and/or nitrides, and grain refinement. Drawing Quality (DQ) and Aluminum Killed (AKDQ) steels are examples and often serve as a reference base because of their widespread application and production volume.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 3
‐ 3 Bake Hardenable (BH) steels: have a basic ferritic microstructure and are strengthened primarily by solid solution strengthening. A unique feature of these steels is the chemistry and processing designed to keep carbon in solution during steelmaking and then allowing this carbon to come out of solution during paint baking. This increases the yield strength of the formed part.

Isotropic (IS) steels: basically have ferritic type of microstructure. The key aspect of these steels is minimal earing tendencies.

Carbon-Manganese (CM) steels: high strength carbon-manganese steels are primarily strengthened by solid solution strengthening.

High-strength low-alloy (HSLA) steels: are strengthened primarily by micro-alloying elements contributing to fine carbide precipitation and grain-size refining.

Dual phase (DP) steels: consist of a ferritic matrix containing a hard martensitic second phase in the form of islands. These islands create a higher initial work hardening rate plus excellent elongation. This gives DP steels much higher ultimate tensile strengths than conventional steels of similar yield strength.

Transformation induced plasticity (TRIP) steels: the microstructure of TRIP steels is retained austenite embedded in a primary matrix of ferrite. In addition to a minimum of 5% by volume of retained austenite, hard phases such as martensit e and bainite are present in varying amounts. The retained austenite progressively transforms to martensite with increasing strain, thereby increasing the work hardening rate at higher strain levels.

Complex phase (CP) steels: consist of a very fine microstructure of ferrite and a higher volume fraction of hard phases that are further strengthened by fine precipitates. Complex phase steels typify the transition to steel with very high ultimate tensile strengths.

Martensitic (Mart) steels: to create martensitic steels, the austenite that exists during hotrolling or annealing is transformed almost entirely to martensite during quenching on the run-out table or in the cooling section of the continuous annealing line. This structure can also beEnergy and Environmental Analysis 3
‐ 4 developed with post-forming heat treatment. Martensitic steels provide the highest strengths, up to 1700 MPa ultimate tensile strength.

Evolving AHSS Types: In response to automotive demands for additional AHSS capabilities, the steel industry continues to develop new type s of steel. These steels are designed to reduce density, improve strength, and/or increase elongat ion. Examples of these developing steels are TWIP (twinning induced plasticity) and steels with nano-particles for increasing strength and improved formability.

The above discussion is provided to indicate 1) that “steel “refers to a number of different material types that are optimized for different applications and 2) new types of steel that have emerged recently have significantly altered the co mpetitive landscape relative to other material
choices.



## 3.1.2 Steel Processing Advancements

Steels have experienced advancements in fabric ations technologies, as well, which have resulted in further weight reduction opportunities, capital savings and decreased cycle times. Laser welding, hydro-forming, and tailored blanks are the most widely used advances in manufacturing technology.

Laser welding creates a clean and strong weld seam with minimum excess material and minimal change in material properties surrounding the weld zone. It also improves strength and overall quality of final assemblies. A related innovation is greater use of steel tubes in place of sheet stamping shapes. The tubes are formed by bending sheets into a tubular shape with a laser welded seam. In addition to direct uses (e.g., in cross members and door beams), steel tubes also find broader use when further manipulated by hydro-forming.

Hydro-forming involves shaping a part in a die through the use of fluid pressure as opposed to stamping. Tube hydro-forming permits the construction of complex shapes with a single part that is stronger and lighter than the same part made of stampings.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 3
‐ 5 Tailored blanks combine different grades and thicknesses of steel into single blank allowing local optimizations of strength, crash performance, and dent resistance with minimal material use and therefore lower weight than attempting to make a similarly performing part from a blank of uniform grade and thickness. Tailored blanks also permit reduced parts counts and simplified assembly. Instead of two or more different gauges being welded together, an integral component can be stamped or hydro-formed from a tailored blank. 2 This technique pushes some of the complexity upstream in the assembly process, but can do so with often net cost savings and substantial weight reduction. 3



## 3.1.3 General Weight Reduction Feasibility for Steel The latest steel developments demonstrate that new grades, while in many cases more costly to utilize, can achieve large weight savings while maintaining or improving structural stability. Large-scale development initiatives, such as the Ultra Light Steel Autobody – Advanced Vehicle Concept (ULSA-AVC) research consortium , have demonstrated that advanced steels will continue as the material of choice for most high volume vehicle construction. 4

Properly designed Advanced High Strength Steel (AHSS) components can achieve 20% or more weight reduction, compared to baseline mild steel grades. Further, it has been claimed that as much as 30% of weight savings for the Body-In-White (BIW) is possible using new AHSS structures on cost neutral basis. As a result, the steel industry is arguing that historical aluminum weight advantages, especially for closures, should be now compared to advanced steel designs. Figure 3-2 is an example of t he new proposed aluminum implementation curve from the steel industry’s perspective. Accordi ng to this figure, aluminum, when compared to conventional design steel body closures, offers about 35% weight reduction at roughly 1.5 to 2.0 $/lb-saved cost premium. But when “the best steel” design is compared to aluminum, the weight reduction potential decreases to as low as 17% with price premium as high as 8$/lb-saved.Energy and Environmental Analysis 3
‐ 6 Figure 3-2 Aluminum Weight Reduction and Cost Penalty for Closures Compared to “Best Steel” Designs.
Source: US Steel 5

Similarly, vehicle suspensions have received particular attention for weight reduction and, as a result, significant aluminum penetration. There are announcements, however, that AHSS material advances achieved as much as 30% weight reduction in parts such as suspension arms compared to conventional steel designs. 6

Further, there are examples of even higher weight reduction potential for new generation ultra high strength steels. SSAB Swedish Steel has developed new steel grades with tensile strength of as high as 1,500 MPa. When this steel is applied to seat backrest support structure, the reported weight savings were as high as 50%, compared to design where multiple parts were joined together to provide adequate static and dynamic back support. Also the new material was
claimed to result in net cost reduction.

The trend toward higher AHSS use in BIW can be illustrated by the current Honda Civic. 7 The 2001-2005 model Civic, already used high amounts of HSS in the unibody, mainly 440Pma andEnergy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 3
‐ 7 590Mpa tensile strength grades, about 57% of the total BIW weight. The new 2006 Civic moved these materials into higher strength TRIP grades, 590Mpa and 780Mpa, respectively, achieving about 10% weight savings (component level only) while maintaining or, for some parameters, improving body performance. The vehicle redesign, however, did result in the net weight gain due to increased size, equipment and crash safety improvements.

As described in previous sections, steel f abrication experienced a number of manufacturing advancements. A recently reported example of la ser welding implementation is in the VW MY
2004 Golf. 8 Compared to the previous model, VW claims to have reduced BIW production time 25% while also achieving weight reduction. Also, hydroforming is now coming into widespread use and is particularly valuable for optimizing truck frames. GM, D-C and Ford use this technology in the full-size pickup frame production. 9


## 3.2 Aluminum Alloys
3.2.1 Material Types

Aluminum for automotive fabrication is supplied for the following principal production processes:
Rolled products : sheet applications include heat exchangers, heat shields, bumper stock as well as closure sheet and structural sheet for body structures.

Extruded products: alloy extrusions are used in space frames, suspension, seat frames and rails, sun roofs, window and door frames.

Cast products: are used for pistons, transmission housings, and suspension components
and aluminum metal matrix brake drums and rotors. Sand castings are used for engine blocks, cylinder heads and manifolds. Structural castings are used for cross members and body structures. Structural permanent mold castings are used for body structures and sub frames, and permanent mold castings are used for wheels.

Forged products: include structural forgings for chassis and suspension parts and forged
wheels.
Aluminum alloys are classified according to standardized numbering system. Wrought alloys use a four-digit designation while cast alloys use three-digits. Various prefixes and suffixes are used to distinguish among alloying elements and resulting material properties. 10 Table 3-1Energy and Environmental Analysis 3
‐ 8 below provides an overview of the most co mmon wrought aluminum alloys in automotive applications. The table shows that pure aluminum is seldom a practical material for automotive design. The metal alloyed with other elements, such as copper, manganese and magnesium, gives aluminum a variety of properties that can be customized for various applications.

Table 3-1 Wrought Aluminum Alloys and Their Typical Applications Series Description Application Examples 1000 Above 99% pure aluminum with high corrosion resistance, high thermal and electrical conductivity, low mechanical properties and excellent workability Trim, nameplates, extruded products for heat exchangers.
2000 Copper is principal alloying element. Exhibit good heat-treat mechanical properties. Can be artificially aged to increase strength. Structural and closure parts. Mechanical fasteners.
3000 Manganese is the principal alloying element. Not heat-treatable. Exhibit good corrosion resistance and formability. Trim, nameplates, tubes, heat exchangers, interior panels. 4000 Silicon is principal alloying element to decrease melting temperature without causing brittleness. Forged pistons, welding wire, cladding for brazing sheet. 5000 Magnesium is principal alloying element toproduce moderate to high-strength, non-heattreatable alloys. Exhibit good corrosion resistance and weldability. Interior and body panels, structural parts, trim, wheels, brackets.
6000 Magnesium and silicon are used as alloying elements to produce heat-treatable alloys. Exhibit good formability and corrosion resistance with high strength. Body panels, bumper beams, structural parts, mechanical fasteners, brackets, exterior accessories, brake housings and pistons. 7000 Zinc is primary alloying element. Combined with magnesium and copper can yield very high strength. Seat tracks, bumper reinforcements and beams, condenser and radiator fins, headrests.

Aluminum casting is common process which can be accomplished by virtually all casting methods (such as sand, permanent mold, die, lost foam or squeeze) in a wide variety of compositions and properties. Table 3-2 below provides an overview of the most common casting alloys and their application examples.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 3
‐ 9 Table 3 ‐ 2 Aluminum Casting Alloys and Application Examples Alloy Application Examples 319.0 Manifolds, cylinder heads, blocks, engine parts. 332.0 Pistons 356.0 Cylinder heads, manifolds A356.0 Wheels A380.0 Blocks, transmission housings, fuel metering devices 383.0 Brackets, housings, engine parts, steering gears B390.0 High wear applications such as ring gears and transmission parts.

It should be noted that manufacturing advances for aluminum, such as the use of tailored blanks and hydro-forming, are also applicable although not as common in automotive practice due to a large price disadvantage for aluminum sheet relative to steel sheet.



## 3.2.2 Aluminum Use and General Weight Implications

Aluminum alloys are desirable in automotive app lications for their corrosion resistance and high strength to weight ratio. Aluminum use is well established in castings for the powertrain (engine block, cylinder head and transmission cases) and wheels, and in forged or wrought components in suspensions and steering gear. Aluminum is being used to limited extent in structural components in luxury cars, such as Rolls Royce Phantom, Jaguar XJ, BMW 5-Series and Audi A8, and in sports cars such as the Chevy Corvette. There is limited aluminum usage in closures, mainly hoods. Aluminum is used in extensively for the body-in-white in super-efficient vehicles like Honda Insight (now discontinued) and Toyota Prius. Large weight reductions are typically realized in these applications, but reported cost s are typically high, when compared to steel.

According to the Aluminum Industry, in North America the aluminum average content is currently about 320 lbs/vehicle, which represents an increase of about 24% from 2002 to
2006 11 . The US consumer desire for more features, size and power was listed as one of the reasons for OEM need to offset the resulting weight gains with higher aluminum content. 12
Table 3-3 details vehicle components with tr aditionally high aluminum penetration.Energy and Environmental Analysis 3
‐ 10 Table 3-3: Aluminum Components in Motor Vehicles. Engine Cylinder Blocks Cylinder Heads
Oil Pans
Intake Manifolds
Pistons Water Pump Housings
Alternator Cases
Fuel Rails
Front Covers
Bed Plates
Mounts Timing Chain Covers
FEAD Brackets
Oil Filter Adapters
Rocker/Cam Covers
Thermostat Housings
Water Outlet Tubes Transmission and Driveline
Automatic Cases
Manual Cases
Extension Covers
Transfer Cases
Transmission Brackets
Pistons
Stators
Valves
Valve Bodies
Transfer Plates
Differential Covers/Cases
Drive Shafts/Prop Shafts
Yokes Heat Exchangers and Heat Transfer
Radiators
Heater Cores
Transmission Coolers
Condensers Evaporators Compressor Housings Compressor Scrolls
Connection Hardware Compressor Pistons Oil Coolers
Receiver Dryers
Heat Shields
Heat Sinks Wheels and Brakes
Wheels Calipers Master Cylinders
Brake Pistons ABS Housings
Drums & Rotors Steering
Knuckles/Hubs/Yokes Column Housings
Rack and Pinion Housings
Wheels Power Steering Fluid Tubes Chassis and Suspension
Control Arms
Lateral Links
Sub-frames
Cross members Engine Cradles Body and Closures
Front End Structures
Radiator Supports Body in White (BIW)
Instrument Panel/ Cross Car Beams Bumper Beams
Crash Boxes
Door Intrusion Beams
Door Sills
Pillars & Windshield Frames
Doors
Hoods/Bonnets Fenders/Wings
Deck Lids/Boots Lift-gates Tailgates
Roofs
Truck Bed Rails Motor Housings Wiper Motors
Starter Motors Window, Seat and Sun Roof Motors

Other Components
Seats Pans and Frames
Seat Tracks
Seat Belt Spools and Retractors Air Bag Canisters Computer Housings
Sun Roofs and Sport Racks
Windshield Wiper Arms
DVD and other Overhead Rails Running Boards
Shock TowersEnergy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 3
‐ 11 The data shows that a significant percentage of engine blocks, cylinder heads, transmissions and wheels are aluminum. Aluminum cylinder head and transmission housing conversion from cast iron is virtually complete in North America with over 90% aluminum penetration. Also, in 2006, about 52% of engine blocks were aluminum.

Figure 3-3 provides the engine block weight com parison for aluminum and cast iron designs, by engine displacement (based on European data). 13 This source reports that weight reduction of between 40 to 50% is expected for gasoline engines , when cast iron is converted to aluminum design. For diesel engines the expected weight reduction is about 35 to 40%.

Figure 3 ‐ 3 Weight Comparison for aluminum and cast iron engine blocks, by displacement.

Comparison includes bearing cap or bedplate with cast-in inserts

.

Relatively high aluminum penetration is found in suspensions (steering knuckles and control arms) and heat exchangers. Aluminum bumper applications are another good example for aluminum with reported weight savings of about 45-50% compared to mild steels and 25-30% compared to AHSS bumpers 14

.Energy and Environmental Analysis 3
‐ 12Aluminum (forged and cast) is desirable in vehicle chassis components since it reduces unsprung weight of the suspension, thereby improving overall handling performance and ride comfort. Toyota has demonstrated a light weight chassis experimental vehicle, called ES, with documented suspension mass reduction of 43% when compared with 2002 Toyota Yaris suspension design (total reduction from about 148lbs to 84lbs for both front and rear suspensions) – as shown in Figure 3-4 below. 15

Figure 3-4 Suspension Mass Reduction in ES Experimental Vehicle Compared to Toyota Yaris.
The suspension design, among other things, incorporated aluminum control arms (forged - 50% weight reduction compared to steel sheet) and steering knuckles (cast – 50% weight reduction achieved by integrating multiple parts into single unit). Cost implications of this work are not clear but Toyota did claim that cost premium is low enough for the technology to be used in mass production.

The usage of sheet aluminum is relatively low and most programs use it in hoods and rear access panels. Our conversations with suppliers suggested that aluminum sheet usage for closures was limited to “opportunistic” applications, where the design team needed another 20 to 30 lbs. to meet weight targets to move down the discrete EPA test weight classes by 125 lbs. and the effect of aluminum usage on test weight class was increased by a factor of 4 relative to actual weight reduction. In general, these applications were not considered sustainable as aluminum could be just as easily eliminated at the next redesign when the small marginal weightEnergy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 3
‐ 13 reduction was not required. This process of adoption and elimination has occurred several times in real world examples.



## 3.3 Composites/Plastics
3.3.1 Material Types

Plastic is a generic name for complex polymer chemicals made up of large chain-shaped molecular structures. Linking together different molecules into various length chains makes different plastics. Mixing polymers with various additives gives plastics large variety of material choices and their properties. Plastics can be classified into three broad categories:

Thermoplastics , such as polypropylene and nylon, soften and loose their dimensional stability above certain temperature; therefore their physical properties are highly temperaturedependent. They are typically processed via injection molding or injection-compression molding. They are used in vehicle interiors, exterior fascia, electrical insulation and other non structural systems. Thermoplastics are generally recyclable.

Thermosets , such as epoxy and polyesters, harden with heat irreversibly and therefore are less temperature dependent and are difficult to recy cle. They are used in semi-structural components, cushions, glues, and coatings and variety of other applications. Thermosets retain their dimensional stability up to temperatures almost as high as the processing temperature due to closely-spaced cross linking. Fillers are usually added to thermosetting resins to counteract
their inherent brittleness.

Elastomers , such as rubbers, are used in tires and belts because of their elasticity, which isonly present above certain temperature. Elastomers are vulcanized (widely-spaced crosslinking) in order to stabilize their molecular bonds.

Both thermosets and thermoplastics can be molded with reinforcing materials, such as glass or carbon fibers, creating a class of materials commonly referred to as “composites”. Composites consist of at least two physically or chemic ally different components. These compounds must be tightly bound together at a defined interface, thereby creating properties which none of components alone possesses. The fiberglass-reinforced Sheet Molding Compound (SMC) is theEnergy and Environmental Analysis 3
‐ 14 leading thermoset composites production technology for automotive components. Other mass production processes include Bulk Molding Compound (BMC) injection molding, Liquid Composite Molding (LCM), Structural Reaction Injection Molding (SRIM) and Reinforced Reaction Injection Molding (RRIM).

Modern interior assemblies such as instrument panels and HVAC ducts are made of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene (ABS), ABS/polycarbonate alloys, polycarbonates, Polypropylene (PP), and SMA (Styrene Maleic Anhy dride) resins. These plastics allow for complex designs in items such as airbag housings and center instrument panel stacks that are often capable of eliminating the need for sub-structural supporting elements, thereby allowing manufacturers to save on assembly costs while substantially reducing weight and improving aesthetic appeal of assemblies.

Figure 3-5 provides a simplified flowchart of the composite material families suitable in automotive applications. As described in subsequent sections, the thermoplastics and their composites have penetrated the automotive market in wide variety of applications. The material is specified in various densities, reinforcement ty pes (synthetic / natural fibers and fillers), colors
and textures. The thermoset composites penetration is more limited and the following sections examine this class of composites in more detail.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 3
‐ 15 Figure 3-5: Composite Materials for Automotive Applications.



## 3.3.2 Plastics/Composites Use and Weight Implications

According to the Automotive Composites Industry, un-reinforced plastics and composites are
now the second most common class of automotive materials 16 with about 9 to 10% of a vehicle by weight (although aluminum may be very close at about 7 to 8%). These materials constitute, on average, about 50% of the vehicle by volume but account for less than 15% of the total
material costs.

In addition to achieving typical weight reduction of about 20 to 35%, compared to mainstreamsteel, plastics/composites in automotive design have substantial advantages in complex nonstructural assemblies. For example, a complex shape such as highly styled front fascia and grille would be difficult to fabricate from steel sheet. Plastics give an opportunity to combine several complex parts into a single, integrated piece for simpler manufacturing and assembly, as well as improved NVH response and lower cost s. Costs are very attractive for plastics processed via injection molding or similar proc esses. Figure 3-6 provides an overview of the most attractive targets for composite usage.Energy and Environmental Analysis 3
‐ 16 Figure 3-6: Composite Material Application Targets.

As indicated in the figure, composites have established applications mostly in automotive interiors typically subjected to light to m oderate loads, for example headliners, instrument panels and door inserts. Glass Mat Thermoplastic (GMT) composite (polypropylene and fiber glass) or ABS composites are already specified for door trim panels and rear package shelves. As discussed in previous sections, high volume production cost implications are less favorable for semi structural composites, compared to stee l. There are many other market growth limiting factors for this material, which could change in the near term. The Big 3 often face union contracts that make it difficult to realize any labor savings when shifting from steel to composite structures. Historically, Class A surface quality finish and compatibility with OEM paint shop technology have also been significant issues in hav ing some exterior move to composites while
others are still based on steel.

