Light-Duty Vehicle Mass Reduction and 

Cost Analysis — 

Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle
NOTICE

This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or 

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

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

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

technical developments.

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Prepared for EPA by

FEV

EPA Contract No. EP-C-12-014

Work Assignment No. 0-3

Light-Duty Vehicle Mass Reduction and 

Cost Analysis — 

Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle

EPA-420-R-12-026

August 2012
Page iii

Contents

Section Page

A. Executive Summary 1

B. Introduction 8

B.1 Project Overview 8

B.1.1 Background for Studying Mass-Reduction 8

B.1.2 Mass-Reduction Evaluation – Phase 1, Background Information 9

B.1.3 Mass-Reduction Evaluation – Phase 2, Purpose and Objectives 10

B.1.4 Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis Process Overview 12

C. Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis Assumptions 14

C.1 Mass-Reduction Analysis Assumptions 14

C.2 Cost Analysis Assumptions 16

D. Mass Reduction Analysis Methodology 19

D.1 Overview of Methodology 19

D.2 Project Task One – Non Body-In-White Systems Mass-Reduction and 

Cost Analysis 20

D.2.1 Baseline Vehicle Finger Printing 20

D.2.2 Mass-Reduction Idea Generation 22

D.2.3 Preliminary Mass-Reduction and Cost Estimates 25

D.2.4 Mass-Reduction and Cost Optimization Process 27

D.2.5 Detailed Mass-Reduction Feasibility and Cost Analysis 32

D.3 Project Task Two – Body-In-White Systems Mass-Reduction and 

Cost Analysis 34

D.3.1 Introduction 34

D.3.2 Body System CAE Evaluation Process 35

D.3.3 Vehicle Teardown 36

D.3.4 Vehicle Scanning 39

D.3.5 Initial FE Model 41

D.3.5.1 Material Data 41

D.3.5.2 FE Modeling from Scan Data 41
Page iv

D.3.5.3 FE Materials Selection 44

D.3.6 FEA Model Validation—Baseline NVH Model 45

D.3.6.1 Model Statistics 45

D.3.6.1.1 Static Bending Stiffness 46

D.3.6.1.2 Static Torsion Stiffness 47

D.3.6.1.3 Modal Frequency 48

D.3.6.2 FE Model Validation 48

D.3.6.3 Step I: NVH Test Setup 49

D.3.6.3.1 Static Bending Stiffness Test Setup 49

D.3.6.3.2 Static Torsional Stiffness Test Setup 50

D.3.6.3.3 Dynamic Modal Test Setup 51

D.3.6.4 Step II: Construction and Correlation of NVH Model 52

D.3.6.5 Step III: EDAG CAE Baseline Model 54

D.3.7 Lotus Results Validation 54

D.3.8 Baseline Crash Model 57

D.3.8.1 Model Building 57

D.3.8.1.1 Major System for Full Vehicle Model 57

D.3.8.1.2 Mass Validation 59

D.3.8.1.3 FE Modeling Technique 60

D.3.8.2 Powertrain Mass & Inertia Calibration Test 61

D.3.8.3 Measuring Powertrain CG & Moment of Inertia 61

D.3.8.4 Baseline Crash Model Set-up 62

D.3.8.5 Baseline Crash Model Evaluation 64

D.3.8.5.1 FMVSS 208—35 MPH Flat Frontal Crash (US NCAP) 64

Model Setup 64

Deformation Mode Comparison 66

Body Pulse Comparison 69

D.3.8.5.2 FMVSS 214—38.5MPH MDB Side Impact 73

Model Setup 73

Deformation Mode Comparison 74
Page v

Intrusion Comparison 76

D.3.9 Baseline Crash Results 80

D.3.9.1 FMVSS 208—35 MPH Flat Frontal Crash (US NCAP) 80

D.3.9.2 Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB Frontal Crash (Euro 

NCAP/IIHS) 80

Model Setup 80

Deformation Mode 82

Body Pulse, Dynamic Crush, and Intrusion 84

D.3.9.3 FMVSS 214—38.5 MPH MDB Side Impact 88

D.3.9.4 FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB Rear Impact 88

Model Setup 88

Deformation Mode 88

Fuel Tank Integrity 90

Structural Deformation 92

D.3.9.5 FMVSS 216a Roof Crush Resistance 93

Model Setup 93

Structural Strength 95

E. Cost Analysis Methodology 98

E.1 Overview of Costing Methodology 98

E.2 Teardown, Process Mapping, and Costing 98

E.2.1 Cost Methodology Fundamentals 98

E.2.2 Serial and Parallel Manufacturing Operations and Processes 101

E.3 Cost Model Overview 104

E.4 Indirect OEM Costs 106

E.5 Costing Databases 107

E.5.1 Database Overview 107

E.5.2 Material Database 107

E.5.2.1 Overview 107

E.5.2.2 Material Selection Process 107

E.5.2.3 Pricing Sources and Considerations 108

E.5.2.4 In-process Scrap 109
Page vi

E.5.2.5 Purchase Parts – Commodity Parts 110

E.5.3 Labor Database 111

E.5.3.1 Overview 111

E.5.3.2 Direct Versus Total Labor, Wage Versus Rate 111

E.5.3.3 Contributors to Labor Rate and Labor Rate Equation 112

E.5.4 Manufacturing Overhead Database 113

E.5.4.1 Overview 113

E.5.4.2 Manufacturing Overhead Rate Contributors and 

Calculations 114

E.5.4.3 Acquiring Manufacturing Overhead Data 115

E.5.5 Mark-up (Scrap, SG&A, Profit, ED&T) 118

E.5.5.1 Overview 118

E.5.5.2 Mark-up Rate Contributors and Calculations 118

E.5.5.3 Assigning Mark-up Rates 121

E.5.6 Packaging Database 121

E.5.6.1 Overview 121

E.5.6.2 Types of Packaging and Selection Process 122

E.5.6.3 Support for Costs in Packaging Database 122

E.6 Shipping Costs 123

E.7 Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary Worksheet 123

E.7.1 Overview 123

E.7.2 Main Sections of Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary 

Worksheet 124

E.8 Marketplace Validation 130

E.9 Cost Model Analysis Templates 130

E.9.1 Subsystem, System and Vehicle Cost Model Analysis Templates 130

E.10 Differential Tooling Cost Analysis 131

E.10.1 Differential Tooling Cost Analysis Overview 131

E.10.2 Differential Tooling Cost Analysis Methodology 131

E.11 Cost Curve - % Mass Reduction vs. Cost per Kilogram 134

E.11.1 Cost Curve Development Overview 134

E.11.2 Cost Curve Development Overview 135
Page vii

F. Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Results 139

F.1 Vehicle Results Summary 139

F.1.1 Mass-Reduction, Cost and Volume Study Assumptions 139

F.1.2 Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Summary 140

F.2 Engine System 147

F.2.1 Engine Assembly Downsize (2.4L) 149

F.2.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 149

F.2.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 150

F.2.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 150

F.2.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 151

F.2.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 151

F.2.1.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 152

F.2.2 Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem 154

F.2.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 154

F.2.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 155

F.2.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 157

F.2.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 157

F.2.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 158

F.2.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 160

F.2.3 Crank Drive Subsystem 160

F.2.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview 160

F.2.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 161

F.2.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 162

F.2.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 163

F.2.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 164

F.2.3.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 168

F.2.4 Counter Balance Subsystem 168

F.2.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview 168

F.2.4.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 169

F.2.4.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 170
Page viii

F.2.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 170

F.2.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 171

F.2.4.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 171

F.2.5 Cylinder Block Subsystem 171

F.2.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview 171

F.2.5.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 172

F.2.5.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 173

F.2.5.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 174

F.2.5.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 176

F.2.5.5.1 Cylinder Block 176

F.2.5.5.2 Cylinder Liner 179

F.2.5.5.3 Crankcase Adapter 180

F.2.5.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 181

F.2.6 Cylinder Head Subsystem 182

F.2.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview 182

F.2.6.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 183

F.2.6.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 184

F.2.6.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 184

F.2.6.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 185

F.2.6.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 187

F.2.7 Valvetrain Subsystem 188

F.2.7.1 Subsystem Content Overview 188

F.2.7.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 189

F.2.7.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 190

F.2.7.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 191

F.2.7.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 193

F.2.7.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 196

F.2.8 Timing Drive Subsystem 197

F.2.8.1 Subsystem Content Overview 197

F.2.8.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 198

F.2.8.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 199
Page ix

F.2.8.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 200

F.2.8.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 201

F.2.8.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 204

F.2.9 Accessory Drive Subsystem 204

F.2.9.1 Subsystem Content Overview 204

F.2.10 Air Intake Subsystem 205

F.2.10.1 Subsystem Content Overview 205

F.2.10.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 206

F.2.10.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 207

F.2.10.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 207

F.2.10.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 208

F.2.10.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 211

F.2.11 Fuel Induction Subsystem 211

F.2.11.1 Subsystem Content Overview 211

F.2.11.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 212

F.2.11.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 213

F.2.11.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 213

F.2.11.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 214

F.2.11.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 214

F.2.12 Exhaust Subsystem 215

F.2.12.1 Subsystem Content Overview 215

F.2.12.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 216

F.2.13 Lubrication Subsystem 217

F.2.13.1 Subsystem Content Overview 217

F.2.13.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 218

F.2.13.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 219

F.2.13.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 219

F.2.13.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 219

F.2.13.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 222

F.2.14 Cooling Subsystem 223

F.2.14.1 Subsystem Content Overview 223
Page x

F.2.14.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 224

F.2.14.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 224

F.2.14.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 225

F.2.14.4 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 226

F.2.14.5 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 228

F.2.15 Induction Air Charging Subsystem 228

F.2.16 Exhaust Gas Re-circulation 228

F.2.17 Breather Subsystem 229

F.2.17.1 Subsystem Content Overview 229

F.2.17.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 229

F.2.17.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 230

F.2.17.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 230

F.2.17.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 230

F.2.17.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 231

F.2.18 Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Elec. Subsystem 232

F.2.18.1 Subsystem Content Overview 232

F.2.18.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 232

F.2.18.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 233

F.2.18.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 233

F.2.18.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 234

F.2.18.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 234

F.2.19 Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.) 235

F.2.19.1 Subsystem Content Overview 235

F.2.19.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 236

F.2.19.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 236

F.2.19.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 237

F.2.19.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 237

F.2.19.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 238

F.3 Transmission System 240

F.3.1 External Components 242

F.3.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 242
Page xi

F.3.2 Case Subsystem 242

F.3.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 242

F.3.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 244

F.3.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 244

F.3.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 245

F.3.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 245

F.3.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 246

F.3.3 Gear Train Subsystem 246

F.3.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview 246

F.3.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 247

F.3.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 247

F.3.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Used 247

F.3.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 248

F.3.3.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 249

F.3.4 Internal Clutch Subsystem 250

F.3.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview 250

F.3.5 Launch Clutch Subsystem 250

F.3.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview 250

F.3.5.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 251

F.3.5.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 251

F.3.5.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 252

F.3.5.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 252

F.3.5.6 Preliminary Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 253

F.3.6 Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem 254

F.3.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview 254

F.3.6.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 255

F.3.6.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 255

F.3.6.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 255

F.3.6.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 255

F.3.6.6 Preliminary Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 257

F.3.7 Mechanical Controls Subsystem 257
Page xii

F.3.8 Electrical Controls Subsystem 257

F.3.9 Parking Mechanism Subsystem 258

F.3.10 Misc. Subsystem 258

F.3.11 Electric Motor & Controls Subsystem 258

F.3.12 Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem 258

F.3.12.1 Subsystem Content Overview 258

F.3.12.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 259

F.3.12.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 259

F.3.12.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 260

F.3.12.5 Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas 260

F.3.12.6 Preliminary Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 261

F.3.12.7 Total Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates 261

F.4 Body Structure System 263

F.4.1 System Content Overview 263

F.4.2 Lightweight Design Optimization Process 265

F.4.3 Gauge and Grade Optimization Model 266

F.4.4 Gauge and Grade Optimization Response Surface 267

F.4.5 Gauge and Grade Optimization Results 268

F.4.6 Alternative Joining Technology 269

F.4.7 Alternative Materials 269

F.4.8 Alternative Manufacturing Technology 271

F.4.9 Geometry Change 272

F.4.10 Optimized Body Structure 273

F.4.11 Optimized Results 277

F.4.11.1 NVH Performance Results 278

F.4.11.2 Crash Performance Results 278

F.4.11.3 FMVSS 208—35 MPH flat frontal crash (US NCAP) 279

F.4.11.4 Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB Frontal Crash (Euro 

NCAP/IIHS) 285

Dynamic Crush 288

Dash Panel Intrusions 289

F.4.11.5 FMVSS 214—38.5 MPH MDB side impact 291
Page xiii

F.4.11.6 FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB Rear Impact 298

F.4.11.7 FMVSS 216a—Roof Crush Resistance 302

F.4.12 Cost Impact 306

F.4.13 Summary 309

F.4.14 Future Trends and Recommendation 309

F.5 Body System Group B 311

F.5.1 Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem 313

F.5.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 313

F.5.1.2 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 313

F.5.1.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 326

F.5.1.4 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 326

F.5.1.5 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 329

F.5.2 Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body) 330

F.5.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 330

F.5.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 330

F.5.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 331

F.5.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 331

F.5.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 332

F.5.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 332

F.5.3 Sealing Subsystem 333

F.5.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview 333

F.5.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 334

F.5.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 335

F.5.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 335

F.5.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 336

F.5.3.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 338

F.5.4 Seating Subsystem 339

F.5.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview 339

F.5.4.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 339

F.5.4.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 342

F.5.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 343
Page xiv

F.5.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 345

F.5.4.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 358

F.5.5 Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem 362

F.5.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview 362

F.5.5.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 363

F.5.5.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 365

F.5.5.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 369

F.5.5.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 369

F.5.5.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 372

F.5.6 Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem 373

F.5.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview 373

F.5.6.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 374

F.5.6.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 376

F.5.6.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 381

F.5.6.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 382

F.5.6.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 383

F.6 Body System Group C 385

F.6.1 Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem 387

F.6.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 387

F.6.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 388

F.6.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 390

F.6.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 390

F.6.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 391

F.6.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 392

F.6.2 Rear View Mirrors Subsystem 393

F.6.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 393

F.6.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 394

F.6.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 395

F.6.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 395

F.6.2.5 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected 395

F.6.2.6 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts and Cost Impacts 396
Page xv

F.6.3 Front End Module Subsystem 396

F.6.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview 396

F.6.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 397

F.6.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 398

F.6.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 398

F.6.3.5 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected 398

F.6.3.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 399

F.6.4 Rear End Module Subsystem 399

F.6.4.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 399

F.6.4.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 401

F.6.4.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 401

F.6.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 401

F.6.4.5 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected 402

F.6.4.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 402

F.7 Body System Group D 403

F.7.1 Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem 404

F.7.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 404

F.7.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 405

F.7.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 407

F.7.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 409

F.7.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 410

F.7.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 411

F.7.2 Handles, Locks, Latches & Mechanisms Subsystem. 412

F.7.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 412

F.7.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 414

F.7.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 415

F.7.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 416

F.7.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 417

F.7.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 418

F.7.3 Rear Hatch Lift Assembly Subsystem 418

F.7.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview 418
Page xvi

F.7.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 419

F.7.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 420

F.7.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 420

F.7.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 420

F.7.3.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 421

F.7.4 Wipers and Washers Subsystem 421

F.7.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview 421

F.7.4.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 424

F.7.4.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 424

F.7.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 425

F.7.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 426

F.7.4.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 427

F.8 Body System Misc (Group A Components Not Include in EDAG 

Analysis) 428

F.8.1 Subsystem Content Overview 428

F.8.1.1 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 429

F.8.1.2 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 430

F.8.1.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 430

F.8.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected 430

F.8.1.5 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 431

F.8.2 Front End Subsystem 431

F.8.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 431

F.8.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 432

F.8.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 432

F.8.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 433

F.8.2.5 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected 433

F.8.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 434

F.9 Suspension System 435

F.9.1 Front Suspension Subsystem 436

F.9.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 436

F.9.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 438
Page xvii

F.9.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 439

F.9.1.3.1 Front Control Arm Assembly 440

F.9.1.3.2 Front Steering Knuckle 445

F.9.1.3.3 Front Stabilizer Bar System 446

F.9.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 450

F.9.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 454

F.9.1.5.1 Front Control Arm Assembly 456

F.9.1.5.2 Front Steering Knuckle 461

F.9.1.5.3 Front Stabilizer Bar System 462

F.9.1.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 466

F.9.2 Rear Suspension Subsystem 467

F.9.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 467

F.9.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 469

F.9.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 470

F.9.2.3.1 Rear Arm Assembly #1 470

F.9.2.3.2 Rear Arm Assembly #2 471

F.9.2.3.3 Rear Rod Assembly 471

F.9.2.3.4 Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle 472

F.9.2.3.5 Rear Stabilizer Bar System 473

F.9.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 476

F.9.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 479

F.9.2.5.1 Rear Arm Assembly #1 481

F.9.2.5.2 Rear Arm Assembly #2 482

F.9.2.5.3 Rear Rod Assembly 482

F.9.2.5.4 Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle 483

F.9.2.5.5 Rear Stabilizer Bar System 484

F.9.2.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 487

F.9.3 Shock Absorber Subsystem 488

F.9.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview 488

F.9.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 491
Page xviii

F.9.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 492

F.9.3.3.1 Strut / Damper Module Assemblies 493

F.9.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 500

F.9.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 505

F.9.3.5.1 Strut / Damper Module Assemblies 508

F.9.3.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 516

F.9.4 Wheels and Tires Subsystem 516

F.9.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview 516

F.9.4.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 518

F.9.4.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 518

F.9.4.3.1 Road Wheel & Tire Assemblies 518

F.9.4.3.2 Spare Wheel & Tire Assembly 521

F.9.4.3.3 Lug Nuts 523

F.9.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 523

F.9.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 526

F.9.4.5.1 Road Wheel & Tire Assemblies 527

F.9.4.5.2 Spare Wheel & Tire Assembly 529

F.9.4.5.3 Lug Nuts 531

F.9.4.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 532

F.10 Driveline System 533

F.10.1 Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem 535

F.10.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 535

F.10.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 536

F.10.2 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 536

F.10.2.1 Drive Hubs 536

F.10.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 537

F.10.4 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 538

F.10.4.1 Front Drive Unit 538

F.10.5 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 539

F.10.6 Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem 540

F.10.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview 540
Page xix

F.10.7 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 542

F.10.8 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 542

F.10.8.1 Right-Hand Half Shaft 542

F.10.8.2 Bearing Carrier 542

F.10.8.3 Bearing Carrier Bolt 543

F.10.9 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 544

F.10.10 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 544

F.10.10.1 RH Half Shaft 545

F.10.10.2 Bearing Carrier 545

F.10.10.3 Bearing Carrier Bolt 546

F.10.11 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 546

F.11 Braking System 548

F.11.1 Front Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem 549

F.11.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 549

F.11.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 551

F.11.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 552

F.11.1.3.1 Rotors 552

F.11.1.3.2 Splash Shields 553

F.11.1.3.3 Caliper Assembly 554

F.11.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 558

F.11.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 560

F.11.1.5.1 Rotors 561

F.11.1.5.2 Splash Shields 569

F.11.1.5.3 Caliper Assembly 570

F.11.1.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 574

F.11.2 Rear Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem 576

F.11.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 576

F.11.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 578

F.11.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 579

F.11.2.3.1 Rotors 579

F.11.2.3.2 Splash Shields 580
Page xx

F.11.2.3.3 Caliper Assembly 581

F.11.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 585

F.11.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 588

F.11.2.5.1 Rotors 589

F.11.2.5.2 Splash Shields 596

F.11.2.5.3 Caliper Assembly 597

F.11.2.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 602

F.11.3 Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem 604

F.11.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview 604

F.11.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 606

F.11.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 606

F.11.3.3.1 Pedal Frame and Arm Sub-Assembly 607

F.11.3.3.2 Cable System Sub-Assembly 608

F.11.3.3.3 Brake Shoes and Attachments Sub-Assembly 608

F.11.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 610

F.11.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 611

F.11.3.5.1 Actuator Button Sub-Assembly 613

F.11.3.5.2 Cable System Sub-Assembly 613

F.11.3.5.3 Caliper Motor Actuator Sub-Assembly 613

F.11.3.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 614

F.11.4 Brake Actuation Subsystem 616

F.11.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview 616

F.11.4.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 617

F.11.4.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 617

F.11.4.3.1 Master Cylinder and Reservoir 617

F.11.4.3.2 Brake Lines and Hoses 618

F.11.4.3.3 Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly 619

F.11.4.3.4 Accelerator Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly 621

F.11.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 622

F.11.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 624
Page xxi

F.11.4.5.1 Master Cylinder and Reservoir 625

F.11.4.5.2 Brake Lines and Hoses 625

F.11.4.5.3 Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly 625

F.11.4.5.4 Accelerator Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly 628

F.11.4.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 629

F.11.5 Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic) 631

F.11.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview 631

F.11.5.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 632

F.11.5.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 633

F.11.5.3.1 Vacuum Booster Sub-Assembly 634

F.11.5.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 637

F.11.5.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 639

F.11.5.5.1 Vacuum Booster Sub-Assembly 640

F.11.5.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 644

F.12 Frame & Mounting System 645

F.12.1 Frame Subsystem 647

F.12.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 647

F.12.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 648

F.12.2 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 649

F.12.2.1 Front Frame 649

F.12.2.2 Rear Frame 650

F.12.2.3 Front Suspension Brackets 651

F.12.2.4 Front Damper Assembly 651

F.12.2.5 Frame Side Rail Brackets 652

F.12.2.6 RearSuspension Stopper Brackets 652

F.12.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 653

F.12.3.1 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 654

F.12.3.2 Front Suspension Brackets 655

F.12.3.3 Rear Suspension Stopper Brackets 656

F.12.3.4 Front Damper Assembly 657

F.12.3.5 Front Damper Assembly 657
Page xxii

F.12.3.6 Front Frame Assembly 658

F.12.3.7 Rear Frame Assembly 659

F.12.4 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 659

F.13 Exhaust System 661

F.13.1 Acoustical Control Components Subsystem 662

F.13.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 662

F.13.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 663

F.13.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 663

F.13.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 664

F.13.1.5 Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas 665

F.13.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 670

F.13.2 Exhaust Gas Treatment Components Subsystem 671

F.13.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 671

F.13.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 672

F.13.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 673

F.13.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 673

F.13.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 674

F.13.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 675

F.14 Fuel System 676

F.14.1 Fuel Tank & Lines Subsystem 678

F.14.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 678

F.14.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 679

F.14.2 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 679

F.14.2.1 Fuel Tank 679

F.14.2.2 Fuel Pump 681

F.14.2.3 Sending Unit 682

F.14.2.4 Fuel Tank Mounting Straps 683

F.14.2.5 Fuel Filler Tube Assembly 684

F.14.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 685

F.14.4 Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas 686

F.14.4.1 Cross-Over Tube Assembly 687
Page xxiii

F.14.4.2 Fuel Tank 688

F.14.4.3 Fuel Tank Mounting Pins (Eliminated) 688

F.14.4.4 Fuel Pump Retaining Ring 689

F.14.4.5 Fuel Sending Unit Retaining Bracket 689

F.14.4.6 Large Bracket (Eliminated) 690

F.14.4.7 Protector Bracket (Eliminated) 690

F.14.4.8 Small Shield Bracket (Eliminated) 691

F.14.4.9 Fuel Filler Tube Assembly 691

F.14.5 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 692

F.14.6 Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem 693

F.14.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview 693

F.14.6.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 694

F.14.6.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 694

F.14.6.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 695

F.14.6.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 696

F.14.6.6 Canister Housing & Canister Cover 697

F.14.6.7 Canister Brackets 698

F.14.6.8 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 699

F.15 Steering System 700

F.15.1 Steering Gear Subsystem 702

F.15.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 702

F.15.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 703

F.15.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 703

F.15.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 703

F.15.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 704

F.15.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 704

F.15.2 Power Steering Subsystem 705

F.15.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 705

F.15.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 705

F.15.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 706

F.15.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 706
Page xxiv

F.15.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 706

F.15.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 707

F.15.3 Steering Column Subsystem 708

F.15.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview 708

F.15.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 709

F.15.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 709

F.15.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 710

F.15.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 710

F.15.4 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 711

F.15.5 Steering Column Switches Subsystem 712

F.15.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview 712

F.15.5.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 713

F.15.5.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 713

F.15.5.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 713

F.15.5.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 713

F.15.6 Steering Wheel Subsystem 714

F.15.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview 714

F.15.6.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 714

F.15.6.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 715

F.15.6.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 716

F.15.6.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 716

F.15.6.6 Reduction & Cost Impact 717

F.16 Climate Control System 718

F.16.1 Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem 720

F.16.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 720

F.16.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 720

F.16.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 723

F.16.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 727

F.16.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 728

F.16.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 729

F.16.2 Heating/Defrosting Subsystem 730
Page xxv

F.16.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 730

F.16.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 731

F.16.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 731

F.16.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 731

F.16.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 732

F.16.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 732

F.16.3 Controls Subsystem 733

F.16.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview 733

F.16.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 734

F.16.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 734

F.16.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 734

F.16.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 735

F.16.3.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 735

F.17 Info, Gage & Warning Device Systems 736

F.17.1 Instrument Cluster Subsystem 738

F.17.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 738

F.17.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 739

F.17.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 739

F.17.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 739

F.17.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 739

F.17.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 741

F.18 In-Vehicle Entertainment System 742

F.18.1 In-Vehicle Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem 744

F.18.1.1 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 745

F.18.1.2 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 746

F.18.1.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 746

F.18.1.4 Magnetic Tooling 747

F.18.1.5 Recycled Plastic 748

F.18.1.6 Widespread Application 749

F.18.1.7 Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas 749

F.18.1.8 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 750
Page xxvi

F.18.2 Antenna Subsystem 751

F.18.3 Speaker Subsystem 752

F.18.4 Total Mass Reduction and Cost Impact 753

F.19 Lighting System 753

F.19.1 Front Lighting Subsystem 755

F.19.1.1 Subsystems Content Overview 755

F.19.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline System Technology 756

F.19.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 758

F.19.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 761

F.19.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 761

F.19.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 762

F.20 Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System 763

F.20.1 Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem 765

F.20.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 765

F.20.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 766

F.20.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 766

F.20.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 767

F.20.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 768

F.20.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 770

F.21 Additional Weight Savings Ideas Not Implemented 773

G. Conclusion, Recommendation and Acknowledgements 774

G.1 Conclusion & Recommendation 774

G.2 Acknowledgements 778

H. Appendix 780

H.1 Executive Summary for Lotus Engineering Phase 1 Report 781

H.2 Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction Published Articles, Papers, and 

Journals Referenced as Information Sources in the Analysis 784

H.3 Photos of disassembled BIW parts used by EDAG to develop CAE 

models787

H.4 Scan Data from White Light Scanning 790

H.5 BIW Material Testing 791
Page xxvii

H.6 Material Engineering Properties 792

H.7 EDAG Load Path Analysis 795

H.8 System Level Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMATs) 799

H.9 Suppliers who Contributed in the Analysis 883

I. Glossary of Terms 884

J. References 827
Page xxviii

Figures

NUMBER PAGE

FIGURE A.1-1: TOYOTA VENZA MASS-REDUCTION COST CURVES.................................................................................7

FIGURE B.1-1: KEY STEPS IN THE MASS-REDUCTION AND COST ANALYSIS PROJECT ..................................................12

FIGURE C.1-1: SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED TO DEVELOP MASS-REDUCTION COMPONENTS.................................15

FIGURE D.1-1: PROJECT ANALYSIS ROADMAPS BASED ON PROJECT TACKS ................................................................20

FIGURE D.2-1: PRIMARY IDEA DOWN-SELECT PROCESS EXCERPT FROM FEV BRAINSTORMING TEMPLATE ...............24

FIGURE D.2-2: ESTIMATED WEIGHT AND COST IMPACT (PART 4) AND FINAL IDEAL DOWN-SELECTION (PART 5)

EXCERPT FROM FEV BRAINSTORMING TEMPLATE.............................................................................................26

FIGURE D.2-3: MASS-REDUCTION IDEA GROUPING/BINNING BASES ON MASS-REDUCTION VALUE............................27

FIGURE D.2-4: COMPONENT/ASSEMBLY MASS-REDUCTION OPTIMIZATION PROCESS..................................................28

FIGURE D.2-5: SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION OPTIMIZATION PROCESS – ENGINEERED SOLUTION ............................30

FIGURE D.2-6: SYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION OPTIMIZATION PROCESS – ENGINEERED SOLUTION...................................31

FIGURE D.2-7: POTENTIAL MASS-REDUCTION VEHICLE SOLUTIONS DEVELOPED THROUGH THE MASS-REDUCTION 

OPTIMIZATION PROCESS.....................................................................................................................................32

FIGURE D.3-1: CAE EVALUATION PROCESS AND COMPONENTS ..................................................................................35

FIGURE D.3-2: CAE EVALUATION PROCESS INPUTS, OUTPUTS, AND TOOLS ................................................................36

FIGURE D.3-3: VEHICLE TEARDOWN PROCESS.............................................................................................................37

FIGURE D.3-4: BASELINE VEHICLE WEIGHTS ...............................................................................................................38

FIGURE D.3-5: WHITE LIGHT SCANNING PART IDENTIFICATION METHODOLOGY .........................................................40

FIGURE D.3-6: MESH GENERATION FROM STL RAW DATA..........................................................................................42

FIGURE D.3-7: FE MODEL OF TOYOTA VENZA BODY STRUCTURE...............................................................................42

FIGURE D.3-8: GAUGE MAP OF BASELINE BIP MODEL ................................................................................................43

FIGURE D.3-9: MATERIAL MAP OF BASELINE BIP MODEL ...........................................................................................44

FIGURE D.3-10: TOYOTA VENZA INITIAL NVH MODEL ...............................................................................................46

FIGURE D.3-11: LOADS AND CONSTRAINTS ON NVH MODEL FOR BENDING STIFFNESS ..............................................47

FIGURE D.3-12: LOAD AND CONSTRAINTS ON NVH MODEL FOR TORSIONAL STIFFNESS.............................................48

FIGURE D.3-13: PROCESS FLOW TO BUILD BASELINE MODEL......................................................................................49

FIGURE D.3-14: BENDING STIFFNESS CAE SETUP ........................................................................................................50

FIGURE D.3-15: TORSION STIFFNESS CAE SETUP.........................................................................................................51

FIGURE D.3-16: CAE MODEL FOR NVH CORRELATION...............................................................................................53

FIGURE D.3-17: MATERIAL MAP BASED ON LOTUS ENGINEERING INFORMATION ........................................................55

FIGURE D.3-18: THICKNESS MAP BASED ON LOTUS ENGINEERING INFORMATION .......................................................55

FIGURE D.3-19: MAJOR SYSTEMS OF FULL-VEHICLE MODEL.......................................................................................58

FIGURE D.3-20: GAUGE MAP OF CLOSURES MODELS OF BASELINE .............................................................................59

FIGURE D.3-21: MATERIAL MAP OF CLOSURES MODELS OF BASELINE ........................................................................59

FIGURE D.3-22: POWERTRAIN MASS & MOMENT OF INERTIA RESULTS .......................................................................62

FIGURE D.3-23: CONFIGURATION OF ALL LOAD CASE SET-UPS FOR BASELINE MODEL...............................................63

FIGURE D.3-24: INTRUSION MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS .............................................................................................66

FIGURE D.3-25: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON: RIGHT SIDE VIEW @ 80MSEC ...................................................66

FIGURE D.3-26: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON: LEFT SIDE VIEW @ 80MSEC .....................................................67

FIGURE D.3-27: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON: TOP VIEW @ 80MSEC ...............................................................67

FIGURE D.3-28: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON: ISO VIEW @ 80MSEC ...............................................................67

FIGURE D.3-29: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON: BOTTOM VIEW FRONT AREA @80MSEC...................................68

FIGURE D.3-30: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON: BOTTOM VIEW REAR AREA @80MSEC.....................................68

FIGURE D.3-31: INTERMEDIATE TIME FRONT ENGINE ROOM AND FRONT CRADLE @ 30MSEC....................................69

FIGURE D.3-32: INTERMEDIATE TIME FRONT ENGINE ROOM AND FRONT CRADLE @ 46MSEC....................................69

FIGURE D.3-33: LOCATION OF VEHICLE PULSE MEASUREMENT ....................................................................................70

FIGURE D.3-34: BODY PULSE: CAE BASELINE MODEL VS. TEST .................................................................................71

FIGURE D.3-35: INITIAL CRUSH SPACE.........................................................................................................................72

FIGURE D.3-36: FMVSS 208 BASELINE DYNAMIC CRUSH...........................................................................................72

FIGURE D.3-37: FMVSS 214, 38.5MPH MDB SIDE IMPACT CAE MODEL SETUP.......................................................74

FIGURE D.3-38: SIDE IMPACT: PRE-CRASH ..................................................................................................................74

FIGURE D.3-39: SIDE IMPACT: POST-CRASH ................................................................................................................75
Page xxix

FIGURE D.3-40: DOORS DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON.......................................................................................75

FIGURE D.3-41: REAR DOOR APERTURE DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON .............................................................75

FIGURE D.3-42: SIDE STRUCTURE EXTERIOR MEASURING LOCATION & POINTS..........................................................77

FIGURE D.3-43: SIDE STRUCTURE DEFORMATION SECTION CUT AT 1200L..................................................................77

FIGURE D.3-44: SIDE STRUCTURE DEFORMATION SECTION CUT AT 1650L..................................................................78

FIGURE D.3-45: EURO NCAP BASELINE MODEL SETUP...............................................................................................81

FIGURE D.3-46: INTRUSION MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS .............................................................................................82

FIGURE D.3-47: EURO NCAP BASELINE DEFORMATION MODE - TOP VIEW ................................................................82

FIGURE D.3-48: EURO NCAP BASELINE DEFORMATION MODE - ISOMETRIC VIEW .....................................................83

FIGURE D.3-49: EURO NCAP BASELINE DEFORMATION MODE - LEFT SIDE VIEW.......................................................83

FIGURE D.3-50: EURO NCAP BASELINE DEFORMATION MODE - BOTTOM VIEW.........................................................83

FIGURE D.3-51: EURO NCAP BASELINE VEHICLE PULSE.............................................................................................84

FIGURE D.3-52: ALLOWABLE CRUSH SPACE ................................................................................................................85

FIGURE D.3-53: EURO NCAP BASELINE DYNAMIC CRUSH WITH BARRIER DEFORMATION..........................................85

FIGURE D.3-54: EURO NCAP BASELINE DYNAMIC CRUSH WITHOUT BARRIER DEFORMATION...................................86

FIGURE D.3-55: EURO NCAP INTRUSION PLOT............................................................................................................87

FIGURE D.3-56: REAR IMPACT BASELINE MODEL SETUP. ............................................................................................88

FIGURE D.3-57: DEFORMATION MODE - LEFT SIDE VIEW ............................................................................................89

FIGURE D.3-58: DEFORMATION MODE OF REAR UNDERBODY STRUCTURE - LEFT SIDE VIEW.....................................89

FIGURE D.3-59: DEFORMATION MODE - BOTTOM VIEW AT 100 MS .............................................................................90

FIGURE D.3-60: DEFORMATION MODE OF REAR UNDERBODY STRUCTURE - BOTTOM VIEW AT 100 MS......................90

FIGURE D.3-61: FUEL TANK PLASTIC STRAIN PLOT OF BASELINE - TOP VIEW .............................................................91

FIGURE D.3-62: FUEL TANK PLASTIC STRAIN PLOT OF BASELINE - BOTTOM VIEW......................................................91

FIGURE D.3-63: REAR IMPACT, STRUCTURAL DEFORMATION MEASUREMENT AREA...................................................92

FIGURE D.3-64: ROOF CRUSH BASELINE MODEL SETUP. .............................................................................................94

FIGURE D.3-65: ROOF CRUSH BASELINE AFTER CRUSH VIEW .....................................................................................95

FIGURE D.3-66: ROOF CRUSH RESISTANCE BASELINE AFTER CRUSH ..........................................................................96

FIGURE D.3-67: ROOF CRUSH FORCE VS. DISPLACEMENT PLOT OF BASELINE .............................................................97

FIGURE E.2-1: FUNDAMENTAL STEPS IN COSTING PROCESS .......................................................................................103

FIGURE E.3-1: UNIT COST MODEL – COSTING FACTORS INCLUDED IN ANALYSIS ......................................................104

FIGURE E.7-1: SAMPLE MAQS COSTING WORKSHEET (PART 1 OF 2) ........................................................................125

FIGURE E.7-2: SAMPLE MAQS COSTING WORKSHEET (PART 2 OF 2) ........................................................................126

FIGURE E.7-3: EXCERPT ILLUSTRATING AUTOMATED LINK BETWEEN OEM/T1 CLASSIFICATION INPUT IN MAQS

WORKSHEET AND THE CORRESPONDING MARK-UP PERCENTAGES UPLOADED FROM THE MARK-UP DATABASE

.........................................................................................................................................................................127

FIGURE E.10-1: SAMPLE EXCERPT FROM MASS-REDUCED FRONT BRAKE ROTOR MAQS WORKSHEET ILLUSTRATING 

TOOLING COLUMN AND CATEGORIES...............................................................................................................133

FIGURE E.11-1: DEVELOPMENT OF COST CURVE USING MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS WITHOUT MASS COMPOUNDING ..136

FIGURE E.11-2: DEVELOPMENT OF COST CURVE USING MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS WITH COMPOUNDING REMOVED 

FROM INITIAL ASSESSMENT..............................................................................................................................137

FIGURE E.11-3: TOYOTA VENZA MASS-REDUCTION COST CURVES...........................................................................138

FIGURE F.1-1: MASS OF 2010 TOYOTA VENZA (PRODUCTION STOCK) VEHICLE SYSTEMS.........................................140

FIGURE F.1-2: CALCULATED SYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION RELATIVE TO BASELINE VEHICLE STARTING MASS ...........141

FIGURE F.2-1: VENZA ENGINE MOUNT DIAGRAM ......................................................................................................156

FIGURE F.2-2: INDUSTRY TREND TIMING BELT VS. CHAIN APPLICATIONS .................................................................200

FIGURE F.4-1: LIGHTWEIGHT DESIGN OPTIMIZATION PROCESS ..................................................................................264

FIGURE F.4-2: TOYOTA VENZA BODY WEIGHT OPTIMIZATION MODEL......................................................................266

FIGURE F.4-3: RESPONSE SURFACE OUTPUT FROM OPTIMIZER ..................................................................................268

FIGURE F.4-4: LASER WELDS APPLICATION ON BODY STRUCTURE............................................................................269

FIGURE F.4-5: GAUGE MAP OF OPTIMIZED CLOSURE PARTS.......................................................................................270

FIGURE F.4-6: MATERIAL MAP OF OPTIMIZED CLOSURE PARTS .................................................................................270

FIGURE F.4-7: BODY SIDE PARTS REPLACED WITH TRB PARTS .................................................................................271

FIGURE F.4-8: CROSSMEMBERS REPLACED WITH TRB PARTS....................................................................................272

FIGURE F.4-9: DESIGN CHANGE ON SIDE INNER ROCKER (DRIVER SIDE)..................................................................273

FIGURE F.4-10: GAUGE MAP OF OPTIMIZED MODEL ..................................................................................................273
Page xxx

FIGURE F.4-11: MATERIAL MAP OF OPTIMIZED MODEL.............................................................................................274

FIGURE F.4-12: DEFORMATION MODE LEFT SIDE VIEW @ 80MS...............................................................................279

FIGURE F.4-13: DEFORMATION MODE RIGHT SIDE VIEW @ 80MS ............................................................................280

FIGURE F.4-14: DEFORMATION MODE TOP SIDE VIEW @ 80MS................................................................................280

FIGURE F.4-15: DEFORMATION MODE TOP SIDE VIEW @ 80MS................................................................................280

FIGURE F.4-16: DEFORMATION MODE TOP SIDE VIEW @ 80MS.................................................................................281

