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) 528‐1900

           Energy 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 CRITERIA 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 Reduction 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 AND 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........................................................................ 7‐23
ii Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.
           Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. iii   
iv 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 Experimental 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 Design 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 ......6‐2
           Energy 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 Manufacturing 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. ....6‐1
vi 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 materials 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 the 
1‐2 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 crossover 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 optimized 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, magnesium 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 

μm/mK 12 22 21.5 34.5 76.5 26 25.6 

(1) ABS - Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene plastic 
2‐2   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 low 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 panel 
Energy 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 engine 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. 
2‐4   Energy and Environmental Analysis

• 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 desirable 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. 3 
Energy 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

Current

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 sometimes 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. 
2‐6   Energy and Environmental Analysis

Under-hood components have significant plastics penetration, 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 mixture 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 (3rd

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/in3

] 

Price per 

Unit of 

Volume 

[$/in3

] 

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 5
Energy 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 volumetric 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 automotive designs. As an example, Figure 2-2 below 

shows the historical steel price trend, as reported 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 among 
2‐8   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 castings) as the safest material choice for long 

term price competitiveness, even though in short 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 advantage 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, stiffness 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. However, 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. 
2‐10   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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-manganese, 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.
3‐2   Energy and Environmental Analysis

Figure 3-1: Elongation vs. Strength Relationship of Various Steels Used in Automotive 

Construction. 

Source: Automotive Group of International 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 approximate order of increasing tensile strength. 

Interstitial 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 martensite 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 be 
3‐4   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 types of steel. These steels are designed to reduce 

density, improve strength, and/or increase elongation. 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 competitive landscape relative to other material 

choices. 

3.1.2 Steel Processing Advancements 

Steels have experienced advancements in fabrications 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 the new proposed aluminum implementation curve 

from the steel industry’s perspective. According 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. 
3‐6   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 and 
Energy 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 fabrication experienced a number of manufacturing 

advancements. A recently reported example of laser 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 3-1 
3‐8   Energy and Environmental Analysis

below provides an overview of the most common 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 to 

produce 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 applications 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 costs 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 

200611. 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 traditionally high aluminum penetration. 
3‐10   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 

Towers 
Energy 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 comparison 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 bumpers14. 
3‐12   Energy and Environmental Analysis

Aluminum (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 weight 
Energy 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 recycle. 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 is 

only 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 chemically 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 the 
3‐14   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 Anhydride) 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 types (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 materials16 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 mainstream 

steel, 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 costs. Costs are very attractive for plastics 

processed via injection molding or similar processes. Figure 3-6 provides an overview of the 

most attractive targets for composite usage. 
3‐16   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 moderate 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 steel. 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 having some exterior move to composites while 

others are still based on steel. 

Despite these limitations, composites do have successful applications in virtually all component 

groups, including in exterior Class A panels. However, many programs are limited to luxury or 
Energy 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 composites 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. 
3‐18   Energy and Environmental Analysis

Exterior Non-Class A composite use is currently limited to selected few specific applications 

such as pickup truck box inner panels, removable roofs, gate panels, running boards, trunk 

enclosures, wheel housings and underbody shields. 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 composites since, compared to steel, a composite 

box can support various functionality and convenience 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 includes 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 10.5 
Energy 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 manufactured 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 that comparable weight was achieved for most 

manifolds when compared to aluminum. Another 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. 
3‐20   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 processes 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 Reinforced Thermoplastic (RTP) sheet, are the largest 

volume application for composites. New RTP processes 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.1819
Energy 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 content 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 General Weight Implications 

High production volume cost is the primary limiting 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 treatments and part assembly special measures have to 
3‐22   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 government20. 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 Casting (HPDC) magnesium often offers a single piece 

structure to achieve high integration of components and weight reduction. The uniform structure 

offers improved dimensional stability, production 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 0.5 
3‐24   Energy and Environmental Analysis

3.5 Section Summary 

Advanced steels have experienced unprecedented development 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 bumper 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 the 

mild 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 automotive castings applications, especially in 

powertrain castings, and in forgings for suspension 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, pickup 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 exception 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 replacement 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 30-40 
3‐26   Energy and Environmental Analysis

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

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?Section=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, 2nd 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 dominated by few large global corporations in 

the business environment with production overcapacity 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 structure (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 summarized 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. 
4‐2   Energy and Environmental Analysis