Despite these limitations, composites do have su ccessful applications in virtually all component groups, including in exterior Class A panels. Howe ver, many programs are limited to luxury orEnergy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 3
‐ 17 sports low volume models such as the Chevy Corvette, Dodge Viper and Cadillac XLR. Only a few mass produced vehicles use Class-A compos ites for exterior panels . Examples include Mitsubishi Gallant and Eclipse spoilers, Lincoln Navigator and Mountaineer fenders, Hummer H2 hood and fenders. Table 3-4 lists some of these examples.

Process Model Component Estimated Volume Weight [lbs/part]
SMC Mitsubishi Eclipse and Galant Spoiler 58,000 7.9

Dodge Ram Fascia System 235,000 8.0 Ford Expedition Fascia System, Front and Rear 46,000 8.0

Ford F-150 Flare side Fenders 36,000 33.5 SRIM/RRIM Chrysler 300C Fascias 150,000 20.0 Ford Crown Vic Fascias 200,000 15.0 Chevy Avalanche Door Panel 46,000 10.0

GMC Sierra Door Panel 208,000 10.0

Table 3-4: Examples of Class-A Exterior Thermoset Panels Used in MY 2006 high volume vehicles.

Source: Automotive Composites Alliance 17

The table shows that the highest volume composites Class A exterior applications are in the fascia systems. While thermoplastics is the material of choice for most car fascias, larger cars and trucks often require more fascia reinforcement so that the thermoset composites processes, such as SMC or SRIM, can be a viable alternative.

The largest application for BMC is the parabolic reflector in headlamps. In addition to lower weight, composite reflectors offer flexible styling opportunities and very smooth reflective surfaces. Composites are also favored by the current trend to integrate all front lighting features (headlamps, running lights and turn signals) into a single module.Energy and Environmental Analysis 3
‐ 18 Exterior Non-Class A composite use is currently limited to selected few specific applications such as pickup truck box inner panels, remov able roofs, gate panels, running boards, trunk enclosures, wheel housings and underbody shield s. Good examples are Chevy Avalanche midgate assembly, Honda Ridgeline pickup box and Toyota Tacoma pickup box. Pickup box inner panels are a promising growth application for com posites since, compared to steel, a composite box can support various functionality and convenienc e features, in addition to obvious weight, corrosion and dent resistance benefits. The Honda Ridgeline’s pick-up box design is an excellent example of the possibilities. The box incl udes a number of molded-in features, such as an in-bed trunk, bed lights and tie-downs. However, market adoption of these new technologies is not without challenges. For example, automotive dealers often can make more money by selling aftermarket thermoplastic bed liners for a steel box, and they can influence manufacturers to abandon composite designs as a factory installed option.

Structural composites are used in very few applications in areas such as radiator supports, bumper beams, skid plates and grille opening reinforcements. SMC glass fiber reinforced composites typically weigh 25 to 35% less than mainstream steel. Carbon fiber can reduce weight by 50% or more but currently the material is not feasible in high volume due to the very high cost of carbon fiber. In addition to weight reduction, a key advantage in complex parts such as grille and radiator support structures is the composite molding parts consolidation opportunities compared to steel welded designs. Specific examples of the structural composites applications are listed in Table 3-5.

Table 3-5 Examples of Structural MY 2006 Composites in High Volume Vehicles.
Source: Automotive Composites Alliance /4
Process Model Component Estimated Volume Weight [lbs/part]
SMC Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable Radiator support 80,000 9.5

Mercury Monterey Grille opening reinforcement 50,000 6.6

Nissan Altima Bumper beam 280,000 11.0 Dodge Dakota Transfer skid plate 114,000 9.3

Ford Explorer Grille opening reinforcement 270,000 10.5Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 3
‐ 19 Under-hood component design using alternative materials, other than cast iron, stamped steel and cast aluminum, typically require high upfront engineering and testing costs so conversion growth is slow. The parts are typically manufactu red at very high volumes, so rapid processing is a critical constraint. Both thermosets (typically Bulk Molding Compounds – BMC) and thermoplastics (such as nylon) are used in this area, if the high speed injection molding processing is feasible. Air induction manifolds produced from glass reinforced nylon have high penetration and the composites industry claims t hat comparable weight was achieved for most manifolds when compared to aluminum. Anot her advantage is that molded nylon intakes produce smooth inner air flow surfaces for pumping loss reduction.

Another key area for under-hood composites growth has been replacement of stamped steel or cast aluminum valve covers. The conversion can be typically accomplished without much engine head modifications with additional benefits achieved such as integrated oil filler necks and wiring harness supports. Examples of engines with thermoset valve covers include the DaimlerChrysler 2.3 I4 and 2.7L V6 engines (volume 310,000 with unit weight of 1.8lbs) and the GM 3.8L V6 (volume 554,000 and weight of 5lbs).

A unique opportunity for carbon fiber reinforced composites is the driveshaft. GM used the technology in the mid-90s in full size trucks and justified the high cost of carbon fiber because the light weight design permitted the elimination of two-piece metal shaft design coupled with a center bearing. The carbon fiber driveshaft also provided better NVH performance at high rotational speeds. However, the design was abandoned a few years ago, suggesting that steel advances had made this technology no longer cost -effective. Currently, the composite drive shafts are being used on few Japanese sporty models such as Mazda RX-8 and Nissan 350Z.

As far as interior components, plastics and composites can be used for most components. Integration and modularization, surface treatment compatibility and easy recycling are current driving forces for their use. A good example of current trends is an integrated door module, which is designed to be assembled with door hardware and electronics before installation on the vehicle assembly line. One composite design produced using Long Fiber Reinforced Thermoplastic (LFRT) was reported to weigh about 2.2lbs versus a steel design of 4.4lbs (50% weight reduction). A similar composite design is being used on the new 2007 Jeep Wrangler.Energy and Environmental Analysis 3
‐ 20 Interior applications for plastics and composites are mature enough to undergo second and later generations of product development with weight and cost reductions achieved within the same material family. A good example is new technology called Stampable Light Weight Reinforced Thermoplastics (LWRT) which offers higher stiffness-to-weight ratios than traditional GMT (Glass Mat Thermoplastics). Also, new proces ses for GMT fabrication allow hybrid steel/composite integrated modules to be used in high volume production. Examples include instrument panels cross structure on Ford Focus, Volvo S40 and V50 and Mazda 3. The design was reported to reduce weight relative to a steel structure by 4.4 to 6.6 lbs.

Headliners, typically produced from Reinforc ed Thermoplastic (RTP) sheet, are the largest volume application for composites. New RTP proc esses allow sheets to be laminated with films, fabrics and other finishing materials prior to molding for one step production of high quality parts right from a tool. Cost savings are often realized with thinner gage materials used with associated weight reduction benefits.

Similar trends can be observed in other large interior applications such as load floors, foldable seating systems and rear window parcel shelves. Weight reduction as high as 50%, compared to conventional steel, were reported but the most sophisticated light weight designs are currently limited to luxury sports models.


## 3.4 Magnesium Alloys
3.4.1 Material Types

Magnesium alloys are the lightest metallic material formulations suitable for automotive structural applications. Based on specific gravity, magnesium alloys are about 75% lighter than steel, about 30% lighter than aluminum alloys and 20% lighter than mainstream polymer composites. These alloys exhibit good impact resistance, high strength to weight ratio, good casting properties and dimensional stability. Magnesium world resources are considered abundant and it is easily recyclable. 1819Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 3
‐ 21 While there are many magnesium alloys suitable for automotive applications, the following three alloys are the most common /1 :

• AZ91D is the most commonly used alloy for high pressure die casting. The alloy is typically used for power-train and mechanical components where toughness is more important than deformation capability.

• AM60B is commonly used for automotive die casting for safety components such as instrument panel structures and seat frames. The alloy is selected for its good ductility, energy absorption, and strength and castability properties.

• AM50 has comparatively low aluminum c ontent and offers increased ductility, when compared to AM60, with a slight reduction in strength and castability. It is typically used where the performance requirements demand elongation properties beyond that of
AM60.

High Pressure Die Casting (HPDC) is the primary production process for automotive magnesium. However, magnesium is feasible to be molded in semi-solid thixotropic state through process similar to injection molding. While bulk of automotive parts are produced using HPDC, in cases where net shape high precision parts are required, thixotropic forming offers advantages.

For automotive magnesium usage, a lot of research is being done in the areas of bimetallic/galvanic corrosion and mechanical fastening bolt corrosion areas. Improved casting quality and higher/more uniform ductility in HPDC process is another area that received particular attention. Also, new alloys and processes are being developed to enable automotive stamping, forging and extrusion for magnesium components.



## 3.4.2 Magnesium Use and Ge neral Weight Implications

High production volume cost is the primary limiti ng factor that historically limited automotive magnesium growth. When fully accounted component costs are taken into consideration (i.e., alloy supply, volume, tooling, manufacturing, corrosion protection, fastening, assembly/vehicle installation and repair) the result is a substantial cost disadvantage in most cases, especially compared to designs incorporating the latest high strength steel grades. Magnesium requires extra corrosion protection, so surface treatment s and part assembly special measures have toEnergy and Environmental Analysis 3
‐ 22 be implemented. Also, magnesium still suffers from the perception that it is flammable, although the fact that the material is already used in wide range of applications illustrates that it is an issue that can be successfully resolved for the automotive market.

Despite these limitations, magnesium alloy use in automotive components is being investigated by various research entities from private industry and the US government 20

. In few specific applications it was found that magnesium can be applied with marginal cost disadvantage and even net savings for lower volume programs. 21 When compared to, for example, a multi-piece steel welded design, High Pressure Die Casti ng (HPDC) magnesium often offers a single piece structure to achieve high integration of co mponents and weight reduction. The uniform structure offers improved dimensional stability, produc tion repeatability and improved Noise, Vibration and Harshness (NVH) response. 22

In general, automotive magnesium components appear to have potential in broad range of nonClass-A surface applications in all parts of the vehicle interior, body, chassis and powertrain. 23 The primary motivation for future growth is weight reduction in cases where weight trimming is desirable to achieve certain weight distribution or whole vehicle weight targets. The general experience, however, with material competition in North America has been that the magnesium design is displaced when a lower-cost solution for a particular weight trimming issue becomes
available.

Table 3-6 summarizes powertrain, interior, chassis and body components in terms of the initial weight, the weight in magnesium and the weight reduction obtained. The data shows that, while weight reduction potential can vary greatly from application to application, as a rule of thumb, when converting from steel/cast iron, typically about 50% weight reduction can be expected; converting from an Al casting design yields an approximate 35% weight reduction. Magnesium application examples (some of them at only the demonstration-level) have been recorded in virtually all vehicle component areas with exception of exterior surfaces.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 3
‐ 23 Table 3-6 Magnesium Components Currently Used in Motor Vehicles, Competing Material and Relative Weight Reduction Potential (all figures are in pounds).
Component Original Weight/ Material Magnesium Weight Weight Saved

CHASSIS 4 Wheels 65 Al 39 26 1A Frame Cross Member 20 steel 10 10 Engine Cradle 34.8 Al 23.7 11.1 Fuel Tank Barrier 8.7 steel 5 3.7 Brackets – Adjustable Pedal 2 steel 1 1 Brake/Accelerator 2.5 steel 2 0.5 Steering – Wheel 2.5 Al 1.5 1 Columns 4 Al 3 1 Column Brackets 2 steel 1.5 0.5 ABS Mounting Bracket 1.3 iron 0.9 0.4 INTERIOR Seats – Frames (4) 44 steel 16 28 Stanchions (2) 24 steel 13 11 IP – X-car beam 25 steel 15 10 Knee Bolster 10 steel 6 4 Console 8 steel 5 3 Brackets 1 steel 0.5 0.5 Glove Box Door 1 steel 0.7 0.3 POWERTRAIN Engine Block I 6 56 Al 33 23 Engine Block I 4 42 Al 23 19 Automatic Transmission 42 Al 30 12 Intake Manifold 22 plastic 12 10 Transfer Case 25 Al 15 10 Clutch Housing 14 Al 7 7 Oil Pan 9 Al 6 3 Engine Mounting Brackets 6 iron 3 3 Alternator Bracket 5 Al 2.5 2.5 Cam Cover (2) 7 Al 5 2 Cylinder Head Cover 7 Al 5.7 1.3 Air Intake Housings 6 plastic 4 2 Oil Pump Housing 3 Al 2 1 Power Steering Pump Bracket 1.5 Al 1.2 0.3 BODY STRUCTURE Door Inner Panels (4) 86 steel 39 47 Radiator Support/GOR 32 steel 12 20 Front of Dash Structure 40 steel 22 18 Lift gate Inner 22 steel 12 10 Windshield Surround (frame) 22 steel 12 10 Roof Frame Opening 11 steel 6 5 Wiper Motor/support Assembly 3.5 Al 2 1.5 Mirror Housing 3 zinc 2 1 Headlight Retainer 1.5 steel 1 0.5Energy and Environmental Analysis 3
‐ 24 

## 3.5 Section Summary

Advanced steels have experienced unprecedented devel opment in past few years. Virtually all
OEMs have made announcements that the AHSSs will be used extensively as platform structures are redesigned. In general, the new material does have a cost premium so applications are targeted in areas where the vehicle structures are subjected to high loads and energy absorption requirements such as bum per beams (already high AHSS penetration area), intrusion beams, sills, rails and other parts. Figure 3-7 illustrates the BIW steel selection trends from the steel industry’s perspective.

( ( ))

270MPa

69% 340/380B H 8% 340HSS

21% AHSS 2% 270MPa

340/380 BH

340HSS

AHSS Future (2010)

Color is not always matching between current and future. 270MPa

25%

270/440

Mpa 13% 590 Mpa

22% 780 Mpa

19% 980 Mpa

9% Mart. 12% 270MPa

270/440 Mpa 590 Mpa
780 Mpa
980 Mpa

Mart. Current

Figure 3-7 Current and Future (2010) Steel Use in North American Car BIW.
Source: the US Steel.

The above data shows that currently the BIW is dominated by mild and lower-end (up to 340MPa) high strength steel grades comprising 69% and 21% of the structure, respectively. In 2010, however, the average vehicle HSS share is expected to increase dramatically with themild grades decreasing to about 25% of the BIW weight. Martensitic steel, which is virtually nonexistent in older vehicle structures, is expected to reach penetration as high as 12%.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 3
‐ 25 Aluminum alloys have already penetrated automot ive castings applications, especially in powertrain castings, and in forgings for su spension components. Wrought aluminum is used extensively in heat exchangers. Aluminum sheet is able to achieve large weight savings, compared to the mild steel designs, but higher strength steel advancements may limit aluminum further expansion.

Thermoplastics and their composites are widely adopted as the material of choice for many under-hood and most interior applications. Exterior thermoplastic fascias are already widely adopted in cars and crossover vehicles. The thermoset composites offer an opportunity for semi-structural application expansion, but the current penetration is limited to selected components, for example roof liners, pick up bed inner panels and some exterior fascias.

Magnesium current penetration is very low but the future looks promising if material prices continue along current trends. Examples of magnesium applications can be found in virtually every vehicle system, with excepti on of the exterior Class A panels.

Table 3-8 summarizes typical weight reduction ranges expected from competing materials. Carbon fiber composites and magnesium castings offer the highest weight reduction potential among competing materials. Also iron casting repl acement by aluminum offers very high weight reduction opportunity. However, the data shows that expected weight reductions are highly variable depending on specific application.

Table 3-7 Competing Material Weight Reduction Estimates Material Material Replaced Weight Reduction Expected [%] HSS Sheet Mild Steel Sheet 5-35 Aluminum Sheet Mild Steel Sheet 35-50 Aluminum Sheet HSS Sheet 15-30 Aluminum Casting Iron Casting 30-55 Glass Fiber Composites Mild Steel Sheet 20-50

Glass Fiber Composites HSS Sheet 5-20

Carbon Fiber Composites Mild Steel 45-80
Magnesium Casting Mild Steel Sheet 40-60 Magnesium Casting Aluminum Casting 30-40Energy and Environmental Analysis 3
‐ 26 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3

1 Automotive Group of International Iron and Steel Institute, “Advanced High Strength Steel Guidelines, Version 3”, Available on the Web at http://www.ulsab.org/

2 A. Kurota, et al, “Weight Reduction and Improvement of Safety Level in Impacts with High

‐ Strength Steels Tailored Blanks Technology”, SAE Paper 2003
‐ 01
‐ 2736.

3 K. Olsson, J

‐ O. Sperle, “New Advanced Ultra

‐ High Strength Steels for the Automotive Industry”, AutoTechnology Magazine, October 2006.

4 Ultralight Steel Auto Body, Final Report, Southfield, MI, American Iron and Steel Institute, March 1998.

5 J.P. McGuire, US Steel Corp., “Recapturing Aluminum Closures with Optimized Steel Solutions”, Presentation Available on the Web at http://www.autosteel.org/AM/Template.cfm?Sec tion=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&C ONTENTFILEID=3388

6 M. Fujine, S. Hayashi, S. Sudo, Y. Ohashi, Vehicle Mass Reduction Based on Material Technologies, Toyota Technical Review, Volume 53, 2004.

7 T. Tanae, J. Dykeman, “Application of 590/780MPa Grade TRIP Steel to Body

‐ in

‐ White”, SAE Technical Paper 2006

‐ 01
‐ 1585.

8 A. Kochan, “Laser Technology is Key to New VW Golf

– Streamlining in Body Shop Cuts Production Time by 25%”, Automotive News Europe, November 17, 2003.

9 D. Jewett, “Here is How GM Changed Full Size Pickups”, Automotive News, December 1, 1997.

10 Automotive Aluminum Association, “Aluminum Processes and Materials”, Guide, Available on the Web at http://www.autoaluminum.org/

11 Aluminum Association, Auto and Light Truck Group, “Content/Cost Announcement, Event Transcript”, March 7, 2006.

12 Ducker Worldwide, “Aluminum Content for Light Non Commercial Vehicles to Be Assembled in North America, Japan and the European Union in 2006”. Available on the web at: http://www.aluminum.org/Content/ContentGroups/News_Releases1/March_20061/exec utivesummary.ppt

13 Verlag Moderne Industrie, “Aluminum Cylinder Blocks”, KS Aluminum

‐ Technologie, 2006.

14 T. Welo, R. Holthe, Hydro Aluminum Structures, “Crash Management Using Advanced Aluminum Extrusion

‐ Based Solutions”, AutoTechnology Magazine, April 2006.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 3
‐ 27 15 N. Kawashima, “Development of Light

‐ Weight Chassis for ES Vehicle”, Toyota Technical Review, Volume 52, September 2002.

16 Ray Publishing, Inc., “Automotive Composites: A Design and Manufacturing Guide, 2 nd Edition”, 2006.

17 Automotive Composites Alliance, “2006 Model Year Passenger Car and Truck Thermoset Composite Components”.

18 S. Logan, A. Kizyma, C. Patterson, S. Rama, “Lightweight Magnesium Intensive Body Structure”, SAE Technical Paper 2006

‐ 01
‐ 0523.

19 United States Automotive Materials Partnership, “Magnesium Vision 2020: A North American Automotive Strategic Vision for Magnesium”, Released November 1, 2006.

20 S. Logan, A. Kizyma, C. Patterson, S. Rama, “Lightweight Magnesium Intensive Body Structure”, SAE Technical Paper 2006

‐ 01
‐ 0523.

21 United States Automotive Materials Partnership, “Magnesium Vision 2020: A North American Automotive Strategic Vision for Magnesium”, Released November 1, 2006.

22 Blanchard, P., Bretz, G., Subramanian, S., DeVries, J., Syvret, A., MacDonald, A., Jolley, P., “The Application of Magnesium Die Casting to Vehicle Closures”, SAE Technical Paper 2005
‐ 01
‐ 0338.