FIGURE F.4-17: VEHICLE PULSE COMPARISON BASELINE VS. OPTIMIZED...................................................................282

FIGURE F.4-18: DYNAMIC CRUSH COMPARISON BASELINE VS. OPTIMIZED................................................................283

FIGURE F.4-19: TTZV COMPARISON BASELINE VS. OPTIMIZED .................................................................................284

FIGURE F.4-20: DEFORMATION MODE TOP VIEW @ 140MS.......................................................................................285

FIGURE F.4-21: DEFORMATION MODE ISO VIEW @ 140MS ......................................................................................285

FIGURE F.4-22: DEFORMATION MODE LEFT SIDE VIEW @ 140MS .............................................................................286

FIGURE F.4-23: DEFORMATION MODE BOTTOM VIEW @ 140MS - BASELINE.............................................................286

FIGURE F.4-24: DEFORMATION MODE BOTTOM VIEW @ 140MS - OPTIMIZED ...........................................................287

FIGURE F.4-25: BODY PULSE COMPARISON BASELINE VS. OPTIMIZED .......................................................................288

FIGURE F.4-26: DYNAMIC CRUSH COMPARISON BASELINE VS. OPTIMIZED (WITH BARRIER DEFORMATION).............289

FIGURE F.4-27: DYNAMIC CRUSH COMPARISON BASELINE VS. OPTIMIZED (WITHOUT BARRIER DEFORMATION).......289

FIGURE F.4-28: DASH PANEL INTRUSION PLOT FOR EURO NCAP ..............................................................................290

FIGURE F.4-29: GLOBAL DEFORMATION MODES OF BASELINE AND OPTIMIZED MODELS ..........................................292

FIGURE F.4-30: DEFORMATION MODES OF FRONT AND REAR DOORS OF BASELINE AND OPTIMIZED MODELS ..........293

FIGURE F.4-31: REAR DOOR APERTURE DEFORMATIONS OF BASELINE AND OPTIMIZED MODELS .............................293

FIGURE F.4-32: SIDE STRUCTURE INTRUSION PLOT OF OPTIMIZED MODEL @ 1200L SECTION..................................294

FIGURE F.4-33: SIDE STRUCTURE INTRUSION PLOT OF OPTIMIZED MODEL @ 1650L SECTION..................................295

FIGURE F.4-34: SIDE STRUCTURE INTRUSION PLOT OF BASELINE VS. OPTIMIZED MODEL @ 1200L SECTION ...........296

FIGURE F.4-35: SIDE STRUCTURE INTRUSION PLOT OF BASELINE VS. OPTIMIZED MODEL @ 1650L SECTION ...........297

FIGURE F.4-36: DEFORMATION MODE OF OPTIMIZED MODEL - LEFT SIDE VIEW .......................................................298

FIGURE F.4-37: DEFORMATION MODE OF OPTIMIZED MODEL REAR STRUCTURE AREA - LEFT SIDE VIEW................299

FIGURE F.4-38: DEFORMATION MODE OF OPTIMIZED MODEL - BOTTOM VIEW.........................................................299

FIGURE F.4-39: DEFORMATION MODE OF OPTIMIZED MODEL REAR STRUCTURE AREA - BOTTOM VIEW ..................300

FIGURE F.4-40: COMPARISON OF FUEL TANK SYSTEM INTEGRITY .............................................................................301

FIGURE F.4-41: STRUCTURAL DEFORMATION MEASURING AREA IN REAR IMPACT....................................................302

FIGURE F.4-42: DEFORMATION MODE OF ROOF CRUSH .............................................................................................303

FIGURE F.4-43: PLASTIC STRAIN CONTOUR OF SIDE UPPER STRUCTURE IN OPTIMIZED MODEL.................................304

FIGURE F.4-44: ROOF CRUSH LOAD VS. DISPLACEMENT PLOT...................................................................................305

FIGURE F.5-1: MUCELL® BY TREXELTM FOAMING PROCESS PRESENTATION.............................................................315

FIGURE F.5-2: JYCO PRESENTATION ...........................................................................................................................337

FIGURE F.5-3THIXOMOLDING® EXAMPLES ................................................................................................................349

FIGURE F.5-4: PROBAX® SYSTEM .............................................................................................................................354

FIGURE F.5-5: THE WOODBRIDGE GROUPTM CONCEPT AND PROCESS........................................................................357

FIGURE F.5-6: ILLUSTRATION OF MUBEA’S TAILOR ROLLED BLANK PROCESS...........................................................366

FIGURE F.5-7: PASSENGER SIDE AIRBAG HOUSINGS, FABRICATED STEEL ASSEMBLY (LEFT) AND INJECTION MOLDED 

PLASTIC COMPONENT (RIGHT) .........................................................................................................................377

FIGURE F.5-8: TOYOTA VENZA’S STEEL AIRBAG HOUSING (LEFT) AND PLASTIC AIRBAG HOUSING RENDERING (RIGHT)

.........................................................................................................................................................................377

FIGURE F.5-9: VFT AIRBAG FOIL...............................................................................................................................379

FIGURE F.5-10: BREAKDOWN OF STEERING WHEEL AIRBAG MASS REDUCTIONS ......................................................384

FIGURE F.7-1: EXPLODED VIEW OF LAMINATED GLASS CROSS-SECTION...................................................................407

FIGURE F.9-1: ROAD WHEEL & TIRE POSITION DIAGRAM..........................................................................................517

FIGURE F.9-2: ROAD WHEEL CURRENT COMPONENT DESIGN EXAMPLE....................................................................521

FIGURE F.11-1: FRONT ROTOR / DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM RELATIVE LOCATION DIAGRAM ............................550

FIGURE F.11-2: FRONT CALIPER ASSEMBLY COMPONENT DIAGRAM EXAMPLE .........................................................571

FIGURE F.11-3: PARKING BRAKE AND ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM LAYOUT AND CONFIGURATION................................606

FIGURE F.11-4: VW ELECTRO-MECHANICAL PARK BRAKE SYSTEM .........................................................................612

FIGURE F.11-5: CALIPER MOTOR ACTUATOR MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY...........................................................614

FIGURE F.11-6: EPB SYSTEM ENGAGING THE CALIPER AND ROTOR COMPONENTS ...................................................614
Page xxxi

FIGURE F.13-1: BASIC MUBEA® PROCESS .................................................................................................................666

FIGURE F.13-2: MUBEA TRB® EXHAUST PIPE MANUFACTURING PROCESS ..............................................................668

FIGURE F.13-3: SGF® HANGERS ...............................................................................................................................670

FIGURE F.15-1: STEERING WHEEL CROSS-SECTION VIEW..........................................................................................716

FIGURE F.16-1: ZOTEFOAMS MANUFACTURING PROCESS ..........................................................................................724

FIGURE F.19-1: PROCESSING COMPARISON BETWEEN BMC AND ULTEM® PEI.........................................................760

FIGURE F.20-1: PRODUCTION PROCESS OF AUTOMOTIVE WIRE .................................................................................764

FIGURE H.4-1: STL DATA SAMPLES OF SUB-ASSEMBLIES, SMALL AND LARGER PARTS ............................................790

FIGURE H.4-2: WELD POINTS DATA FROM SCANNING PROCESS.................................................................................790

FIGURE H.7-1: SECTION FORCE OF BASELINE MODEL IN FRONT CRASH.....................................................................795

FIGURE H.7-2: FORCE OF BASELINE MODEL IN FRONT OFFSET CRASH ......................................................................796

FIGURE H.7-3: SECTION FORCE OF BASELINE MODEL IN SIDE CRASH ........................................................................796

FIGURE H.7-4: SECTION FORCE OF BASELINE MODEL IN REAR CRASH ......................................................................797

FIGURE H.7-5: SECTION FORCE OF BASELINE MODEL IN ROOF CRUSH ......................................................................797

FIGURE H.7-6: SECTION FORCE BAR CHART ..............................................................................................................798

FIGURE H.7-7: NORMALIZED COMBINED SECTIONAL FORCE BAR CHART..................................................................798
Page xxxii

Images

NUMBER PAGE

IMAGE B.1-1: 2009 TOYOTA VENZA ..............................................................................................................................9

IMAGE D.2-1: 2010 TOYOTA VENZA FRONT SUB-FRAME MODULE AS REMOVED DURING THE TEARDOWN PROCESS .21

IMAGE D.2-2: TOYOTA VENZA FUEL TANK DISASSEMBLED.........................................................................................22

IMAGE D.3-1: BENDING STIFFNESS TESTING SETUP .....................................................................................................50

IMAGE D.3-2: TORSION STIFFNESS TESTING SETUP......................................................................................................51

IMAGE D.3-3: DYNAMIC MODAL TEST SETUP ..............................................................................................................52

IMAGE D.3-4: POWERTRAIN AND/OR ENGINE CENTER OF GRAVITY .............................................................................62

IMAGE D.3-5: FMVSS 208 35 MPH FLAT FRONTAL CRASH TEST SETUP ....................................................................65

IMAGE F.2-1: VENZA BASE ENGINE (TOYOTA 2.7L 1AR-FE)....................................................................................150

IMAGE F.2-2: ENGINE DOWNSIZE SELECTION (TOYOTA 2.4L 2AZ-FE)......................................................................152

IMAGE F.2-3: VENZA ENGINE MOUNT (STAMPED STEEL WELDMENT).......................................................................156

IMAGE F.2-4: POLYAMIDE TORQUE DAMPENER .........................................................................................................157

IMAGE F.2-5: POLYAMIDE ENGINE MOUNT ................................................................................................................157

IMAGE F.2-6: TORSION STRUT ASSEMBLY .................................................................................................................159

IMAGE F.2-7: TORSION STRUT LINK...........................................................................................................................159

IMAGE F.2-8: LOWER ENGINE MOUNTING BRACKET..................................................................................................159

IMAGE F.2-9: KEY COMPONENTS – CRANK DRIVE .....................................................................................................162

IMAGE F.2-10: ALUMINUM CONNECTING ROD ...........................................................................................................163

IMAGE F.2-11: TITANIUM CONNECTING ROD .............................................................................................................163

IMAGE F.2-12: FULLY MACHINED & DOWELED ROD CAP..........................................................................................165

IMAGE F.2-13: CRACK BREAK ROD CAP ....................................................................................................................165

IMAGE F.2-14: CONNECTING ROD ASSEMBLY (VENZA) .............................................................................................166

IMAGE F.2-15: CONNECTING ROD ASSEMBLY (LIGHTWEIGHTED) ..............................................................................166

IMAGE F.2-16: FORGED IN OIL POCKETS (LIGHTWEIGHTED)......................................................................................167

IMAGE F.2-17: VENZA BALANCE SHAFT ASSEMBLY ..................................................................................................169

IMAGE F.2-18: SCHAEFFLER’S LOW FRICTION ROLLER BEARING BALANCE SHAFT....................................................171

IMAGE F.2-19: KEY COMPONENTS – CYLINDER BLOCK SUBSYSTEM .........................................................................173

IMAGE F.2-20: AUDI LIGHTWEIGHT MAGNESIUM HYBRID ENGINE.............................................................................175

IMAGE F.2-21: ALSI17CU4 GRAVITY DIE CASTING....................................................................................................176

IMAGE F.2-22: BMW N52 MAGNESIUM ALUMINUM HYBRID ENGINE BLOCK ...........................................................178

IMAGE F.2-23: ALUMINUM CYLINDER INSERT WITH INTEGRATED WATER JACKET AND BULKHEADS........................178

IMAGE F.2-24: DIE CASTING - ALUMINUM CYLINDER INSERT ....................................................................................178

IMAGE F.2-25: DIE CASTING - ALUMINUM CYLINDER INSERT ....................................................................................179

IMAGE F.2-26: [BASE TECHNOLOGY] CAST IRON CYLINDER LINERS .........................................................................180

IMAGE F.2-27: [NEW TECHNOLOGY] PLASMA TRANSFER WIRE ARC (PTWA)..........................................................180

IMAGE F.2-28: [BASE TECHNOLOGY] ALUMINUM CRANKCASE ADAPTER..................................................................180

IMAGE F.2-29: [NEW TECHNOLOGY]..........................................................................................................................181

IMAGE F.2-30: KEY COMPONENTS – CYLINDER HEAD SUBSYSTEM ...........................................................................184

IMAGE F.2-31: MAHLE COMPOSITE CAM COVER .......................................................................................................186

IMAGE F.2-32 (LEFT): ACCESS PLUG – CYLINDER HEAD............................................................................................187

IMAGE F.2-33 (RIGHT): ACCESS PLUG (CLOSE-UP) – CYLINDER HEAD.......................................................................187

IMAGE F.2-34: VALVETRAIN ASSEMBLY (PHASERS REMOVED)..................................................................................190

IMAGE F.2-35: HOLLOW CAST CAMSHAFT – 1.4L ECOTEC.........................................................................................191

IMAGE F.2-36 (LEFT): HYDROFORMED CAMSHAFT ....................................................................................................192

IMAGE F.2-37 (RIGHT): MAHLE SHEET STEEL VALVE ................................................................................................192

IMAGE F.2-38: [BASE TECHNOLOGY] SOLID CAST CAMSHAFT...................................................................................193

IMAGE F.2-39: [NEW TECHNOLOGY] MUBEA HYDROFORMED CAMSHAFT (FIAT 1.8L DIESEL) .................................194

IMAGE F.2-40: [BASE TECHNOLOGY] SINTERED IRON CAM PHASER ROTOR, STATOR, SPROCKET.............................194

IMAGE F.2-41: [NEW TECHNOLOGY].........................................................................................................................195

IMAGE F.2-42: [NEW TECHNOLOGY] SHW PM AL SPROCKET..................................................................................195

IMAGE F.2-43: [BASE TECHNOLOGY] VALVE SPRING................................................................................................196

IMAGE F.2-44: [NEW TECHNOLOGY] VALVE SPRING .................................................................................................196
Page xxxiii

IMAGE F.2-45: VENZA TIMING DRIVE SYSTEM...........................................................................................................199

IMAGE F.2-46: [BASE TECHNOLOGY].........................................................................................................................202

IMAGE F.2-47: [NEW TECHNOLOGY]..........................................................................................................................202

IMAGE F.2-48: [BASE TECHNOLOGY].........................................................................................................................203

IMAGE F.2-49: [NEW TECHNOLOGY]..........................................................................................................................203

IMAGE F.2-50:............................................................................................................................................................203

IMAGE F.2-51:............................................................................................................................................................203

IMAGE F.2-52: AIR INTAKE SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS..............................................................................................207

IMAGE F.2-53: [BASE TECHNOLOGY] THROTTLE BODY: ALUMINUM HOUSING .........................................................209

IMAGE F.2-54: [NEW TECHNOLOGY] THROTTLE BODY: PLASTIC HOUSING ...............................................................209

IMAGE F.2-55: [BASE TECHNOLOGY] AIR FILTER ACCESS FASTENERS ......................................................................209

IMAGE F.2-56: [NEW TECHNOLOGY] AIR FILTER ACCESS CLAMP..............................................................................209

IMAGE F.2-57: AIR INTAKE COVER MUCELL – 9% MASS SAVINGS............................................................................210

IMAGE F.2-58 : AIR INTAKE HOUSING MUCELL - 9% MASS SAVINGS ........................................................................210

IMAGE F.2-59 : MAIN INTAKE HOSE...........................................................................................................................210

IMAGE F.2-60: AIR INTAKE DUCT MUCELL - 9% MASS SAVINGS...............................................................................210

IMAGE F.2-61: AIR BOX UPPER..................................................................................................................................210

IMAGE F.2-62: AIR BOX LOWER.................................................................................................................................210

IMAGE F.2-63: FUEL INDUCTION SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS......................................................................................212

IMAGE F.2-64: FUEL RAIL WITH INTEGRATED PULSATION DAMPENER.......................................................................213

IMAGE F.2-65: PLASTIC FUEL RAIL (TOYOTA 3.5L) ...................................................................................................214

IMAGE F.2-66: MANIFOLD WITH INTEGRATED CATALYST – 2.7L TOYOTA .................................................................217

IMAGE F.2-67: LUBRICATION SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS...........................................................................................219

IMAGE F.2-68: OIL PAN BAFFLE PLATE......................................................................................................................220

IMAGE F.2-69: OIL PAN BAFFLE PLATE ASSEMBLED..................................................................................................220

IMAGE F.2-70: PLASTIC DIP STICK TUBE (BMW 2L DIESEL).....................................................................................221

IMAGE F.2-71: STEEL DIP STICK TUBE (VENZA) ........................................................................................................221

IMAGE F.2-72: TOYOTA VENZA RADIATOR ................................................................................................................224

IMAGE F.2-73: TRANSMISSION HEAT TRANSFER ELEMENT – ALUMINUM ..................................................................225

IMAGE F.2-74: TRANSMISSION HEAT TRANSFER ELEMENT – COPPER ALLOY............................................................225

IMAGE F.2-75: [NEW TECHNOLOGY] WATER PUMP ASSEMBLY – PLASTIC ................................................................227

IMAGE F.2-76: [BASE TECHNOLOGY] WATER PUMP ASSEMBLY – ALUMINUM ..........................................................227

IMAGE F.2-77: FAN SHROUD AND FAN BLADES FAN SHROUD (MUCELL – 15% MASS SAVINGS); FAN BLADES 

(MUCELL - 7% MASS SAVINGS).......................................................................................................................228

IMAGE F.2-78: BREATHER SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS ...............................................................................................229

IMAGE F.2-79: ENGINE MANAGEMENT, ELECTRONIC SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS ......................................................233

IMAGE F.2-80: ACCESSORY SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS .............................................................................................236

IMAGE F.2-81: [BASE TECHNOLOGY] AC COMP BRACKET ........................................................................................238

IMAGE F.2-82: [NEW TECHNOLOGY] AC COMP BRACKET (NISSAN 350Z).................................................................238

IMAGE F.3-1: TOYOTA AUTOMATIC TRANSAXLE TRANSMISSION...............................................................................241

IMAGE F.3-2: TRANSAXLE HOUSING ..........................................................................................................................243

IMAGE F.3-3: VESPEL THRUST BEARING ....................................................................................................................249

IMAGE F.3-4: TORQUE CONVERTER ASSEMBLY .........................................................................................................251

IMAGE F.3-5: ALUMINUM TORQUE CONVERTER ........................................................................................................253

IMAGE F.3-6: ALUMINUM OIL PUMP ASSEMBLY ........................................................................................................256

IMAGE F.3-7: SHIFT MODULE .....................................................................................................................................258

IMAGE F.5-1: TOYOTA VENZA INTERIOR....................................................................................................................313

IMAGE F.5-2: SAMPLE PART CROSS SECTION VIEW .....................................................................................................320

IMAGE F.5-3: SAMPLE PART FRONT FACE VIEW ..........................................................................................................320

IMAGE F.5-4: TOYOTA VENZA HEAT AND ENGINE SHIELDS .......................................................................................331

IMAGE F.5-5: TOYOTA VENZA DOOR WEATHER STRIPPING .......................................................................................335

IMAGE F.5-6: FRONT SEAT FRAME .............................................................................................................................340

IMAGE F.5-7: FRONT PASSENGER SEAT IMAGE F.5-8:FRONT PASSENGER SEAT FRAME.....................................340

IMAGE F.5-9: REAR 60% & 40% SEAT.......................................................................................................................341

IMAGE F.5-10: REAR 40% SEAT FRAME.....................................................................................................................341
Page xxxiv

IMAGE F.5-11: BOTTOM PIVOT FRAME FOR THE REAR 60% SEAT; ..............................................................................342

IMAGE F.5-12: REAR 60% SEAT BACK FRAME ............................................................................................................342

IMAGE F.5-13: THIXOMOLDING® EXAMPLES..............................................................................................................350

IMAGE F.5-14 (TOP); IMAGE F.5-15 (BOTTOM): THIXOMOLDING® EXAMPLES............................................................351

IMAGE F.5-16: LEAR EVO® RECLINER IMAGE F.5-17: TOYOTA VENZA RECLINER............................................353

IMAGE F.5-18: LOTUS ELISE SEAT..............................................................................................................................354

IMAGE F.5-19: TOP OF TOYOTA VENZA ACTIVE HEAD REST (LEFT) ...................................................................355

IMAGE F.5-20: BOTTOM OF TOYOTA VENZA ACTIVE HEAD REST (RIGHT).................................................................355

IMAGE F.5-21: TOYOTA VENZA CROSS-CAR BEAM ...................................................................................................363

IMAGE F.5-22: TOP OF DASH, IP BASE WITH SKIN COVER..........................................................................................364

IMAGE F.5-23: BOTTOM OF DASH, IP BASE................................................................................................................364

IMAGE F.5-24: DASH, IP BASE WITH SKIN COVER REMOVED.....................................................................................365

IMAGE F.5-25: DODGE CALIBER MAGNESIUM CROSS-CAR BEAM..............................................................................367

IMAGE F.5-26: CCB EXAMPLES COMPARED BY THE STOLFIG® GROUP .....................................................................368

IMAGE F.5-27: TOYOTA VENZA PASSENGER SIDE AIRBAG HOUSING (WITHOUT AIRBAG) ..........................................374

IMAGE F.5-28: TOYOTA VENZA PASSENGER SIDE AIRBAG HOUSING (WITH AIRBAG).................................................375

IMAGE F.5-29: TOYOTA VENZA PASSENGER SIDE AIRBAG HOUSING (REAR VIEW WITH INFLATOR) ...........................375

IMAGE F.5-30: TOYOTA VENZA STEERING WHEEL AIRBAG ASSEMBLY, SHOWING VARIOUS FASTENERS ...................376

IMAGE F.5-31: STANDARD AIRBAG MODULE (LEFT) AND VFT MODULE (RIGHT) ......................................................378

IMAGE F.5-32: VFT AIRBAG USED IN FERRARI 458 ITALIA (LEFT) AND MCLAREN MP4-12C (RIGHT).......................379

IMAGE F.5-33: COMPARISON OF DUAL AND SINGLE-STAGE AIRBAG INFLATORS........................................................380

IMAGE F.5-34: STEERING WHEEL AIRBAG HOUSING FOR CHEVROLET CRUZE ...........................................................381

IMAGE F.6-1: EXTERIOR TRIM – LOWER EXTERIOR FINISHER ....................................................................................389

IMAGE F.6-2: EXTERIOR TRIM - COWL VENT GRILL ASSEMBLY.................................................................................389

IMAGE F.6-3: EXTERIOR TRIM – REAR SPOILER .........................................................................................................389

IMAGE F.6-4: EXTERIOR TRIM – RADIATOR GRILL.....................................................................................................389

IMAGE F.6-5: OUTSIDE REAR VIEW MIRRORS ............................................................................................................394

IMAGE F.6-6: FRONT FASCIA......................................................................................................................................397

IMAGE F.6-7: REAR FASCIA........................................................................................................................................401

IMAGE F.7-1: TOYOTA VENZA WINDOW REGULATOR................................................................................................406

IMAGE F.7-2: WINDOW CLIPS ON FRONT SIDE DOOR WINDOW OF TOYOTA VENZA...................................................406

IMAGE F.7-3: EUROPEAN HONDA CIVIC BACKLIGHT/SPOILER INTEGRATION THROUGH USE OF POLYCARBONATE ....409

IMAGE F.7-4: DOOR LATCH MECHANISM ...................................................................................................................413

IMAGE F.7-5: OUTER DOOR HANDLE AND CARRIER...................................................................................................414

IMAGE F.7-6: REAR HATCH LIFT MECHANISM ...........................................................................................................419

IMAGE F.7-7: FRONT WIPER ASSEMBLY.....................................................................................................................422

IMAGE F.7-8: REAR WIPER ASSEMBLY.......................................................................................................................423

IMAGE F.7-9: SOLVENT BOTTLE .................................................................................................................................423

IMAGE F.8-1: REAR WHEELHOUSE ARCH LINER ........................................................................................................429

IMAGE F.9-1: FRONT SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM RELATIVE LOCATION DIAGRAM........................................................436

IMAGE F.9-2: FRONT SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM CURRENT MAJOR COMPONENTS.......................................................437

IMAGE F.9-3: FRONT SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM CURRENT ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE .......................................................439

IMAGE F.9-4: FRONT CONTROL ARM CURRENT ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE.......................................................................441

IMAGE F.9-5: FRONT BALL JOINT SUB-ASSEMBLY.....................................................................................................441

IMAGE F.9-6: FRONT BALL JOINT SUB-ASSEMBLY FASTENER EXAMPLE....................................................................442

IMAGE F.9-7: FRONT CONTROL ARM CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE ...............................................................443

IMAGE F.9-8: FRONT CONTROL ARM CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE ....................................................................444

IMAGE F.9-9: FRONT CONTROL ARM MOUNTING SHAFT CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE ......................................445

IMAGE F.9-10: FRONT STEERING KNUCKLE CURRENT COMPONENT ..........................................................................445

IMAGE F.9-11: STABILIZER BAR SYSTEM CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE..............................................................446

IMAGE F.9-12: BMW ACTIVE ROLL STABILIZATION SYSTEM.....................................................................................447

IMAGE F.9-13: STABILIZER BAR CURRENT COMPONENT............................................................................................448

IMAGE F.9-14: STABILIZER BAR MOUNTING CURRENT COMPONENTS........................................................................448

IMAGE F.9-15: STABILIZER BAR MOUNT BUSHING CURRENT COMPONENTS..............................................................449

IMAGE F.9-16: FRONT STABILIZER LINK CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY ..........................................................................450
Page xxxv

IMAGE F.9-17: FRONT SUSPENSION ROTOR MASS REDUCED SYSTEM EXAMPLE........................................................456

IMAGE F.9-18: FRONT CONTROL ARM MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE...........................................................457

IMAGE F.9-19: FRONT BALL JOINT MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY.........................................................................458

IMAGE F.9-20: FRONT BALL JOINT SUB-ASSEMBLY MASS REDUCED FASTENER EXAMPLE .......................................458

IMAGE F.9-21: FRONT CONTROL ARM MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE..................................................459

IMAGE F.9-22: FRONT CONTROL ARM MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE........................................................460

IMAGE F.9-23: FRONT CONTROL ARM MOUNTING SHAFT MASS REDUCED EXAMPLE ...............................................461

IMAGE F.9-24: FRONT STEERING KNUCKLE MASS REDUCED COMPONENT................................................................462

IMAGE F.9-25: STABILIZER BAR SYSTEM MASS REDUCED SYSTEM EXAMPLE...........................................................463

IMAGE F.9-26: STABILIZER BAR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE .................................................................464

IMAGE F.9-27: STABILIZER BAR MOUNTING MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE...............................................464

IMAGE F.9-28: STABILIZER BAR MOUNT BUSHING MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE.....................................465

IMAGE F.9-29: FRONT STABILIZER LINK MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY ................................................................466

IMAGE F.9-30: REAR SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM RELATIVE LOCATION DIAGRAM........................................................468

IMAGE F.9-31: REAR ROTOR / DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM CURRENT MAJOR COMPONENTS ..............................468

IMAGE F.9-32: REAR SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM CURRENT ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE .......................................................470

IMAGE F.9-33: REAR ARM #1 CURRENT ASSEMBLY ..................................................................................................471

IMAGE F.9-34: REAR ARM #2 CURRENT ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE ..................................................................................471

IMAGE F.9-35: REAR ROD CURRENT ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE........................................................................................472

IMAGE F.9-36: REAR BEARING CARRIER KNUCKLE CURRENT COMPONENT ..............................................................473

IMAGE F.9-37: STABILIZER BAR SYSTEM CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE..............................................................474

IMAGE F.9-38: STABILIZER BAR CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE............................................................................474

IMAGE F.9-39: STABILIZER BAR MOUNTING CURRENT COMPONENTS........................................................................475

IMAGE F.9-40: STABILIZER BAR MOUNT BUSHING CURRENT COMPONENTS..............................................................476

IMAGE F.9-41: REAR STABILIZER LINK CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY ............................................................................476

IMAGE F.9-42: REAR SUSPENSION ROTOR MASS REDUCED SYSTEM EXAMPLE .........................................................481

IMAGE F.9-43: REAR ARM #1 MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY ........................................................................................482

IMAGE F.9-44: REAR ARM #2 MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY ........................................................................................482

IMAGE F.9-45: REAR ROD MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY..............................................................................................483

IMAGE F.9-46 (LEFT): REAR CARRIER ALFA ROMEO (SOURCE: LOTUS – 2010 MARCH EPA REPORT) ..................483

IMAGE F.9-47 (RIGHT): REAR BEARING AL CARRIER (SOURCE: HTTP://FORUMS.VWVORTEX.COM)........................483

IMAGE F.9-48: REAR BEARING CARRIER KNUCKLE MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE....................................484

IMAGE F.9-49: STABILIZER BAR SYSTEM MASS REDUCED SYSTEM EXAMPLE...........................................................484

IMAGE F.9-50: STABILIZER BAR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE .................................................................485

IMAGE F.9-51: STABILIZER BAR MOUNTING MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE...............................................486

IMAGE F.9-52: STABILIZER BAR MOUNT BUSHING MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE.....................................486

IMAGE F.9-53: REAR STABILIZER LINK MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY..................................................................487

IMAGE F.9-54: FRONT & REAR SHOCK ABSORBER SUBSYSTEM, CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY COMPONENTS...............489

IMAGE F.9-55: REAR STRUT / DAMPER SUBSYSTEM CURRENT MAJOR COMPONENTS ...............................................489

IMAGE F.9-56: FRONT STRUT / DAMPER SUBSYSTEM CURRENT MAJOR COMPONENTS .............................................490

IMAGE F.9-57: REAR STRUT MODULE ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM CURRENT CONFIGURATION EXAMPLE ......................491

IMAGE F.9-58: FRONT STRUT MODULE ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM CURRENT CONFIGURATION EXAMPLE.....................492

IMAGE F.9-59: DELPHI MAGNERIDE (MR) STRUT SYSTEM ........................................................................................493

IMAGE F.9-60: REAR & FRONT SHOCK TOWER CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE ................................................494

IMAGE F.9-61: REAR & FRONT STRUT PISTON SHAFT CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE...........................................495

IMAGE F.9-62: REAR & FRONT STRUT LOWER MOUNT CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE ........................................495

IMAGE F.9-63: REAR & FRONT MOUNT FASTENERS CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLES ...........................................496

IMAGE F.9-64: REAR & FRONT BUMP STOP / JOUNCE BUMPER CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE ............................496

IMAGE F.9-65: REAR & FRONT STRUT BOOT, TOWER COVERS CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE.............................497

IMAGE F.9-66: REAR & FRONT STRUT UPPER SPRING ISOLATOR CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE..........................497

IMAGE F.9-67: REAR & FRONT STRUT LOWER SPRING ISOLATOR CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE.........................498

IMAGE F.9-68: REAR & FRONT STRUT COIL SPRING CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE .............................................499

IMAGE F.9-69: REAR & FRONT STRUT SPRING UPPER SEAT CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE .................................499

IMAGE F.9-70: FRONT STRUT TOP MOUNT CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE ......................................................500

IMAGE F.9-71: REAR STRUT MODULE ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCED CONFIGURATION EXAMPLE ............508
Page xxxvi

IMAGE F.9-72: FRONT STRUT MODULE ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCED CONFIGURATION EXAMPLE ..........508

IMAGE F.9-73: REAR & FRONT SHOCK TOWER MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE......................................509

IMAGE F.9-74: REAR & FRONT STRUT PISTON SHAFT MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE ................................510

IMAGE F.9-75: REAR & FRONT STRUT LOWER MOUNT MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE ..............................510

IMAGE F.9-76: REAR & FRONT MOUNT FASTENERS MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLES .................................511

IMAGE F.9-77: REAR & FRONT BUMP STOP / JOUNCE BUMPER MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE ..................512

IMAGE F.9-78: REAR & FRONT STRUT BOOT, TOWER COVERS MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE ..................512

IMAGE F.9-79: REAR & FRONT STRUT UPPER SPRING ISOLATOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE................513

IMAGE F.9-80: REAR & FRONT STRUT LOWER SPRING ISOLATOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE ..............513

IMAGE F.9-81: REAR & FRONT STRUT COIL SPRING MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE...................................514

IMAGE F.9-82: REAR & FRONT STRUT SPRING UPPER SEAT MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE .......................515

IMAGE F.9-83: FRONT STRUT TOP MOUNT MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE............................................515

IMAGE F.9-84: ROAD WHEEL & TIRE CURRENT ASSEMBLY.......................................................................................519

IMAGE F.9-85: ROAD WHEEL CURRENT COMPONENT................................................................................................520

IMAGE F.9-86: SPARE WHEEL & TIRE CURRENT ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE .....................................................................521

IMAGE F.9-87: SPARE WHEEL CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE...............................................................................522

IMAGE F.9-88: ROAD WHEEL CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE................................................................................523

IMAGE F.9-89: LUG NUT CURRENT COMPONENTS .....................................................................................................523

IMAGE F.9-90: ROAD WHEEL & TIRE MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY ............................................................................528

IMAGE F.9-91: ROAD WHEEL MASS REDUCED COMPONENT......................................................................................528

IMAGE F.9-92: ROAD TIRE MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY.............................................................................................529

IMAGE F.9-93: SPARE WHEEL & TIRE MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY ...........................................................................530

IMAGE F.9-94: SPARE WHEEL MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY........................................................................................530

IMAGE F.9-95: ROAD WHEEL MASS REDUCED COMPONENT......................................................................................531

IMAGE F.9-96: LUG NUT MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLES...........................................................................532

IMAGE F.10-1: FRONT DRIVE HUB ASSEMBLY ...........................................................................................................536

IMAGE F.10-2: FRONT DRIVE HUB .............................................................................................................................537

IMAGE F.10-3: FRONT AXLE HUB...............................................................................................................................539

IMAGE F.10-4: HALF SHAFTS......................................................................................................................................540

IMAGE F.10-5: BEARING CARRIER..............................................................................................................................541

IMAGE F.10-6: FRONT RH DRIVESHAFT .....................................................................................................................542

IMAGE F.10-7: BEARING CARRIER..............................................................................................................................543

IMAGE F.10-8: BEARING CARRIER BOLT ....................................................................................................................543

IMAGE F.10-9: FRONT RH DRIVESHAFT .....................................................................................................................545

IMAGE F.10-10: BEARING CARRIER............................................................................................................................546

IMAGE F.10-11: PUSH-IN PLASTIC PLUG......................................................................................................................546

IMAGE F.11-1: FRONT ROTOR / DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM CURRENT MAJOR COMPONENTS ............................550

IMAGE F.11-2: FRONT BRAKE SYSTEM CURRENT ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE....................................................................552

IMAGE F.11-3: FRONT ROTOR CURRENT COMPONENT ...............................................................................................553

IMAGE F.11-4: FRONT SPLASH SHIELD CURRENT COMPONENT..................................................................................554

IMAGE F.11-5: FRONT CALIPER CURRENT ASSEMBLY................................................................................................554

IMAGE F.11-6: FRONT CALIPER HOUSING CURRENT COMPONENT .............................................................................555

IMAGE F.11-7: FRONT CALIPER MOUNTING CURRENT COMPONENT ..........................................................................556

IMAGE F.11-8: FRONT CALIPER PISTON CURRENT COMPONENTS...............................................................................557

IMAGE F.11-9: FRONT CALIPER BRAKE PAD CURRENT COMPONENTS .......................................................................557

IMAGE F.11-10: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT...................................................................................562

IMAGE F.11-11: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT...................................................................................563

IMAGE F.11-12: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT...................................................................................563

IMAGE F.11-13: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT...................................................................................564

IMAGE F.11-14: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT...................................................................................565

IMAGE F.11-15: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT...................................................................................565

IMAGE F.11-16: FRONT ROTOR SIZE NORMALIZATION MASS REDUCED COMPONENT ...............................................566

IMAGE F.11-17: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT...................................................................................566

IMAGE F.11-18: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT...................................................................................567

IMAGE F.11-19: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT...................................................................................567
Page xxxvii

IMAGE F.11-20: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT...................................................................................568

IMAGE F.11-21: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE...................................................................569

IMAGE F.11-22: FRONT SPLASH SHIELD MASS-REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLES ...................................................570

IMAGE F.11-23: FRONT CALIPER MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE ...................................................................570

IMAGE F.11-24: FRONT CALIPER HOUSING MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE .................................................572

IMAGE F.11-25: FRONT CALIPER MOUNTING MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE..............................................573

IMAGE F.11-26: FRONT CALIPER BRAKE PAD MASS REDUCED COMPONENTS ...........................................................573

IMAGE F.11-27: FRONT BRAKE SYSTEM MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE........................................................574

IMAGE F.11-28: REAR ROTOR / DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM RELATIVE LOCATION DIAGRAM .............................577

IMAGE F.11-29: REAR ROTOR / DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM CURRENT MAJOR COMPONENTS ............................577

IMAGE F.11-30: REAR BRAKE SYSTEM ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE....................................................................................579

IMAGE F.11-31: REAR ROTOR CURRENT COMPONENT...............................................................................................580

IMAGE F.11-32: REAR SPLASH SHIELD CURRENT COMPONENT..................................................................................581

IMAGE F.11-33: REAR CALIPER CURRENT ASSEMBLY ...............................................................................................582

IMAGE F.11-34: REAR CALIPER HOUSING CURRENT COMPONENT. .............................................................................582

IMAGE F.11-35: REAR CALIPER MOUNTING CURRENT COMPONENT ..........................................................................583

IMAGE F.11-36: REAR CALIPER PISTON CURRENT COMPONENT ................................................................................584

IMAGE F.11-37: REAR CALIPER BRAKE PAD CURRENT COMPONENTS .......................................................................584

IMAGE F.11-38: REAR ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT.....................................................................................590

IMAGE F.11-39: REAR ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT.....................................................................................591

IMAGE F.11-40: REAR ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT.....................................................................................591

IMAGE F.11-41: REAR ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT.....................................................................................592

IMAGE F.11-42: REAR ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT.....................................................................................592

IMAGE F.11-43: REAR ROTOR SIZE NORMALIZATION MASS REDUCED COMPONENT .................................................593

IMAGE F.11-44: REAR ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT.....................................................................................593

IMAGE F.11-45: REAR ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT.....................................................................................594

IMAGE F.11-46: REAR ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT.....................................................................................594

IMAGE F.11-47: REAR ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT.....................................................................................595

IMAGE F.11-48: REAR ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE ....................................................................596

IMAGE F.11-49: REAR SPLASH SHIELD MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE .......................................................597

IMAGE F.11-50: REAR CALIPER MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE .....................................................................598

IMAGE F.11-51: REAR CALIPER ASSEMBLY COMPONENT DIAGRAM EXAMPLE ..........................................................598

IMAGE F.11-52: REAR CALIPER HOUSING MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE...................................................599

IMAGE F.11-53: REAR CALIPER MOUNTING MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE................................................600

IMAGE F.11-54: REAR CALIPER PISTON MASS REDUCED COMPONENT ......................................................................600

IMAGE F.11-55: REAR CALIPER BRAKE PAD MASS REDUCED COMPONENTS .............................................................601

IMAGE F.11-56: REAR BRAKE SYSTEM MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE..........................................................602

IMAGE F.11-57: PARKING BRAKE AND ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLIES ...................................605

IMAGE F.11-58 (LEFT): TRW PARK BRAKE SYSTEM .................................................................................................607

IMAGE F.11-59 (RIGHT): VW PARK BRAKE SYSTEM..................................................................................................607

IMAGE F.11-60: PEDAL FRAME CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY.........................................................................................608

IMAGE F.11-61: CABLE SYSTEM CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLIES ....................................................................................608

IMAGE F.11-62: BRAKE SHOE AND ATTACHMENT HARDWARE CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE ........................609

IMAGE F.11-63: BRAKE SHOE AND ATTACHMENT HARDWARE CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE ........................609

IMAGE F.11-64 (LEFT): ACTUATOR BUTTON SYSTEM ................................................................................................613

IMAGE F.11-65 (RIGHT): EPB CONTROL MODULE .....................................................................................................613