Table 4-1 ULSAB-AVC AHSS-Intensive Body Manufacturing 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 steel 

designs. 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 substitution 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 197 184 
4‐4   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 successfully 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 dominated 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. 
4‐6   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 results 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 baseline 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 implementation 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 structure 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 plastic solution was found to absorb and transfer 

bumper impact energy forces more efficiently. Capital equipment and production cycle cost 

savings were realized since all alternative solutions required additional metal forming 

equipment. Figure 4-4 summarizes the project end results. 
4‐8   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 reductions due to newly available supplies, 

especially from China’s low cost Pidgeon production process, while aluminum prices have risen 

during the same period (see Figure 4-5). The aluminum 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, aluminum to magnesium casting conversion has been 

slow.12
Energy 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 magnesium 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. 
4‐10   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 that 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 magnesium 
Energy 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 infrastructure, 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 price 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 tube 
4‐12   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 program, 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 Systems 
4‐14   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 provide 
Energy 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.worldautosteel.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/articles/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?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&C

ONTENTFILEID=3384

11 Ray Publishing, Inc., “Automotive Composites: A Design and Manufacturing Guide, 2nd 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.
4‐16   Energy and Environmental Analysis

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.      5‐1

5 OVERVIEW OF OEM MATERIAL USE 

IN MY 2006 VEHICLES 

Up-to-date, publicly available statistics for automotive 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 Market 
5‐2   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 vehicle 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.com

440 218

236 183 47

150 155 150

130 87 174130 128 129

93 185 100

218 150

125 50 190

10 210 130

116 78 156

268 18 53

124 138 72

106 71 142

65 175 76

112 128 76

118 80 100

224 13 51

167 119

120 90 70

68 136 70

230 35

92 136 3493 62 93

80 135 30

62 136 30

36 36 150

445

11

95

242

7

97

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

F-150

Dakota

Pathfinder

Odyssey

Frontier

Xterra

Solstice

Ridgeline

Grand Cherokee

Tacoma

G6

300 C

Accord

Charger

Avalon

Ford 500

SRX

Trailblazer

Mustang

Altima

Eclipse

Fusion

Civic

Focus

Sentra

Legacy

Next Lambda

Next Delta

MHSS CHSS AHSS

(Pounds per Vehicle)

648

466

455

391

387

378

368

365

350

350

339

334

319

315315

298

288

286

280

274

265

262

248

245

228

222

551

346

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 concentrated in castings for power-train systems. 

Aluminum castings account for over 80% of use of this material in vehicles. Forgings and 
5‐4   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 Worldwide 

 
Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.      5‐5

Aluminum use, by model, can be further examined using data available through the Automotive 

Aluminum Association. Their website tracks the latest 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 Toyota, 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 can (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. 
5‐6   Energy and Environmental Analysis

Intake manifolds are specified in either aluminum 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 provide aluminum wheels as standard equipment 

in all their vehicles. Other manufacturers have 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 35 
5‐8   Energy and Environmental Analysis

to 40%. Figure 5-4 provides pictorial illustrations 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.ppt

Energy 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 requires 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 1st 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. 
6‐2   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 costs 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 suppliers 

of 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 effectiveness 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. 
6‐4   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 X 
Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.      6‐5

The 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 requirements. The aluminum intensive weight was 

determined using reduction potential of 40%, which is a reasonable estimate according to 
6‐6   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 Magnesium) 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) indicating 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 using 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 that 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 design. 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) 
6‐8   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 supplier 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 magnesium 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 components 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) 
6‐10   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 components 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. 
Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 6‐1

Table 6‐6 Weight and Cost Analysis for Selected Components – Hypothetical Mid‐size Car Case Base Curb Weight: 3,350lbs; B

block and Al head; All Weights in [lbs], All costs in [$]. Weight and Cost figures rounded to the nearest integer.

Assemblies / Components

Conv. Design Weight

Conv. Design Cost

Advanced Steel 

Weight

Advanced Steel Cost

Plast/Comp Intensive Weight

Plas/Comp Intensive Cost

Al Intensive Weight

Al Intensive Cost

MI

Exterior Body Panels: Class A

Doors Front 66 113 42 125 42 125 35 172 Doors Back 54 101 41 114 41 114 29 156 Deck Lid 24 45 19 52 18 57 13 70 Fenders 15 22 12 25 12 28 9 34 Hood 42 78 34 90 32 98 23 120 Total 201 359 148 406 145 422 109 552 Incremental Cost Effect. [$/lb saved] 0.89 4.57 3.61 Cost Effectiveness Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 0.89 1.12 2.09 Structural ComponentsBody In White 700 1000 560 1100 560 1100 420 1800 Bumper beams F&R 48 60 48 60 36 90 34 120 Engine Subframe 50 55 40 60 40 60 31 75 IP beam 30 32 24 35 24 35 24 35 Front End Carrier 16 17 13 19 12 30 12 30 Total 844 1164 685 1274 672 1315 521 2060 Incremental Cost Effect. [$/lb saved] 0.69 3.19 4.93 Cost Effectiveness Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 0.69 0.88 2.77 Underhood PartsWiper System Housing/Support 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 8 Steering Wheel Column 7 5 6 5 6 5 4 7 Total 11 10 10 11 10 11 8 15 Incremental Cost Effect. [$/lb saved] 0.50 N/A 1.80 