23 Meridian Technologies Inc., “Superior Magnesium Diecasting by Design”, Promotional Brochure, 2006.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 4
‐ 1 

# 4 COSTS AND WEIGHT REDUCTION FOR SPECIFIC COMPONENTS

4.1 COST IMPLICATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS

The automotive industry is highly competitive and dom inated by few large global corporations in the business environment with production overcapac ity and low profit margins. Therefore, cost is a critical element in design of motor vehicles, including material selection. Raw material cost is only one, often not the most expensive, contributor to total cost of automotive components. An automobile is a highly engineered product so component development, parts fabrication and assembly costs are critical elements. Cost is very difficult to assess with high precision, particularly for new materials and process technologies, which often change rapidly and data is treated as proprietary information. Material and basic part fabrication is sourced to large pool of subcontractors with historically limited public accounting data. Furthermore the data, even if available, is often treated inconsistently among different suppliers. 1
Despite these limitations, generalized trends about cost implications can be discussed using various examples in published studies.



## 4.1.1 Advanced Steels Perhaps the most comprehensive study of the AHSS potential was published in 2002 through the Advanced Vehicle Concepts partnership. 2 Among multiple objectives, the Ultra-Light Steel Auto-Body – Advanced Vehicle Concepts (ULSAB-AVC) project compared reference case vehicle body against AHSS-intensive body structur e (North American Mid-Size Class vehicle). The project concluded that 25% BIW weight reduction was feasible at no cost penalty. The manufacturing costs from this study are summari zed in Table 4-1. The results show that AHSS material does require a cost premium but it can be more than compensated by savings from forming, assembly and tooling costs.Energy and Environmental Analysis 4
‐ 2 Table 4-1 ULSAB-AVC AHSS-Intensive Body Manufactu ring Cost Comparison to Reference Case.Body Structure Cost [$/body] Mid-Size AHSSIntensive Reference Body

Steel Cost 468 369 Forming Cost 213 282 Assembly 291 328 Total Body 972 979 Tooling Investment Cost 40.3 million 68.0 million Major Parts Count 81 135

The partnership also investigated other steel-intensive vehicle assemblies such closures and suspensions. The ULSAC (Ultra-Light Steel Auto Closures) project concluded that up to 42% mass savings is achievable in AHSS-intensive closures at no additional cost. 3 Table 4-2 provides the summary cost data from this program for the door application.

Table 4 ‐ 2 Cost Comparison of ULSAC Stamped Outer Door Design against Generic Doors High Volume Production, Costs are for a Set of Two Doors in [US$] ULSAC Stamped Outer LH&RH Doors “State of the Art” Generic LH&RH Doors
Material 28 48 Stamping 15 16 Tailored Blank Stamping 12 20 Tubular Hydroforming 15 N/A
Purchased Parts 9 7 Assembly 54 47
Total Cost for 2 Doors 133 138

The ULSAC door analysis show that significant material savings can be achieved when thinner gage UHSS (more expensive on weight basis) is used instead of heavier gage milder steels. The tubular hydroforming operation and assembly for ULSAC doors added extra cost, but the additional cost was more than compensated by material and tailored blank operation savings.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 4
‐ 3 The ULSAS (Ultra-Light Steel Auto Suspensions) had similar results and concluded that 34% mass reduction was possible. All reference cases in these studies were conventional steeldesigns. Further potential for weight reduction in light truck structures was identified in the AutoSteel Partnership-sponsored Lightweight SUV Frame study. 4 The resulting AHSS steelintensive design showed a 23% reduction in frame mass achievable at an estimated cost of $0.31/pound (compared to reference frame from Ford Expedition).

Other specific cases below deal with AHSS substi tution for conventional mild steels in isolated structures. As indicated above, AHSS have received unprecedented attention in components designed for high dent resistance (Class A panels) or as primary static and dynamic energy absorption members. 5 While formability degradation of these steels often must be overcome by more expansive tooling and equipment setups, the stronger steels offer gauge reduction and parts consolidation opportunity. As a result, it is possible to engineer new structures with net production cost savings and significant weight reduction.

Table 4-3 summarizes the front-end AHSS-intensive design scenario compared to conventional steel design. Significant weight savings were achieved in this example, while the assembly cost savings were more than enough to offset higher material and blank costs.

Table 4-3 Vehicle Front End Study, Conventional Steel vs. AHSS-Intensive Design, Assembly Weight and Production Cost Estimates. Source: MIT Material System Laboratory. Materials Distribution [lbs] Production Cost [$]
Material Baseline – Conventional Steel AHSS - Intensive Cost Elements Baseline – Conventional Steel AHSS - Intensive

Mild Steels 65 6 Material 49 53
HSLA Steels 29 - Blank Production 7 22

Dual Phase Steels - 64 Forming 64 52

Assembly 77 57
Total 94 70 Total 197 184Energy and Environmental Analysis 4
‐ 4 The second recent example is the skid plate application (low profile part designed to protect transfer case from damage). The new part was designed with dual phase (DP600) steel and achieved about 50% weight reduction with 30% cost savings. Figure 4-1 summarizes these
results.



### Baseline Grade: DQSK (Mild Steel) Gage: 3.0 mm Mass: 3.5 kg Baseline Grade: DQSK (Mild Steel) Gage: 3.0 mm Mass: 3.5 kg

New Design Grade: DP600 Gage: 1.3 mm Mass: 1.68 kg (-52%) Cost: 30% less New Design Grade: DP600 Gage: 1.3 mm Mass: 1.68 kg (-52%) Cost: 30% less

Figure 4-1 Skid Plate Redesign, Mild vs. Dual Phase steels.
Source: US Steel



## 4.1.2 Aluminum As indicated , aluminum castings have succe ssfully penetrated markets for wheel rims, engine blocks/heads, transmissions and suspension components. Table 4-4 summarizes these applications. Compared to cast iron, aluminum does result in net price premium, but the difference is small enough and weight savings are very large so that aluminum can be justified in these castings. One of the key reasons for aluminum success is that the processing costs (associated with machining, handling and finishing) are much lower for aluminum castings compared to cast iron. In some cases aluminum also offers functional advantages (suspension parts) and improved aesthetic appearance (wheel rims).Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 4
‐ 5 Table 4-4 Aluminum casting components and estimates for market penetration, weight reduction and costs.
Source: Alcoa and others Component Al Share [%] Competing material shares [%] Weight reduction [%] compared to competing material Net price premium [%]

Engine Blocks ~50 Cast Iron ~50 35-50 35-45 Engine Heads ~95 Cast Iron ~5 30-40 35-45
Transmission Housings ~100 ~0 N/A N/A

Wheel Rims ~65 Steel ~35 20-30 Cast Al 40-50 Steering Knuckles ~40 Cast Iron ~60 35-45 Solid Cast Al 40-60
Suspension Control
arms ~25 ~40 forged steel, rest cast iron 20-30 compared to steel 20-30 compared to steel Cross members/ subframes ~10 rest steel 25-35 40-50

Audi’s Space Frame (ASF) BIW design (used in A8) is perhaps the best known example of the structural large-scale aluminum application. 6 Figure 4-2 illustrates the ASF design, as implemented on the Audi A8. The ASF is dominat ed by aluminum sheet, where as extrusions are used in longer frame components. Castings are reserved for complex joints and critical load
transfer areas.

Figure 4-2. Audi A8 Space Frame Design by Aluminum Fabrication Process.Energy and Environmental Analysis 4
‐ 6 Audi claims that the technology can reduce BIW weight by about 35 to 45%, compared to mild steel bodies. However, costs of such a design are expected to be almost twice compared to conventional steel. The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) performed analysis of the ASF and concluded that aluminum implementation resu lts in cost effectiveness of about $3/lb of weight saved, assuming basic compact BIW requirements. Achieving the same costs for more complex high-end vehicle bodies would be much higher, according to AISI. 7

The aluminum industry, on the other hand, claims that properly designed sheet aluminum can get close to a cost break even with steel. The best application areas are bolt-on components such as add-on frames and engine/suspension cradles. However, this comparison may not be against AHSS steels but against a ‘conventional’ steel baseline.

Aluminum bumpers are a good example of a successful aluminum bolt-on high volume application. Hydro Aluminum claims to have produced 8.7 million aluminum bumper systems worldwide in 2004 with Europe being the key market. 8 Compared to a mild steel bumper, the extruded aluminum bumper results in about 45- 50% weight savings. Even AHSS bumpers are claimed to be 25-30% heavier compared to aluminum.

The Aluminum Association has recently completed a study that looked into aluminum intensive light-duty vehicle weight reduction potential and costs. 9 For a typical high volume mid-size passenger vehicle class (about 3,445lb in baseli ne steel design) in the case where body and structure weight reduction can be translated into powertrain resizing, the study concluded that an aluminum intensive vehicle weight of 2, 840lb can be achieved (or about 18% reduction). The primary weight savings of 359lb included sections of BIW, engine cradle, aluminum wheels and other aluminum technologies, which are already being mass produced. Cost premium for aluminum was calculated to be $630/vehicle, or about 1.59$/lb weight saved, overall.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 4
‐ 7 

## 4.1.3 Plastics/Composites

Plastics/Composites have successful implementati on examples even in some primary structural elements although applications are highly engineered and depend on numerous designs
constraints.

A good example of the design process complexity is the new Pontiac G6 front corner bumper energy absorbing structure by Shape. 10 The project was required to utilize a carry over Chevy Malibu front bumper (fabricated from AHSS) but designers discovered that insufficient space was available between the corner bumper struct ure and new G6 fascia. The solutions identified were 1) mitre cut and cap the end of bumper beam; 2) end-form beam by “crush and tuck”; 3) cut the beam short and wrap the ends with plastic injection molded energy absorber. Figure 4-3 demonstrates these design alternatives.

Figure 4-3 Bumper Corner Design Solution: Crush and Tuck, Cut and Cap, Net Shape Plastic Corner Module.

Ultimately the net shape injection molded plastic corner module solution was selected for this application and resulted in net cost savings and weight reduction compared to the old Malibu design. Among many design criteria, the plas tic solution was found to absorb and transfer bumper impact energy forces more efficiently. Capital equipment and production cycle cost savings were realized since all alternativ e solutions required additional metal forming equipment. Figure 4-4 summarizes the project end results.Energy and Environmental Analysis 4
‐ 8 Figure 4-4 Pontiac G6 Bumper Corner Plastic/HSS Design Outcome.

Carbon fiber reinforced composites are feasible as replacements for traditional metal structures but costs are still very high so applications are limited to high performance, low volume sports cars, such as Porsche Carrera GT and Mercedes SLR. This material, when optimally designed, can achieve weight savings of 75 to 80% versus steel, 30 to 40% versus aluminum, and up to 50% versus fiber glass composites. 11 Supply of carbon fiber is still very constrained and significant price reduction is not expected in the foreseeable future.



## 4.1.4 Magnesium

In 2006 magnesium alloys experienced price redu ctions due to newly available supplies, especially from China’s low cost Pidgeon producti on process, while aluminum prices have risen during the same period (see Figure 4-5). The alum inum and magnesium alloy prices are similar currently on a weight basis, so that magnesium is much less expensive on a volumetric basis

. As a result, the magnesium industry feels that the material has good growth prospects as direct replacement for aluminum castings. Magnesium casting tools have about the same cost structure as aluminum castings, although the tooling life is higher (about two times higher compared to aluminum). Historically, however , due to limited engineering budgets, raw material price uncertainty and other factors, alumi num to magnesium casting conversion has been
slow. 12Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 4
‐ 9 Figure 4-5 Aluminum A380 and Magnesium Alloy Ingot Prices in 2005-2006.
Source: Meridian Technologies.

When competing with steel, the current magnesium trend is to displace steel in complex assembly applications where higher raw m agnesium cost can be compensated by cost reductions from parts consolidation. As with any alternative material substitution projects, decisions strongly depend on capital and engineering resource availability, particularly large investments required to produce tooling.

Currently established magnesium products, such as instrument panel (IP) or radiator supports can be implemented for costs close to those for steel. There are examples of IPs selling for about 15% cost premium, compared to steel.

Specifically, in the case of the IP cross beam, which is a highly complex part (see Figure 4-6), cast magnesium is often a desirable substitution for steel design. The steel design is usually accomplished by a multiple tubular / bracket part assembly. Steel offers much lower material and fabrication variable costs, but assembly costs are often much higher compared to a magnesium casting based assembly.Energy and Environmental Analysis 4
‐ 10 Figure 4-6 Cast Magnesium (AM60B alloy) IP Cross Beam. GM Epsilon Platform
Source: Hydro Magnesium

.
Figure 4-7 summarizes steel and magnesium IP beam costs for manufacturing and product development from MIT. MIT has calculated t hat the magnesium beam has about 3-times lower total development costs compared to steel, which required about 4-times higher part count for the assembly.

Figure 4-7 Steel and Magnesium IP Beam Cost Comparison.
Assumptions: volume 75,000 units/year; magnesium alloy price 1.40$/lb, 5-year product cycle.

The radiator support is another complex part that received particular attention from magnesium designers. A project by Ford and Meridian Technologies have shown that net cost savings and large weight reductions are possible when multi-piece steel assembly is replaced by magnesiumEnergy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 4
‐ 11 casting shown in Figure 4-8. 13 This material substitution project did require extensive engineering for magnesium corrosion protection, including part isolation from other materials, and crash performance. The issues were successfully overcome and the new support was implemented on the F150 pickup truck with about 30lbs saved (or about 60%).

Figure 4-8 Ford 150 Radiator Support, Magnesium AM50A, Weight 6kg Source: Hydro Magnesium


## 4.2 Production Volume and Cost Relationship

Because tooling costs are dramatically different for different competing processes, the material selection is affected by production volume. In addition, material selection decisions are often driven by company’s legacy fabrication infras tructure, labor contracts, crash safety considerations, weight distribution, recyclebility and numerous other factors. All these factors have to be weighted on case-by-case basis. Examples below illustrate some of these relationships.

The first case, developed by the MIT Material Systems laboratory, compares the IP panel magnesium casting versus steel welded designs. Assuming historical material pricing, the magnesium design offers a cost advantage to about 120,000 units volume per year. Steel gains a cost advantage for higher volumes, but the break even point is obviously dependent on raw material prices. Magnesium has experienced pric e reductions compared to historical averages (as of November 2006, raw magnesium alloy sold for about 1.20$/lb). As a result, the magnesium IP beam can now be cost effective to volumes as high as 250,000 units. However, steel fabricators claim that further design improvements are possible with steel part consolidation across more platforms and through the use AHSS elements and tailored tubeEnergy and Environmental Analysis 4
‐ 12 blanks. Figure 4-9 below summarizes the highly volume-dependent nature of automotive component costs. The first graph shows historical relationship, while the second provides reference to the steel design improvement possibilities.

Figure 4-9 Production Volume Sensitivity to IP Beam Material Selection.
Source: MIT Material Systems Laboratory

The second specific example deals with the hood assembly which often was switched to alternative materials as a weight trimming option. The data in figure 4-10 shows that composite hoods have strong advantage up to the volumes of 50 to 100 thousand units because tooling costs are only fraction compared to metallic hoods. Higher raw material and labor costs can be more than compensated by tooling savings in low volume applications. At volumes of 100 to 200 thousand units, all material costs converge and steel becomes the lowest cost alternative. The break-even point varies from program to progr am, but clearly high volume decisions become dominated by material and labor costs.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 4
‐ 13 Figure 4-10 Hood Analysis for Competing Materials Source: Meridian Automotive SystemsEnergy and Environmental Analysis 4
‐ 14 

## 4.3 Section Summary

The previous section has shown that weight reduction among competing materials is highly variable and depends on specific application. The same holds true for cost implications. Table 4-5 compares the competing material choices from Section 3 and the weight reduction estimates against high volume (generally defined as production above 100,000 to 200,000 units) cost ranges. These general relationships were used in subsequent analysis in order to
derive vehicle-level cost effectiveness ratios.

While material suppliers often claim that properly design components, with alternative materials, can result in net cost savings, the engineering expense is often excluded from these claims. The table below provided expected cost implications , which generally show a cost premium, if engineering and tooling expenses are properly accounted for.

Table 4-5 Competing Material Weight Reduction Estimates and Relative Cost Comparison Material Material Replaced Weight Reduction Expected [%] Expected Cost Difference [%]
HSS Sheet Mild Steel Sheet 5-35 5-20
Aluminum Sheet Mild Steel Sheet 35-50 50-100
Aluminum Sheet HSS Sheet 15-30 40-80 Aluminum Casting Iron Casting 30-55 35-45
Glass Fiber Composites Mild Steel Sheet 20-50 20-40

Glass Fiber Composites HSS Sheet 5-20 10-30

Carbon Fiber Composites Mild Steel 45-80 >200
Magnesium Casting Mild Steel Sheet 40-60 30-75 5-30 (with consolidation) Magnesium Casting Aluminum Casting 30-40 15-30

The data illustrates that HSS steels are attractive lighter weight alternatives with relatively low cost premium compared to the mild steels. Glass fiber reinforced composites can provideEnergy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 4
‐ 15 significant weight reduction at reasonable cost premium, compared to mild steels. Magnesium castings appear to be very attractive for complex steel assembly replacement, as well as the aluminum castings replacement. If alternative materials are compared against HSS designs, the cost premium ranges are lower but weight reduction expected is also substantially lower.



### References for Section 4

1 R. Roth, MIT Materials Systems Laboratory, “Cost Model Analysis with Advanced High Strength Steels”, PPT Presentation, 2006.

2 World Auto Steel, Automotive Group of International Iron and Steel Institute website http://www.ulsab

‐ avc.org/

3 Automotive Group of International Iron and Steel Institute, “The Ultralight Steel Auto Closure, ULSAC Program’, available on the web at http://www.worldautost eel.org/ulsac/3111.htm

4 Altair Engineering, Troy, MI, “Lightweight SUV Frame: Design Development”, May, 2003.

5 United States Steel Corporation, “Advances in Automotive Sheet Steel Technologies”, Presentation to EEA, November 28, 2006.

6 Audi Press Release, “Third

‐ Generation Audi Space Frame is Stronger, Lighter for Increased Safety and Performance”, August 13, 2003.
7 AutoSteel Article, 2001. Available on Line at http://www.autosteel.org/a rticles/2001_audi_a2.htm

8 T. Welo, R. Holthe, Hydro Aluminum Structures, “Crash Management Using Advanced Aluminum Extrusion

‐ Based Solutions”, AutoTechnology Magazine, April 2006.

9 Aluminum Association, Auto and Light Truck Group, “Content/Cost Announcement, Event Transcript”, March 7, 2006.

10 Shape Corp., “G6 Front Bumper Development Project, a Hybrid Solution for Corner Impact”, Presentation Available on the Web at http://www.autosteel.org/AM/Template.cfm?Sec tion=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&C ONTENTFILEID=3384

11 Ray Publishing, Inc., “Automotive Composites: A Design and Manufacturing Guide, 2 nd Edition”, 2006.

12 E

‐ mail Communications with Hydro Magnesium, October 27, 2006.

13 J. Baltzer, et. al., “F150 Structural Mg Front End Support Assembly”, SAE Technical Paper 2003
‐ 01
‐ 0186.Energy and Environmental Analysis 4
‐ 16Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 5
‐ 1 

# 5 OVERVIEW OF OEM MATERIAL USE IN MY 2006 VEHICLES

Up-to-date, publicly available statistics for autom otive material use by OEM and model are very limited. In general, growth is expected in all light weight material usage with vehicle redesign since fuel economy has become more important in the last few years.

Table 5-1 summarizes the material distribution in an average North American car in 2005/2006. Currently, vehicle construction is dominated by steels, which comprise about 55% of total weight. Cast iron, aluminum and plastics/composites contribute about 25%. The rest of the vehicle is constructed from wide variety of other materials. Interestingly, this data set shows that magnesium contributes only about 0.3% of total vehicle weight currently.