IMAGE F.11-66: BRAKE ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM MAJOR COMPONENTS AND SUB-ASSEMBLIES................................616

IMAGE F.11-67: MASTER CYLINDER AND RESERVOIR CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY ......................................................618

IMAGE F.11-68: BRAKE LINES AND HOSES CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLIES.....................................................................618

IMAGE F.11-69: BRAKE PEDAL ACTUATOR CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY ......................................................................619

IMAGE F.11-70: BRAKE PEDAL ARM FRAME CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY ....................................................................620

IMAGE F.11-71: BRAKE PEDAL ARM FRAME CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY ....................................................................620

IMAGE F.11-72: BRAKE PEDAL ARM CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY ................................................................................621

IMAGE F.11-73: ACCELERATOR PEDAL ACTUATOR CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY..........................................................622

IMAGE F.11-74: BRAKE PEDAL ACTUATOR MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE............................................626
Page xxxviii

IMAGE F.11-75: BRAKE PEDAL ACTUATOR MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE............................................626

IMAGE F.11-76: BRAKE PEDAL ARM FRAME MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE..........................................627

IMAGE F.11-77: BRAKE PEDAL ARM FRAME REDUCED MASS SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE..........................................628

IMAGE F.11-78: BRAKE PEDAL ARM MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE......................................................628

IMAGE F.11-79: ACCELERATOR PEDAL ACTUATOR MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE ...............................629

IMAGE F.11-80: BRAKE POWER BRAKE SUBSYSTEM MAJOR SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE............................................632

IMAGE F.11-81: TOYOTA PRIUS HYDRAULIC PRESSURE BOOSTER.............................................................................633

IMAGE F.11-82: JANEL HYPERBRAKE HYDRAULIC PRESSURE BOOSTER....................................................................634

IMAGE F.11-83: BRAKE PEDAL ACTUATOR MASS CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY ............................................................634

IMAGE F.11-84: VACUUM BOOSTER FRONT SHELL CURRENT COMPONENT...............................................................635

IMAGE F.11-85: VACUUM BOOSTER REAR SHELL CURRENT COMPONENT.................................................................636

IMAGE F.11-86: VACUUM BOOSTER PLATE MOUNT STIFFENER CURRENT COMPONENT............................................636

IMAGE F.11-87: VACUUM BOOSTER BACKING PLATE, DIAPHRAGM CURRENT COMPONENT......................................637

IMAGE F.11-88: VACUUM BOOSTER MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE ......................................................641

IMAGE F.11-89: VACUUM BOOSTER FRONT SHELL MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE ....................................642

IMAGE F.11-90: VACUUM BOOSTER REAR SHELL REDUCED MASS COMPONENT EXAMPLE ......................................642

IMAGE F.11-91 (LEFT): BENDIX MOUNTING PLATE....................................................................................................643

IMAGE F.11-92 (RIGHT): DELPHI MOUNTING PLATE ..................................................................................................643

IMAGE F.11-93: VACUUM BOOSTER DIAPHRAGM BACKING PLATE MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE ............644

IMAGE F.12-1: FRONT FRAME ASSEMBLY..................................................................................................................648

IMAGE F.12-2: REAR FRAME ASSEMBLY....................................................................................................................648

IMAGE F.12-3: FRONT FRAME ....................................................................................................................................650

IMAGE F.12-4: REAR FRAME......................................................................................................................................650

IMAGE F.12-5: FRONT SUSPENSION BRACKET............................................................................................................651

IMAGE F.12-6: FRONT DAMPER ASSEMBLY ...............................................................................................................652

IMAGE F.12-7: FRAME SIDE RAIL BRACKET...............................................................................................................652

IMAGE F.12-8: REAR SUSPENSION STOPPER BRACKET...............................................................................................653

IMAGE F.12-9: FRONT SUSPENSION BRACKET............................................................................................................656

IMAGE F.12-10: REAR SUSPENSION STOPPER BRACKET.............................................................................................656

IMAGE F.12-11: 2012 CHEVY CRUZE PLASTIC ENGINE MOUNTS ...............................................................................657

IMAGE F.12-12: FRONT DAMPER ASSEMBLY .............................................................................................................657

IMAGE F.12-13: FRAME SIDE RAIL BRACKET.............................................................................................................658

IMAGE F.12-14: FRONT FRAME ASSEMBLY................................................................................................................658

IMAGE F.12-15: REAR FRAME ASSEMBLY..................................................................................................................659

IMAGE F.13-1: TOYOTA VENZA MUFFLER..................................................................................................................661

IMAGE F.13-2 (LEFT): TOYOTA VENZA EXHAUST ......................................................................................................663

IMAGE F.13-3 (RIGHT): TOYOTA VENZA EXHAUST PIPE ............................................................................................663

IMAGE F.13-4: TOYOTA VENZA MUFFLER..................................................................................................................672

IMAGE F.14-1: VENZA FUEL TANK.............................................................................................................................680

IMAGE F.14-2: FUEL PUMP.........................................................................................................................................681

IMAGE F.14-3: RETAINING RING.................................................................................................................................682

IMAGE F.14-4: FUEL PUMP RETAINING FASTENER .....................................................................................................682

IMAGE F.14-5: SENDING UNIT ....................................................................................................................................683

IMAGE F.14-6: SENDING UNIT RETAINING FASTENER.................................................................................................683

IMAGE F.14-7: FUEL TANK MOUNTING STRAP ...........................................................................................................684

IMAGE F.14-8: PROTECTIVE EDGING ..........................................................................................................................684

IMAGE F.14-9: FUEL FILLER TUBE ASSEMBLY ...........................................................................................................685

IMAGE F.14-10: CROSS-OVER TUBE ASSEMBLY.........................................................................................................687

IMAGE F.14-11: PLASTIC (HDPE) FUEL TANK ...........................................................................................................688

IMAGE F.14-12: FUEL TANK MOUNTING STRAP ASSY................................................................................................688

IMAGE F.14-13: FUEL PUMP RETAINING BRACKET “TWIST LOCK” DESIGN................................................................689

IMAGE F.14-14: SENDING UNIT MOUNTING BRACKET ...............................................................................................689

IMAGE F.14-15: LARGE SHIELD (ELIMINATED)...........................................................................................................690

IMAGE F.14-16: PROTECTOR (ELIMINATED)...............................................................................................................690

IMAGE F.14-17: SUPPORT BRACKET (ELIMINATED)....................................................................................................691
Page xxxix

IMAGE F.14-18: FUEL FILLER TUBE ASSEMBLY .........................................................................................................692

IMAGE F.14-19: VAPOR CANISTER .............................................................................................................................695

IMAGE F.14-20: VAPOR CANISTER COVER .................................................................................................................695

IMAGE F.14-21: VAPOR CANISTER HOUSING..............................................................................................................697

IMAGE F.14-22: VAPOR CANISTER COVER .................................................................................................................698

IMAGE F.14-23: LARGE CANISTER BRACKET .............................................................................................................698

IMAGE F.14-24: MEDIUM CANISTER BRACKET...........................................................................................................699

IMAGE F.14-25: SMALL CANISTER BRACKET .............................................................................................................699

IMAGE F.15-1: TOYOTA VENZA STEERING GEAR .......................................................................................................703

IMAGE F.15-2: TOYOTA VENZA TIE ROD END............................................................................................................703

IMAGE F.15-3 (LEFT): TOYOTA VENZA STEERING SHAFT...........................................................................................709

IMAGE F.15-4 (RIGHT): TOYOTA VENZA STEERING SHAFT.........................................................................................709

IMAGE F.15-5 (LEFT): TOYOTA VENZA STEERING WHEEL .........................................................................................715

IMAGE F.15-6 (RIGHT): STEERING WHEEL TRIM COVER ............................................................................................715

IMAGE F.15-7: HEATING ELEMENTS WOOD & CARBON ..........................................................................................715

IMAGE F.16-1: TOYOTA VENZA MAIN AIR DUCT MANIFOLD .....................................................................................721

IMAGE F.16-2: VIEW OF TOYOTA VENZA’S STRIPPED-DOWN INTERIOR (FRONT PASSENGER SIDE), SHOWING FLOOR 

DISTRIBUTION DUCTS ......................................................................................................................................721

IMAGE F.16-3: TOYOTA VENZA INSTRUMENT PANEL WITH INTERIOR TRIM REMOVED..............................................722

IMAGE F.16-4: TOYOTA VENZA HVAC MAIN UNIT...................................................................................................723

IMAGE F.16-5: AIR DUCT MANIFOLD MANUFACTURED FROM A ZOTEFOAMS’ FOAM..................................................725

IMAGE F.16-6: COMPARISON OF AIR DUCT MANIFOLDS.............................................................................................726

IMAGE F.16-7: EXAMPLES OF WEMAC VENT STYLES...............................................................................................726

IMAGE F.16-8: CADILLAC CIEL CONCEPT CAR INTERIOR WITH AIR DUCT VENTS INTEGRATED BEHIND IP................727

IMAGE F.16-9: TOYOTA VENZA’S DEFROSTER DUCT ASSEMBLY INCLUDING TWO CENTER MANIFOLDS AND TWO SIDE 

DUCTS..............................................................................................................................................................731

IMAGE F.16-10: TOYOTA VENZA HVAC USER CONTROLS ........................................................................................734

IMAGE F.17-1 (LEFT): DRIVER INFORMATION CENTER..............................................................................................738

IMAGE F.17-2 (RIGHT): IP CLUSTER...........................................................................................................................738

IMAGE F.17-3 (LEFT): CIRCUIT BOARD SUPPORT .......................................................................................................740

IMAGE F.17-4 (RIGHT): DIC HOUSING .......................................................................................................................740

IMAGE F.17-5 (LEFT): DIC LENSE MASK ..................................................................................................................740

IMAGE F.17-6 (RIGHT): CLUSTER REAR HOUSING......................................................................................................741

IMAGE F.17-7 (LEFT): DISPLAY HOUSING...................................................................................................................741

IMAGE F.17-8 (RIGHT): CLUSTER MASK ASSEMBLY ..................................................................................................741

IMAGE F.18-1:TOYOTA VENZA RADIO ......................................................................................................................743

IMAGE F.18-2:TOYOTA VENZA RADIO SOURCE..........................................................................................................745

IMAGE F.18-3: DELPHI ULTRA LIGHT RADIO SOURCE.................................................................................................750

IMAGE F.19-1: TOYOTA VENZA FRONT HEADLAMP ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE.................................................................756

IMAGE F.19-2: TOYOTA VENZA FRONT HEADLAMP HOUSING....................................................................................757

IMAGE F.19-3: TOYOTA VENZA FRONT HEADLAMP HOUSING WITH INNER REFLECTOR & PROJECT MAGNIFIER .......757

IMAGE F.19-4: TOYOTA VENZA PROJECTOR REFLECTOR ...........................................................................................758

IMAGE F.19-5: SABIC ULTEM® PRODUCTION APPLICATION EXAMPLES...................................................................759

IMAGE F.20-1: INSTRUMENT PANEL WIRING HARNESS ..............................................................................................765

IMAGE F.20-2: ALUMINUM STRANDED WIRE ..............................................................................................................768

IMAGE H.3-2: FRONT DASH PANEL ASSEMBLY ..........................................................................................................787

H.3-3: SIDE PANEL IMAGE ASSEMBLY .......................................................................................................................788

IMAGE H.3-4: FRONT FLOOR PANEL ASSEMBLY ........................................................................................................788

IMAGE H.3-5: REAR FLOOR PANEL ASSEMBLY ..........................................................................................................789

IMAGE H.3-6: FRONT AND REAR RAIL ASSEMBLY......................................................................................................789

IMAGE H.5-1: MATERIAL COUPON SAMPLES..............................................................................................................791
Page xl

Tables

Number Page

TABLE A.1-1: MASS-REDUCTION AND NET INCREMENTAL DIRECT MANUFACTURING COST IMPACT FOR EACH 

VEHICLE SYSTEM EVALUATED.............................................................................................................................6

TABLE C.2-1: UNIVERSAL CASE STUDY ASSUMPTION UTILIZED IN THE MASS-REDUCTION ANALYSIS ........................16

TABLE D.3-1: FEA MODEL TEST CORRELATION COMPARISON WITH TEST DATA........................................................53

TABLE D.3-2: NVH RESULTS SUMMARY FOR LOTUS CAE MODEL .............................................................................56

TABLE D.3-3: CONTENTS OF EDAG CAE BASELINE MODEL.......................................................................................63

TABLE D.3-4: PULSE AND DYNAMIC CRUSH ................................................................................................................73

TABLE D.3-5: COMPARTMENT DASH INTRUSION..........................................................................................................73

TABLE D.3-6: BASELINE, RELATIVE INTRUSIONS @ 1200L FOR FMVS214 .................................................................78

TABLE D.3-7: BASELINE, RELATIVE INTRUSIONS @ 1650L FOR FMVSS 214 ..............................................................78

TABLE D.3-8: PULSE AND DYNAMIC CRUSH ................................................................................................................87

TABLE D.3-9: COMPARTMENT DASH INTRUSION..........................................................................................................87

TABLE D.3-10: REAR IMPACT STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE........................................................................................93

TABLE E.5-1: STANDARD MARK-UP RATES APPLIED TO TIER 1 AND TIER 2/3 SUPPLIERS BASED ON SIZE AND 

COMPLEXITY RATINGS .....................................................................................................................................120

TABLE F.1-1: SYSTEM/SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST ANALYSIS SUMMARY (1 OF 3)..............................142

TABLE F.1-2: VEHICLE LEVEL COST MODEL ANALYSIS TEMPLATES (CMATS): BASELINE, NEW AND INCREMENTAL

.........................................................................................................................................................................145

TABLE F.2-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR ENGINE SYSTEM..................................................................148

TABLE F.2-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR ENGINE SYSTEM ................................................................149

TABLE F.2-3: ENGINE DOWNSIZE SELECTION.............................................................................................................151

TABLE F.2-4: SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR ENGINE DOWNSIZE ........................................153

TABLE F.2-5: ENGINE DOWNSIZE MASS SAVINGS LIGHTWEIGHTED ...........................................................................153

TABLE F.2-6: ENGINE DOWNSIZE COST SAVINGS .......................................................................................................154

TABLE F.2-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR ENGINE FRAMES, MOUNTING, AND BRACKETS SUBSYSTEM

.........................................................................................................................................................................155

TABLE F.2-8: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR THE ENGINE FRAMES, MOUNTING, AND 

BRACKETS SUBSYSTEM....................................................................................................................................158

TABLE F.2-9: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR ENGINE FRAMES, MOUNTING, AND BRACKETS SUBSYSTEM.158

TABLE F.2-10: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR CYLINDER HEAD SUBSYSTEM..........................................160

TABLE F.2-11: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR CRANK DRIVE SUBSYSTEM .........................................160

TABLE F.2-12: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR THE CRANK DRIVE SUBSYSTEM .......163

TABLE F.2-13: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR CRANK DRIVE SUBSYSTEM ................................................164

TABLE F.2-14: SUMMARY OF MAHLE LIGHTWEIGHTED PCU COMPONENTS...............................................................167

TABLE F.2-15: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR CRANK DRIVE SUBSYSTEM..............................................168

TABLE F.2-16: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR COUNTER BALANCE SUBSYSTEM................................168

TABLE F.2-17: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR THE CRANK DRIVE SUBSYSTEM .......170

TABLE F.2-18: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR CYLINDER BLOCK SUBSYSTEM ...................................172

TABLE F.2-19: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR THE CRANK DRIVE SUBSYSTEM .......174

TABLE F.2-20: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR CYLINDER BLOCK SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS..........................176

TABLE F.2-21: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR CYLINDER BLOCK SUBSYSTEM........................................181

TABLE F.2-22: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR CYLINDER HEAD SUBSYSTEM. ....................................182

TABLE F.2-23: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR THE CYLINDER HEAD SUBSYSTEM .....185

TABLE F.2-24: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR CYLINDER HEAD SUBSYSTEM ............................................185

TABLE F.2-25: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR CYLINDER HEAD SUBSYSTEM..........................................187

TABLE F.2-26: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR VALVETRAIN SUBSYSTEM...........................................189

TABLE F.2-27: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR VALVETRAIN ....................................191

TABLE F.2-28: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR VALVETRAIN SUBSYSTEM..................................................193

TABLE F.2-29: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR VALVETRAIN SUBSYSTEM ...............................................196

TABLE F.2-30: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR TIMING DRIVE SUBSYSTEM.........................................197
Page xli

TABLE F.2-31: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR TIMING DRIVE SUBSYSTEM

.........................................................................................................................................................................201

TABLE F.2-32: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR TIMING DRIVE SUBSYSTEM................................................201

TABLE F.2-33: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR TIMING DRIVE SUBSYSTEM .............................................204

TABLE F.2-34: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR ACCESSORY DRIVE SUBSYSTEM. ................................205

TABLE F.2-35: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR AIR INTAKE SUBSYSTEM.............................................205

TABLE F.2-36: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR TIMING DRIVE SUBSYSTEM

.........................................................................................................................................................................207

TABLE F.2-37: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR TIMING DRIVE SUBSYSTEM................................................208

TABLE F.2-38: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR AIR INTAKE SUBSYSTEM .................................................211

TABLE F.2-39: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR FUEL INDUCTION SUBSYSTEM.....................................211

TABLE F.2-40: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR FUEL INDUCTION SUBSYSTEM..........213

TABLE F.2-41: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR FUEL INDUCTION SUBSYSTEM............................................214

TABLE F.2-42: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR FUEL INDUCTION SUBSYSTEM .........................................215

TABLE F.2-43: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR EXHAUST SUBSYSTEM ................................................215

TABLE F.2-44: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR LUBRICATION SUBSYSTEM..........................................217

TABLE F.2-45: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR LUBRICATION SUBSYSTEM ...............219

TABLE F.2-46: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR LUBRICATION SUBSYSTEM.................................................220

TABLE F.2-47: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR LUBRICATION SUBSYSTEM ..............................................222

TABLE F.2-48: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR COOLING SUBSYSTEM. ................................................223

TABLE F.2-49: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR COOLING SUBSYSTEM ......................225

TABLE F.2-50: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR COOLING SUBSYSTEM ........................................................226

TABLE F.2-51: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR COOLING SUBSYSTEM......................................................228

TABLE F.2-52: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR BREATHER SUBSYSTEM ..............................................229

TABLE F.2-53: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR BREATHER SUBSYSTEM ...................230

TABLE F.2-54: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR COOLING SUBSYSTEM ........................................................231

TABLE F.2-55: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR BREATHER SUBSYSTEM...................................................231

TABLE F.2-56: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR COOLING SUBSYSTEM. ................................................232

TABLE F.2-57: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR ENGINE MANAGEMENT, ELECTRONIC 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................233

TABLE F.2-58: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR ENGINE MANAGEMENT, ELECTRONIC SUBSYSTEM ............234

TABLE F.2-59: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR BREATHER SUBSYSTEM...................................................235

TABLE F.2-60: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR ACCESSORY SUBSYSTEM ............................................235

TABLE F.2-61: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR ACCESSORY SUBSYSTEM .................237

TABLE F.2-62: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR ACCESSORY SUBSYSTEM ...................................................238

TABLE F.2-63: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR ACCESSORY SUBSYSTEM.................................................239

TABLE F.3-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ......................................................241

TABLE F.3-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 2.................................................241

TABLE F.3-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR CASS SUBSYSTEM .........................................................243

TABLE F.3-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR TRANSMISSION CASE 

SUBASSEMBLY .................................................................................................................................................245

TABLE F.3-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL CASE SUBSYSTEM....................................................245

TABLE F.3-6: SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR CASE SUBSYSTEM .......................246

TABLE F.3-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR GEAR TRAIN SUBSYSTEM .............................................246

TABLE F.3-8: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE GEAR TRAIN SUBSYSTEM

.........................................................................................................................................................................248

TABLE F.3-9: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR GEAR TRAIN SUBSYSTEM.....................................................249

TABLE F.3-10: SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR CASE SUBSYSTEM ........................................250

TABLE F.3-11: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR LAUNCH CLUTCH SUBSYSTEM ....................................251

TABLE F.3-12: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE LAUNCH CLUTCH 

SYSTEM............................................................................................................................................................252

TABLE F.3-13: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR LAUNCH CLUTCH SYSTEM .................................................253

TABLE F.3-14: SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR LAUNCH CLUTCH SYSTEM.........254

TABLE F.3-15: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR OIL PUMP AND FILTER SUBSYSTEM.............................254
Page xlii

TABLE F.3-16: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR THE OIL PUMP AND FILTER SUBSYSTEM,

.........................................................................................................................................................................255

TABLE F.3-17: PRELIMINARY SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR OIL PUMP AND 

FILTER SUBSYSTEM..........................................................................................................................................256

TABLE F.3-18: PRELIMINARY SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR LAUNCH CLUTCH 

SYSTEM............................................................................................................................................................257

TABLE F.3-19: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR DRIVER OPERATED EXTERNAL CONTROLS SUBSYSTEM

.........................................................................................................................................................................259

TABLE F.3-20: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE DRIVER-OPERATED 

EXTERNAL CONTROLS SUBSYSTEM,.................................................................................................................260

TABLE F.3-21: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DRIVER OPERATED EXTERNAL CONTROLS SUBSYSTEM.....260

TABLE F.3-22: PRELIMINARY SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR DRIVER OPERATED 

EXTERNAL CONTROLS SUBSYSTEM..................................................................................................................261

TABLE F.3-23: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR NEW TRANSMISSION SYSTEM .........................................262

TABLE F.4-1: OPTIMIZATION OBJECTIVE, RESPONSE, AND CONSTRAINTS ..................................................................266

TABLE F.4-2: OPTIMIZED WEIGHTS ............................................................................................................................275

TABLE F.4-3: FINAL WEIGHT SUMMARY FOR OPTIMIZED VEHICLE ............................................................................277

TABLE F.4-4: NVH RESULTS SUMMARY FOR OPTIMIZED BIW MODEL .....................................................................278

TABLE F.4-5: DASH INTRUSION COMPARISON BASELINE VS. OPTIMIZED ...................................................................284

TABLE F.4-6: DASH INTRUSIONS, BASELINE VS. OPTIMIZED MODEL FOR EURO NCAP..............................................290

TABLE F.4-7: DASH INTRUSIONS - BASELINE VS. OPTIMIZED MODEL FOR EURO NCAP.............................................291

TABLE F.4-8: OPTIMIZED MODEL, RELATIVE INTRUSIONS OF SIDE STRUCTURE @1200L FOR FMVSS 214 ..............294

TABLE F.4-9: OPTIMIZED MODEL, RELATIVE INTRUSIONS OF SIDE STRUCTURE @1650L FOR FMVSS 214 ..............295

TABLE F.4-10: BASELINE VS. OPTIMIZED MODEL - RELATIVE INTRUSIONS OF SIDE STRUCTURE @1200L FOR FMVSS

214...................................................................................................................................................................296

TABLE F.4-11: BASELINE VS. OPTIMIZED MODEL, RELATIVE INTRUSIONS OF SIDE STRUCTURE @1650L FOR FMVSS

214...................................................................................................................................................................297

TABLE F.4-12: SUMMARY OF STRUCTURAL DEFORMATION MEASURING ...................................................................302

TABLE F.4-13: SUMMARY OF ROOF CRUSH LOAD VS. DISPLACEMENT PLOT..............................................................305

TABLE F.4-14: WEIGHT AND COST IMPACT OF OPTIMIZED VEHICLE ..........................................................................307

TABLE F.4-15: COST IMPACT OF PART LASER WELDED ASSEMBLY...........................................................................307

TABLE F.4-16: COST IMPACT OF PART LASER WELDED ASSEMBLY...........................................................................308

TABLE F.5-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR BODY SYSTEM GROUP B.....................................................311

TABLE F.5-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR BODY SYSTEM GROUP B ..................................................312

TABLE F.5-3: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE INTERIOR TRIM AND 

ORNAMENTATION SUBSYSTEM ........................................................................................................................326

TABLE F.5-4: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE INTERIOR TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION SUBSYSTEM.....327

TABLE F.5-5: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR INTERIOR TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION 

SUBSYSTEM. ....................................................................................................................................................329

TABLE F.5-6: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE SOUND AND HEAT CONTROL SUBSYSTEM (BODY).330

TABLE F.5-7: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE SOUND AND HEAT 

CONTROL SUBSYSTEM (BODY) ........................................................................................................................331

TABLE F.5-8: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR SOUND AND HEAT CONTROL SUBSYSTEM (BODY)...............332

TABLE F.5-9: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR SOUND AND HEAT CONTROL SUBSYSTEM 

(BODY) ............................................................................................................................................................332

TABLE F.5-10: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR SEALING SUBSYSTEM..................................................333

TABLE F.5-11: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE SEALING SUBSYSTEM336

TABLE F.5-12: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE SEALING SUBSYSTEM ..................................................338

TABLE F.5-13: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR SEALING SUBSYSTEM ..........................338

TABLE F.5-14: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE SEATING SUBSYSTEM...........................................339

TABLE F.5-15: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE SEATING SUBSYSTEM344

TABLE F.5-16: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE SEATING SUBSYSTEM..................................................345

TABLE F.5-17: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR SEATING SUBSYSTEM ..........................361

TABLE F.5-18: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE INSTRUMENT PANEL AND CONSOLE SUBSYSTEM .362
Page xliii

TABLE F.5-19: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE INSTRUMENT PANEL AND 

CONSOLE SUBSYSTEM......................................................................................................................................369

TABLE F.5-20: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE INSTRUMENT PANEL AND CONSOLE 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................371

TABLE F.5-21: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE INSTRUMENT PANEL AND CONSOLE SUBSYSTEM......372

TABLE F.5-22: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE OCCUPANT RESTRAINING DEVICE SUBSYSTEM....373

TABLE F.5-23: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE OCCUPANT RESTRAINING 

DEVICE SUBSYSTEM.........................................................................................................................................381

TABLE F.5-24: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE OCCUPANT RESTRAINING DEVICE 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................382

TABLE F.5-25: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE OCCUPANT RESTRAINING DEVICE SUBSYSTEM ........384

TABLE F.6-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR BODY SYSTEM GROUP C.....................................................386

TABLE F.6-2: MASS REDUCTIONS AND COST IMPACT FOR SYSTEM GROUP C............................................................386

TABLE F.6-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR EXTERIOR TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION SUBSYSTEM....387

TABLE F.6-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE EXTERIOR TRIM AND 

ORNAMENTATION SUBSYSTEM ........................................................................................................................390

TABLE F.6-5: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS SELECTED FOR THE EXTERIOR TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................392

TABLE F.6-6: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACTS FOR THE EXTERIOR TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................392

TABLE F.6-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR REAR VIEW MIRRORS SUBSYSTEM ...............................393

TABLE F.6-8: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE REAR VIEW MIRRORS 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................395

TABLE F.6-9: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS SELECTED FOR THE REAR VIEW MIRRORS SUBSYSTEM....395

TABLE F.6-10: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION & COST IMPACT CONCEPTS FOR THE REAR VIEW MIRROR SUBSYSTEM

.........................................................................................................................................................................396

TABLE F.6-11: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE FRONT END MODULE SUBSYSTEM.......................396

TABLE F.6-12: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FRONT END MODULE 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................398

TABLE F.6-13: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS SELECTED FOR THE FRONT END MODULE SUBSYSTEM 398

TABLE F.6-14: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION & COST IMPACT FOR THE FRONT END MODULE SUBSYSTEM.........399

TABLE F.6-15: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE REAR END MODULE SUBSYSTEM.........................400

TABLE F.6-16: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE REAR END MODULE 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................401

TABLE F.6-17: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS SELECTED FOR THE REAR END MODULE SUBSYSTEM ....402

TABLE F.6-18: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION & COST IMPACT CONCEPTS ESTIMATES FOR THE REAR END MODULE 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................402

TABLE F.7-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR THE BODY SYSTEM GROUP –D-...........................................403

TABLE F.7-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE BODY SYSTEM GROUP -D- .........................................404

TABLE F.7-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE GLASS (GLAZING), FRAME, AND MECHANISM 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................405

TABLE F.7-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE GLASS (GLAZING),

FRAME, AND MECHANISM SUBSYSTEM............................................................................................................409

TABLE F.7-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE GLASS (GLAZING), FRAME, AND 

MECHANISM SYSTEM.......................................................................................................................................411

TABLE F.7-6: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE GLASS (GLAZING), FRAME, AND MECHANISM 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................412

TABLE F.7-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR HANDLES, LOCKS, LATCHES AND MECHANISMS 

SUBSYSTEM. ....................................................................................................................................................413

TABLE F.7-8: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE HANDLES, LOCKS, LATCHES 

& MECHANISMS SUBSYSTEM ...........................................................................................................................416

TABLE F.7-9: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR HANDLES, LOCKS, LATCHES & MECHANISMS SUBSYSTEM 

ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................................................................417

TABLE F.7-10: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR REAR HATCH LIFT ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM. ...............418
Page xliv

TABLE F.7-11: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE REAR HATCH LIFT 

ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM ...................................................................................................................................420

TABLE F.7-12: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR REAR HATCH LIFT ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS.......420

TABLE F.7-13: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR WIPERS AND WASHERS SUBSYSTEM...........................421

TABLE F.7-14: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE WIPERS & WASHERS 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................425

TABLE F.7-15: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS SELECTED FOR THE WIPERS & WASHERS SUBSYSTEM ...426

TABLE F.7-16: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION & COST IMPACT FOR THE WIPERS & WASHERS SUBSYSTEM .........427

TABLE F.7-17: SUMMARY OF MASS BENCHMARKING FOR THE FRONT WIPERS & WASHERS SUBSYSTEM .................427

TABLE F.7-18: SUMMARY OF MASS BENCHMARKING FOR THE REAR WIPERS & WASHERS SUBSYSTEM...................428

TABLE F.8-1: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE BODY STRUCTURE SUBSYSTEM .............................428

TABLE F.8-2: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE NONMETALLIC 

COMPONENTS OF THE BODY STRUCTURE SUBSYSTEM.....................................................................................430

TABLE F.8-3: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS SELECTED FOR THE NONMETALLIC COMPONENTS OF THE 

BODY STRUCTURES SUBSYSTEM......................................................................................................................431

TABLE F.8-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION & COST IMPACTS FOR THE NONMETALLIC COMPONENTS OF THE BODY 

STRUCTURE SUBSYSTEM..................................................................................................................................431

TABLE F.8-5: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE FRONT END MODULE SUBSYSTEM.........................432

TABLE F.8-6: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE NONMETALLIC 

COMPONENTS OF THE FRONT END SUBSYSTEM ...............................................................................................433

TABLE F.8-7: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS SELECTED FOR THE NONMETALLIC COMPONENTS OF THE 

FRONT END SUBSYSTEM ..................................................................................................................................433

TABLE F.8-8: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACTS FOR THE NONMETALLIC COMPONENTS OF THE 

FRONT END SUBSYSTEM ..................................................................................................................................434

TABLE F.9-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR THE SUSPENSION SYSTEM....................................................435

TABLE F.9-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE SUSPENSION SYSTEM.................................................435

TABLE F.9-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE FRONT SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM ...........................437

TABLE F.9-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FRONT SUSPENSION 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................451

TABLE F.9-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED FRONT SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS .454

TABLE F.9-6: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE FRONT SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM................................466

TABLE F.9-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE REAR SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM .............................468

TABLE F.9-8: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE REAR SUSPENSION 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................477

TABLE F.9-9: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED REAR SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS...480

TABLE F.9-10: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE REAR SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM................................487

TABLE F.9-11: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE SHOCK ABSORBER SUBSYSTEM ...........................490

TABLE F.9-12: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FRONT STRUT / SHOCK /

DAMPER SUB-SUBSYSTEM...............................................................................................................................501

TABLE F.9-13: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED SHOCK ABSORBER SUBSYSTEM (REAR STRUT /

DAMPER ASSEMBLY SUB-SUBSYSTEM) ANALYSIS...........................................................................................505

TABLE F.9-14: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED SHOCK ABSORBER SUBSYSTEM (FRONT STRUT 

/ DAMPER ASSEMBLY SUB-SUBSYSTEM) ANALYSIS.........................................................................................506

TABLE F.9-15: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE SHOCK ABSORBER SUBSYSTEM (REAR & FRONT STRUT 

/ DAMPER ASSEMBLY SUB-SUBSYSTEM) .........................................................................................................516

TABLE F.9-16: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE WHEELS AND TIRES SUBSYSTEM .........................517

TABLE F.9-17: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE TIRES AND WHEELS 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................524

TABLE F.9-18: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED WHEELS AND TIRES SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS

.........................................................................................................................................................................526

TABLE F.9-19: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE WHEELS AND TIRES SUBSYSTEM .............................532

TABLE F.10-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR DRIVELINE SYSTEM...........................................................534

TABLE F.10-2: CALCULATED MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR DRIVELINE SYSTEM...................................534

TABLE F.10-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR FRONT DRIVE HOUSED AXLE SUBSYSTEM..................535
Page xlv

TABLE F.10-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FRONT DRIVE HOUSED 

AXLE SUBSYSTEM............................................................................................................................................538

TABLE F.10-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR FRONT DRIVE HOUSED AXLE SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS ........538

TABLE F.10-6: CALCULATED SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR FRONT DRIVE HOUSED 

AXLE SUBSYSTEM............................................................................................................................................539

TABLE F.10-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR FRONT DRIVE HALF-SHAFTS SUBSYSTEM...................541

TABLE F.10-8: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FRONT DRIVE HALFSHAFTS SUBSYSTEM.........................................................................................................................................544

TABLE F.10-9: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR FRONT DRIVE HALF-SHAFTS SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS .........545

TABLE F.10-10: CALCULATED MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR THE FRONT DRIVE HALF-SHAFTS 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................547

TABLE F.11-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR THE BRAKING SYSTEM ......................................................548

TABLE F.11-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE BRAKING SYSTEM.....................................................548

TABLE F.11-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE FRONT ROTOR / DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM.551

TABLE F.11-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FRONT ROTOR / DRUM 

AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM..................................................................................................................................559

TABLE F.11-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED FRONT ROTOR / DRUM AND SHIELD 

SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................................................561

TABLE F.11-6: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE FRONT ROTOR / DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM .....575

TABLE F.11-7: CALCULATED MASS-REDUCTIONS AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR THE FRONT ROTOR / DRUM 

COMPONENTS AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS....................................................................................575

TABLE F.11-8: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE REAR ROTOR / DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM...577

TABLE F.11-9: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE REAR ROTOR / DRUM 

AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM..................................................................................................................................585

TABLE F.11-10: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED REAR ROTOR/DRUM AND SHIELD 

SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................................................589

TABLE F.11-11: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE REAR ROTOR/DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM.......602

TABLE F.11-12: CALCULATED SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTIONS AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR THE REAR ROTOR /

DRUM COMPONENTS AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS.........................................................................603

TABLE F.11-13: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE PARKING BRAKE AND ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM .605

TABLE F.11-14: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE PARKING BRAKE AND 

ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM..................................................................................................................................610

TABLE F.11-15: MASS-REDUCTION IDEA SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED PARKING BRAKE AND ACTUATION 

SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................................................612

TABLE F.11-16: MASS-REDUCTIONS AND COST IMPACT FOR THE PARKING BRAKE AND ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM....615

TABLE F.11-17: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE BRAKE ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM........................616

TABLE F.11-18: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE BRAKE ACTUATION 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................622

TABLE F.11-19: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED BRAKE ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS

.........................................................................................................................................................................624

TABLE F.11-20: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE BRAKE ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM ............................630

TABLE F.11-21: CALCULATED SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR THE BRAKE 

ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS ...........................................................................................................631

TABLE F.11-22: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE POWER BRAKE (FOR HYDRAULIC) SUBSYSTEM..631

TABLE F.11-23: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE POWER BRAKE (FOR 

HYDRAULIC) SUBSYSTEM ................................................................................................................................637

TABLE F.11-24: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAILED POWER BRAKE (FOR HYDRAULIC) SUBSYSTEM 

ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................................................................640

TABLE F.11-25: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE POWER BRAKE (HYDRAULIC) SUBSYSTEM.............644

TABLE F.11-26: CALCULATED SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR THE POWER BRAKE 

(FOR HYDRAULIC) SUBSYSTEM ........................................................................................................................645

TABLE F.12-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR FRAME & MOUNTING SYSTEM ...........................................645

TABLE F.12-2: CALCULATED MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR FRAME & MOUNTING SYSTEM ..................646

TABLE F.12-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR FRAME SUBSYSTEM ....................................................647

TABLE F.12-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FRAME SUBSYSTEM. ...653
Page xlvi

TABLE F.12-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR FRONT DRIVE HOUSED AXLE SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS ........655

TABLE F.12-6: CALCULATED SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR FRAME SUBSYSTEM660

TABLE F.13-1: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUBSYSTEM FOR EXHAUST SYSTEM. .............................................................661

TABLE F.13-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR EXHAUST SUBSYSTEM ....................................................662

TABLE F.13-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR ACOUSTICAL CONTROL COMPONENTS SUBSYSTEM ....662

TABLE F.13-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE ACOUSTICAL CONTROL 

COMPONENTS SUBSYSTEM...............................................................................................................................664

TABLE F.13-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR ACOUSTICAL CONTROL COMPONENTS SUBSYSTEM ...........665

TABLE F.13-6: SGF EXISTING EXHAUST SYSTEM RECOMMENDATION.......................................................................668

TABLE F.13-7: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR ACOUSTICAL CONTROL COMPONENTS 

SUBSYSTEM. ....................................................................................................................................................671

TABLE F.13-8: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR EXHAUST GAS TREATMENT COMPONENTS SUBSYSTEM

.........................................................................................................................................................................671

TABLE F.13-9: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE EXHAUST GAS 

TREATMENT COMPONENTS SUBSYSTEM ..........................................................................................................673

TABLE F.13-10: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR EXHAUST GAS TREATMENT COMPONENTS SUBSYSTEM ..674

TABLE F.13-11: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR EXHAUST GAS TREATMENT 

COMPONENTS SUBSYSTEM...............................................................................................................................675

TABLE F.14-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR FUEL SYSTEM....................................................................676

TABLE F.14-2: CALCULATED MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR FUEL SYSTEM. ...........................677

TABLE F.14-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR FUEL TANK AND LINES SUBSYSTEM. ..........................678

TABLE F.14-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FUEL TANK & LINES 

SUBSYSTEM. ....................................................................................................................................................685

TABLE F.14-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR FUEL TANK & LINES SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS......................686

TABLE F.14-6: CALCULATED SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR FUEL TANK & LINES 

SUBSYSTEM. ....................................................................................................................................................692

TABLE F.14-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR FUEL VAPOR MANAGEMENT SUBSYSTEM...................693

TABLE F.14-8: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FUEL VAPOR 

MANAGEMENT SUBSYSTEM. ............................................................................................................................696

TABLE F.14-9: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR FUEL VAPOR MANAGEMENT SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS. ........696

TABLE F.14-10: PRELIMINARY BALLPARK SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR FUEL 

VAPOR MANAGEMENT SUBSYSTEM. ................................................................................................................700

TABLE F.15-1: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUBSYSTEM FOR STEERING SYSTEM..............................................................701

TABLE F.15-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR STEERING SYSTEM..........................................................701

TABLE F.15-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR STEERING GEAR SUBSYSTEM......................................702

TABLE F.15-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE STEERING GEAR 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................703

TABLE F.15-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE STEERING GEAR SUBSYSTEM ......................................704

TABLE F.15-6: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR STEERING GEAR SUB-SUBSYSTEM.......705

TABLE F.15-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE POWER STEERING SUBSYSTEM.............................705

TABLE F.15-8: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE POWER STEERING 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................706

TABLE F.15-9: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE POWER STEERING SUBSYSTEM....................................706

TABLE F.15-10: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR POWER STEERING ELECTRONIC CONTROLS 

SUB-SUBSYSTEM..............................................................................................................................................708

TABLE F.15-11: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE STEERING COLUMN SUBSYSTEM ........................708

TABLE F.15-12: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE STEERING COLUMN 

SUBSYSTEM......................................................................................................................................................710