Cost Effectiveness Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 0.50 N/A 1.43 Drive TrainEngine Block (I4) 110 82 110 82 110 82 64 130 Engine Head 27 54 27 54 27 54 27 54 Oil pan 12 11 12 11 12 11 9 18 Engine mounting brackets 7 5 6 6 6 6 4 8 Oil pump housing 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 Alternator Bracket 9 6 8 8 8 8 5 9 Valve Cover 10 10 10 10 9 12 6 12 Transmission Housing 13 26 13 26 13 26 13 26 Axle housing 16 32 16 32 16 32 16 32 Intake Manifold 15 18 15 18 15 18 12 25 Total 222 250 220 253 219 255 159 320 Incremental Cost Effect. [$/lb saved] 1.50 2.00 1.08 Cost Effectiveness Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 1.50 1.67 1.11 
6‐2 Energy and Environmental Analysis

Table 6-6. Continued 

ChassisWheel Rims (4) 110 105 100 115 100 115 80 168 Control Arms (4) 48 40 45 43 45 43 32 80 Brake Actuators (2) 17 12 17 12 17 12 12 26 Steering Knuckles (2) 46 32 46 32 46 32 28 60 Total 221 189 208 202 208 202 152 334 Incremental Cost Effect. [$/lb saved] 1.00 N/A 2.36 

Cost Effectiveness Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 1.00 N/A 2.10 InteriorsSeat Frames Front 46 49 42 52 42 52 29 90 Seat Frames Back 39 43 36 45 36 45 25 75 Center Console Structure 9 6 8 7 8 7 4 12 Steering Wheel Armature 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 Total 97 105 89 111 89 111 61 184 Incremental Cost Effect. [$/lb saved] 0.75 N/A 2.61 Cost Effectiveness Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 0.75 N/A 2.19 Net Total 1596 2077 1359.5 2256 1342 2315.5 1008.5 3465 Other Vehicle Component Weight Estimates Kept Constant Other Powertrain 418 418 418 418 Other Chassis 615 615 615 615 Other Interiors 312 312 312 312 Remaining Vehicle 410 410 410 410 Final Vehicle Weight (CW) 3350 3114 3097 2763 

Vehicle Weight Reduction Analysis

Incremental Weight Reduction 236 18 333.5 Incremental Weight Reduction [%] 7.0 0.6 10.8 Weight Reduction Compared to Conventional Design 236.0 253.5 587.0 Weight Reduction Compared to Conventional Design [%] 7.0 7.6 17.5 

Cost Analysis

Incremental Cost Increase 179.0 59.5 1149.5 Cost Increase Compared to Conventional Design 179.0 238.5 1388.0 Incremental Cost Effect. [$/lb saved] 0.8 3.4 3.4 Cost Effectiveness Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 0.76 0.94 2.36 
Energy 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 large 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. 
6‐2   Energy and Environmental Analysis

• 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 vehicle-level cost effectiveness with high 

aluminum content was the lowest among all competing materials, primarily driven by the 

high costs of aluminum-intensive structure and closures. 

• Assuming the latest magnesium/aluminum alloy 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 described above. While comprehensive part-bypart analysis of material substitution is even more 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 Class-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 analysis were used to compute the truck full vehiclelevel cost effectiveness parameters. 

Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 6‐1

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

Base Curb Weight: 4,750 

Assemblies / Components

Conv. Design Weight

Conv. Design Cost

Advanced Steel Weight

Advanced Steel Cost

Plast/Comp Intensive Weight

Plas/Comp Intensive Cost

Al Intensive Weight

Al Intensive Cost

MInW

Exterior Body Parts: Non-Class ABed Box 125 182 111 205 100 232 100 232 

Incremental Cost Effect. [$/lb saved] 1.64 2.45 N/A Cost Eff. Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 1.64 2.00 N/A 

Exterior Body Parts: Class ARear Gate Assy 55 102 49 117 47 125 36 160 

Incremental Cost Effect. [$/lb saved] 2.50 4.00 3.18 Cost Eff. Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 2.50 2.88 3.05 Structural ComponentsBody Subframe 498 327 383 362 383 362 383 362 Incremental Cost Effect. [$/lb saved] 0.30 N/A N/A Cost Eff. Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 0.30 N/A N/A 