Table 5 ‐ 1 Raw Materials Used in an Average North American Car

. Material Weight [lb/car] Percent Distribution Regular Steel Sheet 1,361 40.1 High/Medium Strength Steel 395 11.6 Stainless Steel 58 1.7 Other Steel 28 0.8 Iron 308 9.1 Aluminum 290 8.6 Plastic and Composites 258 7.6 Fluids and Lubricants 199 5.9 Rubber 152 4.5 Glass 100 2.9 Copper and Brass 52 1.5 Powder Metal Parts 42 1.2 Magnesium Castings 10 0.3 Zinc Die Castings 9 0.3 Other Materials 133 3.9 Total 3,391 100.0 Source: American Metals MarketEnergy and Environmental Analysis 5
‐ 2 Figure 5-1 shows the AHSS and aluminum use for the 6 largest OEMs. The data on absolute weights must be adjusted for the average vehicle weight by manufacturer to obtain an understanding of the penetration of these materials. The data presented in this chart suggests higher aluminum usage relative to the data presented in Table 5-1.



# Metallic Material Trends 2006 North American Light Vehicle Steel and Aluminum Content - OEM Comparisons -Pounds Per Vehicle

340 415
315 480

300 480

330 475

290 525

315 515

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

GM Ford DCX Nissan Toyota Honda
Aluminum Medium & HSS*

Source: Ducker Worldwide

*210 Mpa or greater yield strength

Figure 5 ‐ 1 OEM Metallic Material Trends

Figure 5-2 summarizes AHSS use for selected high volume vehicle programs in North America (BIW and closures only). The data illustrates that BIW and closure AHSS use by OEM can differ substantially (as illustrated by Dodge Dakota and Toyota Tacoma comparison). Also, the types of AHSS used are highly variable among vehicl e models. The differences can be expected, however, taking into account the age of different platforms. As platforms are redesigned, the AHSS share is expected to change dramatically , as illustrated by the next generation GM platform announcements.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 5
‐ 3 United States Steel Corporation - Automotive Center Providing Steel Solutions to the Automotive Industry http://www.ussautomotive.com440218236 183 47150 155 150130 87 174130 128 12993 185 100218 150125 50 19010 210 130116 78 156268 18 53124 138 72106 71 14265 175 76112 128 76118 80 100224 13 51167 119120 90 7068 136 70230 3592 136 3493 62 9380 135 3062 136 3036 36 1504451195242797

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700F-150DakotaPathfinderOdysseyFrontierXterraSolsticeRidgelineGrand CherokeeTacomaG6300 CAccordChargerAvalonFord 500SRXTrailblazerMustangAltimaEclipseFusionCivicFocusSentraLegacyNext LambdaNext Delta

MHSS CHSS AHSS(Pounds per Vehicle)648466455391387378368365350350339334319315315298288286280274265262248245228222551346 Present Future GM 

# High-Strength Steel Content for BIW and Closures by Type High-Strength Steel Content for BIW and Closures by Type

Ducker Worldwide

Figure 5 ‐ 2 Steel Types in Selected 2006 Vehicle Bodies plus Closures Source: United States Steel Corporation 1

The above data shows that Japanese OEMs appear to be ahead of the US Big 3 when average AHSS and aluminum use are summed together. Nissan, Toyota and Honda figures are 805 to 830 lbs, while GM, Ford and DCX vary from 755 to 795 lbs. Part of the reason for higher use of advanced steels by the Japanese manufacturers is that they have shorter product cycles, and also because they use aluminum engines almost exclusively, while the domestic OEMs still retain many iron block engines.

Available data shows that aluminum use is conc entrated in castings for power-train systems. Aluminum castings account for over 80% of use of this material in vehicles. Forgings andEnergy and Environmental Analysis 5
‐ 4 extrusions account for about 9% of aluminum use. Data presented in Table 5-2 further details aluminum use in 2006 vehicles by program and application.

Table 5 ‐ 2 Aluminum Component Production Volume in 2006 North America Vehicles and Average Weight Penetration. Number of Aluminum Components by Program Average Content by Component

Component Number of Programs Number of Parts [million] Component Average Content [lbs/vehicle]
Hoods 29 2.92 Engines 113.84

Doors None Transmission and Driveline 69.46

Fenders 1 0.03 Chassis, Suspension and Steering 22.18

Deck Lid/ Lift and Tail Gates 9 0.89 Wheels and Spares 52.06

Engine Blocks 8.1 Heat Exchanger 31.87

Wheels and Spares 41.0 Brakes 7.75

Bumper Beams 2.1 Closures 5.52

Control Arms and Links 16.5 Body and Instrument Panel 1.16

Steering Knuckles 15.0 Heat Shields 4.05
Cradles, Subframes and Cross members 2.3 Bumper Beams 1.82

All Other 8.99

Total 318.7

Source: Ducker WorldwideEnergy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 5
‐ 5 Aluminum use, by model, can be further examin ed using data available through the Automotive
Aluminum Association. Their website tracks the la test high aluminum content vehicles (defined as those with an aluminum content of 400lbs or more), by application. Appendix 7.3 summarizes the information available. This source shows that closure panels are occasionally specified for luxury and sports models but also a few selected mainstream vehicles such as Ford Explorer and Chrysler 300. Suspension components from forged aluminum are also common in premium market. The mass market models, such as Ford F150 and Nissan Altima, use aluminum on a very selective basis. As expected, aluminum use in engines dominates the list. The engine basic design data, with block/head and in some cases the exhaust/intake manifold materials identified, is generally more widely available. Appendix 7.1 summarizes this data for MY 2007 GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler, as well as Toy ota, Honda and Nissan light vehicles. Table 5-3 provides the sales weighted summary data for these OEMs from 2006. 2

Table 5 ‐ 3 MY 2006 Engine Aluminum Penetration in North America. Aluminum Penetration [%] OEM Engine Block Cylinder Head Intake Manifold
GM 50 92 50
Ford 50 98 45
DCX 20 100 35 Toyota 90 100 100
Honda 100 100 100
Nissan 100 100 30
Sale Weighted Average for Big 6 61 98 56

Sources: Engine Blocks/Heads – EEA internal Estimates; Intake Manifolds - Ducker Worldwide.

The data shows that cast iron cylinder blocks are still being used in many vehicle platforms. While the use of iron blocks may be required in some ‘rough duty’ applications such as off-road vehicles, many light-duty iron block engines c an (and will likely be) converted to aluminum blocks. Examples of iron block engines in MY2006 are GM’s 3.5L V6 used on vehicles such as Chevy Malibu and Saturn Aura, GM’s 1.6L I4 used on Chevy Aveo, Chrysler’s 2.4L I4 used in the PT Cruiser and Sebring and Toyota’s 2.7L I4 engine used on the Tacoma pickup.Energy and Environmental Analysis 5
‐ 6 Intake manifolds are specified in either al uminum or nylon based composites but magnesium manifolds can also be found in selected luxury applications. Toyota and Honda prefer aluminum manifold designs, whereas Nissan and DCX have adopted composites for most of their intake manifolds. In the case of GM and Ford, the composite/aluminum intake manifold split is about 50/50. Exhaust manifolds are dominated by cast iron, but stainless steel is also used in selected applications. The GM’s specific data also shows that there is some potential in weight reduction in crankshafts, which are currently dominated by cast iron designs. In many cases the lighter forged steel is being used in this application.

Aluminum wheels are widely used and offer auxiliary benefits in terms of unsprung weight reduction and improved appearance. Figure 5-3 summarizes the penetration data, by OEM.

100% 100% 100% 100%

88%

72% 71% 70% 66% 63% 60%
53%

43%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Percent Penetration

Subaru BMW Mercedes Isuzu Mazda Honda VW Ford GM Nissan DCX Mitsubishi Toyota Industry Average is 65%

Figure 5 ‐ 3 2006 Light Duty Vehicle Wheel Rim Aluminum Penetration by OEM
Source: Ducker Worldwide

Luxury makers such as BMW and Mercedes pr ovide aluminum wheels as standard equipment
in all their vehicles. Other manufacturers hav e mixed penetrations between steel and aluminum (with the exception of Subaru and Isuzu). For Mazda, Honda, VW and Ford, aluminum wheel penetration is over 70%, while Toyota’s preference is to use steel wheels as standard on a majority of their vehicles.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 5
‐ 7 As discussed in previous sections, thermoplastics are well established in automotive design in non-structural applications. The thermoset composites are being used in wide variety of components, including semi-structural and structural areas, but average per-vehicle penetration is low. The thermoset composite model-specific data for MY 2006, by manufacturing process, is provided in Appendix 7.2. The list is dominated by premium models with production volume below 100,000 units, and most high volume production is in exterior fascias. BMC composites have significant penetration in engine valve covers . The high volume examples from this source are also summarized in Table 5-4. Other than the fascia, application examples that stand out are Nissan Altima bumper beams, Ford Explorer grille opening reinforcements and GMC Sierra door panels.

Table 5 ‐ 4. Examples of High Volume MY 2006 Thermoset Composite Applications by Model and Process. Process Model Component Estimated Volume SMC Dodge Ram Fascia System 235,000 Ford Expedition Fascia System, Front and Rear 46,000 Ford F-150 Flare side Fenders 36,000 Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable Radiator support 80,000

Mercury Monterey Grille opening reinforcement 50,000 Nissan Altima Bumper beam 280,000 Dodge Dakota Transfer skid plate 114,000 Ford Explorer Grille opening reinforcement 270,000 SRIM/RRIM Chrysler 300C Fascias 150,000 Ford Crown Vic Fascias 200,000 Chevy Avalanche Door Panel 46,000 GMC Sierra Door Panel 208,000

Examples for mass production magnesium applications are the front-end carrier in Ford F-150 and third row seat frames in Chrysler Town and Country. As discussed in previous sections, magnesium has significant penetration in steering wheel armatures and IP beams, at about 35Energy and Environmental Analysis 5
‐ 8 to 40%. Figure 5-4 provides pictorial illustrati ons of magnesium component examples, but most of these other applications are unique to a specific model, accounting for the low fleetwide penetration of magnesium.

Figure 5-4. Examples of Typical Cast Magnesium Components.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 5
‐ 9 References for Section 5

1 B. DePompolo, “Advances in Automotive Sheet Steel Technologies”, United States Steel Corporation,

Presentation to EEA , November 28, 2006

2 Ducker Worldwide, “Aluminum Content for Light Non Commercial Vehicles to Be Assembled in North America, Japan and the European Union in 2006”. Available on the web at: http://www.aluminum.org/Content/ContentGroups/News_Releases1/March_20061/exec utivesummary.pptEnergy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 6

‐ 1 

# 6 VEHICLE COST AND WEIGHT ANALYSIS FOR ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS

6.1 Introduction

Vehicle weight reduction is complex issue that r equires not just alternative material analysis but also an investigation of capital, engineering and production processes weighted against expected production volumes. There are countless examples of weight reduction opportunities occurring as a part of vehicle and component redesign.

One such example, which shows that significant weight reduction is certainly feasible in wide range of vehicle components, is the current Toyota Prius. One of the key areas that enabled the Prius fuel economy improvement, compared with the 1 st generation vehicle, was vehicle weight reduction. The Prius II did add about 374lbs of additional equipment due to specification upgrades. Weight reduction was crucial to bring the total vehicle mass to be comparable to the original vehicle. Figure 6.1 below highlights areas and design features that allowed this reduction. The resulting Prius II curb weight increase was only 66lbs (2,750lbs for MY 2003 redesigned Prius vs. 2,684lbs for original Prius) with about 308lbs add-on content weight compensated by material substitution (mostly aluminum) and other practices. While such aggressive vehicle light-weighting resulted in vehicle component cost premium, Toyota has apparently justified this additional cost in order to achieve the performance targets, which in turn resulted in highly successful product in the marketplace.Energy and Environmental Analysis 6

‐ 2 Figure 6-1 Component Weight Reduction Achieved by Material Substitution in the Prius II



## 6.2 Analysis Methodology

While public data for weight reduction and cost s by component is possible to find from comprehensive studies, such as the ULSAB-AVC, the up-to-date information, especially reflecting the recent run-up in material prices, is very limited, fragmented and often bias toward interests of a particular developer or industry. Even when older data was utilized, many gaps were identified for relative weights of components in alternative materials and especially their cost implications. To address this limitation, EEA conducted interviews with numerous suppliersof material technologies. The supplier experts provided both detailed information and “rule-ofthumb” type indicators about alternative material choices.

During this process EEA developed a selected, relative large and heavy, component matrix with material choices for the US market light-weighting opportunities based on the following
selection criteria.

• The light weight material for a particular component is well established in mass production (for example, aluminum engine block);

• The component fabricated from lighter material is available in limited (luxury or sports vehicle) production and technical literature is available concerning material weight or cost implications in expanded mass production (for example, aluminum intensive BIW).Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 6

‐ 3 • A component with lighter alternative material is not known to be available in current production but studies and/or supplier input were available with specific weight and/or cost comparison (for example, magnesium axle housing). In this case, we considered only those materials that were judged to be possible for introduction by 2015.

Table 6.1 provides the resulting matrix of components and material choices selected for the mid-size car scenario, with the dominant material baseline indicated. The components were grouped into application areas with similar functional requirements, as discussed in Section 2. It should be noted that, in some cases, light weight materials have already penetrated the mass market, such as for engine heads (aluminum), transmission housings (aluminum), bumper beams (high strength steel) and intake manifolds (plastics). These widely used components were incorporated into the vehicle baseline before the weight reduction potential was analyzed.

The next stage of analysis required determination of component weights and costs, for each alternative material identified in the matrix. Because data on cost and weight reduction is available only for a select set of components, the full set of weights and costs for most components/material combinations had to be estimated using available analysis for similar components based on similar cost and weight ratios. The component design weight and cost estimates for alternative materials listed in Table 4.5 were used to gage the relative accuracy of the analysis for each component.

The detailed methodology for this exercise is described for each component set below (note that all figures in the calculations were rounded to nearest integer). A detailed list of literature used in the analysis is presented at the end of this section.

Exterior Panels: Class A

The information for cost and weight of a hood from Section 4.2 for regular steel, composites and
aluminum was used to determine cost effect iveness for each hood design compared to regular steel. The advanced steel design weight and cost was adjusted based on information from steel experts which suggests that 20% weight reduction at about 15% cost premium is reasonable for
new AHSS intensive hoods.Energy and Environmental Analysis 6

‐ 4 Table 6

‐ 1 Dominant Baseline and Alternative Materials for Selected Passenger Car Components

Assemblies / Components Dominant Material Advanced Steel Design Composite Plastic Design Aluminum Design Magnesium Design
Exterior Body Panels: Class A Doors Front Regular Steel X X Doors Back Regular Steel X X Deck Lid Regular Steel X X X Fenders Regular Steel X X X Hood Regular Steel X X X
Structural Components Body In White Regular Steel X X Bumper beams F&R Advanced Steel X X X Engine Subframe Regular Steel X X X IP beam Regular Steel X X Front End Carrier Regular Steel X X X X

Under hood Parts Wiper System Housing/Support Regular Steel X X Steering Wheel Column Regular Steel X X X

Drive Train Engine Block (I4) Cast Iron X X Engine Head Aluminum X X Oil pan Regular Steel X X Engine mounting brackets Regular Steel X X X Oil pump housing Aluminum X X Alternator Bracket Regular Steel X X X Valve Cover Regular Steel X X X Transmission Housing Aluminum X X Axle housing Aluminum X X

Intake Manifold Plastic/Composi te X X X

Chassis Wheel Rims (4) Regular Steel X X X Control Arms (4) Regular Steel X X Brake Actuators (2) Cast Iron X Steering Knuckles (2) Cast Iron X

Interiors Seat Frames Front Regular Steel X X X Seat Frames Back Regular Steel X X X Center Console Structure Regular Steel X X X Steering Wheel Armature Aluminum X XEnergy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 6

‐ 5The front and back door, regular versus advanced steel, data was obtained from the ULSABAVC study data. The same source was used to establish the steel baseline figures for the deck lid and fenders. The hood weight and cost ratios for different materials were then used to calculate the weight reduction and cost increase expected for other closures.

Based on expected weight and cost differences summarized in the Table 4.5, the aluminum hood cost information was found to be overly optimistic when compared to the cost for a regular
steel hood. Available information indicates that foe a sheet metal application, the aluminum sheet versus mild sheet total cost premium is expected to be at least 50%. The spreadsheet data were then adjusted to bring the aluminum hood cost premium to be consistent with this estimate. Table 6.2 below summarizes weigh and cost information for the hood, as the baseline component for exterior Class-A panels, including data sources used. All percent figures are against the conventional steel design.

Table 6

‐ 2 Hood Weight and Cost Data for Alternative Materials
Weight [lbs] Cost [$]

Conventional Design 42 (Fig. 4.9) 78 (Fig. 4.9)

Advanced Steel 34 (20% less, based on supplier input) 90 (15% cost premium based on supplier input)

Plastics/composites Intensive 32 (Fig. 4.9) 98 (Fig. 4.9)

Aluminum Intensive 23 (Fig 4.9) 120 (min 50% more – Table 4.5)

Magnesium Intensive N/A N/A

Structural Components

The basic steel BIW weight of 700lbs at the cost of about $1,000 (common estimate used by the steel industry) was used for the BIW baseline. The advanced steel weight reduction potential of about 20% at 10% cost premium was estimated as reasonable by steel sources, taking into account the increasing crash safety require ments. The aluminum intensive weight was determined using reduction potential of 40%, which is a reasonable estimate according toEnergy and Environmental Analysis 6

‐ 6 aluminum experts. A cost premium of about 75% (rounded to the nearest hundred dollars) was used for an aluminum BIW, which is the average cost increase estimate from Table 4-5.

The baseline regular steel weights for other structural components were obtained from the ULSAB-AVC study. The magnesium experts (Hydro Magn esium) indicated that the steel version of the IP beam are sold for about 1.1$/lb. This figure was used to obtain cost estimates for other basic steel welded assemblies. The advanced steel weight reduction potential and general cost premiums were estimated using the BIW advanced steel figures.

The cost estimates for two composite parts, the bumper beam and front-end carrier, were obtained from composite experts (Meridian) i ndicating that these components are currently selling for about 2.50 $/lb. The expected weight reduction is about 25%, compared to mild steel
welded assemblies.

Aluminum bumper figures were estimated us ing reported data (see Section 4.1.2) that aluminum beams, compared to AHSS baseline, are expected to weight about 30% less. One supplier (Hydro Aluminum) has indicated t hat the finished extruded aluminum beams are currently selling for about 4.00 $/lb. The cast aluminum engine carrier weight estimate of about 40% was used at the price premium comparable to the powertrain castings, as explained below.

The magnesium weight reduction figures of 20%, compared to aluminum, and 50% compared to regular steel were used for this analysis. One magnesium supplier (Hydro Magnesium) have indicated that currently large magnesium castings, such as IP beams, are selling for about 3.00 to 3.50 $/lb. The mid-range figure was used to estimate cost premiums for IP beams and similar large magnesium castings.

Table 6.3 summarizes the above methodology for the BIW data selection. All percent figures are compared against the conventional steel desi gn. The indicated references, by number, are
listed at the end of this section.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 6

‐ 7 Table 6

‐ 3 Weight and Cost Estimate Methodology for BIW

Weight [lbs] Cost [$]

Conventional Design 700 (Ref. 4) 1000 (Ref. 9)

Advanced Steel 560 (20% less, per steel experts) 1100 (10% premium, per steel experts)

Plastics/composites Intensive N/A N/A

Aluminum Intensive 420 (40% less, assuming design per Table 3.8) 1800 (80% premium, Table 4.5, Al sheet vs. mild steel sheet)

Magnesium Intensive N/A N/A

Drive Train

The 2.7L V6 engine block weight figures for aluminum and cast iron designs were estimated using the figure in Section 3.2.2. One supplier of cast aluminum (Kolbenschmidt Pierburg) indicated that currently mid-size 3.5L V6 aluminum blocks are selling for about $160, with about 1 $/lb-saved price premium compared to cast iron, based on mass volume production. This information was used to estimate the costs for the smaller 2.7L V6 block. The figures obtained, including data sources for the engine block are summarized in Table 6.4.