TABLE F.15-13: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE STEERING COLUMN SUBSYSTEM.................................710

TABLE F.15-14: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE STEERING COLUMN SUBSYSTEM ...711

TABLE F.15-15: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE STEERING COLUMN SWITCHES SUBSYSTEM .......712

TABLE F.15-16: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE STEERING COLUMN 

SWITCHES SUBSYSTEM.....................................................................................................................................713

TABLE F.15-17: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE STEERING WHEEL SUBSYSTEM ..........................714
Page xlvii

TABLE F.15-18: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE STEERING WHEEL 

SUBSYSTEM......................................................................................................................................................716

TABLE F.15-19: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE STEERING WHEEL SUBSYSTEM ...................................717

TABLE F.15-20: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR STEERING WHEEL SUBSYSTEM.............717

TABLE F.16-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR THE CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM.......................................718

TABLE F.16-2: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM .....................................719

TABLE F.16-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE AIR HANDLING/BODY VENTILATION SUBSYSTEM 720

TABLE F.16-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE AIR HANDLING/BODY 

VENTILATION SUBSYSTEM ...............................................................................................................................727

TABLE F.16-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE AIR HANDLING/BODY 

VENTILATION SUBSYSTEM ...............................................................................................................................728

TABLE F.16-6: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE AIR HANDLING/BODY VENTILATION SUBSYSTEM ....729

TABLE F.16-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE HEATING/DEFROSTING SUBSYSTEM .....................730

TABLE F.16-8: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE HEATING/DEFROSTING 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................731

TABLE F.16-9: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE HEATING/DEFROSTING SUBSYSTEM

.........................................................................................................................................................................732

TABLE F.16-10: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE HEATING/DEFROSTING SUBSYSTEM .......................732

TABLE F.16-11: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE CONTROLS SUBSYSTEM .....................................733

TABLE F.16-12: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE CONTROLS SUBSYSTEM

.........................................................................................................................................................................734

TABLE F.16-13: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE CONTROLS SUBSYSTEM ..........735

TABLE F.16-14: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE CONTROLS SUBSYSTEM..........................................736

TABLE F.17-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR INFO, GAGE & WARNING DEVICE SYSTEM........................736

TABLE F.17-2: PRELIMINARY MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR INFO, GAGE & WARNING DEVICE SYSTEM

.........................................................................................................................................................................737

TABLE F.17-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR INSTRUMENT CLUSTER SUBSYSTEM............................738

TABLE F.17-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE INSTRUMENT CLUSTER 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................739

TABLE F.17-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL INFO INSTRUMENT CLUSTER SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS

.........................................................................................................................................................................740

TABLE F.17-6: CALCULATED SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR INSTRUMENT CLUSTER 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................741

TABLE F.18-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR IN-VEHICLE ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM .............................743

TABLE F.18-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR BODY SYSTEM GROUP....................................................744

TABLE F.18-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR RECEIVER AND AUDIO MEDIA SUBSYSTEM.................744

TABLE F.18-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE RECEIVER AND AUDIO 

MEDIA SUBSYSTEM..........................................................................................................................................747

TABLE F.18-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEA SELECTED FOR RECEIVER AND AUDIO MEDIA SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS.........749

TABLE F.18-6: SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR RECEIVER AND AUDIO MEDIA SUBSYSTEM .750

TABLE F.18-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR ANTENNA SUBSYSTEM................................................751

TABLE F.18-8: COST SUMMARY BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR ANTENNA SUBSYSTEM.....................................................752

TABLE F.19-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR THE LIGHTING SYSTEM......................................................754

TABLE F.19-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE LIGHTING SYSTEM ....................................................754

TABLE F.19-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE FRONT LIGHTING SUBSYSTEM..............................755

TABLE F.19-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FRONT LIGHTING 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................761

TABLE F.19-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE FRONT LIGHTING SUBSYSTEM...761

TABLE F.19-6: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE FRONT LIGHTING SUBSYSTEM. .................................762

TABLE F.20-1: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUBSYSTEM FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEM..........................................................765

TABLE F.20-2: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR ELECTRICAL WRING AND CIRCUIT PROTECTION 

SUBSYSTEM .....................................................................................................................................................766

TABLE F.20-3: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE ELECTRICAL WRING AND 

CIRCUIT PROTECTION SUBSYSTEM...................................................................................................................767
Page xlviii

TABLE F.20-4: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR ELECTRICAL WIRING AND CIRCUIT PROTECTION SUBSYSTEM

.........................................................................................................................................................................770

TABLE F.20-5: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR ELECTRICAL WRING AND CIRCUIT 

PROTECTION SUBSYSTEM.................................................................................................................................772

TABLE H.2-1: LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE MASS-REDUCTION PUBLISHED ARTICLES, PAPERS, AND JOURNALS REFERENCED 

AS INFORMATION SOURCES IN THE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................784

TABLE H.6-1: TABLE OF COMMON ENGINEERING PROPERTIES [26].............................................................................792

TABLE H.6-2: MATERIAL CURVES OF STRESS VS. STAIN (1 OF 2)...............................................................................793

TABLE H.8-1: ENGINE SYSTEM CMATS.....................................................................................................................799

TABLE H.8-2: TRANSMISSION SYSTEM CMATS.........................................................................................................800

TABLE H.8-3: BODY SYSTEM, GROUP A, BIW AND CLOSURES CMATS....................................................................801

TABLE H.8-4: BODY SYSTEM, GROUP B, INTERIOR CMATS......................................................................................803

TABLE H.8-5: BODY SYSTEM, GROUP C, EXTERIOR CMATS.....................................................................................804

TABLE H.8-10: BODY SYSTEM, GROUP D, GLAZING & BODY MECHATRONICS CMATS............................................807

TABLE H.8-11: SUSPENSION SYSTEM CMATS ..........................................................................................................807

TABLE H.8-12: DRIVELINE SYSTEM CMATS .............................................................................................................808

TABLE H.8-13: BRAKE SYSTEM CMATS ...................................................................................................................809

TABLE H.8-14: FRAME AND MOUNTING SYSTEM CMATS .........................................................................................810

TABLE H.8-15: EXHAUST SYSTEM CMATS ...............................................................................................................811

TABLE H.8-16: FUEL SYSTEM CMATS ......................................................................................................................876

TABLE H.8-17: STEERING SYSTEM CMATS ...............................................................................................................877

TABLE H.8-18: CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM CMATS ................................................................................................878

TABLE H.8-19: INFO, GAGE AND WARNING SYSTEM CMATS....................................................................................879

TABLE H.8-20: IN-VEHICLE ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM CMATS................................................................................880

TABLE H.8-21: LIGHTING SYSTEM CMATS ...............................................................................................................881

TABLE H.8-22: ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION AND ELECTRONIC CONTROL SYSTEM CMATS ......................................882
Page 1

A. Executive Summary

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracted FEV to perform a 

Phase 2 light-duty vehicle (midsize crossover utility) mass reduction study. The 

supplementary analysis is founded on a Phase 1, Low Development mass-reduction and 

cost analysis study completed by Lotus Engineering for the Internal Council on Clean 

Transportation (ICCT). The Phase 1 report, titled “An Assessment of Mass Reduction 

Opportunities for a 2017-2020 Model Year Program,” was submitted to the Internal 

Council on Clean Transportation for release during March 2010. The study includes a 

safety analysis of the body-in-white (BIW), a detailed cost analysis, and a mass-reduction 

technology review.

For selected systems, namely body-in-white (BIW), where mass-reduction could have a 

significant effect on vehicle safely, more rigorous engineering analyses (i.e., computeraided engineering) were performed. This level of analysis was not included in the 

originally Lotus Phase 1 analysis establishing uncertainty in the level of NVH 

performance degradation (i.e., torsion and bending stiffness) as well as vehicle crash 

safety degradation. Another area of advancement in the Phase 2 analysis, relative to the 

initial Lotus Phase 1 analysis, was assessing the incremental direct manufacturing costs of 

the mass-reduced components relative to the production stock components. The costing 

methodology and tools are the same as those successfully utilized on previous EPA 

advance light-duty vehicle powertrain cost studies. Additional details on the costing 

methodology can be found in the EPA published report EPA-420-R-09-020 “Light-duty 

Technology Cost Analysis Pilot Study” (http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420r09020. 

pdf).

The analyses for this report by FEV began with an evaluation of the mass-reduction 

opportunities presented in the Lotus report as well as investigation of additional mass 

reduction opportunities. This was done both for vehicle systems originally covered in the 

Phase 1 report as well as those which were not; namely the powertrain vehicle systems.

(“Powertrain System” was defined as anything in the powertrain that would change in 

going from a conventional internal combustion engine and transmission powertrain 

configuration to a hybrid powertrain configuration) All mass-reduction ideas were 

evaluated in terms of product function and performance risk, manufacturing 

implementation readiness and risk, and overall value of mass-reduction in term of weight 

savings versus manufacturing cost. Design, material, and manufacturing processes 

determined likely to be available for the 2017-2020 model year time frame were 

considered in the mass reduction technology analysis. 
Page 2

The goal of both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies was to identify 20% mass saving 

opportunities while maintaining performance parity relative to the current vehicle. Lotus 

originally achieved 20% mass reduction without powertrain in their draft report. 

However, additional information on the baseline BIW materials came in during the peer 

review of the draft report and resulted in a decrease in the mass reduction to 19% without 

powertrain at an estimated 1% direct manufacturing cost save. The mass reduction with 

powertrain was approximately 17.6%.

FEV’s work was focused to achieve 20% mass reduction across all vehicle systems 

including the powertrain. The mass-reduction ideas could not result in a function, 

performance, or safety degradation from the baseline (i.e., current production stock) 

vehicle. In addition no powertrain, nor any other vehicle system architecture changes,

were permitted in the analysis. For example the I4 naturally aspirated (NA), port fuel 

injected (PFI) internal combustion engine was only downsized (due to reduction in gross 

combine weight rating) to a slightly smaller I4, NA, PFI, ICE. It was not assumed that the 

ICE could be downsized further with the addition of turbocharging and direct injection

ICE technology. The automatic transmission (AT) remained a 6-speed AT with weight 

reduction measures employed. No change to a duel clutch transmission or any other 

advanced transmission configuration, which could potentially result in a reduction in 

mass, was made. The BIW geometry and packaging space remained the same between the 

baseline vehicle and the mass-reduced vehicle as the mass-reduction ideas evaluated in 

the analysis were primarily limited to material substitutions with minor design 

modifications to support the material substitutions.

To support the mass-reduction and cost analysis project, FEV subcontracted with two 

knowledgeable, industry-recognized suppliers: Munro and Associates, Inc.® and EDAG 

GmbH & Co. FEV had partnered with Munro on several other EPA light-duty vehicle 

advance powertrain technology cost analyses conducted over the last several years (2009-

2012). Munro provides value engineering type services including component 

benchmarking, lean manufacturing consultation and component/assembly cost analysis. 

Munro provided support on the mass-reduction opportunities and cost analysis for all 

systems with the exception of Body System, Group -A- (BIW and closures). To support 

the BIW and closure portion of analysis, FEV subcontracted with EDAG. EDAG is 

worldwide engineering firm that provides “ready for production (engineering) solutions” 

across entire vehicle platforms27. The EDAG product development team has vast 

experience in BIW and closure design and manufacturing. In additional they have 

participated in several vehicle mass-reduction studies including the 2011 Future Steel 

Vehicle Analysis (http://www.worldautosteel.org/projects/).
Page 3

The vehicle mass-reduction and cost analysis process employed in this project is 

summarized with the following five steps: 

Step 1: fingerprint the baseline vehicle; 

Step 2: mass-reduction idea generation; 

Step 3: mass-reduction optimization (weights vs. costs); 

Step 4: selection of mass-reduction level with best value; and 

Step 5: detail technology feasibility and cost analysis.

The first step (Step 1) in this analysis was to establish and document the attributes of the 

baseline production stock vehicle, a 2010 Toyota Venza. The process included reviewing, 

acquiring, and recording primary vehicle attributes (e.g., 4 corner vehicle mass, ride 

height, engine maximum horse power, transmission torque capacity, fluid volumes/mass, 

etc.) as well as digitally scan the complete vehicle and key systems/subsystems prior to 

initiating vehicle disassembly. Following the vehicle level review and documenting 

process, the vehicle was completely disassembled: starting at the system level, eventually

working down to the component level. Components, as they were removed from the 

vehicle, were photographed, weighed, and recorded in their respective vehicle systems.

During the disassembly process, the EDAG team continued to scan BIW and other key 

components required to support the vehicle mass-reduction CAE analysis. The first 

EDAG objective in step one was to produce a surrogate Toyota Venza CAE baseline 

model from which mass-reduction design alternative could be evaluated. Part details 

crucial for building the CAE model (i.e., material thickness, material specifications, weld 

locations) were obtained and recorded. EDAG also purchased available NVH data on a 

Toyota Venza (with a panoramic roof) and acquired NHTSA crash results from an actual 

Venza (with no panoramic roof). In order to utilize the NVH data, EDAG modified their 

original CAE model to match the BIW on which the NVH data was based by adding a 

panoramic roof. The NVH characteristics including torsional and bending stiffness 

matched very well. The panoramic roof was then removed and NVH characteristics were 

noted. To compare the crash safety of the CAE model to the available NHTSA data, the 

remaining masses for the vehicle systems were added in and the CAE model was run 

under chosen NHTSA and IIHS crash scenarios. Results were visually comparable to 

available crash information on a physical Venza from NHTSA. This established the 

baseline model to which future light-weighted model would be compared relative to NVH 

and crash performance.

The primary objective in Step 2 of the process was to establish a comprehensive list of 

mass-reduction ideas at a component level. In addition, a system was established to grade 

the mass-reduction ideas in terms of implementation readiness, functionality/

performance risk, and value (i.e., cost/mass-reduction). The Venza breakdown identified 

17 major systems (e.g., Engine, Transmission, Suspension, etc.) amassed by a significant 

number of subsystems and sub-subsystems that were individually evaluated in the course 
Page 4

of this study. Both direct mass-reduction of components (e.g., design and/or material 

alternatives) and mass-reduction of components via mass-reduction compounding (i.e., 

the reduction of component mass enabled by reductions in vehicle mass) were regarded as 

viable options. FEV included the ideas presented in the Lotus report for the lowdevelopment scenario. Product and manufacturing engineering technical experts 

identified opportunities at the component and assembly levels to reduce mass during the 

teardown and evaluation process. In addition, preliminary validation work was initiated to 

support grading of the mass-reduction concepts (mainly on the BIW initial massreduction concepts). The starting point for the BIW mass-reduction analysis was the 

evaluation of the Lotus Phase 1 BIW recommend changes. Comparison of the Lotus 

Phase 1 low-development BIW model to the baseline CAE model showed bending and 

torsional stiffness to be insufficient in meeting the design target of no expected NVH 

degradation. As a result, selected Lotus mass-reduction BIW ideas were excluded from 

further evaluation. Ideas that displayed promise were carried forward by EDAG into 

future mass-reduced BIW mass-reduced iterations.

Step 3 was the beginning of the optimization process to determine the best component 

ideas to move forward with to develop “best value” vehicle solutions. Mass-reduction 

ideas were sorted and grouped at the component level in terms of their value (e.g., 

cost/kg). Two (2) sets of rules were established to group components, assemblies/subsubsystems, subsystems and systems in optimized mass-reduced vehicle solutions. The 

more conservative approach from a cost perspective was called the “Low-Cost Solution”. 

The approach which supported more emphasis on mass-reduction versus cost was termed 

the “Engineered Solution.” For the majority of systems (with exception of BIW), the 

optimization process was an objective but manual process. For the BIW optimization 

process EDAG utilized HEEDS® MDO software, which automates the design 

optimization process28. As promising, optimized BIW iterations were developed (for 

weight and cost), EDAG validated the performance with respect to the baseline using 

CAE evaluation cases including structural stiffness (torsion, bending, and modal) and 

regulatory crash requirements (flat frontal impact FMVSS208/US NCAP, 40% offset 

frontal Euro NCAP; side impact FMVSS214; rear impact FMVSS301; and roof crush 

resistance FMVSS216A/IIHS).

Step 4, though relatively short in duration, was an important step in the process. Here the 

team evaluated various vehicle solutions in terms of the net mass-reduction, estimated 

cost impact, and comparison of risk. Based on these parameters the team chose a vehicle 

mass-reduction solution. The solution was a compilation of mass-reduced components, 

sub-subsystems, subsystems, and systems. 

Based on the selected vehicle mass-reduced solution, a detailed mass-reduction feasibility 

and cost analysis on the vehicle solution was initiated (Step 5). The detailed massreduction feasibility analysis focused on developing and refining the component mass-
Page 5

reduction estimates made in Step 2 of the process. In addition, any validation work 

required on the mass-reduction ideas was implemented in this step. A combination of 

research and development benchmark data, production benchmark data, and Toyota 

Venza specific re-design and development data was used to verify and validate the massreduction concepts. 

Once the final details on the component mass-reductions were established, incremental 

cost models were established to determine the direct manufacturing cost differences 

between the baseline production components and new mass-reduced components. Massreduction and incremental direct manufacturing cost values were established starting at 

the component level building up to a vehicle level. Both a net incremental direct 

manufacturing unit cost and tooling cost were developed as part of the analysis. The 

direct manufacturing cost calculations were founded on a set of explicit boundary

conditions (e.g., production timeframe, production volumes, manufacturing cost structure, 

market maturity). Additional details on the boundary conditions established for the 

analysis, including what is and what is not included in the costing, can be found within 

the report.

In addition to developing the net increment direct manufacturing cost for a single massreduced 2010 Toyota Venza solution, FEV also developed cost curves (cost/kg versus 

percent vehicle mass reduction) to estimate the cost impact at alternative percent vehicle 

mass-reduction points. This was achieved by first removing the secondary mass savings 

(mass compounding benefit) from those components that included additional massreduction based on a 20% overall vehicle mass-reduction. Secondary mass-reduction 

savings, on selected system components (e.g. brake, suspension, engine), were included 

in the optimized vehicle solution, based on the percent of vehicle mass-reduction 

generated during the initial brainstorming phase of the project.All components that

achieved mass-reduction, now exclusive of mass-reduction benefits from other systems, 

were ordered from greatest value (i.e., least cost/kilogram) to lowest value (i.e., greatest 

cost/kilogram). Starting at the greatest mass-reduction value, the components’ masssaving and cost impact were progressively summed to establish a non-compounded cost 

curve. Interpolating the calculated benefit of compounding, established from the 

optimized vehicle solution, to other percent vehicle mass-reductions a cost curve with 

compounding, was also developed.

This report details FEV’s additional work and findings to prove the design concept, cost 

effectiveness, manufacturing feasibility, and crashworthiness that can meet the function 

and performance of the baseline vehicle (2010 Toyota Venza). In Table B.1-1 below, is a 

summary of the calculated mass reduction and cost impact for each major system 

evaluated. This project recorded a mass reduction of 18.26% (312.5kg vehicle mass 

reduction) at a cost savings of $0.47/kg ($148 decrease) without tooling. Tooling impact 
Page 6

is calculated to be an increase of $0.04/kg at the mass reduction point of 18.26% for a 

total of $0.43 cost savings - not inclusive of certain OEM markups.

Figure B.1-1 Illustrates the mass reduction cost curves develop from the Toyota Venza 

analysis. Cost curves with and without mass-compounding are presented. As with the cost 

calculations provided above, the values in the cost curves are developed from the net 

incremental direct manufacturing cost calculations.

Table B.1-1: Mass-Reduction and Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing Cost Impact for each

Vehicle System Evaluated
Page 7

Figure B.1-1: Toyota Venza Mass-Reduction Cost Curves

The EPA, in order to create a thorough, transparent, and robust study, invited various 

government entities to participate and/or provide feedback during the study duration. 

Customers that participated and partnered financially in this study with EPA are 

International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) and Environment Canada. 

Additional input was provided during periodic project reviews by National Highway 

Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and 

California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board (CARB). SRA was 

subcontracted by the EPA to conduct the peer review for this project. The peer review 

team selected by SRA included William Joost (U.S. Department of Energy), Douglas 

Richman (Kaiser Aluminum), Srdjan Simunovic (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), and 

Glenn Daehn, David Emerling, Kristina Kennedy, and Tony Luscher (The Ohio State 

University).

The Peer review report and FEV responses to the peer review comments are available at 

www.regulations.gov in EPA docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799.
Page 8

B. Introduction

B.1 Project Overview

B.1.1 Background for Studying Mass-Reduction

In addition to regular cadence of vehicle redesign and refresh, vehicle manufacturers are 

also currently modifying the architecture and design of their entire product lineups to 

better respond to regulatory actions curbing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and to meet 

consumer demands for substantial improvements in vehicle fuel economy while 

maintaining vehicle functionality and performance attributes. Accordingly, manufacturers 

are planning to rapidly expand implementation of advanced vehicle, powertrain and 

engine technologies. These technologies include engine downsizing, turbocharging, direct 

injection, variable valve timing & lift, automated manual transmissions, automated startstop systems, electric-hybridization, aerodynamic improvements and other technologies.

Another promising technology for reducing vehicle GHG emissions, and the focus of this 

work, is reduction of vehicle weight. Weight reduction can be accomplished without 

compromising vehicle performance, interior volume and utility by combining lightweight 

materials and innovative vehicle design. There are many examples of mass reduced 

designs currently in production today that use light-weight materials such composites, 

engineering plastics, high strength steels, aluminums, magnesium, and other materials. 

These innovative structural designs can yield substantial reductions in vehicle weight. 

Appropriate light-weight vehicle designs can maintain or improve current vehicle 

characteristics such as safety, NVH control, durability, handling and load carrying 

capacity. For example, HEV battery pack enclosures could be integrated within the 

vehicle structure to better optimize body strength and weight compared to current HEVs 

that are essentially derivatives of conventional vehicles. New materials could be utilized 

in suspension components that are lightweight but lower in cost than aluminum. 

Reduction in unsprung mass and improvements in suspension geometry can reduce 

suspension loads on the chassis allowing synergistic reductions in weight. Use of 

advanced Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) such as finite element analysis can 

optimize load paths through the chassis and body by simultaneously maintaining NVH 

and crashworthiness while achieving weight reduction.

While the vehicle architectures being investigated for this timeframe (2017-2020 model 

year product) must achieve low greenhouse gas emissions, the designs must also be cost 

effective for consumers, meet or exceed current and planned safety requirements, meet 

consumer expectations for vehicle performance (e.g. acceleration, towing, load carrying, 

handling) and durability. 
Page 9

B.1.2 Mass-Reduction Evaluation – Phase 1, Background Information

The analysis work covered in this report is a continuation of work previously completed 

for by Lotus Engineering for the International Council on Clean Transportation. In the 

initial analysis (also referred to as the Phase 1 analysis) Lotus Engineering performed a 

mass-reduction evaluation and cost assessment on a current production 2009 Toyota 

Venza. The Toyota Venza is a 4-door, 5-passenger vehicle available in all wheel drive or 

front wheel drive configurations and has the physical attributes normally associated with 

a Cross-over Utility Vehicle (CUV). The Toyota Venza (vehicle example shown below,

Image B.1-1 ) is representative of current CUVs in terms of body architecture and 

powertrains. It achieves five stars (the highest rating ) in crash testing, meets current 

federal safety standards, offers comfortable seating for five with a large storage volume 

and is rated at 21 MPG city and 29 MPG highway with a 2.7 liter four cylinder internal 

combustion engine (ICE) and front wheel drive (FWD). Toyota advertises that this is a 

versatile vehicle for active lifestyles that meets a wide variety of functional requirements.

Image B.1-1: 2009 Toyota Venza

(Source: http://www.toyotacolors.info/2009-toyota-venza-4x4-v6/)

Lotus began the study with a complete tear-down of the Toyota Venza to establish the 

mass for each vehicle system. Every part was removed from the Venza vehicle, measured, 

weighed and the material type recorded. The components were consolidated under the 

appropriate category, e.g., body, suspension, interior. This work was performed by 

A2Mac1, an experienced benchmarking specialist subcontracted by Lotus Engineering. 

This teardown defined the baseline masses and the A2Mac1 database, which includes 

teardown data on vehicles distributed internationally, was used as a source for selecting 

lightweight components. Employing Lotus Engineering expertise, best-in-class designs 

(key selection criteria being mass) were selected to replace existing baseline components. 
Page 10

The scope and deliverables in Phase 1 of the Lotus project included two distinct 

approaches for production intent lightweight vehicle structures. Specifically, the 

deliverables were bills of materials (BOM’s) representing a Low Development vehicle 

with a 20% overall mass reduction target that represents approaches that could be 

implemented by 2017 and a High Development vehicle with a 40% overall mass 

reduction target, less powertrain, that represented approaches available for model year 

2020 vehicles. 

The original Lotus Engineering Phase 1 report, “An Assessment of Mass Reduction 

Opportunities for a 2017-2020 Model Year Program,” was submitted to the Internal 

Council on Clean Transportation for release during March 2010. The report can be found 

at the following Internet address: http://www.theicct.org/sites/default /files/publications 

/Mass_reduction_final_2010.pdf. In Appendix H.1, the executive summary from the 

Lotus report listed above can be found. In summary, Lotus Engineering initially 

determined that a 21% (277kg) mass-reduction (no powertrain contribution considered) 

was possible at a vehicle piece cost reduction of 2% nominal relative to the baseline 

Venza vehicle in the 2017 timeframe. Subsequent updates to the analysis (post peer 

review) resulted in a 19% (244kg) mass-reduction at a vehicle cost impact of a nominal 

99% to the baseline Venza vehicle.

B.1.3 Mass-Reduction Evaluation – Phase 2, Purpose and Objectives

As covered in Section B.1.2 above, the original (Phase 1) Lotus Engineering Low 

Development mass-reduction and cost analysis had a target of 20% vehicle massreduction with production feasibility in the 2017-2020 timeframe EPA contracted with 

FEV and their contractors a Phase 2 low development mass-reduction analysis to build-on 

the vehicle mass-reduction efforts previously conducted by Lotus Engineering. The 

primary objectives can be summarized as follows:

1. Preliminary review and assessment of mass-reduction concepts proposed in Lotus 

phase 1 analysis.

2. Research and evaluation of potential vehicle mass-reduction ideas to compliment 

and/or provide additional alternatives to the existing Lotus recommendations. 

Sources of information include but are not limited to:

a. OEM and Tier 1 (T1) advance production technologies

b. OEM and T1 advance technologies currently under development

c. Raw Material Suppliers research and development projects in mass 

reduction 

d. Existing published studies on the mass reduction of light-duty vehicles 

(Reference Appendix H.2: Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction 
Page 11

Published Articles, Papers, and Journals Referenced as Information 

Sources in the Analysis)

e. Alternative industry mass-reduction practices 

f. Mass-reduction ideas generated from internal brainstorming.

3. Additional effort in validating Lotus phase 1 ideas and/or any new mass-reduction 

ideas developed with the scope of the project. The validation methodology was 

based mainly at three levels:

a. Surrogate production vehicle benchmark data

b. Research and Development data from automotive component and material 

suppliers

c. Toyota Venza vehicle specific computer aided design (CAD) and 

engineering (CAE) analysis

4. Ensure most mass-reduction ideas selected are manufacturing feasible and 

implementation ready for phase-in starting in the 2017 timeframe.

5. Develop detailed incremental direct manufacturing costs for the adoption of the 

mass-reduced components, with respect to the baseline components, utilizing the 

same detailed costing methodology employed on previous EPA advance 

powertrain technologies cost analyses.

6. Develop an incremental tooling cost impact for the adoption of the mass-reduced 

components, with respect to the baseline components.

7. Develop an incremental direct manufacturing cost versus % vehicle massreduction curve.

Basic high level analysis boundary conditions include the following:

1. Target vehicle mass-reduction 20% (340kg) total (baseline Venza approximately 

1710kg) 

2. Target vehicle direct manufacturing cost impact 0% increase (i.e., cost neutral) 

with a maximum 10% ($1,671) increase. Manufacturing Suggested Retail Price 

(MSRP) $25,063, Retail Price Equivalent (RPE) 1.5, vehicle direct manufacturing 

cost estimate $16,709 ($25,063/1.5).

3. All components and assemblies included in the various Toyota Venza vehicle 

subsystems and systems are considered available options for potential massreduction.

4. All direct mass-reduction of components (e.g., design and/or material alternatives) 

as well as mass-reduction of components via mass compounding are considered 

viable options. For this project, mass-reduction compounding refers to the 

reduction of mass of a given component as the result of a reduction in the mass of 

one or several other components.

5. No functional or performance degradation permitted from the production stock 

Toyota Venza.
Page 12

6. No functional or architecture changes to accommodate alternative engine 

technologies (this will be done in a separate calculation in EPA’s rulemaking 

modeling). For example:

a. Downsizing the engine based on adding turbocharging and direct injection

b. Changing from a traditional I4 internal combustion engine and 6-speed 

automatic transmission to a hybrid powertrain configuration.

B.1.4 Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis Process Overview

As previously stated, the Toyota Venza cross-over utility vehicle (CUV) was initially 

chosen as the baseline vehicle for evaluating mass-reduction opportunities, for both the 

low- and high-development mass-reduction analyses, in the prior ICCT Phase 1 project. 

Since the work conducted by FEV and their contractors, is an extension of the original 

Phase 1 low development assessment, the Toyota Venza CUV was also evaluated in the 

phase 2 analysis. 

For the Phase 2 analysis, a conscious effort was made to procure a vehicle with a content 

level similar to the one evaluated in the Phase 1 analysis ensuring optimal continuity 

between the two studies. For reference the vehicle identification number (VIN) for the 

2009 Venza evaluated in the Phase 1 analysis is 4T3ZE11A09U002202. The VIN for the 

2010 Venza evaluated in the Phase 2 analysis is 4T3ZA3BB1AU036880

The mass-reduction and cost analysis process overview is defined in five (5) process steps 

as shown in Figure B.1-1. Additional details on the processes and tools used in each of 

the steps can be found in Sections 0 and D. Although the analysis objectives outlined 

above are similar for all systems, the detailed processes and tasks completed at each of 

major project steps, as outlined below in Figure B.1-1, varied from vehicle system to 

system. This was especially true for the BIW analysis versus the remaining vehicle 

systems evaluated. For this reason two different project paths/roadmaps were established. 

Additional details of these roadmaps and differences are captured in Section D.

Figure B.1-1: Key Steps in the Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis Project
Page 13

Step 1: “Finger print” the baseline vehicle (i.e., current production Toyota Venza) to gain 

a thorough understanding of the vehicle content and key attributes. The process involved 

a systematic disassembly of the vehicle capturing key component information in detailed 

bill of materials. In addition the finger printing process involved building CAE models of 

the some of the baseline systems, such as BIW, Engine, Transmission, Fuel, etc., to 

establish performance attribute baselines from which new technology configurations 

could be validated against. 

Step 2: Review and analyze the Lotus mass-reduction ideas as well as research new 

potential mass-reduction ideas. The primary objective in step 2 of the process was to 

establish a comprehensive list of mass-reduction ideas at a component level. In addition a 

system was established to grade the mass-reduction ideas in terms of implementation 

readiness, functionality/performance risk, value (i.e., cost/mass-reduction), etc. For 

selected systems (e.g. body-in-white structure) preliminary validation work was initiated 

to support grading of the mass-reduction concept.

Step 3: Utilize an optimization process to determine the best component ideas to move 

forward with to develop “best value” vehicle solutions. Mass-reduction ideas were sorted 

and grouped at the component level in terms of their value (i.e., cost/kg). Two sets of 

rules were established to group components, assemblies/sub-subsystems, subsystems and 

systems in optimized mass-reduced vehicle solutions. The more conservative approach 

from a cost perspective was called the “Low Cost Solution”. The approach which 

supported more emphasis on mass-reduction versus cost was termed the “Engineered 

Solution”.

Step 4: Evaluate various vehicle solutions in terms of the net mass-reduction, estimated 

cost impact and comparison of risk. Based on these parameters the team chose a vehicle 

mass-reduction solution. The solution was a compilation of mass-reduced components, 

sub-subsystems, subsystems and systems.

Step 5: Develop a detailed mass-reduction feasibility and cost analysis on the vehicle 

solution selected in step 4. The detailed mass-reduction feasibility analysis focused on 

developing and refining the component mass-reduction estimates made in step 2 of the 

process. In addition any validation work required on the mass-reduction ideas was 

implemented in this step. Once the final details on the component mass-reduction were

established incremental cost models were established to determine the direct 

manufacturing cost differences between the baseline production components and new 

mass-reduced components. Mass-reduction and incremental direct manufacturing cost 

values were established starting at the component level building up to a vehicle level.

Additional details on the methodology are coved in Section D (Mass Reduction 

Analysis Methodology) and Section 0 (
Page 14

Cost Analysis Methodology).
Page 15

C. Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis Assumptions

C.1 Mass-Reduction Analysis Assumptions

A significant amount of the mass-reduction ideas presented in this report are based on 

implementation of “off-the-shelf” technologies. By selecting mass-reduction ideas which 

are already in production and/or have gone through significant research and development 

by OEMs, automotive parts suppliers and/or automotive raw material suppliers, the 

implementation risk and manufacturing feasibility risk are considered far less. The end 

result is a list of ideas with high probability of implementation success.

The general, sources of information used to develop mass-reduction ideas are shown in

Figure C.1-1. In almost all mass-reduction cases, assumptions were required to take the 

mass-reduction ideas from surrogate components and transfer them to Toyota Venza 

specific components. This included normalizing the surrogate parts sizes and weights to 

Toyota Venza specific parts and making high level engineering adjustments for function 

and performance differences. Unique for the body-in-white (BIW) structure portion of the 

analysis, CAE tools were used to develop and model the mass-reduction changes and 

evaluate these changes against the baseline configuration using some industry recognize 

evaluation procedures. Note because the Body System - Group A ( BIW and Closures) is 

the largest system contributor to mass-reduction and is the primary system associated with 

crash safety, the additional CAE work was performed.
Page 16

Figure C.1-1: Sources of Information used to develop Mass-Reduction Components

The introduction of any new vehicle technologies for increased function, improved 

performance, and/or reduction in mass, does not come without inherent challenges and 

risks. Large dedicated engineering teams at the automotive vehicle manufacturing level 

and automotive parts supplier levels spend years developing components for vehicle 

specific applications to ensure the designed components meet the component, subsystem, 

system and vehicle function and performance specifications. A great deal of this work 

involves accounting for component interactions both positively and negatively [e.g.,

Noise Vibration Harshness (NVH), durability, corrosion, calibration, etc.]

Due to the nature of this type of project, and the inherent analysis limits (e.g. project 

duration, resources, facilities, funding, etc.) the level of validation which can be 

conducted on the components within each vehicle system, as well as with assessing the 

synergistic impact (both positive and negative) is very limited. Though this doesn’t imply 

the mass-reduction ideas are not viable options. It only suggests that significant 

engineering (i.e., what is normally required to develop a vehicle) is required to design and 

develop the mass-reduced components into a vehicle specific application in some cases. 

Based on the production timeframe established as part of the analysis boundary conditions

(i.e., production implementation readiness 2017-2020 model year program), there were no 
Page 17

technologies selected in the optimized vehicle solution which the team felt could not be 

implemented in time.

In many industries, especially the automotive industry, benchmarking vehicle components 

and technologies (similar to methodology employed in this analysis) is a significant part 

of OEM and supplier research and development and a mechanism of incubating new 

vehicle technologies.

Within the scope of FEV’s analysis no consideration is given to the exact quantity and 

speed of new mass-reduced technologies introduced into a vehicle platform. The added 

complexity, associated risk, time period of phase-in, etc. and associated impact to costs is 

addressed through the EPA’s cost modeling factors (e.g., Indirect Cost Multipliers [ICM],

learning factors). In Section C.2 below additional information on the cost analysis 

assumptions are covered.

Within the mass-reduction and cost analysis results sections (Section F. Mass Reduction 

and Cost Analysis Results) additional details on the mass-reduction assumption made 

and level of validation are captured. 

C.2 Cost Analysis Assumptions

For both the baseline Toyota Venza components and the new mass-reduced replacement 

components the same universal set of assumptions are utilized in order to establish a 

constant framework for all costing. The primary assumption is that the OEM and 

suppliers have the option of tooling up either the baseline components (i.e., production 

stock Venza components) or the mass-reduced components. The same product maturity 

levels, manufacturing cost structure (e.g., production volume, manufacturing location, 

manufacturing period), market conditions, etc. exist for either technology. This common 

framework for costing permits reliable comparison of costs between new (i.e., massreduced components) and baseline (i.e., production stock Toyota Venza components) 

components. In addition, having a good understanding of the analysis boundary 

conditions (i.e., what assumptions are made in the analysis, the methodology utilized, 

what parameters are included in the final numbers, etc.), a fair and meaningful 

comparison can be made between results developed from alternative costing 

methodologies and/or sources.

Additional details on the costing factors included in the cost analysis can be found in 

Section 0
Page 18

Cost Analysis Methodology.

Table C.2-1captures the primary universal cost analysis assumptions which are 

applicable to both the new and baseline configurations evaluated in the analysis. 

Table C.2-1: Universal Case Study Assumption Utilized in the Mass-Reduction Analysis
Page 19

Table C.2-1: Universal Case Study Assumption Utilized in the Mass-Reduction Analysis (Con’t)
Page 20
Page 21

D. Mass Reduction Analysis Methodology

D.1 Overview of Methodology

As outlined in Section B.1.4, there are five (5) major process steps implemented in the 

mass-reduction and cost analysis project. For each of the five (5) process steps involved 

in the generic process, two (2) analysis road maps were established based on the type of 

analysis work and project goals required for each (Figure D.1-1). These two primary 

project goals can be summarized as:

1. Project Task 1: to review the existing Phase 1 Lotus mass-reduction ideas for all 

remaining systems evaluated and assess the implementation risk, manufacturing 

feasibility, and value (cost/mass-reduction). The costs calculations referenced in 

the value equations to be detailed and transparent similar to previous powertrain 

cost analyses. In cases where additional or greater value mass-reductions 

component ideas are identified, include them in the analysis.

2. Project Task 2: to validate the body-in-white (BIW) structural mass-reduction 

ideas recommended by Lotus Engineering using industry-recognized NVH and 

crash computer aided engineering (CAE) methods and tools. If the Lotus 

recommended ideas resulted in degradation to the baseline BIW structure, 

alternative mass-reduction solutions were investigated and validated using industry 

recognized tools and methods.
Page 22

Figure D.1-1: Project Analysis Roadmaps Based on Project Tacks

Since the mass-reduction objectives were somewhat different for each of the primary 

project goals, two roadmaps and two teams were developed to support the work. During

Project Task 1, FEV were lead and their subcontractor Munro and Associates supported 

the analysis work; Project Task 2, FEV’s subcontractor EDAG took lead on the analysis 

and FEV supported.

In the methodology discussion which follows, the analysis roadmaps for each task are 

discussed in detail. 

D.2 Project Task One – Non Body-In-White Systems Mass-Reduction and Cost 

Analysis

D.2.1 Baseline Vehicle Finger Printing

The process started with the purchase of the baseline vehicle, 2012 Toyota Venza. Along 

with the vehicle acquisition, additional BIW components were purchased upfront due to 

concerns with damaging the BIW panels during disassembly and while scanning the 

components.

Before beginning the disassembly process, key vehicle measurements were made,

including the four (4) corner vehicle weight, vehicle ground clearance, and positions of 

key components (e.g., engine, fuel tank, exhaust, etc.) as assembled in the vehicle. The 

global vehicle component positions were attained through a white light scanning (WLS) 

process. The same process was used to capture the geometry of the key components 

required for the BIW NVH and crash analysis. (More discussion on WLS is captured as 

part of Task 2 methodology, Section D.3)

Following the vehicle measurements, a systematic, detailed vehicle disassembly process 

was initiated. The initial vehicle disassembly process was initially completed at a high 

level (e.g. engine-transmission assembly, door assemblies, rear-hatch assembly, seats, 

exhaust assembly). At each stage of the disassembly process, the same order of events 

took place: (1) WLS when applicable, (2) process mapping of part(s) to capture the part 
Page 23

removal process (inverse - part assembly process), (3) photographing of part assembled 

and removed from the vehicle, and (4) initial part attributes (i.e., part weight and 

quantity). As each part was removed from the vehicle, it was logged into a general vehicle 

level comparison bill of materials (CBOM).