Net Weight and cost Analysis

Net Total 678 611 543 684 530 719 519 754 Net Incremental Weight Reduction 135 13 11 NNet Weight Reduction Compared to Conventional Design 135 148 159 Net Incremental Cost Increase 73 35 35 Net Cost Increase Compared to Conventional Design 73 108 143 Net Incremental Cost Effectiveness [$/lb saved] 0.5 2.7 3.2 

Net Cost Eff. Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 0.5 0.7 0.9 

Total 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 Estimated Weight Reduction 287 308 714 Estimated Cost Eff. (From Car Case) [$/lb saved] 0.76 0.94 2.36 Cost Increase Compared to Conventional Design 218 290 1687 Total Resulting Vehicle Weight 4750 4328 4294 3877 Total Weight Reduction Compared to Conventional Design 422 456 873 Total Weight Reduction Compared to Conventional Design [%] 8.9 9.6 18.4 Total Cost Increase Compared to Conventional Design 291 398 1830 Total Cost Eff. Compared to Conventional Design [$/lb saved] 0.69 0.87 2.10 

Energy 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. 
6‐2   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 Management 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. Aluminum vs 1PC SMC”, Handout Provided by 

Meridian Auto Systems, November 2006. 

19. L. Riopelle, "Magnesium Applications Growing 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 Closures 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, 2006 
Energy 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 Aluminum 
7‐4   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 Aluminum 
Energy 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 Aluminum Aluminum 

FMC MERCURY MARINER 3 Aluminum 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 Aluminum Aluminum Stainless 

Steel 

FMC MERCURY MONTEREY 4.2 Iron Aluminum 

FMC MERCURY MOUNTAINEER 4.6 Aluminum 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 Steel 
7‐6   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron 

GMC BUICK RAINIER 4.2 Aluminum 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 Aluminum 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 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron 

GMC CHEVROLET COLORADO 2.9 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron 

GMC CHEVROLET CORVETTE 6 Aluminum 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 Iron 
Energy 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 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron 

GMC CHEVROLET TRAILBLAZER 4.2 Aluminum 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 Iron 
7‐8   Energy and Environmental Analysis

GMC GMC ENVOY DENALI 5.3 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron 

GMC GMC ENVOY DENALI 4.2 Aluminum 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 Aluminum 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 Steel 
Energy 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 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron 

GMC PONTIAC SOLSTICE GXP 2 Aluminum 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 Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Iron Steel 

GMC SATURN ION 2.2 Aluminum Aluminum Composite Iron Iron 

GMC SATURN LS AURA 3.6 Aluminum 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 Aluminum 
7‐10   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 Aluminum 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 Aluminum 
Energy 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 Aluminum Aluminum 

TOY TOYOTA TUNDRA 5.7 Aluminum Aluminum 

TOY TOYOTA TUNDRA 4.7 Aluminum Aluminum 

TOY TOYOTA TUNDRA 4 Aluminum Aluminum 

TOY TOYOTA YARIS 1.5 Aluminum Aluminum Plastic 
7‐12   Energy and Environmental Analysis

7.2 2006 MODEL YEAR THERMOSET COMPOSITE 

COMPONENTS 

Source: Automotive Composites Alliance 

MODEL COMPONENT PLANNED WEIGHT/ PLANNED ASSEMBLY 

VOLUME 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 UPPER 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 1,312,000 
Energy 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 KANSAS CITY, MO 

MODEL 

SMC COMPONENTS 

COMPONENT PLANNED 

VOLUME 

WEIGHT/ 

UNIT 

(POUNDS) 

PLANNED 

PRODUCTION 

(POUNDS) 

ASSEMBLY 

PLANT 
7‐14   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 FENDERS - 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 TRUCK 

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 OAKVILLE 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 MIDGATE 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 SHREVEPORT, 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 4 
Energy 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 ASSEMBLY 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) 
7‐16   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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, OH 
Energy 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, OH 
7‐18   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 VALVE 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 

PLANT 
Energy 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) 
7‐20   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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 MACUNGIE, 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 AIR INTAKE 16,000 25.0 400,000 NEW RIVER VALLEY, VA 

COWL SIDE OUTER 16,000 10.0 160,000 

ENGINE COVER 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, MI 
Energy 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 

TOYOTA

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 50,000 
7‐22   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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, NC 
Energy 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 X 

DCC 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 X 
7‐24   Energy and Environmental Analysis

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