Table 6

‐ 4 Engine Block Weight/Cost Figures and Data Sources

Weight [lbs] Cost [$]

Conventional Design 110 (cast iron from Fig. 3.3, 2.7L) 82 (estimate using 1$/lb saved compared to Al, Kolbenschmidt Pierburg)

Advanced Steel N/A N/A

Plastics/composites Intensive N/A N/A

Aluminum Intensive 64 (Al from Fig. 3.3, 2.7L) 130 (estimate, Kolbenschmidt Pierburg)

Magnesium Intensive 37 (40% reduction compared to Al, Table 3.6, information for I6 block 156 (estimated 20% price premium compared to Al, based on supplier input)Energy and Environmental Analysis 6

‐ 8 The detailed weight estimates for other powertrain components, most of it castings, by material, are provided in Table 3-6. The aluminum block $/lb figure was used to estimate the costs for aluminum castings. One major magnesium supplie r indicated that, for a realistic aluminum replacement business case, magnesium castings must be priced at around 10 to 20% price premium. This figure was used to estimate m agnesium castings costs from aluminum casting cost data. Other cast iron component costs in this group were estimated using the engine block cost ratio on $/lb basis. The sheet metal stamping costs for regular and advanced steel powertrain components were estimated to be comparable to the structural component cost
ratios.

Other Components

The weight reduction and cost comparison for structural and powertrain components provided enough information to estimate cost and weight implications for remaining components in the chassis, underhood and interiors. Information for certain better known components, for example, wheel rims was entered directly, based on supplier input. Other estimates were obtained using cost to weight reduction ratios for similar com ponents in other groups, differentiated by either castings or sheet metal stamping type.

Table 6.5 provides examples of data estimates for selected components with information sources referenced. All percent figures are compared against the conventional steel design.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 6

‐ 9 Table 6

‐ 5 Weight and Cost Data Estimates for Selected Components

Weight [lbs] Cost [$]

Wheel Rims (4) - Chassis

Conventional Design 110 (37% heavier than Al - Alcoa) 105 (50% less costly compared to Al on $/lb basis – Alcoa)

Advanced Steel 100 (10% reduction – US Steel) 115 (10% premium – US Steel)

Plastics/composites Intensive N/A N/A

Aluminum Intensive 80 (20lb/wheel – Alcoa) 168 (42$/wheel – Alcoa)

Magnesium Intensive 48 (40% reduction compared to Al, Table 3- 6) 202 (at least 20% price premium compared to Al, based on supplier input)

Seat Frames – Front (2) - Interiors

Conventional Design 46 (estimate from ULSAB-AVC study) 49 (estimate 1.1$/lb, same as IP beam)

Advanced Steel 42 (min 10% reduction, US Steel) 52 (estimate 1$/lb saved, AISI)

Plastics/composites Intensive N/A N/A

Aluminum Intensive 29 (40% reduction, same as BIW) 90 (80% premium, same as BIW)

Magnesium Intensive 20 (56% reduction, same as front end carrier) 95 (5% premium compared to Al, with magnesium casting parts consolidation)Energy and Environmental Analysis 6

‐ 10 

## 6.3 Results

The collection of material component weight and cost data allowed creation of hypothetical midsize car scenario with the baseline curb weight of 3,350 pounds. The baseline material selection for this scenario follows the “dominant materials” set in Table 6.1. The “advanced steel” design scenario was developed with regular steel components changed to the advanced steel, where applicable.

Other design scenarios, namely composite/plastic, aluminum and magnesium, were constructed in similar fashion with lighter materials replacing components, where applicable, but most being carried over from the previous design.

The weight and cost analysis were performed for the resulting component/material sets with the goal to calculate vehicle-level weight reduction cost effectiveness for each material scenario. It should be noted that the resulting designs are not dominated by any one particular material. For example, we determined that new applications for composites/plastics are very limited in real world mass market. So the “composite/plastics- intensive” design is really dominated by advanced steels with few composite/plastic co mponents added. The engine block, for example, is still a cast iron design carried-over from the baseline.

An important point to be noted is that the analysis does not include the weight savings from additional secondary weight reduction associated with downsizing the engine and suspension components for the lighter weight car. The secondary weight reduction can range from 20 to 50% of primary weight reductionThe resulting detailed analysis for the mid-size car case is presented in Table 6.6 below.EnergyandEnvironmentalAnalysis,Inc.6‐1Table6‐6WeightandCostAnalysisforSelectedComponents–HypotheticalMid‐sizeCarCaseBase Curb Weight: 3,350lbs; Base Engine: 2.7L V6 with ironblock and Al head; All Weights in [lbs], All costs in [$].Weight and Cost figures rounded to the nearest integer.Assemblies / ComponentsConv. DesignWeightConv. DesignCostAdvanced SteelWeightAdvanced SteelCostPlast/CompIntensive WeightPlas/CompIntensive CostAl IntensiveWeightAl IntensiveCostMagnesiumIntensive WeightMagnesiumIntensive CostExterior Body Panels: ClassADoors Front 66 113 42 125 42 125 35 172 35 172Doors Back 54 101 41 114 41 114 29 156 29 156Deck Lid 24 45 19 52 18 57 13 70 13 70Fenders 15 22 12 25 12 28 9 34 9 34Hood 42 78 34 90 32 98 23 120 23 120Total 201 359 148 406 145 422 109 552 109 552Incremental Cost Effect. [$/lb saved]0.89 4.57 3.61 N/ACost Effectiveness Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 0.89 1.12 2.09 N/AStructural ComponentsBody In White 700 1000 560 1100 560 1100 420 1800 420 1800Bumper beams F&R 48 60 48 60 36 90 34 120 34 120Engine Subframe 50 55 40 60 40 60 31 75 24 80IP beam 30 32 24 35 24 35 24 35 15 50Front End Carrier 16 17 13 19 12 30 12 30 7 29Total 844 1164 685 1274 672 1315 521 2060 500 2079Incremental Cost Effect. [$/lb saved]0.69 3.19 4.93 0.90Cost Effectiveness Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 0.69 0.88 2.77 2.66Underhood PartsWiper System Housing/Support 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 8 3 9Steering Wheel Column 7 5 6 5 6 5 4 7 3 8Total 11 10 10 11 10 11 8 15 6 17Incremental Cost Effect. [$/lb saved]0.50 N/A1.80 1.05Cost Effectiveness Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 0.50 N/A1.43 1.30Drive TrainEngine Block (I4) 110 82 110 82 110 82 64 130 37 156Engine Head 27 54 27 54 27 54 27 54 19 60Oil pan 12 11 12 11 12 11 9 18 6 20Engine mounting brackets 7 5 6 6 6 6 4 8 3 9Oil pump housing 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 2 7Alternator Bracket 9 6 8 8 8 8 5 9 3 11Valve Cover 10 10 10 10 9 12 6 12 5 14Transmission Housing 13 26 13 26 13 26 13 26 10 30Axle housing 16 32 16 32 16 32 16 32 12 37Intake Manifold 15 18 15 18 15 18 12 25 9 28Total 222 250 220 253 219 255 159 320 106 372Incremental Cost Effect. [$/lb saved]1.50 2.00 1.08 0.98Cost Effectiveness Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 1.50 1.67 1.11 1.05EnergyandEnvironmentalAnalysis6‐2Table 6-6. ContinuedChassisWheel Rims (4) 110 105 100 115 100 115 80 168 48 202Control Arms (4) 48 40 45 43 45 43 32 80 32 80Brake Actuators (2) 17 12 17 12 17 12 12 26 12 26Steering Knuckles (2) 46 32 46 32 46 32 28 60 28 60Total 221 189 208 202 208 202 152 334 120 368Incremental Cost Effect. [$/lb saved]1.00 N/A2.36 1.06Cost Effectiveness Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 1.00 N/A2.10 1.77InteriorsSeat Frames Front 46 49 42 52 42 52 29 90 20 95Seat Frames Back 39 43 36 45 36 45 25 75 18 80Center Console Structure 9 6 8 7 8 7 4 12 3 14Steering Wheel Armature 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 2 8Total 97 105 89 111 89 111 61 184 43 197Incremental Cost Effect. [$/lb saved]0.75 N/A2.61 0.72Cost Effectiveness Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 0.75 N/A2.19 1.70Net Total 1596 2077 1359.5 2256 1342 2315.5 1008.5 3465 883 3585Other Vehicle Component Weight Estimates Kept ConstantOther Powertrain 418 418 418 418 418Other Chassis 615 615 615 615 615Other Interiors 312 312 312 312 312Remaining Vehicle 410 410 410 410 410Final Vehicle Weight (CW) 3350 3114 3097 2763 2637Vehicle Weight Reduction AnalysisIncremental Weight Reduction 236 18 333.5 126Incremental Weight Reduction [%] 7.0 0.6 10.8 4.6Weight Reduction Compared to Conventional Design 236.0 253.5 587.0 712.9Weight Reduction Compared to Conventional Design [%] 7.0 7.6 17.5 21.3Cost AnalysisIncremental Cost Increase179.0 59.5 1149.5 120.0Cost Increase Compared to Conventional Design 179.0 238.5 1388.0 1508.0Incremental Cost Effect. [$/lb saved]0.8 3.4 3.4 1.0Cost Effectiveness Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 0.76 0.94 2.36 2.12Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 6

‐ 1 The results for cost effectiveness and other key parameters from the passenger car case are
summarized in Table 6.7.

Table 6-7: Weight and Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Alternative Materials. Midsize Car Case. (no secondary weight reduction assumed)
Conventional Design (Baseline) Advanced Steel Intensive Previous, plus Plastic/Composite Intensive Previous, plus Aluminum Intensive Previous, plus Magnesium Intensive Total Curb Weight [lbs] 3,350 3,114 3,097 2,763 2,637
Weight Reduction Compared to Baseline [lbs] 236 254 587 712

Weight Reduction Compared to Baseline [%] 7.0 7.6 17.5 21.3

Cost Increase Compared to Baseline [$] 179 239 1,388 1,508

Cost Effectiveness Compared to Baseline [$/lb saved] 0.76 0.94 2.36 2.12

The following basic conclusions can be made concerning material selection alternatives for large volume car production. We feel that these observations agree rather well with product activities in the marketplace.

• Advanced steels offer significant weight reduction potential and are the most cost effective alternative for most sheet metal components.

• Plastics/composites already have very lar ge penetration in specific components, such as interiors, exterior fascia, underbody and underhood, but further penetration appears to be more difficult for high volume production . The cost effectiveness for thermoset composites is similar to the “best steel” designs for most components. Large complex steel welded assembly replacement, such as front end carriers, where generally higher composite costs can be offset by savings from parts consolidation, offer some sdditional opportunities for composites.Energy and Environmental Analysis 6

‐ 2 • Aluminum castings and forgings are a very attractive alternative material for powertrain and suspension components but aluminum is already the material of choice in many such applications. However, the cost effectiveness of components fabricated from sheet
aluminum compared to steel is poor. The vehicl e-level cost effectiveness with high aluminum content was the lowest among all co mpeting materials, primarily driven by the high costs of aluminum-intensive structure and closures.

• Assuming the latest magnesium/aluminum allo y prices, the cost of magnesium castings appears to be lower for most component groups, when compared to the cost of aluminum castings. However, we are not sure if additional costs related to production process safety and corrosion protection negate this advantage. For applications with large parts consolidation opportunities, such as instrument panel substructures, magnesium is close to being cost competitive even compared with the best steel designs, but this is subject to the same caveats. We have not analyzed the case for a magnesium intensive body structure which is possible but unlikely to be ready for mass production by 2015.

The above analyses reflect a hypothetical mid-size car scenario. EEA expects that other vehicle classes, such as compact and large cars, minivans, and crossover SUVs, all of which have unit body designs, would generally have similar percent weight reductions and similar costs in terms of dollars per pound saved. In fact, current OEM product activities suggest that more vehicles will be built using the same basic platform configuration, and the costs and benefits of weight reduction will be similar across vehicles derived from the same platform.

An exception for the car case applicability, however, can be made for pickups and SUVs that are based on the body-on-frame designs. We performed adjusted analysis for a hypothetical 4,750lb (CW) pickup using the methodology de scribed above. While comprehensive part-bypart analysis of material substitution is even mo re limited for these vehicles, our survey of the market trends, and especially interviews with suppliers, suggest that the pickup box inner panels, rear gate and the body subframe components can be isolated for substantial additional weight reduction opportunity. These components and their materials selection choices are
summarized in Table 6.8.

Table 6-8 Dominant Baseline and Alternative Materials for Selected Pickup Components.Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 6

‐ 3 Assemblies / Components Dominant Material Advanced Steel Design Comp/Plastic Design Aluminum Design Magnesium Design

Bed Box Panels Regular Steel X X Rear Gate Regular Steel X X X Body Subframe Regular Steel X

The above components were incorporated into the analysis matrix shown in Table 6.9. EEA believes that other components, for example Clas s-A closures, powertrain castings and others, are expected to scale reasonably well according to vehicle total weight. As a result, the cost effectiveness ratios from the passenger car analys is were used to compute the truck full vehiclelevel cost effectiveness parameters.EnergyandEnvironmentalAnalysis,Inc.6‐1Table6‐9Weight and Cost Analysis for Selected Components – Pickup CaseBase Curb Weight: 4,750Assemblies / ComponentsConv. DesignWeightConv. DesignCostAdvancedSteel WeightAdvancedSteel CostPlast/CompIntensive WeightPlas/CompIntensive CostAl IntensiveWeightAl IntensiveCostMagnesiumIntensiveWeightMagnesiumIntensive CostExterior Body Parts: Non-ClassABed Box 125 182 111 205 100 232 100 232 100 232Incremental Cost Effect. [$/lb saved]1.64 2.45 N/AN/ACost Eff. Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 1.64 2.00 N/AN/AExterior Body Parts: ClassARear Gate Assy 55 102 49 117 47 125 36 160 36 160Incremental Cost Effect. [$/lb saved]2.50 4.00 3.18 N/ACost Eff. Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 2.50 2.88 3.05 N/AStructural ComponentsBody Subframe 498 327 383 362 383 362 383 362 383 362Incremental Cost Effect. [$/lb saved]0.30 N/AN/AN/ACost Eff. Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 0.30 N/AN/AN/ANet Weight and cost AnalysisNet Total 678 611 543 684 530 719 519 754 519 754Net Incremental Weight Reduction 135 13 11 N/ANet Weight Reduction Compared to Conventional Design 135 148 159 159.0Net Incremental Cost Increase73 35 35 N/ANet Cost Increase Compared to Conventional Design 73 108 143 143.0Net Incremental Cost Effectiveness [$/lb saved] 0.5 2.7 3.2 N/ANet Cost Eff. Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved]0.5 0.7 0.9 N/ATotal Vehicle Weight Reduction and Cost Analysis (Using Car Data)Vehicle Weight Minus Components Above 4072Estimated Weight Reduction (From Car Case) [%] 7.0 7.6 17.5 21.3Estimated Weight Reduction 287 308 714 867Estimated Cost Eff. (From Car Case) [$/lb saved] 0.76 0.94 2.36 2.12Cost Increase Compared to Conventional Design 218 290 1687 1833Total Resulting Vehicle Weight 4750 4328 4294 3877 3724Total Weight Reduction Compared to Conventional Design 422 456 873 1026Total Weight Reduction Compared to Conventional Design [%] 8.9 9.6 18.4 21.6Total Cost Increase Compared to Conventional Design 291 398 1830 1976Total Cost Eff. Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 0.69 0.87 2.10 1.93Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 6

‐ 1 The cost effectiveness and other key results from the analysis are detailed in Table 6.10.

Table 6

‐ 10 Weight and Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Alternative Materials. Pickup Case. (no secondary weight reduction assumed)
Convention al Design (Baseline) Advanced Steel Intensive Previous, plus Composite Intensive Previous, plus Aluminum Intensive Previous, plus Magnesium Intensive Total Curb Weight [lbs] 4,750 4,328 4,294 3,877 3,724
Weight Reduction Compared to Baseline [lbs] 422 456 873 1,026

Weight Reduction Compared to Baseline [%] 8.9 9.6 18.4 21.6

Cost Increase Compared to Baseline [$] 291 398 1,830 1,976

Cost Effectiveness Compared to Baseline [$/lb saved] 0.69 0.87 2.10 1.93

In general, the observations from the mid-size car case appear to be valid for the pickup scenario, as well. However, EEA research recognizes that the frame is a relatively heavy component and significant opportunity exists for the design optimization and the use of high strength steel. The cost effectiveness for such an alternative, as reported in the literature, is attractive (about 0.3 $/lb saved) and weight reduction can be as high as 100lbs.



## 6.4 References Used for Weight and Cost Analysis

1. R. Roth, MIT Materials Systems Laboratory, “Cost Model Analysis with Advanced High Strength Steels”, PPT Presentation, 2006. 2. United States Automotive Materials Partnership, “Magnesium Vision 2020: A North American Automotive Strategic Vision for Magnesium”, Released November 1, 2006. 3. United States Steel Corporation, “Advances in Automotive Sheet Steel Technologies”, Presentation to EEA, November 28, 2006.Energy and Environmental Analysis 6

‐ 2 4. S. Logan, A. Kizyma, C. Patterson, S. Rama, “Lightweight Magnesium Intensive Body Structure”, SAE Paper 2006-01-0523. 5. American Iron and Steel Institute, "Optimized New Generation Steel Forgings in Auto Suspension Systems". 6. “Lexus LS600h features V8 with Magnesium Head”, SAE Magazine, December 2006. 7. “2007 Jeep Wrangler replaced roll formed steel bumper with blow-molded plastic by ABC”, SAE Magazine, Dec 2006. 8. “2007 Audi TT features PC/ABS seat back replacing steel frame”, SAE Magazine, Dec 2006. 9. L.J. Howell, "Automotive Technology", PPT Presentation Prepared for NCSU, March 7, 2006. 10. E. Mikami, ArvinMeritor, "Innovations in High-Strength Wheel Technology", Presentation Available at www.autosteel.org. 11. Shape Corp., "G6 Front Bumper Development Project, a Hybrid Solution for Corner Impact", Presentation Available at www.autosteel.org. 12. J.P. McGuire, US Steel, "Recapturing Aluminum Closures with Optimized Steel Solutions", Presentation Available at www.autosteel.org. 13. R. Bhatnagar, Ford, "Advanced High Strength Steel Outer Body Panels in Ford Mustang", Presentation Available at www.autosteel.org. 14. T. Welo, R. Holthe, Hydro "Crash Ma nagement Using Advanced Aluminum Extrusion Based Solutions", AutoTechnology Magazine, April, 2006. 15. ULSAB-AVC, Program Results, July 2002 Version CD-Based Material. 16. R. Gehm, "Plastic Helps Front End Carrier Carry the Load", SAE Automotive Magazine, February, 2007. 17. F. Veloso, "Assesing Globalization and Supply Chain Strategies of Automotive Materials Suppliers", MIT, Materials Systems Laboratory, Presentation. 18. “Hood Analysis - 2PC SMC vs. Steel vs. Al uminum vs 1PC SMC”, Handout Provided by Meridian Auto Systems, November 2006. 19. L. Riopelle, "Magnesium Applications Growi ng Globally", Presentation by Hydro, 2006. 20. R. Borns, D. Whitacre, "Optimizing Designs of Aluminum Suspension Components Using an Integrated Approach", SAE Paper 05M-2. 21. J.P. McGuire, "Recapturing Aluminum Cl osures with Optimized Steel Solutions", Presentation by US Steel. 22. Engineering Report, "Light Weight Frame Development", Altair Engineering, May 2003. 23. "2006 Model Year Passenger Car and Truck Thermoset Composite Components", Publication Provided by Automotive Composites Alliance.24. Verlag Moderne Industrie, “Aluminum Cylinder Blocks”, Published by KS AluminiumTechnologie, 2006Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 7
‐ 3 

# 7 APPENDIXES

7.1 Material Selection for “Big 6” Engines

MFR DIV NAME LITERS Block Cylinder head Intake manifold Exhaust manifold Crankshaft