After the vehicle was completely disassembled, major modules were further broken down 

into respective system groups. For example, the components within the front sub-frame 

module (e.g., brake rotors, brake calipers, drive shafts, suspension struts, springs, etc.) 

were removed from the module and grouped in their respective systems (Image D.2-1). A 

process similar to the vehicle disassembly process was followed ensuring applicable 

information was captured (e.g., weight, geometric size, process map, photographs, WLS 

etc.) and recorded for each component. During this step of the process System CBOMs

were created. All components belonging to a system (e.g. engine, transmission, body, 

brakes, fuel, etc.) were physically grouped together and captured together in system 

CBOM.

Image D.2-1: 2010 Toyota Venza Front Sub-frame Module as Removed During the Teardown 

Process

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 24

D.2.2 Mass-Reduction Idea Generation

Upon completion of assembly part binning and tracking, a parallel and iterative process of 

teardown and mass-reduction idea generation was initiated. In general, the assembly level 

teardown involved a full, detailed disassembly of parts into the lowest level manufactured 

component forms. This involved both destructive and non-destructive teardown 

processes. For example, the fuel tank, shown in Image D.2-2, was fully disassembled into 

the individual manufactured components. From this detailed teardown an accurate 

assessment of the component materials, weights, hidden design details, and 

manufacturing processes utilized to manufacture the production stock Venza fuel tank 

were collected. At all teardown levels, the bill of materials were updated tracking key 

component information (e.g., parts, quantities, weights, etc.). 

Image D.2-2: Toyota Venza Fuel Tank Disassembled

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 25

In parallel to hardware being disassembled, vehicle system leads (i.e., project engineers 

responsible for generating mass-reduction ideas for a particular vehicle system) began the 

mass-reduction idea generation process. The process started by logging the ICCT Phase 1 

report mass-reduction ideas (report name “An Assessment of Mass Reduction 

Opportunities for a 2017-2020 Model Year Program”) into the FEV Brainstorming 

Template (FBT). The FBT contains five (5) major sections:

Part 1: General Part Information Entry

Part 2: Mass Reduction Idea Entry

Part 3: Primary Idea Ranking & Down-Selection Assessment 

Part 4: Quantitative Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis Estimation Entry 

Part 5: Final Ranking and Down-Selection Process Assessment 

In this initial idea generation phase of the analysis, Parts 1 and 2 of the brainstorming 

template are completed. In addition to logging all the Lotus Engineering ideas in the 

brainstorming template, modified and new ideas were added based on industry research 

by the vehicle system teams. As shown in Figure C.1-1, several sources were utilized for 

gathering mass-reduction ideas, including automotive vehicle manufacturers, automotive 

parts suppliers, raw material suppliers, benchmarking suppliers, and non-automotive part 

design and manufacturing technologies. The medium for attaining the information came 

from published articles, papers and journals, supplier websites, supplier published 

presentation materials, consultation with suppliers, access to benchmark databases (FEV 

internal, Munro and Associates internal, EDAG internal, A2MAC1 purchased 

subscription), and internal brainstorming storming sessions. In Appendix H.2, many of 

the published documents reviewed and suppliers contacted are listed. Also in Section F. 

Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Results,” a significant amount of the details 

supporting the mass-reduction ideas are captured (e.g., sources of information, 

applications in production, manufacturing process details, etc.).

All mass-reduction ideas gathered were entered into their respective vehicle system 

brainstorming templates and connected to the BOMs via a standardized number and 

naming convention. The process of detailed assembly teardown and generating massreduction ideas was an iterative process taking approximately one-third of the overall 

project duration (four months).

Upon completion of the idea generation phase, the preliminary idea ranking and downselection process began. In Part 3 of the brainstorming template (Step 1 in the down 

selection process), the ideas were ranked by the team based on a five- (5-) parameter 

ranking system: (1) Manufacturing Readiness Risk, (2) Functionality Risk, (3) Estimated 
Page 26

Percent Change in Weight, (4) Estimated Change in Piece cost, and (5) Estimated Change 

in Piece Cost as a Result of Tooling. As shown in Figure D.2-1, there were predefined 

ranking values for each parameter. The potential ranking values for each parameter were

set considering the importance of each parameter within the group. The final idea ranking 

is the multiple of the five parameter rankings. The best possible score is 1 (i.e., 

1x1x1x1x1) which is representative of an idea already in high automotive production, 

performs equal to or better than the current production Venza part, is expected to yield a 

20% mass-reduction, and is cost neutral or a saving relative to the current production 

piece cost and tooling. The highest achievable value is 10,500 (i.e., 5x10x10x7x3) which 

represents the opposite extreme. Since one of the boundary conditions for this analysis 

was low development mass-reduction, the majority of the mass-reduction ideas selected 

were conservative, thus resulting in a ranking value between 1 and 200. 

A ranking of 50 was chosen as the cut-off for the initial down-selection process. Any 

mass-reduction ideas with a value greater than 50 were removed from the analysis;

although, there were a few exceptions, dependent on the number of ideas for a given 

system.

Figure D.2-1: Primary Idea Down-Select Process Excerpt from FEV Brainstorming Template 
Page 27

D.2.3 Preliminary Mass-Reduction and Cost Estimates

Ideas that had an initial ranking of less than 50 were considered as potential high 

probability mass-reduction ideas. The mass-reduction ideas consisted of ideas from the 

Lotus Phase 1 report as well as new mass-reduction ideas. 

For each of these ideas which made the first cut, the project team then calculated the 

potential mass-reduction and cost impact of each idea. These calculations were high level 

calculations based on initial information gathered for each idea. Sources included 

benchmark data of surrogate lightweight designs, automotive material and part suppliers, 

and high-level engineering estimates based on material densities, material costs, and 

anticipated manufacturing cost differences based on processing changes. To reiterate, 

these are high-level calculations providing a more objective measure of the value 

(cost/kilogram) for each mass-reduction idea.

The mass-reduction and cost estimates were added beside each relevant idea in the FEV 

brainstorming matrix (Part 4 of the matrix). Using the estimated mass, estimated cost 

impact, and Total Ranking (Part 3 of FBT), cost-versus-mass and Total Ranking-versusmass calculations were made (Figure D.2-2). The calculated values, found in Part 5 of 

the brainstorming template, were used in the final down-selection process when 

comparing competing mass reduction ideas on a similar part. For example, several 

alternative material choices were available for brake caliper pistons (e.g., forge 

aluminum, cast aluminum, phenolic plastic, titanium) with comparable “Total Ranking” 

values, which made it difficult to select the best option based on the preliminary ranking 

process. The preliminary quantitative calculations (i.e., cost impact/mass-reduction, total 

ranking/mass reduction) provided additional information required to help select the best 

idea(s) moving forward in the analysis.
Page 28

Figure D.2-2: Estimated Weight and Cost Impact (Part 4) and Final Ideal Down-Selection (Part 5) 

Excerpt from FEV Brainstorming Template 

In many cases team members considered together the preliminary rankings (Part 3 of 

FBT), the magnitude of the mass-reduction savings (Part 4 of the FBT), and the value of 

the mass-reduction ideas (Part 5 of the FBT) to determine the final mass-reduction ideas 

to move forward at the component and assembly level.

Upon completion of the final down-selection process, mass-reduction ideas were

grouped/binned together based on their value (i.e., cost/kilogram). There are five (5) cost 

groups total, plus one group for tracking “decontenting” ideas that reduce mass, but at the 

sacrifice of function and/or performance (Figure D.2-3). Decontenting ideas were tracked 

in the analysis but never included in the final calculations. 

At this stage of the analysis, only mass-reduction ideas were captured. These are not

necessarily complete mass-reduced component or assembly solutions, as several ideas 

may have been combined to formulate a component or assembly solution. The process of 

combining ideas occurs in the next phase of the analysis, which is referred to as the massreduction optimization phase.

Mass-Reduction Idea Grouping

●Five cost groups were established to group ideas based on their average 

cost/kilogram weight save:

Level A: ≤ $0.00/kg (i.e., ideas that either save money or add zero cost)

Level B: >$0.00 to ≤ $1.00

Level C: >$1.00 to ≤ $2.50

Level D: >$2.50 to ≤ $4.88

Level X: > $4.88

● One additional category exists, which is independent of the cost per weight 

save ratio. This sixth category is referred to as the “Decontenting” category 

(Level Z) and is reserved for ideas which degrade a systems 

function/performance by employing the mass reduction idea.
Page 29

Figure D.2-3: Mass-Reduction Idea Grouping/Binning Bases on Mass-Reduction Value

D.2.4 Mass-Reduction and Cost Optimization Process

The next step in the process was to take the down-selected mass-reduction ideas and find 

an optimal solution based on mass and cost. The goal was to combine as many massreduction ideas to achieve the targeted 20% vehicle mass-reduction, at the lowest possible 

incremental cost, at the lowest 2017 production implementation ready risk (design and 

manufacturing).

To achieve an optimized vehicle solution, mass-reduction ideas were combined to 

formulate mass-reduced components and assemblies (also referred to as sub-subsystems). 

Mass-reduced components and assemblies were combined into mass-reduced vehicle 

subsystems; mass-reduced subsystems were combined to create mass-reduced vehicle 

system solutions; and, finally, mass-reduced vehicle systems solutions were combined to 

formulate optimized mass-reduced vehicle solutions.

Upfront it is very difficult to predict which components, subsystem, or systems offer the 

best value relative to mass-reduction until they are evaluated in detail against one another. 

From the mass-reduction idea level to the vehicle level, all possible combinations were

reviewed and compared for the best value. 

To help explain the optimization methodology, a mock brake system example will be 

used as the reference system. The same process is employed for all vehicle systems. The 
Page 30

starting point is combining mass-reduction ideas into various component and assembly 

mass-reduced options. Shown in Figure D.2-4, the front rotor has 10 different ideas 

which can be combined into several different combinations to create different massreduced rotors with different cost impacts (i.e., cost/kilogram). Note, not all ideas can be 

combined together, as some are alternative options within the same or different cost 

group. Similar to how mass-reduction ideas are grouped/binned into different value 

groups, the sample methodology applies to components/assemblies, subsystems, and 

systems.

Subgroup A Subgroup B Subgroup C Subgroup D Subgroup X

Range 

"$/kg" ≤ $0 Range "$/kg"

>$0.00 - 

≤$1.00

Range 

"$/kg"

>$1.00 - 

≤$2.50

Range 

"$/kg"

>$2.50 - 

≤$4.88

Range 

"$/kg" > $4.88

Subgroup Cc Subgroup De

Range 

"$/kg"

>$1.00 - 

≤$2.50

Range 

"$/kg"

>$2.50 - 

≤$4.88

Cost Group: C Cost Group: D

Mass-Reduction Ideas => Mass-Reduced Component/Assembly Options

( Example: Front Rotor)

Cost Group: A Cost Group: B Cost Group: C Cost Group: D Cost Group: X

IDEA #1

Reduce Rotor 

Thickness

IDEA #3

Vent/Slot Rotor

IDEA #4

Cross-Drill Rotor

IDEA #9

2 Pc Rotor Design 

(Iron & CF)

IDEA #6

Rotor ID Scaliping 

(Hat Perimeter)

IDEA #2

Reduce Rotor 

Diameter

IDEA #8

Change to 

Ceramic Rotor

IDEA #10

Change to 

Composite Rotor

IDEA #7

Rotor OD 

Scaliping

IDEA #5

Drill Holes in 

Rotor Top Hat 

Surface

ROTOR

Option # 1 

IDEA #1 + 

IDEA #2 +

IDEA #3 +

IDEA #4 +

IDEA #5 +

IDEA #6 +

IDEA #7 +

$1.35/kg

ROTOR

Option #2 

IDEA #1 + 

IDEA #2 +

IDEA #3 +

IDEA #4 +

IDEA #5 +

IDEA #6 +

IDEA #7 +

IDEA #9 +

$3.56/kg

Rotor Option 

#2 is placed in 

the 

Engineered 

Solution 

Assembly/ 

Component 

Mass 

Reduciton 

Matrx

Rotor Option 

#1 is placed in 

the Low Cost 

Solution 

Assembly/ 

Component 

Mass 

Reduciton 

Matrx

Figure D.2-4: Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Optimization Process
Page 31

Two sets of boundary conditions were established to standardize how mass-reduced ideas 

were grouped into component/assembly solutions. The first set of boundary conditions 

drives toward a more cost conscious solution labeled the “Low Cost Solution.” The

second set of boundary conditions allows more expensive mass-reduction ideas to be 

integrated with lower cost ideas and is referred to as the “Engineered Solution.” These 

same two sets of boundary conditions apply throughout the analysis at all levels (i.e., the 

subsystem, system, and vehicle level). 

The simplest way to explain the difference between the two methodologies is with the aid 

of Figure D.2-4. In rotor option #1, ideas #1 through #7 were summed to develop a massreduce front rotor. The cost impact is $1.35/kg, which puts the component solutions into 

Cost Group C. Because all the ideas included in the combined solution are taken from the 

cost group bins equal to or lower than Cost Group C (i.e., Cost Group A, Cost Group B 

and Cost Group C), the final solution is considered a “Low Cost Solution.” In rotor option 

#2, Idea #9 is grouped with Ideas #1 through #7 to create a mass-reduced front rotor 

falling in Cost Group D ($3.56/kg). Because the mass-reduced rotor combines more 

expensive ideas (Cost Group X) with better value ideas (Cost Groups A, B, and C), the 

solution is termed an Engineered Solution. An Engineered Solution can include massreduction ideas above and below the final solution. 

At the completion of idea combining phase of the analysis, various brake subsystems exist 

(e.g. Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem, Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem, 

Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem, Brake Actuation Subsystem) populated with 

mass-reduced component solutions. Each subsystem has an Engineering Solution matrix 

and a Low Cost Solution matrix. The Engineering Solution Matrix (Figure D.2-5) has 

mass-reduced component/assembly solutions built using the Engineered Solution 

methodology. The intent is to try and have a component mass-reduction solution for every 

cost group, though this was very difficult within the timing constraints of the project. 

Conversely, a Low Cost Solution matrix, built using the Low Cost Solution methodology, 

also exists.

The same methodology for combining mass-reduction ideas into component/assembly 

mass-reduced solutions is used for combining components/assemblies into brake 

subsystems. The only difference, starting at the subsystem build-up level and moving 

forward, engineered component solutions are used to create engineered subsystem 

solutions and subsystem engineered solutions are used to create engineered system 

solutions. The subscript “e” (e.g., Ae, Be, Ce, De, and Xe) identifies the component ideas 

as Engineered Solutions (Figure D.2-5). The same principles apply for Low Cost 

Solutions: subscript “c” identifies Low Cost Solutions.
Page 32

Subgroup Ae Subgroup Be Subgroup Ce Subgroup De Subgroup Xe

Range 

"$/kg" ≤ $0

Range 

"$/kg"

>$0.00 - 

≤$1.00

Range 

"$/kg"

>$1.00 - 

≤$2.50

Range 

"$/kg"

>$2.50 - 

≤$4.88

Range 

"$/kg" > $4.88

Subgroup Be Subgroup De

Range 

"$/kg"

>$0.00 - 

≤$1.00

Range 

"$/kg"

>$2.50 - 

≤$4.88

Cost Group: B Cost Group: D

Mass Reduced (MR) Componenets Options => Mass-Reduced Subsystem Options 

(Example: Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem (FRDSS) )

Cost Group: A Cost Group: B Cost Group: C Cost Group: D Cost Group: X

Rotor

Option #2 

FRDSS Option 

# 2 

Rotor #2 + 

Dust Shield #3 +

Brake Caliper #4 +

Pad Kit #2

Caliper Brkt #4

$0.93/kg

FRDSS Option 

#4

Rotor #3 + 

Dust Shield #4 +

Brake Caliper #6 +

Pad Kit #2

Caliper Brkt #2

$4.40/kg

●Same Process Repeated 

for Low Cost Solution 

Subsystems 

●Built-up using Low Cost 

Solution Component 

Assembly Matrix 

Rotor

Option #3

Rotor

Option #4

Dust Shield

Option #2

Dust Shield

Option #3

Dust Shield

Option #4

Brake Caliper

Option #2 

Brake Caliper

Option #3

Brake Caliper

Option #4

Brake Caliper

Option #5

Brake Caliper

Option #6 

Pad Kit

Option #2 

Pad Kit

Option #3

Caliper Bracket

Option #2 

Caliper Bracket

Option #3

Caliper Bracket

Option #4

1. Mass-Reduced 

Rotors

2. Mass-Reduced 

Dust Shields 

3. Mass-Reduced 

Brake Capilers

4. Mass-Reduced 

Pad Kits

5. Mass-Reduced 

Caliper Brackets

Components 

Included In 

Subsystem

Figure D.2-5: Subsystem Mass-Reduction Optimization Process – Engineered Solution

At the brake system level, mass-reduced Brake Engineered Subsystem Solutions are 

grouped to create Brake Engineered System Solutions for several Cost Groups as shown 

in Figure D.2-6. The same process applies for Low Cost Solutions. The same process 

was followed for all vehicle systems.
Page 33

Subgroup Ae Subgroup Be Subgroup Ce Subgroup De Subgroup Xe

Range 

"$/kg" ≤ $0

Range 

"$/kg"

>$0.00 - 

≤$1.00

Range 

"$/kg"

>$1.00 - 

≤$2.50

Range 

"$/kg"

>$2.50 - 

≤$4.88

Range 

"$/kg" > $4.88

Subgroup Ae Subgroup Ce

Range 

"$/kg"

>$0.00 - 

≤$1.00

Range 

"$/kg"

>$1.00 - 

≤$2.50

Cost Group: A Cost Group: C

Mass-Reduced Subsystem Options => Mass-Reduced System Options

(Example: Brake System)

Cost Group: A Cost Group: B Cost Group: C Cost Group: D Cost Group: X

FRDSS 

Option #1

Brake System 

Option #1 

FRDSS #1 + 

RRDSS #1 +

PBAS #2 +

BAS #1

HPBS #1

$-0.26/kg

Brake System 

Option #2 

FRDSS #2 + 

RRDSS #3 +

PBAS #2 +

BAS #3

HPBS #2

$2.33/kg

●Same Process Repeated 

for Low Cost Solution 

Systems 

●Built-up using Low Cost 

Solution Subsystem 

Assembly Matrix 

RRDSS

Option #1

1. Front Rotor/Drum and Shield 

Subsystem (FRDSS)

2. Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield 

Subsystem (RRDSS)

3. Parking Brake and Actuation 

Subsystem (PBAS)

4. Brake Actuation Subsystem 

(BAS)

5. Hydraulic Power Brake 

Subsystem (HPBS)

6. Brake Controls Subsystem 

(BCS)

BAS

Option #1

HPBS

Option #1 

FRDSS 

Option #2

PBAS

Option #2 

HPBS

Option #2 

BAS

Option #2 

HPBS

Option #3 

FRDSS 

Option #3

RRDSS

Option #2 

BAS

Option #3 

RRDSS

Option #3 

BAS

Option #4 

HPBS

Option #4 

Subsystems Included In 

System

Figure D.2-6: System Mass-Reduction Optimization Process – Engineered Solution

The vehicle optimization process was completed using a similar methodology as 

previously detailed. Four different vehicle optimization processes were performed. 

Similar to the subsystem and system levels above, Low Cost Vehicle Optimized Solutions 

(C) and Engineering Vehicle Optimized (E) Solutions were developed.In addition, a 

hybrid Low Cost Vehicle Optimized Solution was developed using a combination of 

system solutions from the Low Cost systems matrix and Engineering Solution systems 

matrix; designated Low Cost Solution (C&E) in Figure D.2-7. Similarly a hybrid 

Engineering Vehicle Solution was developed using a combination of system solutions 

from both the Low Cost systems matrix and Engineering Solution systems matrix; 

designated Engineered Soltuion (C&E).
Page 34

Figure D.2-7 shows the various optimized vehicle solutions plotted in terms of 

cost/kilogram versus %Vehicle mass-reduction. Based on the data, the team chose the 

Low Cost Vehicle Optimized Solution (C&E), which was estimated to reduce the vehicle 

mass by 20% at an estimated cost of $0.82/kilogram.

Figure D.2-7: Potential Mass-Reduction Vehicle Solutions Developed Through the Mass-Reduction 

Optimization Process

D.2.5 Detailed Mass-Reduction Feasibility and Cost Analysis

Selected Analysis Point
Page 35

Upon the selection of the optimized vehicle solution, and the mass-reduction ideas 

associated with the optimized vehicle solution, the detail analysis could begin. In the 

detail mass-reduction feasibility analysis, additional engineering work was employed to 

verify the mass-reduction ideas were feasible both from the design and manufacturing 

feasibility perspective. The additional work was centered on expanding the supporting 

portfolio of information gathered on the mass-reduction ideas using the same types of 

sources and methodology as used in the initial idea generation phase including: 

researching existing industry published works in mass-reduction, reference data from 

production benchmark databases, and speaking with material suppliers, automotive part 

suppliers, and alternative transportation industry suppliers. The research, the partnerships 

involved in the analysis, study assumptions, and calculations are all discussed in detail in 

Section F (Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Results). This includes the assumptions 

on those systems (e.g., engine, brakes, suspension, fuel, body-in-white) which took 

additional mass-reduction credit based on the entire vehicle getting lighter (i.e., mass 

compounding credit).

In some cases, the ideas originally selected for the detailed analysis did not work out. 

When this occurred, the team returned to the brainstorming template for similar value 

mass-reduction ideas to try and ensure their system target mass-reductions and costs were 

maintained. In other cases new alternative, better value ideas were discovered as part of 

the detailed analysis. When this occurred, the new, greater value mass-reduction ideas 

replaced the original lessor value mass-reduction ideas. From a mass-reduction 

perspective, some systems went up slightly from the original mass-reduction optimization 

model while others came down by similar amounts. Overall the difference between the 

originally predicted mass-reduction, from the optimized vehicle solution, to the final 

detailed model (post peer review), for all systems other than Body Group -A- (body-inwhite, bumpers, closures) was approximately +0.75% (greater mass-reduction for the 

detailed analysis). 

The original target for the Body Group -A- system analysis was approximately 20% from 

a system perspective, or 6.2% relative to the total vehicle mass-reduction. With project 

timing constraints, the Body Group -A- system mass-reduction system target was reduced 

to 16%, or 5% relative to the vehicle. The achieved Body Group -A- mass-reduction was 

12.8% relative to the system, 4% relative to the vehicle. Details on the body-in-white 

targets can be found in the following section (Section D.3).

Complete details on the costing methodology utilized in this analysis can be found in 

Section 0. In addition, a Vehicle summary of the costing results can be found in Section

F.1. 

In summary, there was a shift in the cost impact between the original optimized vehicle 

solution and the final detailed solution. The original optimized vehicle solution predicted 

a cost increase of $0.82/kg for a 19.8% vehicle mass-reduction. In the final detailed 
Page 36

analysis, a 18.3% mass-reduction yielded a $0.47/kilogram savings. The difference is not 

so surprising as the inflection point in Figure D.2-7 is right around the 16% massreduction point. At 15%vehicle mass-reduction there is an approximate savings of 

$0.33/kg. At 18% vehicle mass reduction there is a positive cost impact (i.e., cost 

increase) of approximately $0.66/kg.

Since many of the detailed costing spreadsheet documents generated within this analysis 

are too large to be shown in their entirety, electronic copies can be accessed through 

EPA’s electronic docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799 (http://www.regulations.gov).

D.3 Project Task Two – Body-In-White Systems Mass-Reduction and Cost 

Analysis

The following section deals with detail methodology in developing the mass-reduction for 

Body Group -A- [body-in-white (BIW) structures, bumpers, and closures]. As mentioned 

in Section D.1, the portion of the analysis was subcontracted to EDAG due to their vast 

experience in BIW design and development. 

To keep with the integrity of the work performed by EDAG, their report was included in 

the overall report in its entirety.

D.3.1 Introduction

The team evaluated the body system of a Toyota Venza using computer-aided engineering 

(CAE). Noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH) of the vehicle and crash load cases were 

built based on physical NVH test requirements and regulatory crash and safety 

requirements respectively. CAE baseline models for each of the NVH and crash-load 

cases were built and simulated to correlate and compare the CAE results with the test 

results of a similar vehicle (in this case, the 2009 Toyota Venza with panoramic roof). 

Upon verifying the model quality based on EDAG CAE guidelines and meeting the NVH 

correlation targets (<5% difference), the EDAG baseline model was utilized as the 

baseline reference for further development of NVH and crash-iteration models and 

lightweight optimization processes.

A detailed CAE evaluation of the body structure for the lightweight design of the Toyota 

Venza is described in this section. The weight reduction and cost effect of the lightweight 

design are also presented, along with the CAE evaluation cases including structural 

strength (torsion, bending, and modal) and regulatory crash requirements (flat frontal 
Page 37

impact FMVSS208/US NCAP, 40% offset frontal Euro NCAP; side impact FMVSS214; 

rear impact FMVSS301; and roof crush resistance FMVSS216A/IIHS).

D.3.2 Body System CAE Evaluation Process

A CAE evaluation was conducted based on EDAG’s standard best practice of reengineering process. It includes vehicle teardown, parts scanning, and data collection of 

vehicle parts to build a full vehicle CAE model without the use of actual design drawings 

or CAD data. The typical CAE evaluation process followed for this project is shown in

Figure D.3-1. Various inputs, outputs, and tools used for the steps in each process are 

provided in Figure D.3-2.

Figure D.3-1: CAE Evaluation Process and Components
Page 38

Figure D.3-2: CAE Evaluation Process Inputs, Outputs, and Tools

D.3.3 Vehicle Teardown

A Toyota 2010 Venza was purchased and completely disassembled by skilled body 

technicians. Toyota body repair manuals were used to aid in the disassembly of vehicle. 

Part details and metadata crucial for building the CAE model (such as part weight and 

thickness) were obtained and recorded in an assembly hierarchy (Figure D.3-3).
Page 39

Figure D.3-3: Vehicle Teardown Process

Photos of the disassembled body parts used in the CAE model are shown in Appendix

H.3.

EDAG’s project scope included determining the baseline vehicle weights through 

measurement or calculation. Upon obtaining these weights; the overall body weight, 

major subassembly weights and key component weights were then tabulated. This 

information was used as the baseline weights in the subsequent CAE evaluation process

(Figure D.3-4).
Page 40

Figure D.3-4: Baseline Vehicle Weights
Page 41

D.3.4 Vehicle Scanning 

One of the most critical inputs for building the finite element analysis model (FEA) is the 

digital format of the geometry of the body parts. The geometry of each part was obtained 

by using White Light Scanning (WLS) techniques and stored in stereo lithography (STL) 

format. As the vehicle was disassembled, the scanning was performed simultaneously 

with the vehicle teardown process starting with the full vehicle before disassembling, then 

progressing to the subsystem level, and lastly moving to the component level.

Even though the WLS focused on body parts, it also included the powertrain, chassis, and 

miscellaneous parts needed for a full vehicle FEA model. The parts required for scanning 

were determined based on the analysis of the load cases (NVH and crash) considered for 

the CAE evaluation. Figure D.3-5 shows the methodology used in identifying the parts 

for scanning. In addition to part geometry, the part connection (such as location and type, 

e.g., spot weld, seam weld, laser weld), dimensions (e.g., weld diameter, weld length), 

and characteristics (e.g., bushing) were also captured during the scanning process.
Page 42

Figure D.3-5: White Light Scanning Part Identification Methodology

Sample images of raw STL data obtained by WLS of the body structure parts are shown 

in Figure H.4-1 in Appendix H.4. Additionally, an example of the weld point locations 

captured from the scanning process is shown in Figure H.4-2 in Appendix H.4.
Page 43

D.3.5 Initial FE Model

A finite element (FE) model was constructed using finite element mesh (from geometry 

data), part-to-part connection data, and part characteristics (material data). The geometry 

and connection data were obtained from the scanning process. The part material data, 

such as steel grades, were obtained by conducting material tests on the corresponding part 

samples.

D.3.5.1Material Data

The Toyota body repair manual [1] was used to identify many of the material grades for the 

major parts of the body structure. After disassembly of the vehicle, samples for coupon 

testing were cut out of the body parts and sent out for material analysis. Confirmation of 

the material grades shown in the manual along with the material grades for additional 

parts not shown in the manual were obtained through this material coupon testing. A 

picture of the typical samples that were taken from the body is shown in Appendix H.5.

D.3.5.2FE Modeling from Scan Data

A commercially available FE meshing tool (ANSA) [25] was used to generate FE mesh 

from the raw STL geometry data obtained from WLS. A schematic of the process of 

meshing from raw STL data is shown in Figure D.3-6.
Page 44

Figure D.3-6: Mesh Generation from STL Raw Data

The raw STL data (e.g., the fuel tank) was imported into the meshing tool. The geometry 

was then cleaned and meshed as per EDAG meshing quality standards. The meshed parts 

were assembled by using the connection data captured from the scanning process. EDAG 

CAE guidelines [2][3] were followed in building the complete vehicle assembly hierarchy. 

Figure D.3-7 shows the completely assembled FE model of the Toyota Venza body 

structure.

Figure D.3-7: FE Model of Toyota Venza Body Structure

The initial FE model was built with body-in-prime (BIP) assembly for NASTRAN for 

NVH load cases of bending stiffness, torsion stiffness, and natural frequency modal 
Page 45

analysis. It consisted of all the body-in-white (BIW) parts (welded body parts) and a few 

bolt-on parts needed for NVH analysis. The gauge (thickness) and material data for each 

part were incorporated into the model accordingly. Figure D.3-8 represents the gauge 

map for the BIP. Figure D.3-9 represents the material grades map for BIP, which, with 

the exception of the aluminum rear bumper, is made up of all steel components.

Figure D.3-8: Gauge Map of Baseline BIP Model
Page 46

Figure D.3-9: Material Map of Baseline BIP Model

D.3.5.3FE Materials Selection

Most FE simulation solutions are affected by the material data, especially crash 

simulations. Crash simulations are characterized by non-linear boundary condition 

loading and required the use of non-linear material modeling. Also, they are very 

dependent on the accuracy of material data used in the calculations. The material data 

used in this study is expressed with stress-strain curves for different strain rates. 

The steel materials used in most parts of the body structure are known as strain rate 

sensitive materials. These materials show different yield and tensile strength behavior at 

different elongation rates. Therefore, the parameters for the material model selection 

considered in this study were material type, material mechanical characteristic data and 

material fracture criteria. 

The major material model types used in this study were MAT-24, MAT-123, and 

MAT_SIMPLIFIED_JOHNSON_COOK in LS-DYNA. The material fracture/failure is 

usually not considered in most conventional analysis. However, with the selection of high 

strength materials in this study, the material fracture/failure was a real concern and was 

considered in the material model.
Page 47

The details of the material curves used in this study are shown in Appendix H.6

D.3.6 FEA Model Validation—Baseline NVH Model

The initial FE model needed to be validated to obtain a realistic analytical model that 

represented the real-world test vehicle. The following NVH and static load cases were 

chosen to validate the initial FE model.

Static Bending Stiffness

Static Torsional Stiffness

Modal frequency

The validation was carried out by correlating the analytical results of each load case 

against the corresponding physical test results.

D.3.6.1Model Statistics

The NVH model consisted of the BIP model including radiator support, glass, front, and 

rear bumpers. The meshed model of the Toyota Venza baseline model contained 434 parts

made up of 720,323 shell elements and 7,913 solid elements.

The necessary load case specific boundary conditions were incorporated into the model 

using a commercially available pre-post tool and then analyzed using the MSC 

NASTRAN solver. The model setup in terms of boundary and load conditions is 
Page 48

explained in detail for each of the NVH load cases. Figure D.3-10 shows the NVH model 

before incorporating the boundary and load conditions.

Figure D.3-10: Toyota Venza Initial NVH Model

D.3.6.1.1 Static Bending Stiffness

In the bending stiffness model, the BIP was constrained and loaded as shown in Figure 

D.3-11. The rear-left shock tower was constrained in the x, y, and z-axes; the rear-right 

shock tower was constrained in the x and z-axes; the front left shock tower was 

constrained in the y and z-axes; and the front right shock tower was constrained in the zaxis. A bending load of 2,224N was applied at the center of the front and rear seats.
Page 49

Figure D.3-11: Loads and Constraints on NVH Model For Bending Stiffness

The calculation of bending stiffness was done by measuring Z-displacement in the rocker 

section area, noting the maximum displacement on each measured location.

D.3.6.1.2 Static Torsion Stiffness

The torsion stiffness BIP model was constrained and loaded, as shown in Figure D.3-12. 

The rear-left shock tower was constrained in the x, y, and z-axes; the rear-right shock 

tower was constrained in the x and z-axes. Additionally, the center of the front bumper is 

constrained in the z-direction. Vertical loads of 1,200N were applied in opposite 

directions on the left and right-front shock towers. Torsional stiffness was calculated 

from the applied load and deflection.
Page 50

Figure D.3-12: Load and Constraints on NVH Model For Torsional Stiffness

The calculation of torsion stiffness is done by calculating the angular displacement of the 

BIP. The average of the Z-displacement (Z) at the shock tower is calculated, and then the 

distance between the shock towers (D) was measured. The angular displacement (w) is 

calculated as ATAN (Z/D).

D.3.6.1.3 Modal Frequency

For a vehicle to be dynamically stiff, it is important to have high natural frequencies for 

the global modes. In the modal frequency analysis model, MSC NASTRAN SOL 103 [5]

was used with no boundary conditions. It is a free-free (no boundary condition, no initial 

condition) natural frequency analysis within a given frequency range of 0-100Hz. This is 

defined with the help of the NASTRAN PARAM control cards in which the input and 

output requirements are embedded with the EIGRL card.

D.3.6.2 FE Model Validation

The validation of the CAE model was carried out in 3 different steps based on EDAG 

expertise and engineering knowledge. A summary of the model validation and EDAG 

CAE baseline model creation is depicted in Figure D.3-13.
Page 51

Figure D.3-13: Process Flow to Build Baseline Model

Step-I: NVH test setup. Collect NVH test results for the 2009 Toyota Venza with 

panoramic roof.

Step-II: Construction and correlation of NVH model. Correlate the CAE model for the 

2009 Toyota Venza with panoramic roof with the test results.

Step-III: EDAG CAE baseline model. Convert the CAE model to a 2010 Toyota Venza 

with full roof model to build the baseline model. 

The model results were then compared with the analytical test results, thus establishing 

the EDAG CAE baseline model.

D.3.6.3 Step I: NVH Test Setup

A 2009 Toyota Venza BIW with panoramic roof was setup with the necessary test 

equipment for static bending, static torsion, and dynamic modal measurements. The 

testing was conducted at the Ford Motor Company NVH labs.

D.3.6.3.1 Static Bending Stiffness Test Setup

For testing purposes, the vehicle was instrumented with the necessary deformation 

measuring gages at the selected locations. The bending test setup is shown in Image 

D.3-1. The deformations at different locations were measured by applying a 2,224N force 

at the left and right rocker sections of the front door opening.

2010 Venza

Full Roof Model

2009 Venza

Test Data

2009 Venza

CAE Model

 Analytical Test

Create EDAG BIP

EDAG Configuration

Run Analytical Test 

Establish Baseline NVH Results

Correlate Model

Step III

Build Baseline NVH Model

Create EDAG BIP

Test Configuration

Run Analytical Test 

Compare to Physical Test Results

Step I

Step II

Physical Property

Analytical Test

Configuration Static Stiffness & Modal

Test Results

Build Analytical Model

Physical Test

Test BIP
Page 52

Image D.3-1: Bending Stiffness Testing Setup

The test vehicle was the 2009 Toyota Venza panoramic roof model. The CAE model was 

created as an exact replica of the test setup in order to achieve the test correlation. Figure 

D.3-14 and Figure D.3-15show the static bending CAE setup equivalent to the test 

vehicle. 

Figure D.3-14: Bending Stiffness CAE Setup

D.3.6.3.2 Static Torsional Stiffness Test Setup

Similarly, the vehicle was instrumented for measurement of torsion stiffness 

characteristics as shown in Image D.3-2. The necessary deformations were measured at 
Page 53

different test locations by applying 1,200N and -1,200N on the left and right shock towers 

respectively.

Image D.3-2: Torsion Stiffness Testing Setup

The CAE model was created by incorporating the same boundary and loading conditions 

as seen in the physical test setup. Figure D.3-15 shows the equivalent CAE model for the 

torsion stiffness test setup.

Figure D.3-15: Torsion Stiffness CAE Setup

D.3.6.3.3 Dynamic Modal Test Setup
Page 54

In the dynamic modal analysis, MSC NASTRAN SOL 103 was used with no boundary 

conditions. It is a free-free (no boundary condition, no initial condition) frequency 

analysis with a given frequency range of 0-100Hz. This was defined with the help of the 

NASTRAN PARAM control card in which the input and output requirements are 

embedded with the EIGRL card.

Once the test data was recorded for the dynamic modal setup, the FEA model was run 

using NASTRAN. The normal modes were noted in the CAE model and then compared 

with the test data in order to correlate the FEA model to the physical model.

Image D.3-3: Dynamic Modal Test Setup

D.3.6.4 Step II: Construction and Correlation of NVH Model

After the teardown vehicle was scanned and converted to a CAE model, it was converted 

into a panoramic roof model. This model was then compared with the test model, as 

shown in Image D.3-3. The various factors that were considered for the correlation were 

weight of the test vehicle versus the CAE model, modal analysis, torsion stiffness, and 

bending stiffness. 

The NVH models shown in Figure D.3-14, Figure D.3-15, and Figure D.3-16 were used 

to correlate the CAE model. The results are shown in Table D.3-1.
Page 55

Figure D.3-16: CAE Model for NVH Correlation

NVH Correlation Summary

The MSC NASTRAN solver (SOL 101 & 103[5]) was used to analyze the NVH load 

cases. The results of the NVH simulations were studied with respect to the test results. 

The correlation of the CAE test results of the NVH load cases are shown in Table D.3-1.

Table D.3-1: FEA Model Test Correlation Comparison with Test Data

The data in Table D.3-1 shows the initial FE model correlated well with the test vehicle 

and thus was qualified to create further EDAG CAE baseline models for the remaining 

NVH and crash load cases.
Page 56

D.3.6.5 Step III: EDAG CAE Baseline Model

The EDAG CAE baseline model for NVH cases was created from the correlated FE 

model. The correlated FE model was converted to a 2010 Toyota Venza with full roof and 

simulated for NVH load cases. The results were compared with the test data and the 

correlated model as shown in Table D.3-2. Note the results of the global torsion mode 

and torsional stiffness of the baseline model were significantly higher due to the full-roof 

structure. The other global bending mode and static bending stiffness results showed 

similar performance with the baseline and correlated models.

Table D.3-2: NVH Results Summary for CAE Baseline Model

The baseline model for the NVH cases was correlated and referenced in the project for 

further NVH load cases. The same NVH baseline model was used to create the crash 

baseline models. The model setup and load case creations for crash simulations are 

explained later in this study.

D.3.7 Lotus Results Validation

The project also included validation of the weight reduction of the Toyota Venza with 

respect to the Lotus Engineering weight reduction report.[4] Lotus Engineering provided a 

theoretical study of the weight reduction of the Toyota Venza under two different study 

levels: a low-development study and a high-development study.

The low-development study primarily included the use of various high-strength steel 

materials with the focus on substituting existing parts, thus yielding the weight savings. 

The high-development study, however, included some design changes, futuristic 

manufacturing techniques, newly combined assemblies, and production volumes. It 

primarily featured changes in the body structure of the vehicle.
Page 57

The scope of this project was to validate the findings of the low-development study, 

which states that without any major performance degradation, the body structure mass 

savings would be approximately 6.6%. Figure D.3-17 and Figure D.3-18 show the 

material and the thickness map of Lotus Engineering's optimized low-development study 

[4], respectively.

Figure D.3-17: Material Map Based on Lotus Engineering information

Figure D.3-18: Thickness Map Based on Lotus Engineering information
Page 58

EDAG attempted to validate the findings of the Lotus Engineering's low-development 

study for NVH performance using the materials and gauges shown in Figure D.3-17 and

Figure D.3-18. This information was incorporated into the EDAG baseline NVH model 

by substituting the thickness values and material selection of the various components 

identified in the updated Lotus Report into the EDAG baseline model. This substitution 

resulted in a body structure weight reduction of 6.5% vs. the reported reduction of 6.6%. 

This overall weight reduction comparison would indicate that the model represented the 

Lotus Study fairly well.

The results of the validation in comparison to the EDAG baseline model are shown in

Table D.3-2. The modal analysis results were comparable to the baseline, but the static 

bending and torsional stiffness values did not provide acceptable performance. The 

torsional stiffness is 20.4% less, and the bending stiffness is 20.0% less than the target 

performance value established by EDAG.

Table D.3-2: NVH Results Summary for Lotus CAE Model

Crash simulations based on the Lotus Engineering’s study were not conducted since the 

structure did not meet the NVH targeted performance.
Page 59

D.3.8 Baseline Crash Model

As per the scope of the project, CAE crash performance analyses were carried out to 

verify compliance with the National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA) 

regulatory performance targets. For this project, the following Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standards (FMVSS) and European regulatory test requirements were incorporated 

into the individual CAE models:

1) FMVSS 208—35 MPH flat frontal crash with rigid wall barrier, same as US New 

Car Assessment Program (US NCAP) 

2) European New Car Assessment Program (Euro NCAP)—35 MPH frontal crash 

with Offset Deformable Barrier (ODB), same as the Insurance Institute for 

Highway Safety (IIHS) frontal crash 

3) FMVSS 214—38.5 MPH side impact with moving deformable barrier (MDB) 

4) FMVSS 301—50 MPH rear impact with moving deformable barrier (MDB)

5) FMVSS 216a—Roof crush resistance (utilizing the higher standard IIHS roof 

crush resistance criteria) 

A baseline crash model was developed and correlated for the frontal and side-impact load 

cases of testing specifications in 1 and 3 above. The remaining load cases were then 

carried out using the correlated crash model.

D.3.8.1 Model Building

D.3.8.1.1 Major System for Full Vehicle Model
Page 60

In order to build the full-vehicle crash model, the validated NVH BIP model (from 

section 1.6.5) was utilized. The crash model included all closure parts (such as hood, 

doors, and tailgate). Front and rear bumper system structural parts were also included to 

represent realistic high-speed front and rear-crash scenarios. All parts critical to a highspeed frontal impact scenario were included: powertrain assembly, major engine and 

transmission parts, radiator assembly, and exhaust subsystem. The fuel tank system parts 

(critical for rear and side-impact scenario) were also included in the full vehicle crash 

model. The rear seat system was represented as a lumped mass critical for front and rearimpact scenarios. A carryover FEA seat system was integrated to take into account 

resistance of seat structure deformation in side-impact scenario. The full-vehicle crash 

model consisted of a total of 1,300,000 elements. The CAE weight of the model was 

1,843.2 kg, in comparison with test vehicle weight of 1,839.9 kg. Figure D.3-19 below 

shows the different major systems of the full-vehicle crash model.

Figure D.3-19: Major Systems of Full-Vehicle Model

The gauge map and material map of BIP parts (the same as the validated BIP model) are 

shown in Figure D.3-20 and Figure D.3-21, respectively. The gauge and material data 

for the remaining closure parts were also incorporated accordingly. Figure D.3-20 and 

Figure D.3-21 represent the gauge map and material grade map of the closure parts.
Page 61

Figure D.3-20: Gauge Map of Closures Models of Baseline

Figure D.3-21: Material Map of Closures Models of Baseline

D.3.8.1.2 Mass Validation
Page 62

EDAG standard CAE Modeling guidelines [3] were followed throughout the model 

building process to be consistent with mass and center of gravity (CG) calibrations. The 

total vehicle mass was correlated to NHTSA Test No. C95111. Vehicle mass difference 

was calibrated within 0.5% of test weight. The vehicle CG was calibrated to be within 

0.5% of the test measurement.

D.3.8.1.3 FE Modeling Technique

There are many aspects of FE modeling that affect the accuracy of the simulation and the 

turn-around time of the numerous iterations required in the project. In order to meet the 

scope and timing of the project, it is critical to select these factors carefully so that the FE 

models will meet the requirements for simulation accuracy, consistency of the various 

iterations and provide efficiency of the iteration turn-around time.

A partial list of the factors that were considered is listed below. These factors and the 

resulting factors assigned to them were determined by following the recent FE analysis 

trends and increasing the focus on factors that provide improved simulation accuracy. In 

part this is now possible by virtue of the enhanced computing power available today. 

However, it must also be noted some of these factors are still being debated throughout 

the automotive industry since the solver code and modeling techniques still have 

limitations in the correlation accuracy with physical tests.

Welding Property

The spot welds on the structure are used with mesh independent hexa solid weld 

element of LS-DYNA. Its mechanical property is determined to use 500MPa 

Yield Stress which represents the average level strength of the baseline material 

and candidate material of the optimized structure.

Transverse Shear Scale Factor

The shear correction factor which is commonly used for shell element for isotropic 

material type has a value assigned of 0.833.

Element Type

The element formulation in this BIW model is used with LS-DYNA Type-16 fullyintegrated Bathe-Dvorkin shell element for major load path parts. 

Integration Points
Page 63

The integration point through the thickness of the sheet metal in this BIW model is 

used with 5-point integration option for major load path parts.

Element Formulation

For the more accurate material stress strain behavior, option of the material 

formulation for strain rate effect, VP=1.0 is used.

Material Failure Criteria

When considering the parent sheet material fracture/failure behavior, the failure option 

"major in plane strain at failure" (EPSMAJ) of LS-DYNA MAT 123 

MODIFIED_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY_RATE is used for the materials 

above 350MPa Yield Stress which are considered High Strength Steels and have less total 

elongation. LS-DYNA computes the plastic strain in all elements at each time step. 

When the plastic strain exceeds the failure criterion in an element, that element is eroded 

(i.e., removed from the finite element model). The data used for both static loading and 

dynamic loading failure of HSS and AHSS are presented in Appendix H.6.

D.3.8.2 Powertrain Mass & Inertia Calibration Test

In order to capture correct moment of inertia (MOI) and mass information for the 

powertrain assembly, an independent swing test was executed. In a full vehicle crash 

analysis, the characteristics of the powertrain significantly influence the body pulse and 

engine compartment structural deformation. An accurate representation of the mass and 

MOI of the engine and powertrain system is therefore a crucial part of the crash 

simulation.

D.3.8.3 Measuring Powertrain CG & Moment of Inertia

The powertrain and/or engine characteristics, namely, MOI and center of gravity (CG), 

were measured by conducting an oscillation test on the disassembled powertrain system 

using trifilar suspension apparatus. [18] Due to the complexity of the measuring process, 

the following assumptions were made while calculating the MOI and CG:

Engine mass is evenly distributed across the engine

The oscillation is assumed to be undamped

Test frame inertia was subtracted from powertrain inertia
Page 64

MOI and CG were recorded as per trifilar suspension testing procedures.[18] The CG 

location is shown in Image D.3-4; the powertrain mass and inertia matrix are shown in

Figure D.3-22. 

Image D.3-4: Powertrain and/or Engine Center of Gravity

Figure D.3-22: Powertrain Mass & Moment of Inertia Results

D.3.8.4 Baseline Crash Model Set-up

The crash load cases considered in this study are 
Page 65

FMVSS 208—35 MPH flat frontal crash (US NCAP)

Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB frontal crash (Euro NCAP/IIHS) 

FMVSS 214—38.5MPH MDB side impact

FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB rear impact

FMVSS 261a—Roof crush (utilizing IIHS roof-crush criteria)

Figure D.3-23 shows all five different load case configurations with appropriate barriers 

placed against the full vehicle baseline model.

Figure D.3-23: Configuration of All Load Case Set-Ups for Baseline Model

The necessary physical vehicle data obtained during the vehicle teardown phase (e.g., 

bushings) were included in the crash model. A brief summary of model content statistics 

is provided in Table D.3-3. 

Table D.3-3: Contents of EDAG CAE Baseline Model

Model Detail Count
Page 66

Total number of elements 1,372,930

Total number of nodes 1,374,947

Total number of shell elements 1,275,631

Total number of solid elements 97,099

Total number of beam & discrete elements 91

Total number of part IDs 1157

It should be noted that there was no effort to correlate the baseline models with actual 

vehicle crash results due to a lack of supporting information i.e., mounting information, 

seat model, trims, chassis suspension, etc.

The crash model comparisons with the test results are explained in detail in the following 

sections.

D.3.8.5 Baseline Crash Model Evaluation

For reasonable representation of a realistic vehicle crash test, the FE baseline crash model 

needs to be correlated against physical test data. The FE crash model was correlated using 

two load cases: frontal impact with flat rigid wall barrier and side impact with moving 

deformable barrier. 

FMVSS 208—35 MPH flat frontal crash (US NCAP)

FMVSS 214—38.5 MPH MDB side impact

The details of these two load cases and correlations of the test results and CAE 

simulations are explained in the following section.

D.3.8.5.1 FMVSS 208—35 MPH Flat Frontal Crash (US NCAP)

Model Setup
Page 67

The frontal impact test of FMVSS 208 (US NCAP) undertaken by the NHTSA, is a full

frontal barrier test at a vehicle speed of 35 mph (56 km/h). The corresponding NHTSA 

Test No. C95111 [19] of a 2009 Toyota Venza was referenced to obtain initial crash setup 

and results. Image D.3-5 below shows the FMVSS 208 frontal impact test setup of a

2009 Toyota Venza.

Image D.3-5: FMVSS 208 35 MPH Flat Frontal Crash Test Setup

The CAE model was setup as defined in the FMVSS 208 regulation. The LS-DYNA 

model was created to represent the exact test initial setup, such as vehicle velocity of 35 

mph against a flat rigid wall barrier. The CAE vehicle mass was 1,843.2 kg. This was 

3.3kg more than in the test (1,839.9 kg). The weight difference was due to the mesh 

characteristics of the stamped parts. The CAE vehicle mass included a mass of 38 kg for 

the purpose of the LS-DYNA mass scaling requirement. [6]

To measure passenger compartment structure integrity, data analysis points as shown in

Figure D.3-24 were measured with respect to a coordinate system reference at the cargo 

area of the body structure; reference point locations follow IIHS standards. To measure 

instrument panel (IP) movements, two reference points were taken from the cowl cross 

member.
Page 68

-+

Figure D.3-24: Intrusion Measurement Locations

The LS-DYNA simulation was carried out for an 80 milliseconds (ms) analysis time 

frame. Following are the results of the analysis and comparison with the test results.

Deformation Mode Comparison 

Global vehicle deformation and vehicle crash behaviors were analyzed and compared to 

the deformation modes of test photographs. Figure D.3-25 through Figure D.3-30 show 

different views of the comparative deformation mode at 80 ms (end of crash). From the 

comparison of the deformation modes, it can be observed the EDAG baseline model 

shows similar deformation modes.

 

Figure D.3-25: Deformation Mode Comparison: Right Side View @ 80msec
Page 69

 

Figure D.3-26: Deformation Mode Comparison: Left Side View @ 80msec

 

Figure D.3-27: Deformation Mode Comparison: Top View @ 80msec

 

Figure D.3-28: Deformation Mode Comparison: ISO View @ 80msec
Page 70

 

Figure D.3-29: Deformation Mode Comparison: Bottom View Front Area @80msec

 

Figure D.3-30: Deformation Mode Comparison: Bottom View Rear Area @80msec

Similarly, the following figures compare the deformation modes at 30 ms. Figure D.3-31

shows the bottom view of the engine compartment and front cradle deformation. The 

deformation mode at 46 ms (when the cradle was fully deformed and the impact load was 

transferred to the lower front dash) was also observed to be well correlated with the test 

results as shown in Figure D.3-32.
Page 71

Figure D.3-31: Intermediate Time Front Engine Room and Front Cradle @ 30msec

Figure D.3-32: Intermediate Time Front Engine Room and Front Cradle @ 46msec

Body Pulse Comparison

Another important result was the vehicle acceleration pulse (in G's). The pulse was 

measured at the undeformed location of the rear-seat cross member. Figure D.3-33 shows 

the location of the pulse data measurement (accelerometer data number 1 & 2) on the test 

vehicle. The vehicle velocity was measured on the CAE model at the same location (rearseat cross member). The velocity was differentiated to obtain the acceleration pulse.
Page 72

Figure D.3-33: Location of vehicle pulse measurement

The vehicle acceleration pulse (in G's) for the driver side and the passenger side of the 

vehicle are shown in Figure D.3-34. The vehicle pulse of the baseline model is LH45.9/RH-44.9G, and the test model is LH-40.9/RH-38.4G. When compared to the test 

results, the vehicle pulse of the CAE simulation is higher by LH-5.0/RH-6.5G. The 

difference in the vehicle pulse was found to be influenced by the properties of the 

powertrain mounting bushing. The bushing mountings of the CAE model were 

represented as rigid connections. In the real test, bushing mountings transfer the crash 

loads to the engine compartment and under the floor structures: Some of the bushing 
Page 73

mountings could fail due to severe deformation of the structure. In this study, since all 

bushing mountings were rigidly connected to the structure, deformation behavior was 

treated based on engineering estimates. So the global stiffness of the test vehicle turned 

out slightly stiffer than the actual vehicle. 

Figure D.3-34: Body Pulse: CAE Baseline Model vs. Test

Even though the pulse of the CAE baseline model is higher, it is believed to be acceptable 

for the baseline model. This model gave an acceptable frontal crash performance based on

an analysis of the dynamic crush and compartment intrusions (explained below). 

Dynamic Crush and Intrusions

Dynamic crush is the total vehicle body deformation at the end of the crash event with 

respect to the un-deformed vehicle. The initial crush of the Toyota Venza baseline was 

measured to be 605 mm as shown in Figure D.3-35. 
Page 74

Figure D.3-35: Initial Crush Space

The dynamic crush of flat frontal simulation is plotted in Figure D.3-36.

Figure D.3-36: FMVSS 208 Baseline Dynamic Crush 

Table D.3-4 shows the maximum vehicle crush of 610.5mm for the baseline model 

compared to the test results of 592mm. A summary of performance indicators of the 

baseline model for the flat frontal crash load case is listed in Table D.3-4 and Table 

D.3-45.
Page 75

Table D.3-4: Pulse and Dynamic Crush

No. Frontal crash 

measurements Venza 2009 Test Model Venza 2010 CAE Baseline Model

1 Pulse (G’s)

1

st peak=17.0 @ 13.8 ms

2

nd peak=40.9 @ 84.5 ms

1

st peak=16.0 @ 9.4 ms

2

nd peak=45.2 @ 44.9 ms

3 Dynamic Crush (mm) 592.0 610.5

4 Weight (kg) 1839.9 1843.2

Table D.3-5: Compartment Dash Intrusion

Model Driver Footwell 

(mm)

Driver Toe Pan 

Left (mm)

Driver Toe Pan 

Center (mm)

Driver Toe Pan 

Right (mm)

Baseline 56.7 131.3 147.2 105.2

Table D.3-5 lists the compartment dash intrusions measured at locations shown in Figure 

D.3-24. 

Based on the analysis of the deformation mode, dynamic crush, and compartment 

intrusions, this model was established as EDAG’s baseline target for further frontal offset 

load case iterations.

D.3.8.5.2 FMVSS 214—38.5MPH MDB Side Impact

Model Setup

The baseline crash model was correlated using another crash load case of FMVSS 214 

side impact with MDB where a moving deformable barrier with a mass of 1,370 kg 

impacted the vehicle on the driver side with a velocity of 38.5 mph (61.9 km/h). The 

corresponding NHTSA Test No. MB5128 [20] of a 2010 Toyota Venza was referenced to 

obtain initial crash setup and results. The CAE model was setup as defined in the FMVSS 

214 regulation. Full vehicle mass, impact velocity, vehicle height, and barrier position 

were calibrated accordingly. A typical FMVSS 214 side impact setup with MDB is shown 

in Figure D.3-37.
Page 76

Figure D.3-37: FMVSS 214, 38.5MPH MDB Side Impact CAE Model Setup.

The LS-DYNA simulation was carried out for a 100 ms analysis time frame. The 

necessary results were analyzed and compared with the test results.

Deformation Mode Comparison 

Side-structure deformation and vehicle crash behaviors were analyzed and compared to 

the deformation modes of test photographs. Figure D.3-38 shows the pre-crash 

conditions for comparison purposes and Figure D.3-39 through Figure D.3-41 show the 

comparative deformation modes at 100 ms (end of crash) in different views. By 

comparing the deformation modes, it can be observed the EDAG baseline model shows 

similar deformation modes.

Figure D.3-38: Side Impact: Pre-Crash
Page 77

Figure D.3-39: Side Impact: Post-Crash

 

Figure D.3-40: Doors Deformation Mode Comparison

 

Figure D.3-41: Rear Door Aperture Deformation Mode Comparison

It is also observed the deformation mode for the doors, especially the rear door aperture 

deformation, correlated reasonably well with the test as shown in Figure D.3-41.
Page 78

Intrusion Comparison

Another critical parameter to be compared for the side impact case is the Side Structure 

intrusion at the levels at 1200L & 1650L of the driver-side compartment (Figure D.3-42). 

The compartment structure intrusions were specified as intrusion numbers (Figure 

D.3-43and Figure D.3-44). The intrusion numbers represent the relative displacement 

with respect to an undeformed driver-side structure. The accuracy of the intrusions was 

maintained by using a local vehicle coordinate system at a point on the passenger-side 

structure. The intrusions were measured at different longitudinal sections such as 1200L 

& 1650L of each levels 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 to represent B-pillar & rear door areas. Figure 

D.3-43 shows a section-cut view of the B-pillar intrusion at 1200L section and Figure 

D.3-44 shows Rear Door deformation at 1650L location. The gray contour represents the 

undeformed structure and the red contour represents the deformed structure.
Page 79

 Figure D.3-42: Side Structure Exterior Measuring Location & Points

Figure D.3-43: Side Structure Deformation Section Cut at 1200L
Page 80

Figure D.3-44: Side Structure Deformation Section Cut at 1650L

A summary of the relative intrusions of side structure of the baseline model are shown in 

Table D.3-6 and Table D.3-67.

Table D.3-6: Baseline, Relative Intrusions @ 1200L for FMVS214

Measured Level 2009 Toyota Test CAE 2010 Baseline

Level-5 12 6.0

Level-4 105 165.5

Level-3 199 245.0

Level-2 184 233.3

Level-1 134 133.7

* All measured points are taken at the vehicle exterior point

Table D.3-7: Baseline, Relative Intrusions @ 1650L for FMVSS 214
Page 81

Measured Level 2009 Toyota Test CAE 2010 Baseline

Level-5 11 7.0

Level-4 120 149.7

Level-3 258 282.2

Level-2 242 269.9

Level-1 69 146.6

* All measured points are taken at the vehicle exterior point

In analyzing the comparison between the FE model and actual test results the side 

structure deformation contour is in part dependent on structural interactions between 

space holders such as seat belt retractors, seat structure, door trim panels, seat cushions, 

etc.

In the FEA model there are major differences from the actual vehicle test conditions such 

as seat structure model, retractor assembly at B-Pillar lower along with there are no space 

holders like trim panels, seat cushions, etc. Therefore the load carrying path between side 

structure, seat and tunnel block in the FEA model is not the same as in the actual test. 

With these differences the intrusion levels seen are generally found to be larger than the 

actual test results. The intrusions in the area of the “B” pillar mid levels (Level 2 ~ Level

4) come out larger than the actual test. However, the upper and lower pivot spots (Level 1 

& Level 5) show fairly good comparison. For example, in Level 1, side rocker level,

shows 133.7 mm which is similar to the test level of 134 mm and level 5, roof rail, shows

6.0 mm which is also similar to the test result of 12.0 mm of intrusion. However, it is felt 

these differences are more than adequately explained by the lack of actual components in 

the FE model. The scope of the program did not include attempting to correlate the 

intrusion values and the numbers seen demonstrates a reasonable tendency and therefore 

considered as acceptable. 

Since the baseline model was found to trend as expected when compared with actual test 

results this level of intrusion was established as the base and used to compare further 

iteration of the models.
Page 82

D.3.9 Baseline Crash Results

The baseline crash results of the FMVSS 208 flat frontal and FMVSS 214 MDB side 

impact load cases were obtained during the crash model correlation stage (see analysis in 

Section D.3.8.5). The correlated crash model became the baseline crash model for the 

remaining load cases. By using the correlated baseline model, the remaining 3 crash load 

cases (listed below and analyzed in the following sections) were simulated to obtain the 

baseline performance results.

Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB frontal crash (Euro NCAP/IIHS)

FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB rear impact

FMVSS 216a—Roof crush resistance (utilizing IIHS roof crush resistance 

criteria)

These baseline results were treated as performance targets for further iterations.

D.3.9.1 FMVSS 208—35 MPH Flat Frontal Crash (US NCAP)

The impact requirements, model setup, and results of the FMVSS 208 flat frontal crash 

load case have been explained in the model comparison in Section D.3.8.5.

D.3.9.2 Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB Frontal Crash (Euro NCAP/IIHS)

Model Setup
Page 83

For the frontal offset crash load case, the Euro NCAP 35 MPH ODB test execution, as 

described in the requirements, was used. The CAE model was setup as defined in the 

Euro NCAP requirements. An offset barrier weighing 233 kg was used. The barrier was 

positioned with a 40% overlap with respect to the vehicle side-to-side width as per the 

test requirements. The vehicle impact speed was set at 35 MPH. A typical offset frontal 

impact model setup with ODB is shown in Figure D.3-45.

Figure D.3-45: Euro NCAP Baseline Model Setup

To measure passenger compartment structure integrity, data analysis points as shown in 

Figure D.3-46 were measured with respect to a coordinate system reference at the cargo 

area of the body structure; reference point locations follow IIHS standards. To measure 

instrument panel (IP) movements, two reference points were taken from the cowl cross 

member.
Page 84

Figure D.3-46: Intrusion Measurement Locations

The LS-DYNA simulation was carried out for a 100 ms analysis time frame. Offset 

frontal crash test results were not available for this selected Toyota Venza vehicle 

configuration; therefore, necessary results were analyzed based on the EDAG crash 

model.

Deformation Mode

The post-crash vehicle deformation modes of the CAE simulation are shown in Figure 

D.3-47 to Figure D.3-50.

Figure D.3-47: Euro NCAP Baseline Deformation Mode - Top View
Page 85

Figure D.3-48: Euro NCAP Baseline Deformation Mode - Isometric View

Figure D.3-49: Euro NCAP Baseline Deformation Mode - Left Side View

Figure D.3-50: Euro NCAP Baseline Deformation Mode - Bottom View
Page 86

The deformation modes show the impact energy is absorbed by the front bumper and 

front rail parts without much compartment intrusion. It also reveals the model is 

integrated without any connectivity issues.

Body Pulse, Dynamic Crush, and Intrusion

The vehicle velocity was measured in the x-direction and is shown in Figure D.3-51. The 

velocity was differentiated to obtain the vehicle acceleration in terms of crash pulse (in 

G's).

 Figure D.3-51: Euro NCAP Baseline Vehicle Pulse

The CAE simulation shows the crash pulse of LH-45.0/RH-43.0G and it shows 

acceptable frontal crash performance when analyzing the dynamic crush and compartment 

intrusions (explained below). This, coupled with the dynamic crush and compartment 

intrusion performance, led the engineering team to conclude the performance was 

acceptable as the baseline target.

Dynamic crush is the total vehicle body deformation at the end of the crash event with 

respect to an un-deformed vehicle. The available crush of the Toyota Venza baseline was 

measured to be 605 mm, as shown in Figure D.3-52.
Page 87

Figure D.3-52: Allowable Crush Space

Graphs of the dynamic crush of frontal offset with and without barrier deformations are 

plotted in Figure D.3-53 and Figure D.3-54, respectively.

Figure D.3-53: Euro NCAP Baseline Dynamic Crush with Barrier Deformation
Page 88

Figure D.3-54: Euro NCAP Baseline Dynamic Crush Without Barrier Deformation

The dynamic crush shown in Figure D.3-53 includes the barrier deformation. Subtracting 

the barrier deformation, the vehicle crush is 566.7 mm as shown in Figure D.3-54. 

Therefore, the dynamic crush of the baseline model is within the acceptable range.

Another approach for analyzing the offset frontal crash performance is to plot the 

passenger compartment intrusions. In the Euro NCAP/IIHS case, the global structural 

deformation is plotted in terms of intrusion values measured at the compartment dash 

panel (shown in Figure D.3-46 previously). They are rated using different zones: good 

(green), acceptable (yellow), marginal (orange), and poor (red). The intrusion plot of the 

CAE baseline simulation is illustrated in Figure D.3-55. The CAE baseline model shows 

a good rating (green) at the foot well, right toe-pan, brake pedal point, and left instrument 

panel cross member point and door opening area. The CAE baseline model also shows an 

acceptable rating at the left toe-pan, the center toe-pan and right-IP points. 
Page 89

Figure D.3-55: Euro NCAP Intrusion Plot

A summary of the performance indicators of the baseline model for the offset frontal 

crash load case is listed in Table D.3-8 and Table D.3-89.

Table D.3-8: Pulse and Dynamic Crush

No. Frontal crash measurements Baseline Model

1 Pulse (G’s)

1

st Peak = 6.8 @ 15.0 ms

2

nd Peak = 30.0 @ 77.3 ms

3 Dynamic Crush (mm) 1082.9

4 Weight (kg) - UVW 1710.5

Table D.3-9: Compartment Dash Intrusion

Model Driver Footwell 

(mm)

Driver Toe pan 

Left (mm)

Driver Toe pan 

center (mm)

Driver Toe pan 

Right (mm)

Baseline 141.6 180.7 179.0 84.6
Page 90

Based on the analysis of the deformation mode, dynamic crush, and compartment 

intrusions, this model was established as the EDAG NVH baseline target for further 

frontal offset load case iterations

D.3.9.3 FMVSS 214—38.5 MPH MDB Side Impact

The impact requirements, model setup, and results of the FMVSS 214 side impact load 

case have been previously been examined (see Section D.3.8.5)

D.3.9.4 FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB Rear Impact

Model Setup 

FMVSS 301 specifies a moveable deformable barrier (MDB) impact at 50 mph (80 km/h) 

into a stationary vehicle with an overlap of 70% as shown in Figure D.3-56. The MDB 

used in the test and analysis weighed 1,380 kg.

Figure D.3-56: Rear Impact Baseline Model Setup.

The CAE model was setup as defined in the requirements of FMVSS 301. The LS-DYNA 

simulation was carried out for a 100 ms analysis time frame. FMVSS 301 test results are 

not available for this selected Toyota Venza vehicle configuration. What follows is an 

analysis of the results using the EDAG crash baseline model.

Deformation Mode

The deformation modes of the rear-impact simulation are shown in Figure D.3-57 to

Figure D.3-60. These deformation modes indicate that rear structures protect the fuel 

tank system during the crash event. In Figure D.3-57 the rear door area shows no 

jamming shut of the door opening.
Page 91

The skeleton view of the rear inner structure deformation in Figure D.3-58 shows the rear 

underbody was involved to maximize crush energy absorption and to minimize the 

deformation of the rear door and the fuel tank mounting areas.

Figure D.3-57: Deformation Mode - Left Side View

Figure D.3-58: Deformation Mode of Rear Underbody Structure - Left Side View
Page 92

The bottom view of the rear underbody structure around the fuel tank area at the end of 

the crash (100 ms) is shown in Figure D.3-59 and Figure D.3-60. This deformation mode 

shows the rear rail structure and the rear suspension mounting are intact and that the fuel 

tank system is protected. 

Figure D.3-59: Deformation Mode - Bottom View at 100 ms

Figure D.3-60: Deformation Mode of Rear Underbody Structure - Bottom View at 100 ms

Fuel Tank Integrity
Page 93

Fuel tank integrity was further analyzed by its plastic strain plot. The fuel tank system 

strain plot was monitored as one of the necessary parameters in the rear impact scenario. 

Figure D.3-61and Figure D.3-62 show the plastic strain spot of the top and bottom of the 

fuel tank system at the end of the crash. It indicates no significant risk of fuel system 

damage as the maximum strain amount is less than 20% of the plastic strain of the entire 

fuel tank system.

Figure D.3-61: Fuel Tank Plastic Strain Plot of Baseline - Top View

Figure D.3-62: Fuel Tank Plastic Strain Plot of Baseline - Bottom View
Page 94

Structural Deformation

The structural performance of the rear impact is indicated as zonal deformation numbers 

at each of the deformation zones from the rear end to the front: zone 1—rear bumper area, 

zone 2—rear trunk structure area, zone 3—rear suspension mounting area, and zone 4—

fuel tank mounting area. The deformation measurement locations are shown in Figure 

D.3-63. In addition to the zone deformations, the rear-door opening area deformation was 

also measured in two more areas: the beltline and the dogleg.

Figure D.3-63: Rear Impact, Structural Deformation Measurement Area
Page 95

The rear impact deformation measurements of the baseline model are summarized in

Table D.3-10.

Table D.3-10: Rear Impact Structural Performance

Model Under Structure Zone Deformation (mm) Door Opening (mm)

Zone-1 Zone-2 Zone-3 Zone-4 Beltline Dogleg

Baseline 140.2 292.5 0 0 1.9 0.2

Table D.3-10 shows the door is able to be opened on the baseline model after the crash.

D.3.9.5 FMVSS 216a Roof Crush Resistance

Model Setup

For the roof crash load case, FMVSS 216a roof crush resistance and IIHS roof crush 

resistance recommendations were used. The FMVSS 216a roof crush resistance test 

determines the crashworthiness of the vehicle in a rollover. This test requires each side of 

the passenger compartment roof structure to resist a maximum applied force equal to 3.0 

times the unloaded vehicle weight (UVW). The IIHS roof crush resistance test, however, 

is more stringent and requires the roof structure should resist up to a maximum applied 

force equal to 4.0 times (rather than 3.0 times) the requirement in FMVSS 216a; it uses 

the same rigid rectangular platen which is used in the FMVSS 216a roof crush resistance 

procedure. According to both the FMVSS 216a and the IIHS roof crush resistance tests, 

the test vehicle will meet the requirements of the standard if each side of the roof 

structure withstands the maximum applied force prior to the lower surface of the rigid 

plate moving more than 127 millimeters. 

In this project, the driver side roof crush resistance simulation was performed with the 

assumption of a symmetrical structure for the passenger side. The complete body 

structure was assembled and clamped at the lower edge of the rocker. The rigid loading 

device applied the load in a quasi-static manner to the structure by means of a flat 

rectangular loading platen. LS-DYNA pre-scribed motion [6] was applied in the platen's 

normal direction. Figure D.3-64 below shows the typical roof crush resistance model 

setup with the platen positioned on the driver side roof. 
Page 96

Figure D.3-64: Roof Crush Baseline Model Setup.

The LS-DYNA simulation was carried out for a 140 ms analysis time frame. The strain 

contour plot of the upper BIP structure and the loading forces were recorded with respect 

to loaded platen travel.

Deformation Mode

The roof crush deformation mode at 140 ms after crush event is shown in Figure D.3-65. 

It is noted most of the deformation is concentrated on the roof rail, the A-pillar, and the 

B-pillar of the load side. The remaining neighboring structures remained un-deformed. As 

a result, a majority of the roof rail and B-pillar deformation modes were analyzed.
Page 97

Figure D.3-65: Roof Crush Baseline After Crush View

Structural Strength

The strength of the roof rail and B-pillar structures in terms of rear passenger head 

protection during the rollover scenario was determined by a maximum plastic strain plot 

and a platen force vs. displacement plot. Figure D.3-66 shows the plastic strain 

distribution of the roof and B-pillar structures. A 20% limit of the plastic strain was set to 

analyze the strain distribution. The maximum plastic strain is found to be within the 20% 

limit over a very few spots, not indicating any failures.
Page 98

Figure D.3-66: Roof Crush Resistance Baseline After Crush

The ultimate performance of roof crush resistance was determined by the platen force 

level over the vehicle roof structure. The force vs. displacement curve of the platen is 

illustrated in Figure D.3-67. 
Page 99

Figure D.3-67: Roof Crush Force vs. Displacement Plot of Baseline

A 4 times UVW criterion was used to verify both FMVSS216a and IIHS roof crush 

resistance requirements. The UVW of the baseline roof crush resistance model is 1,710.5 

kg. From Figure D.3-67 it is observed the maximum load (85.8 kN) is greater than 4 

times UVW (67.1 kN). Therefore, the baseline model meets both the FMVSS216a and 

IIHS requirements; it will be treated as the target requirement for further roof crush 

resistance iterations.
Page 100

E. Cost Analysis Methodology

E.1 Overview of Costing Methodology

A comprehensive discussion of the costing methodology used to develop the incremental 

direct manufacturing cost can be found in the EPA published report “Light-Duty 

Technology Cost Analysis Pilot Study” (EPA-420-R-09-020). In the context of the EPA 

analysis, incremental direct manufacturing cost is the incremental difference in cost of 

components and assembly to the OEM, between the new mass reduced technology and 

baseline technology configurations. The FEV calculated costs for the EPA analyses did 

not give consideration to any incremental OEM indirect cost with the exception of tooling 

costs. This portion of the analysis was carried out by the EPA through the application of 

Indirect Cost Multipliers (ICMs). For additional details on the development and 

application of ICM factors, reference EPA report EPA-420-R-09-003, February 2009, 

"Automobile Industry Retail Price Equivalent and Indirect Cost Multiplier" and EPA 

report EPA-420-D-11-901, November 2011, “Draft Joint Technical Support Document”.

The costing methodology is based heavily on assembly teardowns and component 

analysis of both mass reduced and baseline technology configurations that have similar 

driving performance metrics. Only components identified as being different, within the 

two selected technology configurations, as a result of the mass reduced technology 

adaptation, are evaluated for cost. Component costs are calculated using a ground-up 

costing methodology analogous to that employed in the automotive industry. All 

incremental costs for the new technology are calculated and presented using transparent 

cost models consisting of eight (8) core cost elements: material, labor, manufacturing 

overhead/burden, end item scrap, SG&A (selling general and administrative), profit, 

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

E.2 Teardown, Process Mapping, and Costing

E.2.1 Cost Methodology Fundamentals

The costing methodology employed in this analysis is based on two (2) primary processes:

(1) the development of detailed production process flow charts (P-flows), and (2) the 

transfer and processing of key information from the P-flows into standardize quoting 

worksheets. Supporting these two (2) primary processes with key input data are the 

process cost models and the costing databases (e.g. material [price/kg], labor [$/hour], 

manufacturing overhead [$/hour], mark-up [% of manufacturing cost], and packaging 

[$/packaging type]). The costing databases are discussed in greater detail in Section E.5.

Process flow charts, depending on their defined function and the end user, can vary 

widely in the level of detail contained. They can range from simple block diagrams 
Page 101

showing the general steps involved in the manufacturing or assembly of an item, to very 

detailed process flow charts breaking out each process step in fine detail capturing key 

manufacturing variables. For this cost analysis, detailed P-flows (which will also be 

referred to as process maps) are used to identify all the steps involved in manufacturing a 

product (e.g., assembly, machining, welding, forming), at all levels (e.g., system, 

subsystem, assembly and component). 

For example, in a front corner brake system scenario, process flows would exist for the 

following: (1) at the component level, the manufacturing of every component within the 

front brake caliper sub-assembly. This would include such components as the caliper 

housing, caliper mounting bracket, caliper piston, etc. (unless considered a purchase part 

– i.e., Bleeder fitting, brake pads, piston seal, fastening bolts, etc.); (2) at the assembly 

level, the assembly of all the individual components to produce the caliper assembly 

module; (3) at the sub-subsystem level, the assembly of the caliper module onto the front 

knuckle module (including the splash shield, bearing hub, rotor, etc.); and (4) at the 

subsystem level, the assembly of the front corner brake module onto the vehicle 

suspension and framing connections. In this example, the front corner brake system is 

one of several subsystems (e.g., rear brake subsystem, parking brake subsystem, brake 

actuation subsystem, and power brake subsystem) making up the vehicle overall braking 

system. Each subsystem, if it is cost in the analysis, would have its own process map 

broken out using this same process methodology.

In addition to detailing pictorially the process steps involved for a given manufacturing 

process, having key information (e.g., equipment type, tooling configuration, material 

type & usage, cycle times, handling requirements, number of operators) associated with 

each step is imperative. Understanding the steps and the key process parameters together 

creates the costing roadmap for any particular manufacturing process. 

Due to the vast and complex nature of P-flows associated with some of the larger systems 

and subsystems under analysis, having specialized software which can accurately and 

consistently create and organize the abundant number of detailed P-flows becomes a 

considerable advantage. For this cost analysis Design Profit® software is utilized for 

producing and managing the process flows and integrating key costing information.

Simply explained, the symbols which make up the process map each contain essential 

pieces of information required to develop a cost for a particular operation or process. For 

example, in a metal stamping process, the basic geometry of the part, quantity and 

complexity of part features, material gauge thickness, material selection, etc., are 

examples of the input parameters used in the calculation of the output process parameters 

(e.g. press size, press cycle time, stamping blank size). From the calculated press size an 

overhead rate, corresponding to the recommend press size, would be selected from the 

manufacturing overhead database. Dividing the equipment rate ($/hour) by the cycle time 

(pieces/hour) yields a manufacturing overhead cost contribution per part. In a similar 
Page 102

fashion a labor contribution cost would be generated. The loaded labor rate for a press 

operator would be pulled from the labor database. An estimate is made on how many 

presses the operator is overseeing during any given hour of operation. Dividing the labor 

rate by number of presses the operator is overseeing, and then by number of pieces per 

hour, a labor cost contribution per part is derived. 

Lastly, using the calculated blank size, material type, and material cost (i.e., price per 

kilogram) pulled from the material database, a material contribution cost per part can be 

calculated. Adding all three cost contributors together (e.g., Manufacturing Overhead, 

Labor, Material) a Total Manufacturing Cost (TMC) is derived. The TMC is then 

multiplied by a mark-up factor to arrive at a final manufacturing cost. As explained 

briefly below and in more detail in Section E.7, key data from the process flows and 

databases are pulled together in the costing worksheets to calculate the TMC, mark-up 

contribution, and final manufacturing cost.

There are three (3) basic levels of process parameter models used to convert input 

parameters into output process parameters that can then be used to calculate operation or 

processing costs: simple serial, generic moderate and custom complex. 1) Simple serial 

are simple process models which can be created directly in Design Profit®. These process 

models are single input models (e.g., weld time/linear millimeter of weld, cutting 

time/square millimeter of cross-sectional area, drill time/millimeter of hole depth). 2) 

Generic moderate process models are more complex than simple serial, requiring multiple 

input parameters. The models have been developed for more generic types of operations 

and processes (e.g., injection molding, stamping, die casting). The process models, 

developed in Microsoft Excel, are flexible enough to calculate the output parameters for a 

wide range of parts. Key output parameters, generated from these external process 

models, are then entered into the process maps. 3) Custom complex parameter models are 

similar to generic moderate models except in that they are traditionally more complex in 

nature and have limited usage for work outside of what they were originally developed. 

An example of a custom complex model would be one developed for manufacturing a 

selected size heat exchanger (radiator) unit for a particular vehicle engine size and body 

configuration. 

All process parameter cost models are developed using a combination of published 

equipment data, published processing data, actual supplier production data, and/or subject 

matter expert consultation. 