DCC CHRYSLER 300 2.7 Aluminum Aluminum DCC CHRYSLER 300 6.1 Iron Aluminum DCC CHRYSLER 300 3.6 Aluminum Aluminum DCC CHRYSLER 300 5.7 Aluminum DCC CHRYSLER ASPEN 5.7 Iron Aluminum DCC CHRYSLER CROSSFIRE 3.2 Aluminum Aluminum DCC CHRYSLER PACIFICA 3.8 Iron Aluminum DCC CHRYSLER PACIFICA 4 Aluminum Aluminum DCC CHRYSLER PT CRUISER 2.4 Iron Aluminum DCC CHRYSLER SEBRING 2.4 Iron Aluminum DCC CHRYSLER SEBRING 2.7 Aluminum Aluminum DCC CHRYSLER TOWN & COUNTRY 3.3 Iron Aluminum Aluminum or Plastic DCC CHRYSLER TOWN & COUNTRY 3.8 Iron Aluminum

DCC DODGE CALIBER 1.8 Aluminum Aluminum DCC DODGE CALIBER 2.4 Aluminum Aluminum DCC DODGE CALIBER 2 Aluminum Aluminum DCC DODGE CARAVAN 2.4 Iron Aluminum DCC DODGE CARAVAN 3.8 Iron Aluminum DCC DODGE CARAVAN 3.3 Iron Aluminum DCC DODGE CHARGER 2.7 Aluminum Aluminum DCC DODGE CHARGER 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum DCC DODGE CHARGER 5.7 Iron Aluminum DCC DODGE CHARGER 6.1 Iron Aluminum DCC DODGE DAKOTA 3.7 Iron Aluminum DCC DODGE DAKOTA 4.7 Iron Aluminum DCC DODGE DAKOTA 4.7 Aluminum Aluminum DCC DODGE DURANGO 3.7 Iron Aluminum DCC DODGE DURANGO 4.7 Iron Aluminum DCC DODGE DURANGO 5.7 Iron Aluminum DCC DODGE MAGNUM 2.7 Aluminum Aluminum DCC DODGE MAGNUM 3.5 Aluminum AluminumEnergy and Environmental Analysis 7
‐ 4 DCC DODGE MAGNUM 5.7 Iron Aluminum DCC DODGE MAGNUM 6.1 Iron Aluminum DCC DODGE RAM 3.7 Iron Aluminum DCC DODGE RAM 4.7 Iron Aluminum DCC DODGE RAM 5.7 Iron Aluminum DCC DODGE VIPER 8.6 Aluminum Aluminum DCC JEEP COMMANDER 3.7 Iron Aluminum DCC JEEP COMMANDER 4.7 Iron Aluminum DCC JEEP COMMANDER 5.7 Iron Aluminum DCC JEEP COMPASS 2.4 Aluminum Aluminum DCC JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE 3.7 Iron Aluminum

DCC JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE 4.7 Iron Aluminum

DCC JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE 5.7 Iron Aluminum

DCC JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE 3 Aluminum Aluminum

DCC JEEP LIBERTY 3.7 Iron Aluminum DCC JEEP LIBERTY 4.7 Iron Aluminum DCC JEEP LIBERTY 5.7 Iron Aluminum DCC JEEP LIBERTY 3 Aluminum Aluminum DCC JEEP WRANGLER 3.8 Iron Aluminum FMC FORD 500 3 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Steel FMC FORD CROWN VICTORIA 4.6 Iron Aluminum

FMC FORD E150 4.6 Iron Aluminum Plastic FMC FORD E150 5.4 Iron Aluminum FMC FORD E150 6.8 Iron Aluminum FMC FORD E150 6 Iron Iron FMC FORD EDGE 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron FMC FORD ESCAPE 3 Aluminum Aluminum FMC FORD ESCAPE 2.3 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron/ Fabricated Steel Iron

FMC FORD ESCAPE HYBRID 2.3 Iron Aluminum

FMC FORD EXPEDITION 5.4 Iron Aluminum Plastic Steel FMC FORD EXPLORER 4.6 Aluminum Aluminum Plastic FMC FORD F150 4.6 Iron Aluminum Plastic FMC FORD F150 4.2 Iron Aluminum FMC FORD FOCUS 2 Aluminum Aluminum FMC FORD FOCUS 2.3 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron/ Fabricated Steel Iron

FMC FORD FREESTAR 3.9 Iron Aluminum FMC FORD FREESTAR 2.3 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron/ Fabricated Steel Iron

FMC FORD FREESTYLE 3 Aluminum Aluminum FMC FORD F150 5.4 Iron Aluminum Plastic Steel FMC FORD FUSION 2.3 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron/ Fabricated Steel Iron

FMC FORD FUSION 3 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Steel FMC FORD MUSTANG 4 Iron Aluminum FMC FORD MUSTANG 5.4 Iron AluminumEnergy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 7
‐ 5 FMC FORD RANGER 2.4 Aluminum Aluminum FMC FORD RANGER 3 Iron Iron FMC FORD RANGER 4 Iron Aluminum FMC JAGUAR S-TYPE 3 Aluminum Aluminum FMC JAGUAR S-TYPE 4.2 Aluminum Aluminum FMC JAGUAR XJ 4.2 Aluminum Aluminum FMC JAGUAR XJR 4.2 Aluminum Aluminum FMC JAGUAR XK 4.2 Aluminum Aluminum FMC JAGUAR XKR 4.2 Aluminum Aluminum FMC JAGUAR X-TYPE 3 Aluminum Aluminum FMC LINCOLN MARK LT 5.4 Iron Aluminum Plastic Iron Steel FMC LINCOLN MKX 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Steel FMC LINCOLN MKZ 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Steel FMC LINCOLN NAVIGATOR 5.4 Iron Aluminum Plastic Iron Steel FMC LINCOLN TOWN CAR 4.6 Iron Aluminum FMC MAZDA 3 2.3 Aluminum Aluminum FMC MAZDA 3 2 Aluminum Aluminum FMC MAZDA 6 2.3 Aluminum Aluminum FMC MAZDA 6 3 Aluminum Aluminum FMC MAZDA B2300 2.3 Aluminum Aluminum FMC MAZDA B3000 3 Iron Aluminum FMC MAZDA B4000 4 Iron Aluminum FMC MAZDA CX-7 2.3 Aluminum Aluminum FMC MAZDA CX-10 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum Iron FMC MAZDA MX-5 2 Aluminum Aluminum FMC MAZDA RX-8 1.3 Aluminum FMC MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS 4.6 Iron Aluminum

FMC MERCURY MARINER 2.3 Al uminum Aluminum FMC MERCURY MARINER 3 Al uminum Aluminum FMC MERCURY MARINER HYBRID 2.3 Iron Aluminum

FMC MERCURY MILAN 2.3 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron/ Fabricated Steel Iron

FMC MERCURY MONTEGO 3 Alumi num Aluminum Stainless Steel FMC MERCURY MONTEREY 4.2 Iron Aluminum FMC MERCURY MOUNTAINEER 4.6 Alum inum Aluminum Plastic Iron Iron FMC MERCURY MOUNTAINEER 4 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron FMC VOLVO C70 2.5 Aluminum Aluminum FMC VOLVO S40 2.4 Aluminum Aluminum FMC VOLVO S40 2.5 Aluminum Aluminum FMC VOLVO S60 2.5 Aluminum Aluminum FMC VOLVO S80 3.2 Aluminum Aluminum FMC VOLVO S80 4.4 Aluminum Aluminum FMC VOLVO XC70 2.5 Aluminum Aluminum FMC VOLVO XC90 3.2 Aluminum Aluminum FMC VOLVO XC90 4.4 Aluminum Aluminum GMC BUICK LACROSSE 3.8 Iron Iron Aluminum Iron (Left), Stainless Steel (Right) Iron

GMC BUICK LACROSSE 3.6 Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Iron SteelEnergy and Environmental Analysis 7
‐ 6 GMC BUICK LUCERNE 4.6 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Stainless Steel Steel
GMC BUICK LUCERNE 3.8 Iron Iron Aluminum Iron (Left), Stainless Steel (Right) Iron

GMC BUICK RAINIER 5.3 Alumi num Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC BUICK RAINIER 4.2 Alumi num Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC BUICK RENDEZVOUS 3.5 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Steel GMC BUICK TERAZZA 3.9 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC BUICK TERAZZA 3.9 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC CADILLAC CTSV 6 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CADILLAC CTS 2.8 Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC CADILLAC CTS 3.6 Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC CADILLAC DTS 4.6 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Stainless Steel Steel

GMC CADILLAC DTS ARMORED LIMO 4.6 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Stainless Steel Steel

GMC CADILLAC DTS 4.6 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Stainless Steel Steel

GMC CADILLAC DTS LIMO/HEARSE 4.6 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Stainless Steel Steel
GMC CADILLAC ESCALADE 6.2 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CADILLAC ESCALADE ESV 6.2 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron

GMC CADILLAC ESCALADE EXT 6.2 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron
GMC CADILLAC SRX 4.6 Aluminum Steel Composite Iron Steel GMC CADILLAC SRX 3.6 Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC CADILLAC STSV 4.4 Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC CADILLAC STS 4.6 Aluminum Steel Composite Iron Steel GMC CADILLAC STS 3.6 Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC CADILLAC XLRV 4.4 Alumi num Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC CADILLAC XLR 4.6 Aluminum Steel Composite Iron Steel GMC CHEVROLET AVALANCHE 6 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET AVALANCHE 5.3 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET AVALANCHE 5.3 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET AVALANCHE 5.3 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET AVEO 1.6 Iron Aluminum Plastic Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET COBALT 2.4 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET COBALT SS 2 Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC CHEVROLET COBALT 2.2 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET COLORADO 3.7 Alum inum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET COLORADO 2.9 Alum inum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET CORVETTE 6 Alum inum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET CORVETTE Z06 7 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Stainless Steel Steel

GMC CHEVROLET EQUINOX 3.4 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET EXPRESS 4.3 Iron Iron Lower Aluminum, Upper Composite Iron Iron

GMC CHEVROLET EXPRESS 5.3 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET EXPRESS 6 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET EXPRESS 2500 4.8 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET HHR 2.4 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET HHR 2.2 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron IronEnergy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 7
‐ 7 GMC CHEVROLET IMPALA 3.5 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC CHEVROLET IMPALA 3.9 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC CHEVROLET IMPALA 3.5 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC CHEVROLET IMPALA SS 5.3 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET MALIBU 2.2 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET MALIBU 3.5 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC CHEVROLET MALIBU SS 3.9 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC CHEVROLET MALIBU MAXX SS 3.9 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel

GMC CHEVROLET MALIBU MAXX 3.5 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC CHEVROLET MONTE CARLO SS 5.3 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron

GMC CHEVROLET MONTE CARLO 3.5 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC CHEVROLET MONTE CARLO 3.5 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC CHEVROLET SILVERADO 8.1 Iron Iron Aluminum Stainless Steel Steel

GMC CHEVROLET SILVERADO CLASSIC 4.3 Iron Iron Lower Aluminum, Upper Composite Iron Iron

GMC CHEVROLET SILVERADO 4.3 Iron Iron Lower Aluminum, Upper Composite Iron Iron

GMC CHEVROLET SILVERADO CLASSIC EXT CAB 5.3 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron

GMC CHEVROLET SILVERADO 1500 CLASSIC 5.3 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron

GMC CHEVROLET SILVERADO HD CLASSIC 6 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron

GMC CHEVROLET SILVERADO CLASSIC 6 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron

GMC CHEVROLET SILVERADO 1500 CLASSIC 4.8 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron
GMC CHEVROLET SILVERADO 6 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET SILVERADO 5.3 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET SILVERADO 5.3 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET SILVERADO 5.3 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET SILVERADO 4.8 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET SILVERADO 5.3 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET SUBURBAN 6 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET SUBURBAN 5.3 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET SUBURBAN 5.3 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET SUBURBAN 5.3 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET TAHOE 5.3 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET TAHOE 4.8 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET TAHOE 5.3 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET TORRENT 3.4 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET TRAILBLAZER SS 6 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron

GMC CHEVROLET TRAILBLAZER 5.3 Al uminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET TRAILBLAZER 4.2 Al uminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC CHEVROLET UPLANDER 3.9 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC CHEVROLET UPLANDER 3.9 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC GMC ACADIA 3.6 Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC GMC CANYON 3.7 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC GMC CANYON 2.9 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron IronEnergy and Environmental Analysis 7
‐ 8 GMC GMC ENVOY DENALI 5.3 Alum inum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC GMC ENVOY DENALI 4.2 Alum inum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC GMC SAVANA 4.3 Iron Iron Lower Aluminum, Upper Composite Iron Iron

GMC GMC SAVANA 5.3 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC GMC SAVANA 6 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC GMC SAVANA 2500 4.8 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC GMC SIERRA 8.1 Iron Iron Aluminum Stainless Steel Steel

GMC GMC SIERRA CLASSIC 4.3 Iron Iron Lower Aluminum, Upper Composite Iron Iron

GMC GMC SIERRA 4.3 Iron Iron Lower Aluminum, Upper Composite Iron Iron

GMC GMC SIERRA CLASSIC EXT CAB 5.3 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron

GMC GMC SIERRA 1500 CLASSIC 5.3 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron

GMC GMC SIERRA HD CLASSIC 6 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron

GMC GMC SIERRA CLASSIC 6 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron

GMC GMC SIERRA 1500 CLASSIC 4.8 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron

GMC GMC SIERRA 6 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC GMC SIERRA DENALI 6.2 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron

GMC GMC SIERRA 5.3 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC GMC SIERRA 5.3 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC GMC SIERRA 5.3 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC GMC SIERRA 4.8 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC GMC SIERRA 5.3 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC GMC YUKON XL 6 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC GMC YUKON DENALI 6.2 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron

GMC GMC YUKON XL DENALI 6.2 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron

GMC GMC YUKON XL 5.3 Alumi num Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC GMC YUKON 5.3 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC GMC YUKON XL 5.3 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC GMC YUKON 4.8 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC GMC YUKON 5.3 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC GMC YUKON XL 5.3 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC HUMMER H2 SUT 6 Iron Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC HUMMER H3 3.7 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC PONTIAC G5 2.2 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC PONTIAC G5 2.4 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC PONTIAC G6 3.6 Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC PONTIAC G6 2.4 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC PONTIAC G6 COUPE 3.5 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC PONTIAC G6 SEDAN 3.5 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC PONTIAC G6 CONVERTIBLE 3.5 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron SteelEnergy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 7
‐ 9 GMC PONTIAC G6 COUPE 3.9 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC PONTIAC G6 SEDAN 3.9 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC PONTIAC G6 CONVERTIBLE 3.9 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel

GMC PONTIAC GRAND PRIX GXP 5.3 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron
GMC PONTIAC GRAND PRIX 3.8 Iron Iron Aluminum Iron (Left), Stainless Steel (Right) Iron

GMC PONTIAC GRAND PRIX 3.8 Iron Iron Aluminum Iron (Left), Stainless Steel (Right) Iron

GMC PONTIAC MONTANA SV6 3.9 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC PONTIAC SOLSTICE 2.4 Alum inum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC PONTIAC SOLSTICE GXP 2 Alumi num Aluminum Aluminum Stainless Steel Steel

GMC SAAB 9-3 SPORT SEDAN 2 Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Stainless Steel Steel

GMC SAAB 9-3 SPORT COMBI 2 Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Stainless Steel Steel

GMC SAAB 9-3 CONVERTIBLE 2 Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Stainless Steel Steel

GMC SAAB 9-3 SPORT SEDAN AERO 2.8 Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel

GMC SAAB 9-3 SPORT COMBI AERO 2.8 Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel

GMC SAAB 9-3 CONVERTIBLE AERO 2.8 Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel

GMC SAAB 9-5 2.3 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Stainless Steel Steel
GMC SAAB 9-7 5.3 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC SAAB 9-7 4.2 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC SATURN AURA GREEN LINE 2.4 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron

GMC SATURN AURA 3.5 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC SATURN ION 2.4 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC SATURN ION RED LINE 2 Alumi num Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC SATURN ION 2.2 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC SATURN LS AURA 3.6 Alumi num Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC SATURN OUTLOOK 3.6 Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC SATURN OUTLOOK 3.6 Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC SATURN RELAY 3.9 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC SATURN RELAY 3.9 Iron Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel GMC SATURN SKY 2.4 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC SATURN SKY RED LINE 2 Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Stainless Steel Steel
GMC SATURN VUE 2.2 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron GMC SATURN VUE GREEN LINE 2.4 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron

GMC SATURN VUE 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum HON ACURA MDX 3.7 Aluminum Aluminum HON ACURA RDX 2.3 Aluminum Aluminum HON ACURA RL 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum HON ACURA TL 3.2 Aluminum Aluminum HON ACURA TL TYPE S 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum HON ACURA TSX 2.4 Aluminum Aluminum HON HONDA ACCORD 2.4 Aluminum AluminumEnergy and Environmental Analysis 7
‐ 10 HON HONDA ACCORD 3 Aluminum Aluminum HON HONDA CIVIC 1.8 Aluminum Aluminum HON HONDA CIVIC 2 Aluminum Aluminum Stainless Steel HON HONDA CIVIC 1.3 Aluminum Aluminum Stainless Steel HON HONDA CIVIC SI 2 Aluminum Aluminum Stainless Steel HON HONDA CR-V 2.4 Aluminum Aluminum HON HONDA ELEMENT 2.4 Aluminum Aluminum HON HONDA FIT 1.5 Aluminum Aluminum HON HONDA ODYSSEY 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum HON HONDA PILOT 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum HON HONDA RIDGELINE 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum HON HONDA S2000 2.2 Aluminum Aluminum NIS INFINITI FX35 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum NIS INFINITI FX45 4.5 Aluminum Aluminum NIS INFINITI G35 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum NIS INFINITI M35 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum NIS INFINITI M45 4.5 Aluminum Aluminum NIS INFINITI QX56 5.6 Aluminum Aluminum NIS NISSAN 350Z 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum NIS NISSAN ALTIMA 2.5 Aluminum Aluminum NIS NISSAN ALTIMA 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum NIS NISSAN ARMADA 5.6 Aluminum Aluminum NIS NISSAN FRONTIER 2.5 Aluminum Aluminum NIS NISSAN FRONTIER 4 Aluminum Aluminum NIS NISSAN MAXIMA 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum NIS NISSAN MURANO 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum NIS NISSAN PATHFINDER 4 Aluminum Aluminum NIS NISSAN QUEST 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum NIS NISSAN SENTRA 2 Aluminum Aluminum NIS NISSAN SENTRA 2.5 Aluminum Aluminum NIS NISSAN TITAN 5.6 Aluminum Aluminum NIS NISSAN VERSA 1.8 Aluminum Aluminum NIS NISSAN XTERRA 4 Aluminum Aluminum TOY LEXUS ES350 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum TOY LEXUS GS350 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum TOY LEXUS GS430 4.3 Aluminum Aluminum TOY LEXUS GS450H 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum TOY LEXUS GX470 4.7 Iron Aluminum TOY LEXUS IS250 2.5 Aluminum Aluminum TOY LEXUS IS350 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum TOY LEXUS LX470 4.7 Iron Aluminum TOY LEXUS RX350 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum TOY LEXUS RX400H 3.3 Aluminum Aluminum TOY LEXUS SC430 4.3 Aluminum Aluminum TOY TOYOTA 4RUNNER 4 Al uminum Aluminum TOY TOYOTA 4RUNNER 4. 7 Aluminum TOY TOYOTA AVALON 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum TOY TOYOTA CAMRY 2.4 Aluminum Aluminum TOY TOYOTA CAMRY 3.5 Aluminum AluminumEnergy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 7
‐ 11 TOY TOYOTA CAMRY HYBRID 2.4 Aluminum Aluminum