The second major step in the cost analysis process involves taking the key information 

from the process flows and uploading it into a standardized quote worksheet. The quote 

worksheet, referred to as the Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary (MAQS) 

worksheet, is essentially a modified generic OEM quoting template. Every assembly 

included in the cost analysis (excluding commodity purchased parts) has a completed 

MAQS worksheet capturing all the cost details for the assembly. For example, all the 
Page 103

components and their associated costs, required in the manufacturing of a brake caliper 

module assembly, will be captured in the caliper module assembly MAQS worksheet. In 

addition, a separate MAQS worksheet detailing the cost associated with assembling the 

caliper assembly to the vehicle front suspension knuckle, along with any other identified 

front corner brake sub-subsystem components, would be created. 

In addition to process flow information feeding into the MAQS worksheet, data is also 

automatically imported from the various costing databases. More discussion on the 

MAQS worksheet, the database interfaces, and it’s complete function is captured in 

Section E.7. 

E.2.2 Serial and Parallel Manufacturing Operations and Processes 

For purpose of this analysis, serial operations are defined as operations which must take 

place in a set sequence, one (1) operation at a time. For example, fixturing metal stamped 

bracket components before welding can commence, both the fixturing and welding are 

considered serial operations within the bracket welding process. Conversely, parallel 

operations are defined as two (2) or more operations which can occur simultaneously on a 

part. An example of this would be machining multiple features into a cylinder block 

simultaneously. 

A process is defined as one (1) or more operations (serial or parallel) coupled together to 

create a component, subassembly, or assembly. A serial process is defined as a process 

where all operations (serial and/or parallel) are completed on a part before work is 

initiated on the next. For example, turning a check valve body on a single spindle, CNC 

screw machine, would be considered a serial process. In comparison, a parallel process is

where different operations (serial and/or parallel) are taking place simultaneously at 

multiple stations on more than one (1) part. A multi-station final assembly line, for 

assembling together the various components of a vacuum pump, would be considered a

parallel process.

As discussed, the intent of a process flow chart is to capture all the individual operations 

and details required to manufacture a part (e.g., component, subassembly, assembly). This 

often results in a string of serial operations, generating a serial process, which requires 

additional analysis to develop a mainstream mass production process (i.e., inclusion of 

parallel operations and processing). The Manufacturing Assumption section of the MAQS 

worksheet is where the base assumptions for converting serial operations and processes 

into mass production operations and processes, is captured. 

For example, assume “Assembly M” requires fifteen (15) operations to assemble all of its 

parts. Each operation, on average, taking approximately ten (10) seconds to complete. In a 

serial process (analogous to single, standalone work cell, manned by a single operator) 

consisting of fifteen (15) serial operations, the total process time would be 150 seconds to 
Page 104

produce each part (15 operations x 10 second average/station). By taking this serial 

assembly process and converting it into a mass production parallel process, the following 

scenarios could be evaluated (Note: rates and assumptions applied below are assumed for 

this example only):

Scenario #1: 15 serial operation stations, all manned, each performing a single parallel 

operation.

Process Time 10 seconds/part, 360 parts/hour @ 100% efficiency

Labor Cost/Part = [(15 Direct Laborers)*(Labor Rate $30/hour )]/360 

parts/hour = $1.25/part 

Burden Cost/Part = [(15 Stations)*(Burden Rate Average (Low Complexity 

Line) $15/hour/station)]/360 parts/hour = $0.625/part

Labor + Burden Costs = $1.875/part

Scenario #2: 15 serial operations combined into 10 stations, 5 with 2 parallel 

automated operations, 5 serial manual operations.

Process Time 10 seconds/part, 360 parts/hour @ 100% efficiency, 

Labor Cost/Part = [(5 Direct Laborers)*(Labor Rate $30/hour )]/360 

parts/hour = $0.42/part

Burden Cost/Part = [(10 Stations)*(Burden Rate Average (Moderate 

Complexity Line) $30/hour/station)]/360 parts/hour = $0.83/part

Labor + Burden Costs = $1.25/part

Assuming a high production volume and a North America manufacturing base (two key 

study assumptions), Scenario #2 would have been automatically chosen, with the higher 

level of automation offsetting higher manual assembly costs. 

For a component which has a serial process as its typical mass production process (e.g., 

injection molding, stamping, die casting, selected screw machining), the manufacturing 

assumption section of the MAQS worksheet requires far less consideration. Analysis is 

usually limited to determining the total number of equipment pieces required for the 

defined volume. Figure E.2-1 illustrates the fundamental steps incorporated into the cost 

methodology.
Page 105

Figure E.2-1: Fundamental Steps in Costing Process

1. Select Component Assembly, Subsystem, and /or System, for cost analysis

3. Develop Process Flow Charts/ Process Maps using Design Profit Software® During the teardown process, process flow charts capturing every manufacturing operation are generated, including all key part input data and part specific manufacturing data. For simpler processes, process parameter models are setup within the Design Profit ® Software to calculate part manufacturing data based on entered part data.For more complex operations and processes, external process parameter models are used. 

 4. Populate Standardized Quote Worksheets - Two Main Functional Sections (Also referred to as Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary (MAQS) worksheet)

 Manufacturing Assumptions (Section D of MAQS)Using the data captured in the Process Flow Charts, multiple calculations are performed establishing the mass production manufacturing assumptions.Examples included the following:

> OEM and Supplier classifications are selected, 

based on component type and processes, establishing the applicable mark-up rates> Serial operations are combined into parallel operations where applicable> Operations, both serial and/or parallel, are grouped into high volume parallel processes where applicable. > Equipment numbers calculated to support capacity requirements> Final equipment selection and associated burden rates are established> Number of operators required to support defined manufacturing process calculated> Piece per hours calculated

 Quote Summary  (Sections B,C,E & F)Using the data generated in the Manufacturing Assumption Section of the MAQS, along with data from the Costing Databases, a net component/assembly cost impact is calculated.Information used in final calculations includes the following:

> Calculated pieces/hour

 > Material specification, quantity, and price/pound > Labor Classification, number of operators, and cost/hour > Burden Classification, number of machines, and cost/hour > OEM/Supplier Classification, percent of total manufacturing costs > Packaging Container, cost per container, number of parts per container 

 Costing Databases Support Process Mapping and Quote Worksheet Phases of Cost AnalysisFive (5) Databases store rates for all eight cost elements used within the cost analysis: Material, Labor, Burden, Mark-up (End-item Scrap, SG&A, Profit, and ED&T) and Packaging 

2. Conduct ControlledTeardown Process

6. Roll Up costs from MAQS Assembly Worksheets into Net Incremental Subsystem Costs

7. Roll Up each Incremental Subsystem Cost into a Net Incremental System Costs followed by a Net Incremental Vehicle Cost

5. Market Place Cross- Check on Selected Assemblies through solicitation of Industry Experts

 External Process Parameter Models Using process parameter models developed in Microsoft Excel, part input parameters (material specifications, mass, volume, part geometery, part features, etc) are fed into the process parameter models generating key output parameters (e.g. equipment type, equipment size, operation cycle times, material usage, etc).The calculated manufacturing process data is then fed back into the Process Maps 
Page 106

E.3 Cost Model Overview

The cost parameters considered in determining the net incremental component/assembly 

impact to the OEM for new technologies are discussed in detail following.

Unit Cost is the sum of total manufacturing cost (TMC), mark-up costs, and packaging 

cost associated with producing a component/assembly. It is the net component/assembly 

cost impact to the OEM (generally, the automobile manufacturer). Figure E.3-1 shows all 

the factors contributing to unit cost for supplier manufactured components. Additional 

details on the subcategories are discussed in the sections that follow. 

Net Component/Assembly Cost 

Impact To OEM

Total Manufacturing 

Cost

Raw Material

Packaging Cost

=

+

Manufacturing 

Overhead/ Burden

Material

Labor

In-process Scrap

Purchased Part - 

Commodity Parts

Direct Labor Indirect Labor

Maintenance, 

Repair, Other

Fringe

=

+

+

Mark-up Cost

End Item Scrap

=

+

+

Sell, General & 

Administrative 

Costs

Profit

Engineering, Design 

and Testing/R&D

+

+

Primary 

Equipment

Process 

Supporting Equip.

General Plant & 

Office Equip. Facilities

Utilities Plant Salary

Corporate Overhead: personnel functions, 

finance/accounting, systems data 

processing, sales/marketing, purchasing, 

public relations, legal staff, training, 

warranty, etc

Quality Defects Destruct Tests

Shipping Damage

Project Support 

ED&T

Corporate R&D

Supplier compensation for the assumption 

of investment risk in supplying a part to a 

customer.

Figure E.3-1: Unit Cost Model – Costing Factors Included in Analysis

For OEM manufactured components/assemblies, the unit cost is calculated in the same 

way, except that mark-up is addressed outside the scope of this study through application 

of indirect cost multipliers (ICM). See Section E.4 for additional details.
Page 107

Shipping Costs are those required to transport a component between dispersed 

manufacturing and assembly locations, including any applicable insurance, tax, or 

surcharge expenses. Shipping costs between T2/T3 and T1 suppliers are captured as part 

of the mark-up rate (except where special handling measures are involved). For T1 

supplier to OEM facilities, the shipping costs are captured using the ICM that replaces 

mark-up as discussed previously. Additional details on shipping costs are discussed in 

Section E.6.

Tooling Costs are the dedicated tool, gauge, and fixture costs required to manufacture a 

part or assembly. Examples of items covered by tooling costs include injection molds, 

casting molds, stamping dies, weld fixtures, assembly fixtures, dedicated assembly and/or 

machining pallets, cutting tool bodies, torque guns and dedicated gauging. For this 

analysis, all tooling is assumed to be owned by the OEM. The differential cost impact 

due to tooling expense was calculated as part of the analysis. Net incremental direct

manufacturing costs per kilogram are presented with and without tooling. Details on the 

tooling analysis are covered in Section E.10. 

Investment Costs are the manufacturing facility costs, not covered as tooling, required to

manufacture parts. Investment costs include manufacturing plants (facilities including 

building structure, flooring & foundations, lighting, water & pneumatic systems, 

manufacturing equipment (e.g., injection mold machines, die cast machines, machining 

and turning machines, welding equipment, assembly lines), material handling equipment 

(e.g., lift forks, overhead cranes, loading dock lifts, conveyor systems), paint lines, plating 

lines, and heat treat equipment. Investment costs are covered by manufacturing overhead 

rates and thus are not summed separately in the cost analysis. Additional details on how 

investments expenses are accounted for through manufacturing overhead can be found in 

Section E.5.4.

Product Development Costs are the ED&T costs incurred for development of a 

component or system. These costs can be associated with a vehicle-specific application 

and/or be part of the normal research and development (R&D) performed by companies 

to remain competitive. In the cost analysis, the product development costs for suppliers 

are included in the mark-up rate as ED&T. More details are provided in Section E.5.5.2. 

For the OEM, the product development costs are captured in the ICM that replaces markup, as discussed previously in the Unit Cost section.

In summary, the two (2) main cost elements (TMC and Mark-up) in the supplier unit cost 

model defined in Figure E.3-1 include considerations for shipping, investment, and 

product development costs. For the purpose of this study component/assembly packaging 

costs were considered to be neutral due to the relative size envelope of these parts not 

changing significantly between the production stock and mass-reduced parts.
Page 108

Investment costs for the OEM are accounted in the OEM Unit cost model via the TMC. 

Shipping, tooling, product development and other OEM mark-up costs are accounted for 

as part of the ICM and are addressed outside the scope of this study.

Lastly, the Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing Cost (NIDMC) is the incremental 

difference in cost of components and assembly, to the OEM, between the mass reduced 

technology configuration and the baseline technology configuration. 

A more detailed discussion on the elements which make-up the unit cost model follows in 

Section E.5, Costing Databases. 

E.4 Indirect OEM Costs

In addition to the direct manufacturing costs, a manufacturer also incurs certain indirect 

costs. These costs may be related to production, such as research and development 

(R&D); tooling; corporate operations, such as salaries, pensions, and health care costs for 

corporate staff; or selling, such as transportation, dealer support, and marketing. Indirect 

costs incurred by a supplier of a component or vehicle system constitute a direct 

manufacturing cost to the OEM (the original equipment (vehicle) manufacturer), and thus 

are included in this study. The OEM’s indirect costs, however, are not included and must 

be determined and applied separately to obtain total manufacturing costs. These indirect 

costs are beyond the scope of this study and are applied separately by the EPA staff in 

their analysis. The methodology used by the EPA to determine indirect costs incurred by 

auto manufacturers is presented in two (2) studies: 

1) Rogozhin, A., et al., “Using Indirect Cost Multipliers to Estimate the Total Cost of 

Adding New Technology in the Automobile Industry,” International Journal of 

Production Economics (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.11.031. 

2) Gloria Helfand and Todd Sherwood, ‘‘Documentation of the Development of 

Indirect Cost Multipliers for Three Automotive Technologies,’’ Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. EPA, August 2009. This document can be 

found in the public docket at EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0799-0064 

(www.regulations.gov).

3) EPA & NHTSA, “Draft Joint Technical Support Document: Proposed Rulemaking 

for 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards & 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards,” for EPA report EPA-420-D-11-901, 

November 2011, at (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420d11901.pdf).
Page 109

E.5 Costing Databases

E.5.1 Database Overview

The Unit Cost Model shown in Figure E.3-1 illustrates the three (3) main cost element 

categories, along with all the core subcategories, that make up the unit costs for all 

components and assemblies in the analysis. 

Every cost element used throughout the analysis is extracted from one of the core 

databases. There are the databases for material prices ($/kilogram), labor rates ($/hour), 

manufacturing overhead rates ($/hour), mark-up rates (% of TMC) and packaging 

($/packaging option). The databases provide the foundation of the cost analysis, since all 

costs originate from them, and they are also used to document sources and supporting 

information for the cost numbers. 

The model allows for updates to the cost elements which automatically roll into the 

individual component/assembly cost models. Since all cost sheets and parameters are 

directly linked to the databases, changing any of the “Active Rate” cost elements in the 

applicable database automatically updates the Manufacturing Assumption Quote 

Summary (MAQS) worksheets. Thus, if a material doubles in price, one can easily assess 

the impact on the technology configurations under study.

E.5.2 Material Database

E.5.2.1 Overview

The Material Database houses specific material prices and related material information 

required for component cost estimating analysis. The information related to each material 

listed includes the material name, standard industry identification (e.g., AISI or SAE 

nomenclature), typical automotive applications, pricing per kilogram, annual consumption 

rates, and source references. The prices recorded in the database are in US dollars per 

kilogram.

E.5.2.2 Material Selection Process

The materials listed in the database (resins, ferrous, and non-ferrous alloys) are used in 

the products and components selected for cost analysis. The materials identification 

process is based on visual part markings, part appearance, and part application. Material 

markings are the most obvious method of material identification. Resin components 

typically have material markings (e.g., >PA66 30GF<) which are easily identified, 

recorded in the database, and researched to establish price trends. 

For components which are not marked, such as transmission gears, knuckles, body-inwhite sheet metal, engine connecting rods, and the like, the FEV and Munro cross-
Page 110

functional team members and Contracted Subject Matter Experts (SME) are consulted in 

the materials identification. For any materials still not identified, information published in 

print and on the web is researched, or primary manufacturers and experts within the Tier 

1 supplier community are contacted to establish credible material choices.

The specific application and the part appearance play a role in materials identification. 

Steels commonly referred to as work-hardenable steels with high manganese content 

(13% Mn) are readily made in a casting and are not forgeable. Therefore, establishing 

whether a component is forged or cast can narrow the materials identification process. 

Observing visual cues on components can be very informative. Complex part geometry 

alone can rule out the possibility of forgings; however, more subtle differences must be 

considered. For example, forged components typically have a smoother appearance to the 

grain whereas cast components have a rougher finish, especially in the areas where 

machining is absent. Castings also usually display evidence of casting flash. 

The component application environment will also help determine material choice. There 

are, for example, several conventional ductile cast iron applications found in base 

gasoline engines that are moving to Ductile High Silicon - Molybdenum or Ductile NiResist cast irons in downsized turbocharged engines. This is due to high temperature, 

thermal cycling, and corrosion resistance demands associated with elevated exhaust gas 

temperatures in turbocharged engines. Therefore, understanding the part application and 

use environment can greatly assist in more accurate material determinations.

E.5.2.3 Pricing Sources and Considerations

The pricing data housed in the database is derived from various sources of publicly 

available data from which historical trend data can be derived. The objective is to find 

historical pricing data over as many years as possible to obtain the most accurate trend 

response. Ferrous and non-ferrous alloy pricing involves internet searches of several 

sources, including the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), MEPS (previously Management 

Engineering & Production Services), Metal-Pages, London Metal Exchange, 

estainlesssteel.com and Longbow. 

Resin pricing is also obtained from sources such as Plastics News, Plastics Technology 

Online, Rubber and Plastics News, and IDES (Integrated Design Engineering Systems). 

Several other sources are used in this research as outlined in the database. 

Though material prices are often published for standard materials, prices for specialized 

material formulations and/or those having a nonstandard geometric configuration (e.g., 

length, width, thickness, cross-section), are not typically available. Where pricing is not 

available for a given material with a known composition, two (2) approaches are used: 

industry consultation and composition analysis. 
Page 111

Industry consultation mainly takes the form of discussions with subject matter experts 

familiar with the material selection and pricing used in the products under evaluation to 

acquiring formal quotes from raw material suppliers. For example, in the case of the 

NiMH battery, much of the material pricing was acquired from supplier quotes at the 

capacity planning volumes stated in the analysis.

In those cases where published pricing data was unavailable and raw material supplier 

quotes could not be acquired, a composition analysis was used. This was achieved by 

building prices based on element composition and applying a processing factor (i.e., 

market price/material composition cost) derived from a material within the same material 

family. The calculated price was compared to other materials in the same family as a 

means to ensure the calculated material price was directionally correct.

Obtaining prices for unknown proprietary material compositions, such as powder metals, 

necessitated a standardized industry approach. In these cases, manufacturers and industry 

market research firms are consulted to provide generic pricing formulas and pricing 

trends. Their price formulas are balanced against published market trends of similar 

materials to establish new pricing trends. 

Resin formulations are also available with a variety of fillers and filler content. Some 

pricing data is available for specific formulations; however, pricing is not published for 

every variation. This variation is significant since many manufacturers can easily tailor 

resin filler type and content to serve the specific application. Consequently the database 

has been structured to group resins, with a common filler, into ranges of filler content. 

For example, glass filled Nylon 6 is grouped into three (3) categories: 0 to 15 percent 

glass filled, 30 to 35 percent glass filled, and 50 percent glass filled, each with their own 

price point. These groupings provide a single price point as the price differential within a 

group (0 to 15 percent glass filled) is not statistically significant

E.5.2.4 In-process Scrap

In-process scrap is defined as the raw material mass, beyond the final part weight, 

required to manufacture a component. For example, in an injection molded part, the inprocess scrap is typically created from the delivery system of the molten plastic into the 

part cavity (e.g., sprue, runners and part gate). This additional material is trimmed off 

following part injection from the mold. In some cases, dependent on the material and 

application, a portion of this material can be ground up and returned into the virgin 

material mix. 

In the case of screw machine parts, the in-process scrap is defined as the amount of 

material removed from the raw bar stock in the process of creating the part features. 

Generally, material removed during the various machining processes is sold at scrap 
Page 112

value. Within this cost analysis study, no considerations were made to account for 

recovering scrap costs.

A second scrap parameter accounted for in the cost analysis is end-item scrap. End-item 

scrap is captured as a cost element within mark-up and will be discussed in more detail 

within the mark-up database section, Section E.5.5. Although it is worth reiterating here 

that in-process scrap only covers the additional raw material mass required for 

manufacturing a part, it does not include an allowance for quality defects, rework costs 

and/or destructive test parts. These costs are covered by the end-item scrap allowance.

E.5.2.5 Purchase Parts – Commodity Parts

In the quote assumption section of the CBOM, parts are identified as either “make” or 

“buy.” The “make” classification indicates a detailed quote is required for the applicable 

part, while “buy” indicates an established price based on historical data is used in place of 

a full quote work-up. Parts identified as a “buy” are treated as a purchased part. 

Many of the parts considered to be purchased are simple standard fasteners (nuts, bolts, 

screws, washers, clips, hose clamps) and seals (gaskets, o-rings). However, in certain 

cases, more value-added components are considered purchased when sufficient data 

existed supporting their cost as a commodity: that is, where competitive or other forces 

drive these costs to levels on the order of those expected had these parts been analyzed as 

“make” parts.

In the MAQS worksheet, standard purchase parts costs are binned to material costs, 

which, in the scope of this analysis, are generally understood to be raw material costs. If 

the purchase part content for a particular assembly or system is high in dollar value, the 

calculated cost breakdown in the relevant elements (i.e., material, labor, manufacturing 

overhead, mark-up) tended to be misleading. That is the material content would show 

artificially inflated because of the high dollar value of purchase part content. 

To try and minimize this cost binning error, purchase parts with a value in the range of 

$10 to $15, or greater, were broken into the standard cost elements using cost element 

ratios developed for surrogate type parts. For example, assume a detailed cost analysis is 

conducted on a roller bearing assembly, “Bearing A.” The ratio of material, labor, 

manufacturing overhead, and mark-up, as a percent of the selling price, can easily be 

calculated. Knowing the commodity selling price for a similar type of bearing assembly, 

“Bearing B,” along with the cost element ratios developed for “Bearing A”, estimates can 

be made on the material, labor, manufacturing overhead, and mark-up costs for “Bearing 

B”.

Purchased part costs are obtained from a variety of sources. These include FEV and 

Munro team members’ industry cost knowledge and experience, surrogate component 
Page 113

costing databases, Tier 1 supplier networks, published information, and service part cost 

information. Although an important component of the overall costing methodology, 

purchase part costs are used judiciously and conservatively, primarily for mature 

commodity parts. 

E.5.3 Labor Database

E.5.3.1 Overview

The Labor Database contains all the standard occupations and associated labor rates 

required to manufacture automotive parts and vehicles. All labor rates referenced 

throughout the cost analysis are referenced from the established Labor Database.

Hourly wage rate data used throughout the study, with exception of fringe and wage 

projection parameters, is acquired from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). For the 

analysis, mean hourly wage rates were chosen for each occupation, representing an 

average wage across the United States.

The Labor Database is broken into two (2) primary industry sections, Motor Vehicle Parts 

Manufacturing (supplier base) and Motor Vehicle Manufacturing (OEMs). These two (2) 

industry sections correspond to the BLS, North American Industry Classification System 

(NAICS) 336300 and 336100 respectively. Within each industry section of the database, 

there is a list of standard production occupations taken from the BLS Standard 

Occupation Classification (SOC) system. For reference, the base SOC code for 

production occupations within the Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing and Motor Vehicle 

Manufacturing is 51-0000. Every production occupation listed in the Labor Database has 

a calculated labor rate, as discussed in more detail below. For the Toyota Venza CUV 

mass-reduction and cost analysis study, 2010 rates were used.

E.5.3.2 Direct Versus Total Labor, Wage Versus Rate

Each standard production occupation found in the Labor Database has an SOC 

identification number, title, labor description, and mean hourly wage taken directly from 

the BLS. 

Only “direct” production occupations are listed in the labor database. Team assemblers 

and forging, cutting, punching, and press machine operators are all considered direct 

production occupations. There are several tiers of manufacturing personnel supporting the 

direct laborers that need to be accounted for in the total labor costs, such as quality 

technicians, process engineers, lift truck drivers, millwrights, and electricians. A method 

typically used by the automotive industry to account for all of these additional “indirect 

labor” costs – and the one chosen for this cost analysis – is to calculate the contribution 
Page 114

of indirect labor as an average percent of direct labor, for a given production occupation, 

in a given industry sector. 

The BLS Database provides labor wage data, rather than labor rate data. In addition to 

what a direct laborer is paid, there are several additional expenses the employer must 

cover in addition to the employee base wage. This analysis refers to these added employer 

expenditures as “fringe”. Fringe is applicable to all employees and will be discussed in 

greater detail following.

It should be noted that the BLS motor vehicle and motor vehicle parts manufacturing 

(NAICS 336100 & 336300) labor rates include union and non-union labor rates, 

reflecting the relative mix of each in the workforce at the time the data was gathered 

(2010). 

E.5.3.3 Contributors to Labor Rate and Labor Rate Equation 

The four (4) contributors to labor costs used in this study are: 

Direct Labor (DIR) is the mean manufacturing labor wage directly associated with 

fabricating, finishing, and/or assembling a physical component or assembly. Examples 

falling into this labor classification include injection mold press operators, die cast press 

operators, heat treat equipment operators, team/general assemblers, computer numerical 

controlled (CNC) machine operators, and stamping press operators. The median labor 

wage for each direct labor title is also included in the database. These values are treated 

as reference only.

Indirect Labor (IND) is the manufacturing labor indirectly associated with making a 

physical component or assembly. Examples include material handling personnel, shipping 

and receiving personnel, quality control technicians, first-line supervisors, and 

manufacturing/process engineers. For a selected industry sector (such as injection 

molding, permanent casting, or metal stamping), an average ratio of indirect to direct 

labor costs can be derived from which the contribution of indirect labor ($/hour) can be 

calculated.

This ratio is calculated as follows: 

1. An industry sector is chosen from the BLS, NAIC System. (e.g., Plastics 

Product Manufacturing NAICS 326100).

2. Within the selected industry sector, occupations are sorted (using SOC 

codes) into one (1) of the four (4) categories: Direct Labor, Indirect Labor, 

MRO Labor, or Other. 

3. For each category (excluding “Other”) a total cost/hour is calculated by 

summing up the population weighted cost per hour rates, for the SOC codes 

within each labor category. 
Page 115

4. Dividing the total indirect labor costs by total direct labor costs, the industry 

sector ratio is calculated. 

5. When multiple industries employ the same type direct laborer, as defined by 

NAICS, a weighted average of indirect to direct is calculated using the top 

three (3) industries.

Maintenance Repair and Other (MRO) is the labor required to repair and maintain 

manufacturing equipment and tools directly associated with manufacturing a given 

component or assembly. Examples falling into this labor classification include 

electricians, pipe fitters, millwrights, and on-site tool and die tradesmen. Similar to 

indirect labor, an average ratio of MRO to direct labor costs can be derived from which 

the contribution of MRO labor ($/hour) can be calculated. The same process used to 

calculate the indirect labor ratio is also used for the MRO ratio.

Fringe (FR) is all the additional expenses a company must pay for an employee above 

and beyond base wage. Examples of expenses captured as part of fringe include company 

medical and insurance benefits, pension/retirement benefits, government directed 

benefits, vacation and holiday benefits, shift premiums, and training.

Fringe applies to all manufacturing employees. Therefore the contribution of fringe to the 

overall labor rate is based on a percentage of direct, indirect and MRO labor. Two (2) 

fringe rates are used: 52% for supplier manufacturing, and 160% for OEM 

manufacturing. The supplier manufacturing fringe rate is based on data acquired from the 

BLS (Table 1009: Manufacturing Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Per Hours 

Worked: 2000-2011). Taking an average of the “Total Compensation” divided by “Wages 

and Salaries” for manufacturing years 2008 thru 2011, an average fringe rate of 52% was 

calculated.

Due to the dynamic change of OEM wage and benefit packages over the last few years 

(2008-2011), and differences among the OEMs, no updates were made from the original 

OEM fringe assumptions developed for the initial “Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis 

Pilot Study” EPA-420-R-09-020 (http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420r09020.pdf). The 

OEM fringe rate utilized throughout the analysis was 160%.

E.5.4 Manufacturing Overhead Database

E.5.4.1 Overview

The Manufacturing Overhead Database contains several manufacturing overhead rates 

(also sometimes referred to as “burden rates,” or simply “burden”) associated with 

various types of manufacturing equipment, that are required to manufacture automotive 
Page 116

parts and vehicles. Combined with material and labor costs, it forms the total 

manufacturing cost (TMC) to manufacture a component or assembly, and, subsequently, 

the cost accounting for considerations such as workers, supervisors, managers, raw 

materials, purchased parts, production facilities, fabrication equipment, finishing 

equipment, assembly equipment, utilities, measurement and test equipment, handling 

equipment, and office equipment. Manufacturing equipment is typically one of the largest 

contributors to manufacturing overhead, so manufacturing overhead rates are categorized 

according to primary manufacturing processes and the associated equipment as follows:

1. The first tier of the Manufacturing Overhead Database is arranged by the primary 

manufacturing process groups (e.g., thermoplastic molding, thermoset molding, 

castings, forgings, stamping and forming, powder metal, machining, turning, etc.)

2. The second tier subdivides the primary manufacturing process groups into primary 

processing equipment groups. For example the ‘turning group’ consists of several 

subgroups including some of the following: (1) CNC turning, auto bar fed, dual 

axis machining, (2) CNC turning, auto bar fed, quad axis machining, (3) doublesided part, CNC turning, auto bar fed, dual axis machining, and (4) double-sided 

part, CNC turning, auto bar fed, quad axis machining. 

3. The third and final tier of the database increases the resolution of the primary 

processing equipment groups and defines the applicable manufacturing overhead 

rates. For example, within the “CNC turning, auto bar fed, dual axis machining” 

primary process equipment group, there are four (4) available machines sizes 

(based on max cutting diameter and part length) from which to choose. The added 

resolution is typically based on part size and complexity and the need for particular 

models/versions of primary and secondary processing equipment. 

E.5.4.2 Manufacturing Overhead Rate Contributors and Calculations

In this analysis burden is defined in terms of an “inclusion/exclusion” list as follows:

Burden costs do not include: 

manufacturing material costs

manufacturing labor costs 

o direct labor

o indirect labor

o maintenance repair and other (MRO) labor

mark-up 

o end-item scrap

o corporate SG&A expenses

o profit 

o ED&T/ R&D costs expenses

tooling (e.g., mold, dies, gauges, fixtures, dedicated pallets )
Page 117

packaging costs

shipping and handling costs

Burden costs do include:

rented and leased equipment

primary and secondary process support manufacturing equipment depreciation

plant office equipment depreciation

utilities expense

insurance costs (fire and general)

municipal taxes 

plant floor space (equipment and plant offices)

maintenance of manufacturing equipment (non-labor)

maintenance of manufacturing building (general, internal and external, parts, and 

labor)

operating supplies (consumables)

perishable and supplier-owned tooling

all other plant wages (excluding direct, indirect and MRO labor)

returnable dunnage maintenance (includes allowance for cleaning and repair)

intra-company shipping costs

As shown in the lists above, burden includes both fixed and variable costs. Generally, the 

largest contribution to the fixed burden costs are the investments associated with primary 

and secondary process support equipment. The single largest contributor to the variable 

burden rate is typically utility usage.

E.5.4.3 Acquiring Manufacturing Overhead Data 

Because there is very limited publicly available data on manufacturing overhead rates for 

the industry sectors included in this analysis, overhead rates have been developed from a 

combination of internal knowledge and experience at FEV and Munro, supplier networks, 

miscellaneous publications, reverse costing exercises, and “ground-up” manufacturing 

overhead calculations. 

For ground-up calculations, a generic “Manufacturing Overhead Calculator Template” 

was created. The template consists of eight (8) sections: 

General Manufacturing Overhead Information

Primary Process Equipment

Process Support Equipment 

General Plant & Office Hardware/Equipment 

Facilities Cost
Page 118

Utilities 

Plant Salaries

Calculated Hourly Burden Rate. 

The hourly burden rate calculation for a 500 ton (T) injection mold machine is used as an 

example in the following paragraphs. The General Manufacturing Overhead Information 

section, in addition to defining the burden title (Injection Molding, Medium Size and/or 

Moderate Complexity) and description (Injection Molding Station, 500T Press), also 

defines the equipment life expectancy (12 years), yearly operating capacity (4,700 hours), 

operation efficiency (85%), equipment utilization (81.99%) and borrowing cost of money 

(8%). These input variables support many of the calculations made throughout the costing 

template. 

The Primary Process Equipment section (500T Horizontal Injection Molding Machine) 

calculates the annual expense ($53,139) associated with equipment depreciation over the 

defined life expectancy. A straight-line-depreciation method, with zero end of life value, 

is assumed for all equipment. Included in the cost of the base equipment are several 

factors such as sales tax, freight, installation, and insurance. In addition, a maintenance, 

repair and other (MRO) expense (other than MRO labor, which is covered as part of the 

overall labor cost), calculated as a percentage of the primary process equipment cost, is 

included in the development of the manufacturing overhead.

The Process Support Equipment section (e.g., Chiller, Dryer, Thermal Control UnitMold), similar to the Primary Process Equipment section, calculates the annual expense 

($6,121) associated with process support equipment depreciation.

The General Plant and Office Hardware/Equipment section assigns an annual 

contribution directed toward covering a portion of the miscellaneous plant & office 

hardware/equipment costs (e.g., millwright, electrician, and plumbing tool crib, 

production/quality communication, data tracking and storage, general material handling 

equipment, storage, shipping and receiving equipment, general quality lab equipment, 

office equipment). The contribution expense ($2,607) is calculated as a percent of the 

annual primary and process support equipment depreciation costs.

The Facilities Cost section assigns a cost based on square footage utilization for the 

primary equipment ($4,807), process support equipment ($3,692), and general plant and 

office hardware/equipment ($6,374). The general plant and office hardware/equipment 

floor space allocation is a calculated percentage (default 75%) of the derived primary and 

process support equipment floor space. The expense per square foot is $11.50 and covers 

several cost categories such as facility depreciation costs, property taxes, property 

insurance, general facility maintenance, and general utilities. 
Page 119

The Utilities section calculates a utility expense per hour for both primary equipment 

($9.29/hour) and process support equipment ($3.51/hour) based on equipment utility 

usage specifications. Some of the utility categories covered in this section include: 

electricity at $0.10/kW-hr, natural gas at $0.00664/cubic foot, and water at $0.001/gallon. 

General plant and office hardware/equipment utility expenses are covered as part of the 

facility cost addressed in the paragraph above (i.e., $11.50/square foot).

The Plant Salary section estimates the contribution of manufacturing salaries (e.g., plant 

manager, production manager, quality assurance manager) assigned to the indirect 

participation of primary and process support equipment. An estimate is made on the 

average size of the manufacturing facility for this type of primary process equipment. 

There are six (6) established manufacturing facility sizes and corresponding salary 

payrolls. Each has a calculated salary cost/square foot. Based on the combined square 

footage utilization of the primary, process support, and general plant and office 

equipment, an annual salary contribution cost is calculated ($6,625).

The final section, Calculated Hourly Burden Rate, takes the calculated values from the 

previous sections and calculates the hourly burden rate in three (3) steps: (1) 100% 

efficiency and utilization ($30.54/hour); (2) user-defined efficiency with 100% utilization 

($35.12/hour); and (3) both user-defined efficiency and utilization ($38.79/hour).

The majority of primary process equipment groups (e.g., injection molding, aluminum die 

casting, forging, stamping and forming) in the manufacturing overhead database are 

broken into five (5) to ten (10) burden rate subcategories based on processing complexity 

and/or size, as discussed in the manufacturing overhead review. For any given category, 

there will often be a range of equipment sizes and associated burden rates which are 

averaged into a final burden rate. The goal of this averaging method is to keep the 

database compact while maintaining high costing resolution. 

In the example of the 500T injection molding press burden rate, the calculated rate 

($38.79) was averaged with three (3) other calculated rates (for 390T, 610T and 720T 

injection mold presses) into a final burden rate called “Injection Molding, Medium Size 

and/or Moderate Complexity.” The final calculated burden rate of $50.58/hour is used in 

applications requiring injection molding presses in the range of 400-800 tons.

The sample calculation of the manufacturing overhead rate for an injection molding 

machine above is a simple example highlighting the steps and parameters involved in 

calculating overhead rates. Regardless of the complexity of the operation or process, the 

same methodology is employed when developing overhead rates. 

As discussed, multiple methods of arriving at burden rates are used within the cost 

analysis. Every attempt is made to acquire multiple data points for a given burden rate as 

a means of validating the rate. In some cases, the validation is accomplished at the final 
Page 120

rate level and in other cases multiple pieces of input data, used in the calculation of a rate, 

are acquired as a means of validation.

E.5.5 Mark-up (Scrap, SG&A, Profit, ED&T) 

E.5.5.1 Overview 

All mark-up rates for Tier 1 and Tier 2/3 automotive suppliers referenced throughout the 

cost analysis can be found in the Mark-up Database, except in those cases where unique 

component tolerances, performance requirements, or some other unique feature dictates a 

special rate. In cases where a mark-up rate is “flagged” within the costing worksheet, a 

note is included which describes the assumption differences justifying the modified rate. 

For this cost analysis study, four (4) mark-up sub-categories are used in determining an 

overall mark-up rate: (1) end-item scrap allowance, (2) SG&A expenses, (3) profit, and 

(4) ED&T/R&D expenses. Additional details for each subcategory are discussed 

following.

The layout of the Mark-up Database is similar to the Manufacturing Overhead Database 

in that the first tier of the Mark-up Database is arranged by the primary manufacturing 

process groups (e.g., thermoplastic processing, thermoset processing, casting, etc.). The 

second tier subdivides the primary manufacturing process groups into primary processing 

equipment groups (e.g., thermoplastic processing is subdivided into injection molding, 

blow or rotational molding, and pressure or vacuum form molding). The third and final 

tier of the database increases the resolution of the primary processing equipment groups 

and defines the applicable mark-up rates. Similar to the overhead manufacturing rates, 

size and complexity of the parts being manufactured will direct the process and 

equipment requirements, as well as investments. This, in turn, will have a direct 

correlation to mark-up rates. 

E.5.5.2 Mark-up Rate Contributors and Calculations

Mark-up, in general, is an added allowance to the Total Manufacturing Cost to cover enditem scrap, SG&A, profit and ED&T expenses. The following are additional details on 

what is included in each mark-up category: 

End-Item Scrap Mark-up is an added allowance to cover the projected manufacturing fallout and/or rework costs associated with producing a particular component or assembly. In 

addition, any costs associated with in-process destructive testing of a component or 

assembly are covered by this allowance. As a starting point, scrap allowances were 

estimated to be between 0.3% and 0.7% of the TMC within each primary manufacturing 
Page 121

processing group. The actual assigned value for each category is an estimate based on size

and complexity of the primary processing equipment as shown in Table E.5-1.

When published industry data or consultation with an industry expert improves estimate 

accuracy for scrap allowance associated with a generic manufacturing process (e.g., 5% 

for sand casting, investment casting), the Mark-up Database is updated accordingly. In 

cases where the manufacturing process is considered generic, but the component 

performance requirements drive a higher fall-out rate (e.g., 25% combined process fallout 

on turbocharger turbine wheels), then the scrap mark-up rate would only be adjusted in 

the Manufacturing Assumption Quote Summary (MAQS) worksheet. 

Selling, General, and Administrative (SG&A) Mark-up is also referred to as corporate 

overhead or non-manufacturing overhead costs. Some of the more common cost elements 

of SG&A are:

Non-manufacturing, corporate facilities (building, office equipment, utilities, 

maintenance expenses, etc.)

Corporate salaries (President, Chief Executive Officers, Chief Financial Officers, 

Vice Presidents, Directors, Corporate Manufacturing, Logistics, Purchasing, 

Accounting, Quality, Sales, etc.)

Insurance on non-manufacturing buildings and equipment

Legal and public relation expenses

Recall insurance and warranty expenses 

Patent fees 

Marketing and advertising expenses

Corporate travel expenses

SG&A, like all mark-up rates, is an applied percentage to the Total Manufacturing Cost. 

The default rates for this cost analysis range from 6% to 7% within each of the primary 

processing groups. The actual values, as with the end-item scrap allowances, vary within 

these ranges based on the size and complexity of the part, which in turn is reflected in the 

size and complexity of the processing equipment as shown in Table E.5-1. To support the 

estimated SG&A rates (which are based on generalized OEM data), SG&A values are 

extracted from publicly traded automotive supplier 10-K reports. 

Profit Mark-up is the supplier’s or OEM’s reward for the investment risk associated with 

taking on a project. On average, the higher the investment risk, the larger the profit markup that is sought by a manufacturer. 

As part of the assumptions list made for this cost analysis, it is assumed that the 

technology being studied is mature from the development and competition standpoint. 

These assumptions are reflected in the conservative profit mark-up rates which range 
Page 122

from 4% to 8% of the Total Manufacturing Cost. The profit mark-up ranges selected from 

this cost analysis are based on generalized historical data from OEMs and suppliers.