TOY TOYOTA CAMRY SOLARA 2.4 Aluminum Aluminum

TOY TOYOTA CAMRY SOLARA 3.3 Aluminum Aluminum

TOY TOYOTA COROLLA 1.8 Aluminum Aluminum TOY TOYOTA FJ CRUISER 4 Iron Aluminum TOY TOYOTA HIGHLANDER 2.4 Aluminum Aluminum TOY TOYOTA HIGHLANDER 3.3 Aluminum Aluminum TOY TOYOTA LAND CRUISER 4.7 Iron Aluminum

TOY TOYOTA MATRIX 1.8 Aluminum Aluminum TOY TOYOTA PRIUS 1.5 Aluminum Aluminum TOY TOYOTA RAV4 2.4 Aluminum Aluminum TOY TOYOTA RAV4 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum TOY TOYOTA SEQUOIA 4.8 Iron Aluminum TOY TOYOTA SIENNA 3.5 Aluminum Aluminum TOY TOYOTA TACOMA 2.7 Iron Aluminum TOY TOYOTA TACOMA 4 Al uminum Aluminum TOY TOYOTA TUNDRA 5.7 Aluminum Aluminum TOY TOYOTA TUNDRA 4.7 Aluminum Aluminum TOY TOYOTA TUNDRA 4 Al uminum Aluminum TOY TOYOTA YARIS 1.5 Aluminum Aluminum PlasticEnergy and Environmental Analysis 7
‐ 12 

## 7.2 2006 MODEL YEAR THERMOSET COMPOSITE COMPONENTS
Source: Automotive Composites Alliance

MODEL COMPONENT PLANNED WEIGHT/ PLANNED ASSEMBLY
V OLUME UNIT PRODUCTION PLANT SMC COMPONENTS ( POUNDS ) ( POUNDS )

SHEET MOLDING COMPOUND (SMC)

PASSENGER CAR

DAIMLER CHRYSLER

DODGE VIPER DOOR - R/L DOOR SURROUND - R/L DECKLID FUEL FILLER DOOR HOOD WINDSHIELD SURROUND FENDER SURROUND FRONT END STRUCTURAL SUPPORT QTR PANEL REINFORCEMENT LH QTR PANEL REINFORCEMENT RH

FORD MOTOR COMPANY

CROWN VICTORIA GRILL OPENING REINFORCEMENT UNDERBODY SHIELDS

TAURUS UPPER RADIATOR SUPPORT SUNSHADE

LINCOLN MERCURY 6,400 6,400 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 6,400 6,400 3,200 3,200

64,000 64,000
40,000 80,000 28.0 2.5 34.0 0.9 46.0 22.0 4.0 4.7 0.4 0.4

10.0 1.0

9.5 3.0 179,200 16,000 108,800

2,880 147,200 70,400 25,600 30,000 1,120 1,120

640,000 64,000
378,000 240,000 DETROIT, MI

ST THOMAS, ONTARIO

ATLANTA, GA

LS CANISTER BRACKET 7,800 2.4 18,720 WIXOM, MI GRILL OPENING PANEL 7,800 6.0 46,800

TOWN CAR COWL 48,000 4.0 192,000 WIXOM, MI SUNSHADE 96,000 3.5 336,000

SABLE U PPER RADIATOR SUPPORT 40,000 9.5 378,000 ATLANTA, GA

SENERAL MOTORS

CADILLAC SRX ROOF FRAME ASSEMBLY 30,000 27.0 810,000 LANSING, MI

XLR A-PILLAR COVERS 3,000 2.0 6,000 BOWLING GREEN, KY DECKLID 3,000 20.0 60,000 DOOR - R/L 6,000 18.0 108,000 DOOR SURROUND - R/L 3,000 8.0 48, 000 FUEL FILLER DOOR 3,000 1.0 3,000 HOOD 3,000 20.8 62,400 LOCK PILLAR INNER UPPER-LH 3,000 0.6 1,800 LOCK PILLAR INNER UPPER-RH 3,000 0.6 1,800 REAR COMPARTMENT PANEL-LH 3,000 2.7 8,100 REAR COMPARTMENT PANEL-RH 3,000 2.7 8,100 ROOF PANEL 3,000 8.0 24,000

CHEVROLET CORVETTE DECKLID 32,000 27.0 864,000 BOWLING GREEN, KY DOOR - R/L 64,000 20.5 1,312,000Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 7
‐ 13 REAR COMPARTMENT PANEL 21,000 9.4 197,400 REAR HATCH 32,000 18.0 576,000 TARGA ROOF BAR 2,000 4.0 8,000 MODEL

SMC COMPONENTS COMPONENT PLANNED VOLUME WEIGHT/ UNIT (POUNDS) PLANNED PRODUCTION (POUNDS) ASSEMBLY PLANT

CORVETTE 06 DOOR SURROUND

- R/L 34,000 8.9 606,560 BOWLING GREEN, KY HOOD 34,000 30.7 1,043,800 HOOD 34,000 30.7 1,043,800 REAR QUARTERS - R/L 34,000 14.5 983,280 REAR QUARTERS - R/L 34,000 16.6 1,128,800

CORVETTE CONVERTIBLE REAR COMPARTMENT PANEL 14,000 9.0 126,000 BOWLING GREEN, KY

IMPALA CONSOLE 230,000 4.0 920,000 OSHAWA, ONTARIO

MALIBU OVERHEAD CONSOLE 194,000 4.0 776,000 FAIRFAX, VA

MONTE CARLO CONSOLE 20,000 4.0 80,000 OSHAWA, ONTARIO REAR SHELF 20,000 4.0 80,000 VALVE COVER 20,000 5.0 100,000

IMPORTSITRANSPLANTS

MITSUBISHI ECLIPSE GARNISH MOLDING 25,000 1.5 37,500 BLOOMINGTON, IL SPOILER 25,000 7.9 197,500

GALANT BUMPER BEAM 33,000 12.0 396,000 BLOOMINGTON, IL SPOILER 33,000 7.9 260,700

NISSAN ALTIMA BUMPER BEAM 280,000 11.0 3,080,000 SMYRNA, TN

SENTRA BUMPER BEAM 150,000 11.0 1,650,000 SMYRNA, TN BUMPER BEAM 165,000 11.0 1,815,000 AGUASCALIENTES

LIGHT TRUCKS, SPORT/UTILILTY VEHICLES SMC COMPONENTS

DAIMLER CHRYSLER

DODGE CARAVAN ENGINE COVER 110,000 8.5 935,000 WINDSOR, ONTARIO WIPER TUB 110,000 6.0 660,000 WINDSOR, ONTARIO

DAKOTA EXHAUST HEAT SHIELD 114,000 3.5 399,000 WARREN, MI FRONT AXLE SKID PLATE 114,000 5.5 627,000 WARREN, MI TRANSFER SKID PLATE 114,000 9.3 1,060,200 WARREN, MI DAKOTA FUEL TANK HEAT SHIELD 114,000 6.0 684,000 WARREN, MI

RAM DUALLY FENDERS 15,000 8.0 120,000 WARREN, MI & SALTILLO, MX FASCIA SYSTEM, FRONT 235,000 8.0 1,880,000 WARREN, MI & SALTILLO, MX

JEEP LIBERTY SUNSHADE 200,000 2.5 500,000 TOLEDO, OH LICENSE PLATE MODULE 200,000 2.5 500,000 TOLEDO, OH

WRANGLER REMOVABLE HARD TOP ROOF 20,000 78.0 1,560,000 TOLEDO, OH

WRANGLER TJ HARD TOP 41,000 78.0 3,198,000 TOLEDO, OH

FORD MOTOR COMPANY

ECONOUNE ENGINE COVER 170,000 8.2 1,394,000 LORAIN, OH HOOD 170,000 24.8 4,216,000

ESCAPE FUEL TANK HEAT SHIELD 200,000 2.0 400,000 KAN SAS CITY, MO MODEL
SMC COMPONENTS COMPONENT PLANNED VOLUME WEIGHT/ UNIT (POUNDS) PLANNED PRODUCTION (POUNDS) ASSEMBLY PLANTEnergy and Environmental Analysis 7
‐ 14 EXPEDITION BUMPER REINFORCEMENTS 23,000 10.0 230,000 LOUISVILLE, KY & FASCIA SYSTEM, FRONT 23,000 8.0 184,000 WAYNE, MI FASCIA SYSTEM, REAR 23,000 8.0 184,000 FOG LAMP HOUSINGS 23,000 2.0 46,000 SUNSHADE 7,500 2.8 20,625

EXPLORER GRILLE OPENING REINFORCEMENT 270,000 10.5 2,835,000 LOUISVILLE, KY &ST. LOUIS, MO HEAT SHIELD 100,000 1.0 100,000 LOUISVILLE, KY&ST LOUIS, MO.

F150 FLARESIDE FE NDERS - R/L 36,000 33.5 2,412,000 KANSAS CITY, MO

F250 FUEL TANK HEAT SHIELD 360,000 6.6 4,752,000 LOUISVILLE, KY

FREESTAR GRILLE OPENING REINFORCEMENT 50,500 6.6 333,300 OAKVILLE, ONT

RANGER FUEL TANK HEAT SHIELD 115,000 3.7 851,000 VARIOUS GRILLE OPENING PANEL 114,000 10.5 1,197,000 TWIN CITIES, MN

SPORT TRAC GRILLE OPENING REINFORCEMENT 40,000 10.5 420,000 LOUISVILLE, KY PICK-UP BOX 40,000 109.0 4,360,000 BOX FENDERS R/L 40,000 14.4 1,152,000 TONNEAU COVER 16,000 40.5 648,000 EXHAUST HEAT SHIELD 40,000 2.1 84,000

LINCOLN MERCURY NAVIGATOR BUMPER REINFORCEMENTS 23,000 10.0 230,000 LOUISVILLE, KY & FASCIA SYSTEM, FRONT 23,000 8.0 184,000 WAYNE, MI FASCIA SYSTEM, REAR 23,000 8.0 184,000 FENDERS - R/L 23,000 12.0 552,000 MICHIGAN TRUCK FOG LAMP HOUSINGS 23,000 2.0 46,000 LOUISVILLE, KY &WAYNE, MI HOOD 26,300 38.8 1,020,440 MICHIGAN T RUCK SUNSHADE 7,500 2.8 20,625 LOUISVILLE, KY & WAYNE, MI

MOUNTAINEER FENDERS - R/L 23,400 10.5 491,400 LOUISVILLE, KY & GRILLE OPENING REINFORCEMENT 23,400 9.5 222,300 ST LOUIS, MO.

MONTEREY GRILLE OPENING REINFORCEMENT 50,500 6.6 333,300 O AKVILLE ONT

ENERAL MOTORS

BUICK RENDEZVOUS BUMPER BEAM 51,000 11.0 561,000 RAMOS ARIZPE HEADLAMP CARRIERS 102,000 12.0 1,224,000

CADILLAC ESCALADE EXT FLOOR CONSOLE 6,000 5.5 33,000 ARLINGTON, TX MIDGATE ASSEMBLY 6,000 2.5 15, 000 SILAO, MEXICO MIDGATE ASSEMBLY 1,000 2.3 2,300

ESCALADE SUV FLOOR CONSOLE 30,000 5.5 165,000 ARLINGTON, TX FRONT BUMPER BAR 30,000 10.0 300,000 ROOF DITCH MOLDING 30,000 1.0 30,000

CHEVROLET AVALANCHE MIDG ATE ASSEMBLY 87,000 2.3 200,100 SILAO, MEXICO

AVALANCHE UUV MIDGATE ASSEMBLY 87, 000 2.5 217,500 SILAO, MEXICO ROOF DITCH MOLDING 87,000 1.0 87,000

COLORADO FRONT BUMPER BAR 110,000 10.0 1,100,000 SHR EVEPORT, LA FLOOR CONSOLE 110,000 5.5 605,000 VALVE COVER 110,000 5.0 550,000

SILVERADO WHEELHOUSE - R/L 23,000 12.0 552,000 FLINT, MI & PONTIAC, MI

SUBURBAN ROOF DITCH MOLDING 50,000 1.0 50,000 SILAO, MEXICO

TAHOE ROOF DITCH MOLDING 125,000 1.0 125,000 ARLINGTON, TX

Page 4Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 7
‐ 15 MODEL

SMC COMPONENTS COMPONENT PLANNED VOLUME WEIGHT/ UNIT (POUNDS) PLANNED PRODUCTION (POUNDS) ASSEMBLY PLANT

TRAILBLAZER FLOOR CONSOLE 185,000 5.5 1,017,500 MORAINE, OH VALVE COVER 185,000 5.0 925,000 MORAINE, OH

GMC CANYON FLOOR CONSOLE 28,000 5.5 154,000 SHREVEPORT LA FRONT BUMPER ASSEM BLY 28,000 10. 0 280,000 VALVE COVER 28,000 5.0 140,000 SHREVEPORT, LA

ENVOY FLOOR CONSOLE 100,000 5.5 550,000 MORAINE, OH

SAVANNA FENDER EXTENSION - R/L 38,000 10.0 380,000 WENTZVILLE, MO

SIERRA DENALI CONSOLE 45,E 5.0 225,000 ARLINGTON, TX &

YUKON ROOF DITCH MOLDING 70,000 1.0 70,000 JANESVILLE, WI
ARLINGTON, TX &

YUKON DENALI ROOF DITCH MOLDING 30,000 1.0 30,000 JANESVILLE, WI
ARLINGTON, TX &

YUKON DENALI CONSOLE 30,000 5.0 150,000 JANESVILLE, WI

HUMMER H2 SLIT HOOD 12,000 35.0 420,000 MISHAWAKA, IN FENDERS - R/L 12,000 10.0 120,000 ROOF DITCH MOLDING 12,000 1.0 12,000 HOOD 12,000 35.0 420,000 FENDERS - R/L 12,000 10.0 120,000 TAILGATE 12,000 7.0 84,000

H3 INSTRUMENT PANEL TRIM 50,000 2.0 100,000 SHREVEPORT, LA SURGE TANK 50,000 3.0 150,000

SATURN VUE FLOOR CONSOLE 78,000 4.0 312,000 SPRINGHILL, TN

IMPORTS/TRANSPLANTS

BMW X5 UNDERBODY SHIELDS 100,000 30.0 3,000,000 SPARTANBURG, SC

MAZDA B-SERIES GRILLE OPENING PANEL 6,000 10.2 61,200 TWIN CITIES, MN

HONDA MDX CARGO LID 62,000 3.0 186,000 ALLISTON, ONTARIO

RIDGELINE PICK-UP BOX 75, 000 140. 0 10,500,000 ALLISTON, ONTARIO

TOYOTA SIENNA COWL 175,000 6.3 1,102,500 GEORGETOWN, KY

TACOMA OUTLET BOX - LH 285,000 3.1 880,650 FREMONT, CA

OUTLET BOX - RH 95,000 2.8 268,850 & TIJUANA, MX

PICK-UP BOX - 5.25 FT 57,000 78.0 4,332,000 PICK-UP BOX - 6.50 FT 133,000 98.8 13,133,750 TAILGATE COVER ASSEMBLY 190,000 7.0 1,330,000

MEDIUM-DUTY TRUCK SMC COMPONENTS

FORD MOTOR COMPANY MODEL COMPONENT

SMC PLANNED WEIGHT/ PLANNED ASSEMBLY VOLUME UNIT PRODUCTION PLANT (POUNDS) (POUNDS)Energy and Environmental Analysis 7
‐ 16 F & B SERIES (HN-78)

H215 FENDER EXTENSION - R/L FRONT WHEEL HOUSING R/L HOOD REAR WHEEL HOUSING R/L

HOOD FENDER ASSEMBLY SPLASH SHIELD R/L

GENERAL MOTORS

GMT530/560 BEZEL KODIAKITOPKICK COWLS - FAMILY 2 - R/L COWLS - FAMILY 2 - R/L ENGINE COVER HOOD - FAMILY 2 HOOD - FAMILY 3 SHIFT TOWER ASSEMBLY

HEAVY-DUTY TRUCK SMC COMPONENTS

CASE NEW HOLLAND 11,000 24,000 11,000 11,000 24,000 11,000 11,000 8.9 4.3 80.0 6.0

88.5 9.0 5.0

1.3 9.8 9.7 6.8 89.0 91.3 5.7 28,600 470,400 213,400 149,600 2,136,000 1,004,300

125,400 CUAUTITLAN

ESCOBEDO

FLINT, MI

N/A HOOD 2,500 43.0 107,500 RACINE, WI

CUMMINS VARIOUS ENGINE COVER 18,000 10.5 189,000 LAFAYETTE, IN

DAIMLER CHRYSLER

FREIGHTLINER FREIGHTLINER A-PILLAR R/L 105,600 2.7 285,120 NC, OR, MX CAB UNDERCOVER 37, 300 3.0 111,900 CAB UNDERCOVER 35,000 3.2 112,000 COWL 104,700 4.2 439,740 FAIRINGS - R/L 3,100 10.9 33,933 FENDER 1/2,1/4, FULL 53,000 15.0 803,678 HOOD ASSEMBLY 30,000 91.0 2, 730,000 NC, SC, MX HOOD ASSEMBLY 9, 500 102.0 969,000 SC FUEL FILLER DOOR 100,000 2.0 200,000 CLEVELAND, NC RAINTRAY 71,600 8.4 601,440 NC, OR, MX RAISED ROOF 3,500 307.0 1,074,500 MEXICO SUNSHADE 9,500 10.0 99, 821 NC, OR, MX

ARGOSY GRILL PANEL - UPPER 3,000 20.5 61,500 CLEVELAND, NC

BUSINESS CLASS FIXED UNDERCAB COVER R/L 72,000 2.7 194,400 VARIOUS HOOD 1,200 175.0 210,000 SERVICE

CENTURY A-PILLAR R/L 107,000 2.4 256,800 VARIOUS BUMPER BEAM 57,500 18.6 1,069,500 COWL R/L 105,000 3.3 346,500 HOOD 57,500 140.0 8,050,000 HOOD - FENDER ASSEMBLY 105,000 150.0 15,750,000 PORTLAND, OR RAINTRAY 73,000 14.0 1,022,000 VARIOUS SUNSHADE 23,000 10.0 230,000

COLUMBIA HOOD - FENDER ASSEMBLY 105,000 150.0 15,750,000 PORTLAND, OR

FLD 120 HOOD ASSEMBLY 25,000 150.0 3,750,000 PORTLAND, OR

M2 CLASS UNDERCAB COVER R/L 3,000 2.5 7,500 VARIOUS MODEL COMPONENT

SMC COMPONENTS PLANNED VOLUME WEIGHT! UNIT (POUNDS) PLANNED PRODUCTION

(POUNDS) ASSEMBLY PLANT

KEN WORTH Various SCOOP 7,500 4.0 30,000 CHILLICOTHE, OH &

STERLING DENTON,TX

ACTERRA COWL SIDE R/L 15,000 2.5 37,500 WILLOUGHBY, OHEnergy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 7
‐ 17 FENDERS, FRONT 15,000 10.0 150,000

HN-80 AERO ROOF - LOWER 15,000 25.9 388,500 ST. THOMAS, OH AERO ROOF - UPPER 15,000 42.0 630,000 AIR INTAKE GRILLE R/L 30,000 1.7 51,000 CAB EXTENSIONS 60,000 15.0 900,000 CHASSIS SIDE FAIRINGS 15,000 55.3 829,500 COWL SIDE R/L 15,000 4.5 67,500 DOOR R/L 30,000 24.5 735,000 FENDERS - R/L 30,000 9.3 279,000 VALENCE PANEL R/L 30,000 2.1 63,000

HN-80-2 ACCENT BAR 15,000 3.0 45,000 ST. THOMAS, OH GRILLE 15,000 20.0 300,000 HOOD 15,000 114.0 1,710,000

HN-80-3 GRILLE OPENING PANEL 15,000 21.0 315,000 ST THOMAS, OH HEADLAMP PANEL R/L 15,000 2.4 36,000 HOOD 15,000 123.0 1,845,000

HN-80-4 GRILLE OPENING PANEL 15,000 2.4 36,000 ST THOMAS, OH HEADLAMP PANEL R/L 30,000 21.0 630,000 HOOD 15,000 142.0 2,130,000

TRACTOR GRILLE OPENING PANEL 15,000 27.0 405,000 ST. THOMAS, OH HOOD 15,000 124.0 1,860,000

TRACTOR H215 SPLASH SHIELD R/L 60, 000 1.4 84,000 ESGARDO

TRACTOR HN-177 ACCENT BAR 30, 000 3.0 90,000 ST. THOMAS, OH
FENDERS - R/L 30,000 15.0 450,000 GRILLE 15,000 20.0 300,000 HOOD 15,000 135.0 2,025,000

TRACTOR HN-190 FENDERS - R/L 30, 000 9.3 279,000 ST. THOMAS, OH HOOD 15,000 112.0 1,680,000

INTERNATIONAL 3000/4000 SERIES HOOD 70,000 115.0 8,050,000 SPRINGFIELD, OH FENDER EXTENSION - R/L 140,000 7.0 980,000 SPLASH PANEL R/L 140,000 6.3 882,000 ENGINE COVER 140,000 5.5 770,000

8000 SERIES HOOD 70,000 115.0 8,050,000 SPRINGFIELD, OH FENDER EXTENSION - R/L 140,000 12.0 1,680,000 SPLASH PANEL R/L 140,000 5.1 714,000

9000 SERIES AIR DEFLECTOR 50,000 75.0 3,750,000 CHATHAM, ONTARIO

9200 SERIES HOOD 70,000 115.0 8,050,000 CHATHAM, ONTARIO HOOD 70,000 115.0 8,050,000 SPASH PANEL R/L 30,000 8.0 240,000

9400 SERIES SUNSHADE 30,000 11.8 354,000 CHATHAM, ONTARIO HOOD 15,000 115.0 1,725,000 SPLASH PANEL R/L 30,000 8.0 240,000

9600 SERIES BATTERY BOX COVER 15,000 8.0 90,000 CHATHAM, ONTARIO

9800 SERIES CAB SKIRT R/L 60,000 5.0 300,000 SPRINGFIELD, OH CONSOLE 15,000 18.5 277,500

FS65 FENDER EXTENSION - R/L 140,000 12.0 1,680,000 GAFFNEY, SC

MD107 HOOD 140,000 90.0 12,600,000 SPRINGFIELD, OH

RH107 HOOD 35,000 120.0 4,200,000 GARLAND, TX Page 7 MODEL

SMC COMPONENTS COMPONENT PLANNED VOLUME WEIGHT/ UNIT (POUNDS) PLANNED PRODUCTION (POUNDS) ASSEMBLY PLANT

SS107 HOOD 140,000 95.0 13,300,000 GARLAND, TX

VARIOUS AERO EXTENSION KIT 60,000 65.0 3,900,000 SPRINGFIELD, OHEnergy and Environmental Analysis 7
‐ 18 VOLVO VN2287 HOOD 16,000 175.0 2,800,000 NEW RIVER VALLEY, VA

MODEL COMPONENT PLANNED WEIGHT/ PLANNED VOLUME UNIT PRODUCTION BMC COMPONENTS (POUNDS) (POUNDS)

BULK MOLDING COMPOUND (BMC)!L ,1N MOLDING COMPONENTS ASSEMBLY PLANT

PASSENGER CAR

DAIMLER CHRYSLER

2.312.71- DOHC VALVE COVER 310,000 1.8 558,000 N/A
4.6L VALVE COVER 104,000 2.0 208,000 WINDSOR, ONTARIO

FORD MOTOR COMPANY

CROWN VICTORIA GRILL OPENING PANEL 64,000 15.6 998,400 ST THOMAS, ONTARIO

3.01- DOHC U204 VALV E COVER 225,000 8.0 1, 800,000 CLEVELAND, OH

LINCOLN MERCURY TOWN CAR GRILLE OPENING REINFORCEMENT 48,000 16.2 777,600 WIXOM, MI

LS VALVE COVER 7,800 2.5 19,500 WIXOM, MI

GENERAL MOTORS

5.7L V-8 TIMING CHAIN COVER R/L 28,500 3.0 85,500 LANSING, MI

LIGHT TRUCK, SPORT/UTILITY VEHICLES

GENERAL MOTORS
4.31- V-6 FRONT TIMING CHAIN COVER 312,000 5.0 1,560,000 ROMEO, MI VALVE COVER 312,000 5.0 1,560,000 ROMEO, MI

3.81- V-6 VALVE COVER 554,000 5.0 2,770,000 ROMEO, MI

5.71- V-8 VALVE COVER 57,000 3.0 171,000 LANSING, MI

EXPRESS/GMT600 FENDER EXTENSION - R/L 270,000 2.0 540,000 WENTZVILLE, MO CRASH PAD EXTENSION 135,000 3.4 459,000 PLANNED WEIGHT/ PLANNED ASSEMBLY VOLUME UNIT PRODUCTION LCM COMPONENTS (POUNDS)

___________ (POUNDS)

PASSENGER CARS

DAIMLER CHRYSLER

DODGE VIPER TRUNK PAN ASSEMBLY 2,000 40.0 80,000 DETROIT, MI TRUNK PAN ASSEMBLY 1,200 40.0 48, 000

GENERAL MOTORS

CADILLAC XLR DASH 3,000 7.8 23,250 BOWLING GREEN, KY FLOOR-LH 3, 000 10. 4 31,200 FLOOR-RH 3,000 10.4 31,200 FRONT END PANEL 3,000 2.6 7,800 MODEL COMPONENT

PLANTEnergy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 7
‐ 19 FRONT WHEELHOUSE-LH 3,000 12.1 36,300 FRONT WHEELHOUSE-RH 3,000 12.1 36,300 PLENUM LOWER 3,000 4.5 13,500 PLENUM UPPER 3,000 3.2 9,600 REAR COMPARTMENT 3,000 31.5 94,500 REAR END ASSEMBLY 3,000 8.0 24,000

CHEVROLET CORVETTE DASH 35,000 7.8 271,250 BOWLING GREEN, KY FLOOR-LH 35,000 10.4 364,000 FLOOR-RH 35,000 10.4 364,000 FRONT WHEELHOUSE-LH 35,000 7.4 259,000 FRONT WHEELHOUSE-RH 35,000 7.4 259,000 PLENUM LOWER 35,000 4.3 150,500 PLENUM UPPER 35,000 4.3 150,500 REAR COMPARTMENT 35,000 28.0 980,000 UNDERBODY 32, 000 26.0 832,000

CORVETTE Z06 FLOOR - CARBON-LH 7,000 7.6 53,200 BOWLING GREEN, KY
FLOOR - CARBON-RH 7,000 7.6 53,200 FRONT WHEELHOUSE - CARBON-LH 7,000 7.0 49,000 FRONT WHEELHOUSE - CARBON-RH 7,000 7.0 49,000

PONTIAC SOLSTICE REAR FLOOR 24,000 23.5 564,000 WILMINGTON, DL

SATURN SKY REAR FLOOR 8,000 23.5 168,000 WILMINGTON, DL

LIQUID COMPOSITE MOLDING (LCM) COMPONENTS HEAVY-DUTY TRUCK

COMPONENTS

DAIMLER CHRYSLER

FREIGHTLINER FREIGHTLINER RAISED ROOF 30,000 180.0 5,400,000 NC, OR, MX

BUSINESS CLASS FENDER 1/2 R/L 2,000 13.0 26,000 VARIOUS HOOD 1,200 125.0 150,000 MOUNT HOLLY, NC

CENTURY FAIRINGS - R/L 3,300 15.0 49,500 VARIOUS FENDER 1/4 R/L 115,000 10.0 1,150,000 RAINTRAY 57,500 10.0 575,000 RAISED ROOF 57,500 300.0 17,250,000 SUNSHADE 57,500 9.5 546,250

FLD 120 RAISED ROOF FAIRINGS - R/L

DETROIT DIESEL 25,000 25,000 450.0 30.0 11,250,000 750,000 PORTLAND, OR

VARIOUS OIL PAN - DEEP SUMP VARIOUS ENGINE COVER VARIOUS OIL PAN - STANDARD

JOHN DEERE 1,000 1,000 1,000 22.1 12.4 19.5 22,100 12,400 19,500 DETROIT, MI

SERIES 450 ENGINE COVER

PACCAR 1,500 3.0 4,500 DETROIT, MI

KEN WORTH T-2000 AERO ROOF 60 15,000 450.0 6,750,000 CHILLICOTHE, OH & AERO ROOF 75 15,000 400.0 6,000,000 DENTON, TX A-PILLAR UPPER R/L 30,000 1.8 54,000 A-PILLAR/ROCKER R/L 30,000 20.0 600,000 BUMPER 15,000 55.0 825,000 CAB SIDE DEFLECTOR R/L 30,000 15. 0 450,000 DOOR APERTURE (RIGHT) 5,000 45.0 225,000 CHILLICOTHE, OH DOOR APERTURE (Lt1-I) 5,000 45.0 225,000 DOOR MODULE R/L 30,000 14.0 420,000 CHILLICOTHE, OH & ODEL COMPONENT

' M PLANNED WEIGHT/ PLANNED ASSEMBLY VOLUME UNIT PRODUCTION PLANT (POUNDS) (POUNDS)Energy and Environmental Analysis 7
‐ 20 DOOR SURROUND - R/L 15,000 45.0 675,000 DENTON, TX D-PILLAR COVER R/L 30,000 5.1 153,000 D-PILLAR DUCT R/L 30,000 12.0 360,000 FIREWALL ASSEMBLY 15,000 50.0 750,000 FLOOR ASSEMBLY 15,000 10.0 150,000 HOOD 15,000 140.0 2,100,000 STORAGE DOOR 15,000 12.0 180,000

KEN WORTH T603 HOOD 15, 000 165.0 2,475,000 CHILLICOTHE, OH & DENTON,TX

MACK CLASS 8 CONTROL PANEL R/L 30,000 12.5 375,000 CHILLICOTHE, OH & DENTON,TX DOOR R/L 30,000 24.0 720,000 MA CUNGIE, PA HOOD 15,000 128.0 1,920,000 CHILLICOTHE, OH & DENTON,TX SUNSHADE 30,000 9.5 285,000

T2 & 387 APERTURE R/L 20,000 30.0 600,000 CHILLICOTHE, OH & DENTON,TX CROSSMEMBER

PETERBILT 5,000 25.0 125,000

387 CAB DOOR R/L 520 5.4 2,808 DENTON, TX DOOR MODULE R/L 520 5.4 2,808 HOOD - 112 AERO 260 130.0 33, 800 RAISED ROOF - 52 150 180.0 27,000 RAISED ROOF - 70

VOLVO 5,200 260.0 1,352,000

HDT SUNSHADE 16,000 21.0 336,000 NEW RIVER VALLEY, VA

VHD HOOD 1,000 150.0 150,000 NEW RIVER VALLEY, VA VHD FENDER EXTENSION - R/L 1,000 15.0 15,000

VN2235 COWL 16,000 7.0 112,000 NEW RIVER VALLEY, VA ENGINE COVER 18,000 15.0 240,000 FENDER EXTENSION - R/L 16,000 4.5 72,000 HOOD ASSEMBLY 16,000 175.0 2, 800,000

A COMPONENTS 'LANNE D VOLUME WEIGHT! UNIT (POUNDS) PLANNED PRODUCTION (POUNDS) ASSEMBLY PLANT

VN2287 A IR INTAKE 16,000 25.0 400,000 NEW RIVER VALLEY, VA COWL SIDE OUTER 16,000 10.0 160,000 ENGINE COVE R 16,000 16.0 256,000 FAIRINGS R/L 32,000 14.0 448,000 FRONT BUMPER 16,000 55A 880,000 ROOF ASSEMBLY 16,000 237.0 3,792,00 SIDE DEFLECTOR R/L 32,000 15.0 480,000 SUNSHADE 32
, 000 11.0 352
, 000 MODEL COMPONENT PLANNED WEIGHT/ PLANNED ASSEMBLY VOLUME UNIT PRODUCTION PLANT SRIM/RRIM COMPONENTS (POUNDS) __________(POUNDS)

STRUCTURAL REACTION INJECTION MOLDING (SRIM) COMPONENTS/ REINFORCED REACTION INJECTION MOLDING (BRIM) COMPONENTS
300C FASCIAS

PACIFICA SUNSHADE

DODGE CHARGER SRT FRONT FASCIA

MAGNUM SRT FRONT FASCIA

VIPER FASCIAS

FORD MOTOR COMPANY

CROWN VICTORIA FASCIAS

GT FASCIA, BODY PANEL PARTS 150,000
35,000

7,100
4,700
2,000

200,000

5000 20.0

3.0

17.6

14.5

25.0

15.0

40.0 3,000,000
105,000

124,960
68,150
50,000

3,000,000
200,000 ST. LOUIS, MO
ST. LOUIS, MO

BRAMPTON, ONTARIO
BRAMPTON, ONTARIO
DETROIT, MI

ST THOMAS, ONTARIO
TROY, MIEnergy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 7
‐ 21 GEN, ,.1OTORS CADILLAC XLR FENDERS - R/L 6,000 15.0 90,000 BOWLING GREEN, KY REAR QUARTERS - R/L 3,000 14.0 84,000 BOWLING GREEN, KY

CHEVROLET CORVE I It: FASCIA FRONT R/L 70,000 15.0 1,050,000 BOWLING GREEN, KY FENDER FRONT R/L 70,000 6.6 462,000 FENDERS R/L 32,000 15.0 480,000

MALIBU SUNSHADE 50,000 3.0 150,000 FAIRFAX, VA

SITRANSPLANTS

NISSAN MAXIMA SUNSHADE 28,000 3.0 84,000 SMYRNA, TN

QUEST SUNSHADE 12,000 3.0 36,000 SMYRNA, TN

TOYOT A AVALON SUNSHADE 100,000 3.0 300,000 GEORGETOWN, KY SUNSHADE 100,000 3.0 300,000

LIGHT TRUCK

DAIMLER CHRYSLER

TOWN & COUNTRY LOAD FLOOR 79,000 6.0 474,000 WINDSOR, ONTARIO

LOAD FLOOR 56,000 6.0 336,000 ST. LOUIS, MO

SUNSHADE 15,000 3.0 45,000

DODGE CARAVAN LOAD FLOOR 148,000 6.0 888,000 LOAD FLOOR 144,000 6.0 864,000 SUNSHADE 50,000 3.0 150,000

IR COMPANY EXPEDITION SUNSHADE 100,000 3.0 300,000 LOUISVILLE, KY & WAYNE, MI FUEL TANK HEAT SHIELD 50,000 5.0 250,000 Page 13

MODEL COMPONENT

SRIM/RRIM COMPONENTS PLANNED VOLUME WEIGHT/ UNIT PLANNED PRODUCTION (POUNDS) ASSEMBLY PLANT (POUNDS(

EXPLORER SUNSHADE 50,000 3.0 150,000

LINCOLN MERCURY NAVIGATOR SUNSHADE 100,000 3.0 300,000 FUEL TANK HEAT SHIELD 50,000 4.3 215,000

MOUNTAINEER SUNSHADE 50,000 3.0 150,000

GENERAL. MOTORS

CADILLAC ESCALADE DOOR PANEL 2,000 10.0 20,000 ARLINGTON, TX

ESCALADE ESV DOOR PANEL 3,400 10.0 34,000

ESCALADE EXT DOOR PANEL 5,000 10.0 50,000Energy and Environmental Analysis 7
‐ 22 INNER MIDGATE PANEL 1,000 7.0 7,000 SILAO, MEXICO

CHEVROLET SSR FENDERS - R/L 8,000 8.0 64,000 LANSING, MI

AVALANCHE DOOR PANEL 46,000 10.0 460,000 SILAO, MEXICO INNER MIDGATE PANEL 87,000 7.0 609,000

SILVERADO DOOR PANEL 730,000 6.0 4,380,00 0 FLINT, MI & PONTIAC, MI FENDERS -R/L 23,000 25.5 1,173,00 FENDERS -R/L 23,000 25.5 1,173,000 SUNSHADE 60,000 2.5 150,000 SILAO, MEXICO SUNSHADE 110,000 2.5 275,000 VARIOUS

SUBURBAN DOOR PANEL 20,000 10.0 200,000 SILAO, MEXICO

GMC SIERRA DOOR PANEL 208,000 10.0 2,080,00 0 ARLINGTON, TX &

SUNSHADE 67,000 2.5 167,500 JANESVILLE, WI VARIOUS

YUKON XL DOOR PANEL 12,000 10.0 120,000 ARLINGTON, TX &

HUMMER JANESVILLE, WI

H2 SLIT TAILGATE INNER PANEL 12,000 8.0 96,000 MISHAWAKA, IN
IMPORTS/TRANSPLANTS

MERCEDES SIN FASCIAS 230
, 000 23.0 5
, 290
, 00 TUSCALOOSA
, AL MODEL COMPONENT

HLP COMPONENTS PLANNED VOLUME WEIGHT/ UNIT (POUNDS) PLANNED PRODUCTION (POUNDS) ASSEMBLY PLANT

HAND LAY-UP (HLP) COMPONENTS

GENERAL MOTORS

PASSENGER CAR

CHEVROLET CORVETTE Z06 FENDERS, FRONT 3,800 3.8 14,440 BOWLING GREEN, KY FENDERS, REAR 3,800 3.8 14,440

HEAVY-DUTY TRUCK

DAIMLER CHRYSLER

FREIGHTLINER RAISED ROOF 200 450.0 90,000 CLEVELAND, NCEnergy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 7
‐ 23 

## 7.3 2006 High Aluminum Content Vehicles

Defined as 400lbs Al/vehicle or more

Source: Automotive Aluminum Association

OEM DIVISION MODEL Brake Calipers Bumpers Chassis Closure Panels Control Arms Cradles Engine Suspension

BMW BMW 5-Series X X X X X BMW BMW 6-Series X X BMW BMW 7-Series X X X X X BMW BMW Z4 X X X BMW Rolls Royce Phantom X DCC Chrysler 300/300C X X X X DCC Chrysler Pacifica X DCC Dodge Charger X X X X DCC Dodge Magnum XDCC MercedesBenz C-Class X

DCC MercedesBenz CLK X X X

DCC MercedesBenz E-Class X X X X X

DCC MercedesBenz Maybach X X X

DCC MercedesBenz S-Class X X X

DCC MercedesBenz SL Roadster X X X

FMC Aston Martin DB9 Volante X X

FMC Aston Martin V8 Vantage X
FMC Ford Expedition X FMC Ford Explorer X X FMC Ford F-150 X X X FMC Ford Five Hundred X
FMC Ford Freestyle X FMC Ford GT X X X X FMC Ford Mustang X X FMC Jaguar XJ 350 X X X X X X FMC Jaguar XK 150 X X X FMC Land Rover Defender X X FMC Land Rover Range Rover X

FMC Lincoln LS X X FMC Lincoln Navigator X FMC Lincoln Town Car X X FMC Mazda RX-8 X FMC Volvo S60 X X X FMC Volvo S80 X XEnergy and Environmental Analysis 7
‐ 24 FMC Volvo V70 X X X X FMI Ferrari F430 X X X X FUJ Subaru Legacy X X FUJ Subaru Outback X X FUJ Subaru Tribeca X X GMC Cadillac CTS X GMC Cadillac DTS X X GMC Cadillac Escalade X GMC Cadillac STS X X GMC Cadillac XLR X X X GMC Chevrolet Corvette X X X X X GMC Chevrolet Suburban X GMC Chevrolet Tahoe X X GMC GMC Yukon X GMC Saab 9-3 X X X X HON Acura RL X X X X X X X HON Honda Insight X X X X HON Honda S2000 X X NIS Nissan Altima X X NIS Nissan Cima/Q45 X NIS Nissan Fairlady Z X X X X NIS Nissan Fuga M45/M36 X X

NIS Nissan Maxima X X NIS Nissan Skyline/G35 X X POR Porsche 911 X X X POR Porsche Boxster X X X POR Porsche Cayenne X X X X VWA Audi A6 X X VWA Audi A7/Q7 X X VWA Audi A8 X X X VWA Audi LeMans X VWA Audi TT X VWA Bentley Continental Flying Spur X
VWA Volkswagen Phaeton X