As detailed with the preceding mark-up rates, the actual assigned percentage is based on 

the supplier processing equipment size and complexity capabilities (Table E.5-1). 

ED&T Mark-up: the ED&T used for this cost analysis is a combination of “Traditional 

ED&T” plus R&D mark-up.

Traditional ED&T may be defined as the engineering, design and testing activities 

required to take an "implementation ready" technology and integrate it into a specific 

vehicle application. The ED&T calculation is typically more straight-forward because the 

tasks are predefined. R&D, defined as the cost of the research and development activities 

required to create a new (or enhance an existing) component/system technology, is often 

independent of a specific vehicle application. In contrast to ED&T, pure R&D costs are 

very difficult to predict and are very risky from an OEM and suppliers perspective, in that 

these costs may or may not result in a profitable outcome.

For many automotive suppliers and OEMs, traditional ED&T and R&D are combined 

into one (1) cost center. For this cost analysis, the same methodology has been adopted, 

creating a combined traditional ED&T and R&D mark-up rate simply referred to as 

ED&T. 

Royalty fees, as the result of employing intellectual property, are also captured in the 

ED&T mark-up section. When such cases exist, separate lines in the Manufacturing 

Assumption & Quote Summary (MAQS) worksheet are used to capture these costs. These 

costs are in addition to the standard ED&T rates. The calculation of the royalty fees are 

on a case by case basis and information regarding the calculation of each fee can be found 

in the individual MAQS worksheets where applicable. 

Table E.5-1: Standard Mark-up Rates Applied to Tier 1 and Tier 2/3 Suppliers Based on Size and 

Complexity Ratings

Primary Manufacturing Equipment Group

End Item 

Scrap 

Mark-up

SG&A 

Mark-up

Profit

Mark-up

ED&T

Mark-up

Total

Mark-up

Tier 2 /3 – Large Size, High Complexity, 0.7% 7.0% 8.0% 2.0% 17.7%

Tier 2 /3 – Medium Size, Moderate 

Complexity, 0.5% 6.5% 6.0% 1.0% 14.0%

Tier 2 /3 – Small Size, Low Complexity 0.3% 6.0% 4.0% 0.0% 10.3%
Page 123

Tier 1 Complete System/Subsystem Supplier 

(System/Subsystem Integrator) 0.7% 7.0% 8.0% 6.0% 21.7%

T1 High Complexity Component Supplier 0.7% 7.0% 8.0% 4.0% 19.7%

T1 Moderate Complexity Component 

Supplier 0.5% 6.5% 6.0% 2.5% 15.5%

T1 Low Complexity Component Supplier 0.3% 6.0% 4.0% 1.0% 11.3%

E.5.5.3 Assigning Mark-up Rates

The three (3) primary steps to matching mark-up rates to a given component are: 

Step 1: Primary manufacturing process and equipment groupings are pre-selected 

as part of the process to identify the manufacturing overhead rate. 

Step 2: Manufacturing facilities are identified as OEM, T1 or T2/T3 (this 

identification process is discussed in more detail in the Manufacturing Assumption 

& Quote Summary worksheet section).

Step 3: The best-fit mark-up rate is selected based on the size and complexity of 

the part, which in turn is reflected in the size and complexity of the processing 

equipment. Note that size and complexity are considered as independent 

parameters when reviewing a component and the equipment capabilities (with 

priority typically given to “complexity”). 

Further details on methodology for developing TMC and supplier mark-up can be found 

in EPA published report EPA-420-R-09-020 “Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Pilot 

Study” (http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420r09020.pdf). 

E.5.6 Packaging Database

E.5.6.1 Overview

The Packaging Database contains standardized packaging options available for 

developing packaging costs for components and assemblies. In the cost analysis only 

packaging costs required to transport a component/assembly from a Tier 1 to an OEM 

facility (or one facility to another at the same OEM) are calculated in detail. For Tier 2/3 

suppliers of high- and low-impact components, as well as purchased parts, the Tier 1 
Page 124

mark-up is estimated to cover the packaging as well as shipping expenses. Tier 1 mark-up 

on incoming Tier 2/3 parts and purchase parts are discussed in more detail in Section E.6.

All core packaging items (e.g., containers, pallets, totes) referenced in the database are 

considered returnable dunnage. Internal packaging (e.g., tier pads, dividers, formed trays) 

are also considered returnable with the exception of a few items that are expendable. The 

cost to clean and maintain returnable dunnage is assumed to be covered by the 

manufacturing overhead rate.

E.5.6.2 Types of Packaging and Selection Process

Packaging options in the database are limited to a few standard types and sizes to 

minimize complexity. In general, everything is tailored toward fitting onto a standard 

automotive pallet (as specified by the Automotive Industry Action Group), which has 

exterior dimensions of 48 by 45 inches and a base height assumption of 34 inches 

(although other standard sizes exist in 25, 33 39, 42, 48, and 50 inches in height). A 

standard transport trailer height of 106 inches is used as the guideline for overall 

packaging height.

When initially trying to package a component, three (3) typical packaging options are 

considered:

standard 48 by 45 by 34-inch palletized container (with tier pads and 

dividers) 

48 by 45-inch base pallet with stacked 21.5 by 15 by 12.5-inch totes (48 

totes max – and note that totes can have specialized tier pads, dividers, etc.)

48 by 45-inch base pallet with vacuum formed dividers strapped together 

Considering component attributes such as weight, size, shape, fragility, and cleanliness, 

one (1) of the packaging options above is selected, along with an internal dunnage 

scheme. If it is deemed impractical to package the component within one (1) of the 

primary options, a new package style is created and added to the Packaging Database.

Once the primary packaging type and associated internal dunnage are selected for a 

component, the assumptions along with the costs are entered into a Manufacturing 

Assumption Quote Summary (MAQS) worksheet. In the MAQS worksheet, packaging 

costs along with volume assumptions, pack densities, stock turn-over times, program life, 

packaging life, and interest expenses are used to calculate a cost-per-part for packaging.

E.5.6.3 Support for Costs in Packaging Database

Primary pallet and container costs are acquired from either Tier 1 automotive suppliers or 

from container vendors. In some cases, scaling within container groups is performed to 

quantify the pricing for slightly larger or smaller containers within the same family.
Page 125

Internal dunnage costs are acquired from either Tier 1 automotive suppliers or calculated 

based on standard material and processing estimates. When tooling costs are required for 

packaging, the value of that tooling is added to the total pallet container piece cost, as 

calculated in the MAQS worksheets. The total value is then amortized to calculate a costper-part for packaging.

E.6 Shipping Costs 

In the cost analysis, shipping costs are accounted for by one (1) of three (3) factors: (1) 

Indirect Cost multiplier, (2) total mark-up allowance, or (3) manufacturing overhead. 

Further, shipping costs are always considered freight on board (FOB) the shipper’s dock, 

with the exception of intra-company transportation. Following are the four (4) shipping 

scenarios encountered in the cost analysis and how each case is handled.

In the first two (2) cases, OEM and supplier intra-company transportation, shipping costs 

are accounted for as part of the manufacturing overhead rate. It is assumed that the OEM 

or supplier would either have their own transportation equipment and/or subcontract for 

this service. In either case the expense is binned to manufacturing overhead.

The third case is Tier 1 shipments to an OEM facility. As stated previously the shipments 

are FOB the shipper’s dock and thus the OEM is responsible for the shipping expense. 

The ICM is assumed to cover the OEM’s expense to have all parts delivered to the 

applicable OEM manufacturing facilities.

The final case is Tier 2/3 shipments to the Tier 1 facility. Generally, the Tier 1 supplier is 

allowed a mark-up on incoming purchased parts from Tier 2/3 suppliers. The mark-up 

covers many costs including the shipping expenses to have the part delivered onto the 

Tier 1 supplier’s dock. Further, the mark-up can either be a separate mark-up only applied 

to incoming purchased parts, or accounted for by the mark-up applied to the TMCs. In the 

former, the purchase part content would not be included in the final mark-up calculation 

(i.e., Mark-up = (TMC - Purchase Parts cost) x Applicable Mark-up Rate). 

For this cost analysis, the latter case is chosen using the same mark-up rate for all Tier 1 

value-added manufacturing as well as all incoming purchase parts. 

E.7 Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary Worksheet

E.7.1 Overview 

The Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary (MAQS) worksheet is the document 

used in the cost analysis process to compile all the known cost data, add any remaining 

cost parameters, and calculate a final unit cost. All key manufacturing cost information 

can be viewed in the MAQS worksheet for any component or assembly. Additional 
Page 126

details on the information which flows into and out of the MAQS worksheet are 

discussed in more detail in following sections. Section E.9 discusses how MAQS 

worksheets are uploaded into subsystem, system, and vehicle summary cost model 

analysis templates (CMATs) to calculate the net component/assembly cost impact to the 

OEM.

The fundamental objective of the MAQS worksheet is similar to a standard quoting 

template used by the automotive industry. However, the format has been revised to 

capture additional quote details and manufacturing assumptions, improve on transparency 

by breaking out all major cost elements, and accommodate variable data inputs for the 

purpose of sensitivity assessments. These features are discussed in more detail in 

following sections.

For a given case study, all Tier 1 or OEM assemblies, identified in the CBOM as 

requiring cost analysis, will have a link to a MAQS worksheet. In some cases where high 

value final assembly Tier 2/3 parts are shipped to a Tier 1 supplier, a separate MAQS 

worksheet is created for greater transparency. These T2/3 MAQS worksheets are linked 

to T1/OEM MAQS worksheets, which in turn are referenced back to the CBOM.

Because many of the detailed spreadsheet documents generated within this analysis are 

too large to be shown in their entirety, electronic copies can be accessed through EPA’s 

electronic docket (http://www.regulations.gov).

E.7.2 Main Sections of Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary 

Worksheet

The MAQS worksheet, as shown following in Figure E.7-21 and Figure E.7-2, contains 

seven (7) major sections. At the top of every MAQS worksheet is an information header 

(Section A), which captures the basic project details along with the primary quote 

assumptions. The project detail section references the MAQS worksheet back to the 

applicable CBOM. The primary quote assumption section provides the basic information 

needed to put together a quote for a component/assembly. Some of the parameters in the 

quote assumption section are automatically referenced/linked throughout the MAQS 

worksheet, such as capacity planning volumes, product life span, and OEM/T1 

classification. The remaining parameters in this section including facility locations, 

shipping methods, packing specifications, and component quote level are manually 

considered for certain calculations. 
Page 127

Figure E.7-1: Sample MAQS Costing Worksheet (Part 1 of 2)

Technology Level: Downsized, Turbocharged, Gasoline Direct Inject (GDI) Engine/ Compact Vehicle Class OEM Operating Pattern (Weeks/Year): OEM Plant Location: Vehicle Class: Compact/Economy 2-4 Passenger Annual Engine Volume (CPV): Supplier Plant Location: Study Case#: N0101 (N = New, 01 = Technology Package, 01 = Vehicle Class ) Components per Engine: OEM/T1 Classification: T1 High Assembly Complexity System Description: 2007 Mini Cooper S. 1.6L I4, 16V DOHC GDI Turbo Annual Component Volume: Shipping Method: Component Description: Fuel Injector Assembly - Solenoid, 7 Hole Part Number: 1104-N0101-01 Weekly Component Volume: Packaging Specification: Returnable Container & Internal Dunnage

Component Quote Level: Estimated Product Life: Reference # Part Description Part Number QTY Per Assembly Primary Process 

Description

OEM/Supplier 

Classification

Material 

Specification

Labor 

Classification

Burden

Classification Finished Pieces Per Hour Number of Operators Number of Lines Parallel Processing Multiplier Material Usage "lbs" Material Cost 

$/lb

(DB)

Labor Rate

$/Hour

(DB)

Burden Rate

$/Hour

(DB)

Applied Burden Rate 

$/Hour

Material Cost Labor/ Part Burden/ 

Part Total 1 = Material + Labor + Burden End 

Item 

Scrap 

Rate

(DB)

SG&A 

Rate

(DB)

Profit 

Rate

(DB)

ED&T/ 

R&D 

Rate

(DB)

Total Markup 

Rate

Total Markup 

Cost Total 2 = Total 1 + Total Mark-up Total 3 = Total 2 * Qty per Ass'y Tooling Assumptions "x1000 " Investment Assumptions "x1000 "

Tier 1 Supplier or OEM Processing & Assembly (Full Cost mapping)

1A Fuel Injector Assembly 1104-N0101-01 1 Final Assembly T1 Assembly, Mark-up Applied @ Bottom. Not Applicable Electromechanical Assembly Mech Assembly, LC, Base 480 2 1 6 0.000 $0.00 $37.35 $15.00 $90.00 $0.00 $0.16 $0.19 $0.34 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% $0.00 $0.34 $0.342A Seal Injector Tip 1104-N0101-01-30 1 Overmold seal @ Injector Tip T1 Assembly, Mark-up Applied @ Bottom. Nylon-HT, Inject. Electromechanical Assembly Mech Assembly, MC, Base 450 1 1 1 0.005 $4.00 $37.35 $30.00 $30.00 $0.02 $0.08 $0.07 $0.17 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% $0.00 $0.17 $0.173A Solenoid Body preassembled 1104-N0101-01-10 1 Insert Windings, Ring Locator and Needle Body Assembly into Body Injector and Overmold T1 Assembly, Mark-up Applied @ Bottom. Nylon66-40FMR, Inject. Electromechanical Assembly Mech Assembly, HC, Base 450 2 1 5 0.030 $1.54 $37.35 $45.00 $225.00 $0.05 $0.17 $0.50 $0.71 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% $0.00 $0.71 $0.714A Needle Body Assembly 1104-N0101-01-50 1 Laser weld internal valve body (Sleeve, Needle Body, Tip and Inlet Tube) T1 Assembly, Mark-up Applied @ Bottom. Not Applicable Electromechanical Assembly Mech Assembly, MC, Base 450 4 1.5 8 0.000 $0.00 $37.35 $30.00 $360.00 $0.00 $0.33 $0.80 $1.13 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% $0.00 $1.13 $1.135A Needle Assembly 1104-N0101-01-11 1 Assemble & Press Sleeve T1 Assembly, Mark-up Applied @ Bottom. Not Applicable Electromechanical Assembly Mech Assembly, MC, Base 450 1 1 4 0.000 $0.00 $37.35 $30.00 $120.00 $0.00 $0.08 $0.27 $0.35 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% $0.00 $0.35 $0.356A Needle Injector 1104-N0101-01-13 1

Laser Weld Ball and Seat to Needle

T1 Assembly, Mark-up Applied @ Bottom. Not Applicable Electromechanical Assembly Mech Assembly, MC, Base 514 1 1 3 0.000 $0.00 $37.35 $30.00 $90.00 $0.00 $0.07 $0.18 $0.25 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% $0.00 $0.25 $0.25

7A Metering Valve assembly 1104-N0101-01-16 1 Laser Weld Plate to Valve T1 Assembly, Mark-up Applied @ Bottom. Not Applicable Electromechanical Assembly Mech Assembly, MC, Base 514 1 1 2 0.000 $0.00 $37.35 $30.00 $60.00 $0.00 $0.07 $0.12 $0.19 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% $0.00 $0.19 $0.19

Purchase Part - High Impact Item (Full Cost Mapping)

1A Body Injector Solenoid 1104-N0101-01-20 1 Machine Body T2/T3 CNC Turning, MSMC S-Steel-440C, Bar CNC Operator CNC Turning, MC 500 0.5 5 1 0.140 $4.56 $35.70 $45.00 $225.00 $0.64 $0.04 $0.45 $1.12 0.50% 6.50% 6.00% 1.00% 14.00% $0.16 $1.28 $1.282A Sleeve winding to inlet separator 1104-N0101-01-27 1 Machine and Roll Splines T2/T3 CNC Turning, MSMC S-Steel-440C, Bar CNC Operator CNC Turning, MC 491 0.5 4.5 1 0.074 $4.56 $35.70 $45.00 $202.50 $0.34 $0.04 $0.41 $0.79 0.50% 6.50% 6.00% 1.00% 14.00% $0.11 $0.90 $0.903A Sleeve Fuel Inlet 1104-N0101-01-28 1 Machine T2/T3 CNC Turning, MSMC S-Steel-440C, Bar CNC Operator CNC Turning, MC 485 0.5 3.5 1 0.041 $4.56 $35.70 $45.00 $157.50 $0.19 $0.04 $0.33 $0.55 0.50% 6.50% 6.00% 1.00% 14.00% $0.08 $0.63 $0.634A Body needle 1104-N0101-01-9 1 Machine and Roll Splines T2/T3 CNC Turning, MSMC S-Steel-440C, Bar CNC Operator CNC Turning, MC 460 0.5 5.5 1 0.043 $4.56 $35.70 $45.00 $247.50 $0.20 $0.04 $0.54 $0.77 0.50% 6.50% 6.00% 1.00% 14.00% $0.11 $0.88 $0.885A Inlet Tube 1104-N0101-01-21 1 Cut and Flare T2/T3 Hydro/CNC Form, SSLC S-Steel-304, Tube Forging Operator Cold Forge, LMC 360 0.5 1 1 0.010 $1.65 $38.52 $100.09 $100.09 $0.02 $0.05 $0.28 $0.35 0.30% 6.00% 4.00% 0.00% 10.30% $0.04 $0.38 $0.386A Spring Seat Lower 1104-N0101-01-14 1 Machine T2/T3 CNC Turning, MSMC S-Steel-440C, Bar CNC Operator CNC Turning, MC 450 0.25 1.5 1 0.0002 $4.56 $35.70 $45.00 $67.50 $0.00 $0.02 $0.15 $0.17 0.50% 6.50% 6.00% 1.00% 14.00% $0.02 $0.19 $0.197A Needle valve 1104-N0101-01-24 1 Centerless Grind T2/T3 CNC Turning, MSMC Not Applicable CNC Operator CNC Turning, MC 540 0.25 1.5 1 0.000 $0.00 $35.70 $45.00 $67.50 $0.00 $0.02 $0.13 $0.14 0.50% 6.50% 6.00% 1.00% 14.00% $0.02 $0.16 $0.16

Purchase Part - Low Impact Item ( Partial Cost Mapping = Processed Raw Material Estimate + Actual Component Assembly Process)Purchase Part - Commodity ( Value taken from Purchase Part Database)

Supplier 

Account 

Cost

Purchase 

Price/ Unit

Purchase 

Price Net, 

PIA

Purchase 

Price Net, 

End Item

1A Solenoid Windings 1104-N0101-01-22 1 S $0.00 $0.25 $0.00 $0.252A Ring winding locator 1104-N0101-01-26 1 S $0.00 $0.08 $0.00 $0.083A Spring - needle to metering valve 1104-N0101-01-15 1 S $0.00 $0.01 $0.00 $0.014A Spring Needle Return 1104-N0101-01-12 1 S $0.00 $0.03 $0.00 $0.035A Sleeve Screen Stop 1104-N0101-01-25 1 S $0.00 $0.01 $0.00 $0.016A Screen Fuel Inlet 1104-N0101-01-6 1 S $0.00 $0.05 $0.00 $0.057A circlip face seal retainer 1104-N0101-01-5 1 S $0.00 $0.02 $0.00 $0.028A Compression limiter - oring 1104-N0101-01-3 1 S $0.00 $0.03 $0.00 $0.03

0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.000 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Material Labor Burden TMC Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T Total Mark-up $10.95

T1 or OEM Total Manufacturing Cost: $2.16 $1.47 $6.44 $10.07 $0.03 $0.41 $0.38 $0.06 $0.89 $10.95

T1 or OEM Mark-Up Rates: ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.70% 7.00% 8.00% 4.00% 19.70%

(SAC) &T1 or OEM Mark-Up Values: 0.00 ----- ----- ----- $0.08 $0.77 $0.88 $0.44 $2.16

Base Cost Impact to Vehicle: $2.16 $1.47 $6.44 $10.07 $0.11 $1.18 $1.26 $0.50 $3.05 $13.11 $0 $0

Packaging Cost: $0.01

Net Cost Impact to Vehicle: $13.13

38,298

10

North AmericaNorth AmericaFOB Ship Point

47

450,000

4

1,800,000

GENERAL COMPONENT INFORMATION GENERAL MANUFACTURING INFORMATION MANUFACTURING COSTS MANUFACTURING RATES MARK-UP COSTS TOTAL COSTS TOOLING & INVESTMENT

"S"=Indicates Component is Supplied directly to T1 or OEM for Final or SubAssembly."SAC"=(Supplier Accounted Costs) Indicates Component is Supplied directly to T1 or OEM for Final or Sub-Assembly. In addition component material cost is accounted for in T1 quote sheet. Thus component cost will only be included for Mark-up Calculations."Alpha-Numeric Character" = Indicates purchase parts are brought in by T2/T3 Supplier for Subassembly.

1

3

Full Quote Modification Quote Differential Quote (Quote Summary includes SECTION A

SECTION B

SECTION F
Page 128

Figure E.7-2: Sample MAQS Costing Worksheet (Part 2 of 2) 

Material Labor Burden Total Mfg'ing Cost (Component/ Assembly) End Item 

Scrap SG&A Profit ED&TR&D Total Markup Cost (Component/ Assembly) Process & Equipment Assumptions Days/ Week

Shifts./ 

Day

Hrs./ 

Shift

Hrs./ Wk

Wks./ 

Yr.

Hrs./ 

Yr. Pcs./ Hr. (100% Eff.) Cycle Time/Operation "Sec." Efficiency % Pcs./ Hr. @ Stated Efficiency Cycle Time/Operation @ Stated Efficiency "Sec." Lean Design Calculation for Complete Process Time "Sec." Parallel Operations/Machine or Stations/Line Piece/Cycle/Machine Tack Time/Machine/Cycle "Seconds" Multiplier, If Required for Parallel Processing (1=Nothing) Number of Equivalent Machines Required Resulting Pieces/Hour Resulting Cycle Time/ Part "Sec. Total Number of Direct Operators

$0.00 $0.16 $0.19 $0.34 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Semi Automated Line with Operator load and unload. St#1, Operator load injector assembly w. face seal., St#2, install circlip face seal, S#3Press Screen Stop and filter, S#4 Install Compression Limiter Oring and Oring Injector, S#5, Install Bracket Hold Down, S# 6Test & Label, #7 Operator Unload & Pack

5 2 10 100 47 4700 383 9.40 85% 451 7.99 - 7 2 15 6.0 1.0 480 7.50 2.00 

$0.02 $0.08 $0.07 $0.17 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Operator Load and Unload, Single Station, tip seal install and size. 5 2 10 100 47 4700 383 9.40 85% 451 7.99 - 1 2 16 1.0 1.0 450 8.00 1.00 $0.05 $0.17 $0.50 $0.71 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Linear Transfer line feeding 2 Vertical Injection Press. Both 4 Cavities (2x2). Linear Transfer Line, St#1 Press Needle Body Assembly into Solenoid Body, St#2, Insert Coil and Ring Locator and Press Home, St#3 Load into Mold, ST# 4 Overmold., ST#5 Transfer to secondary overmold.

5 2 10 100 47 4700 383 9.40 85% 451 7.99 - 5 2 16 5.0 1.0 450 8.00 2.00 

$0.00 $0.33 $0.80 $1.13 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Automated Rotary Laser weld table with operator load assist and unload. S# 1 & 2 load pallet, S# 3 Fixture & Weld, S5 Fixture&Weld, S#6 Cool, S#7 Re-orientate, S#8 Insert Valve Assembly/Spring and Sleeve, S#9 Install Inlet Tube, S#10 laser Weld, S#11 Cool, Station 12 Test and Pack. 

5 2 10 100 47 4700 383 9.40 85% 451 7.99 - 12 1 12 8.0 1.5 450 8.00 4.00 

$0.00 $0.08 $0.27 $0.35 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Semi automated load to pallet, automatic fixture and press. Operator assistance on load and unload. 5 2 10 100 47 4700 383 9.40 85% 451 7.99 32 4 1 8 4.0 1.0 450 8.00 1.00 $0.00 $0.07 $0.18 $0.25 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Automated component feed and laser weld assembly station (load, fixture & clamp, weld#1, weld#2, unload) 5 2 10 100 47 4700 383 9.40 85% 451 7.99 21 3 1 7 3.0 1.0 514 7.00 1.00 $0.00 $0.07 $0.12 $0.19 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Automated component feed and laser weld assembly station (load, fixture&clamp, weld, unload) 5 2 10 100 47 4700 383 9.40 85% 451 7.99 13 2 1 7.0 2.0 1.0 514 7.00 1.00 $0.64 $0.04 $0.45 $1.12 $0.01 $0.07 $0.07 $0.01 $0.16 Multi Spindle CNC Turning Machine + Batch Wash 5 2 10 100 47 4700 383 9.40 85% 451 7.99 46 1 1 36 1.0 5.0 500 7.20 0.50 $0.34 $0.04 $0.41 $0.79 $0.00 $0.05 $0.05 $0.01 $0.11 Multi Spindle CNC Turning Machine + Batch Wash 5 2 10 100 47 4700 383 9.40 85% 451 7.99 43 1 1 33 1.0 4.5 491 7.33 0.50 $0.19 $0.04 $0.33 $0.55 $0.00 $0.04 $0.03 $0.01 $0.08 Multi Spindle CNC Turning Machine + Batch Wash 5 2 10 100 47 4700 383 9.40 85% 451 7.99 36 1 1 26 1.0 3.5 485 7.43 0.50 $0.20 $0.04 $0.54 $0.77 $0.00 $0.05 $0.05 $0.01 $0.11 Multi Spindle CNC Turning Machine + Batch Wash 5 2 10 100 47 4700 383 9.40 85% 451 7.99 53 1 1 43 1.0 5.5 460 7.82 0.50 $0.02 $0.05 $0.28 $0.35 $0.00 $0.02 $0.01 $0.00 $0.04 Cold Form Press with automated part handling 5 2 10 100 47 4700 383 9.40 85% 451 7.99 33 4 1 10 1.0 1.0 360 10.00 0.50 $0.00 $0.02 $0.15 $0.17 $0.00 $0.01 $0.01 $0.00 $0.02 Automated CNC, Feed and Machine, Batch Wash 5 2 10 100 47 4700 383 9.40 85% 451 7.99 - 1 1 12 1.0 1.5 450 8.00 0.25 $0.00 $0.02 $0.13 $0.14 $0.00 $0.01 $0.01 $0.00 $0.02 Hopper feed to centerless grinding 5 2 10 100 47 4700 383 9.40 85% 451 7.99 - 3 1 10 1.0 1.5 540 6.67 0.25 

$0.25 $0.25$0.08 $0.08$0.01 $0.01$0.03 $0.03$0.01 $0.01$0.05 $0.05$0.02 $0.02$0.03 $0.03$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00

Material Labor Burden TMC Scrape SG&A Profit ED&T Mark-up 

Total

$2.16 $1.47 $6.44 $10.07 $0.03 $0.41 $0.38 $0.06 $0.89

$10.95

Minimum Calculated Cycles Time 

MANUFACTURING ASSUMPTIONS Manufacturing Cost Project Process Requirement Process Information Mark-up Cost

Costs Broken Out Into Categories with Quantity per Assembly Taken into Account

Projected Operating Pattern

2

Notes: a) Items 1,2, & 3 must all equal same value otherwise there is a computation error.

SECTION C

SECTION D
Page 129

Two (2) parameters above whose functions perhaps are not so evident from their names 

are the “OEM/T1 classification” and “component quote level.” 

The “OEM/T1 classification” parameter addresses who is taking the lead on 

manufacturing the end-item component, the OEM or Tier 1 supplier. Also captured is the 

OEM or Tier 1 level, as defined by size, complexity, and expertise level. The value 

entered into the cell is linked to the Mark-up Database, which will up-load the 

corresponding mark-up values from the database into the MAQS worksheet. For example, 

if “T1 High Assembly Complexity” is entered in the input cell, the following values for 

mark-up are pulled into the worksheet: Scrap = 0.70%, SG&A = 7%, Profit = 8.0% and 

ED&T = 4%. These rates are then multiplied by the TMC at the bottom of the MAQS 

worksheet to calculate the applied mark-up as shown in Figure E.7-3. 

The process for selecting the classification of the lead manufacturing site (OEM or T1) 

and corresponding complexity (e.g., High Assembly Complexity, Moderate Assembly 

Complexity, Low Assembly Complexity) is based on the team’s knowledge of existing 

value chains for same or similar type components. 

Figure E.7-3: Excerpt Illustrating Automated Link between OEM/T1 Classification Input in 

MAQS Worksheet and the Corresponding Mark-up Percentages Uploaded from the Mark-up 

Database

The “component quote level” identifies what level of detail is captured in the MAQS 

worksheet for a particular component/assembly, full quote, modification quote, or 

differential quote. When the “full quote” box is checked, it indicates all manufacturing 

costs are captured for the component/assembly. When the “modification quote” box is 

checked, it indicates only the changed portion of the component/assembly has been 

quoted. A differential quote is similar to a modification quote with the exception that 

TMC

Traction 

Motor
Page 130

information from both technology configurations, is brought into the same MAQS 

worksheet, and a differential analysis is conducted on the input cost attributes versus the 

output cost attributes. For example, if two (2) brake boosters (e.g., the production stock 

booster and the mass-reduced booster) are being compared for cost, each brake booster 

can have its differences quoted in a separate MAQS worksheet (modification quote) and 

the total cost outputs for each can be subtracted to acquire the differential cost. 

Alternatively in a single MAQS worksheet the cost driving attributes for the differences 

between the booster’s (e.g., mass difference on common components, purchase 

component differences, etc.) can be offset, and the differential cost calculated in a single

worksheet. The differential quote method is typically employed those components with 

low differential cost impact to help minimize the number of MAQS worksheets 

generated.

From left to right, the MAQS worksheet is broken into two (2) main sections as the name 

suggests a quote summary section (Section B), and manufacturing assumption section 

(Section D). The manufacturing assumption section, positioned to the right of the quote 

summary section, is where the additional assumptions and calculations are made to 

convert the serial processing operations from Lean Design® into mass production 

operations. Calculations made in this section are automatically loaded into the quote 

summary section. The quote summary section utilizes this data along with other costing 

database data to calculate the total cost for each defined operation in the MAQS 

worksheet. 

Note “defined operations” are all the value-added operations required to make a 

component or assembly. For example, a high pressure fuel injector may have twenty (20) 

base level components which all need to be assembled together. To manufacture one (1) 

of the base level components there may be as many as two (2) or three (3) value-added 

process operations (e.g., cast, heat treat, machine). In the MAQS worksheet each of these 

process operations has an individual line summarizing the manufacturing assumptions 

and costs for the defined operation. For a case with two (2) defined operations per base 

level component, plus two (2) subassembly and final assembly operations, there could be 

as many as forty (40) defined operations detailed out in the MAQS worksheet. For ease of 

viewing all the costs associated with a part, with multiple value-added operations, the 

operations are grouped together in the MAQS worksheet. 

Commodity based purchased parts are also included as a separate line code in the MAQS 

worksheet. Although there are no supporting manufacturing assumptions and/or 

calculations required since the costs are provided as total costs. 

From top to bottom, the MAQS worksheet is divided into four (4) quoting levels in which 

both the value-added operations and commodity-based purchase parts are grouped: (1) 

Tier 1 Supplier or OEM Processing and Assembly, (2) Purchase Part – High Impact 

Items, (3) Purchase Part – Low Impact Items, and (4) Purchase Part – Commodity. Each 
Page 131

quoting level has different rules relative to what cost elements are applicable, how cost 

elements are binned, and how they are calculated.

Items listed in the Tier 1 Supplier or OEM Processing and Assembly section are all the 

assembly and subassembly manufacturing operations assumed to be performed at the 

main OEM or T1 manufacturing facility. Included in manufacturing operations would be 

any on-line attribute and/or variable product engineering characteristic checks. For this 

quote level, full and detailed cost analysis is performed (with the exception of mark-up 

which is applied to the TMC at the bottom of the worksheet).

Purchase Part – High Impact Items include all the operations assumed to be performed 

at Tier 2/3 (T2/3) supplier facilities and/or T1 internal supporting facilities. For this quote 

level detailed cost analysis is performed, including mark-up calculations for those 

components/operations considered to be supplied by T2/3 facilities. T1 internal 

supporting facilities included in this category do not include mark-up calculations. As 

mentioned above, the T1 mark-up (for main and supporting facilities) is applied to the 

TMC at the bottom of the worksheet. 

Purchase Part – Low Impact Items are for higher priced commodity based items which 

need to have their manufacturing cost elements broken out and presented in the MAQS 

sheet similar to high impact purchase parts. If not, the material cost group in the MAQS 

worksheet may become distorted since commodity based purchase part costs are binned to 

material costs as discussed previously in Section E.5.2.5 Purchase Parts – Commodity 

Partsare represented in the MAQS worksheet as a single cost and are binned to material 

costs. 

At the bottom of the MAQS worksheet (Section F), all the value-added operations and 

commodity-based purchase part costs, recorded in the four (4) quote levels, are 

automatically added together to obtain the TMC. The applicable mark-up rates based on 

the T1 or OEM classification recorded in the MAQS header are then multiplied by the 

TMC to obtain the mark-up contribution. Adding the TMC and mark-up contribution 

together, a subtotal unit cost is calculated. 

Important to note is that throughout the MAQS worksheet, all seven (7) cost element 

categories (material, labor, burden, scrap, SG&A, profit, and ED&T) are maintained in 

the analysis. Section C, MAQS breakout calculator, which resides between the quote 

summary and manufacturing assumption sections, exists primarily for this function.

The last major section of the MAQS worksheet is the packaging calculation, Section E. In

this section of the MAQS worksheet a packaging cost contribution is calculated for each 

part based on considerations such as packaging requirements, pack densities, volume 

assumptions, stock, and/or transit lead times. As previously mentioned, for the purpose of 

this study component/assembly packaging costs were considered to be neutral due to the 
Page 132

relative size envelope of these parts not changing significantly between the production 

stock and mass-reduced parts.

E.8 Marketplace Validation

Marketplace validation is the process by which individual parts, components, and/or 

assemblies are cross-checked with costing data developed by entities and processes 

external to the team responsible for the cost analysis. This process occurs at all stages of 

the cost analysis, with special emphasis is placed on cross-checking in-process costs (e.g., 

material costs, material selection, labor costs, manufacturing overhead costs, scrap rates, 

and individual component costs within an assembly).

In-process cost validation occurs when a preliminary cost has been developed for a 

particular part within an assembly, and the cost is significantly higher or lower than 

expected based on the team’s technical knowledge or on pricing from similar 

components. In this circumstance, the cost analysis team would first revisit the costs, 

drawing in part/process-specific internal expertise and checking surrogate parts from 

previously costed bills of materials where available. If the discrepancy is still unresolved, 

the team would rely on automotive supplier networks, industry experts, and/or publicly 

available publications to validate the cost assumptions, making changes where warranted.

Cross-checking on final assembly costs also occurs within the scope of the cost analysis, 

mainly as a “big picture” check. Final assembly costs, in general cross-checking, are 

typically achieved through solicitation of industry experts. The depth of cross-checking 

ranges from simple comparison of cost data on surrogate assemblies to full 

Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary (MAQS) worksheet reviews. 

E.9 Cost Model Analysis Templates

E.9.1 Subsystem, System and Vehicle Cost Model Analysis Templates

The Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMATs) are the documents used to display and 

roll-up all the costs associated with a particular subsystem, system or vehicle. At the 

lowest level of the hierarchy, the manufacturing assumption quote summary worksheets, 

associated with a particular vehicle subsystem, are directly linked to the Sub-subsystem 

CMAT (SSSCMAT). These Sub-subsystem cost totals are then summarized at the next 

level in the Subsystem CMAT (SSCMAT). All the subsystems cost breakdowns, 

associated with a particular system, are directly linked to the relevant System CMAT 

(SCMAT). Similarly, all the system cost breakdown summaries are directly linked to the 

Vehicle CMAT (VCMAT). The top-down layering of the incremental costs, at the various 

CMAT levels, paints a clear picture of the cost drivers at all levels for the adaptation of 

the advance technology. In addition, since all of the databases, MAQS worksheets, and 

CMATs are linked together, the ability to understand the impact of various cost elements 
Page 133

on the incremental cost can be readily understood. These costing variables can be easily 

and quickly updated within the various databases to provide a tremendous amount of 

flexibility in evaluating various costing scenarios and sensitivity studies.

E.10 Differential Tooling Cost Analysis

E.10.1 Differential Tooling Cost Analysis Overview

As part of the mass-reduction and cost analysis project, EPA requested that FEV 

determine the differential tooling impact for those components that were evaluated for 

mass-reduction. As stated in Section E.3, Tooling Costs are the dedicated tool, gauge, and 

fixture costs required to manufacture a part. Examples of items covered by tooling costs 

include injection molds, casting molds, stamping dies, weld fixtures, assembly fixtures, 

dedicated assembly and/or machining pallets, and dedicated gauging. For this analysis, all 

tooling is assumed to be owned by the OEM. 

Tooling costs should not be confused with equipment and facility costs (also sometimes 

referred to as investment costs or capital investment costs). In the scope of this analysis,

Investment Costs are the manufacturing facility costs, not covered as tooling, required to 

manufacture parts. Investment costs include manufacturing plants, manufacturing 

equipment (e.g., injection mold machines, die cast machines, machining and turning 

machines, welding equipment, assembly lines), material handling equipment (e.g., lift 

forks, overhead cranes, loading dock lifts, conveyor systems), paint lines, plating lines, 

and heat treat equipment. Investment costs are accounted for in the manufacturing 

overhead rates as discussed in Section E.5.4.The tool cost analysis is an incremental 

analysis using a similar methodology as established for developing the incremental direct 

manufacturing costs. For example if a part on the production Venza is injection-molded 

and the new mass-reduced replacement part is injection-molded using the PolyOne 

injection mold process, then no further tooling analysis was conducted. The PolyOne 

process requires no significant tooling modifications relative to traditional injection mold 

tools. Conversely, if a component went from a stamped part to an injection mold part, the 

team would then quote the tooling needed for stamping the production stock part as well 

as the injection-molded mass-reduced part. The tooling cost would be the difference 

between these two values (+/-). 

E.10.2 Differential Tooling Cost Analysis Methodology

Outlined here are the general process steps used by FEV to evaluate the differential 

tooling impact between the production stock Venza components and the mass-reduced

replacement components. 

1) Assemble and assign teams of manufacturing expertise
Page 134

a) Assembled team members have expertise in several key primary and secondary 

manufacturing processes including stamping, casting, molding and machining.

b) When required, outside consultation resources were also utilized.

c) Assemble and assign teams to vehicle subsystems and systems having a majority of 

components with fabrication processes matching team's expertise.

2) Establish Boundary Conditions for Tooling Analysis

a) High volume production: 200K units/year Venza specific components (e.g. bodyin-white); 450K units/year on cross-platform shared components (e.g. engine, 

transmission, selected brake components, etc.)

b) Assumed manufacturing life: 5 years

c) Assumed cost of borrowing money: 8%

3) Identify mass-reduced components in the analysis potentially having an 

incremental tooling impact

a) Evaluate component manufacturing process differences between the production 

stock and mass-reduced components.

b) Based on the team’s assessment, if a significant tooling value difference exists 

between the production stock and mass-reduced components, a tooling analysis is 

initiated.

c) If an insignificant incremental tooling difference is identified by the team, a zero 

value is placed in the Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary (MAQS) 

worksheet for both the production stock component and mass-reduced alternative.

4) Establish tooling costs for components having a potential tooling impact 

(components which were not evaluated in the analysis for mass reduction were 

excluded from the analysis up front) 

a) Establish tooling line-up for the production Venza components with respect to the 

mass-reduced components (e.g., types of tools, number of tools)

b) Six (6) standard tooling categories exist to establish the potential tooling line-ups: 

i) Primary Manufacturing Tools and Fixtures (e.g., molds, dies, machining 

fixtures, assembly fixtures, stamping tools)

ii) End of Line Gauges and Testing Fixtures.

iii) Non-Perishable Tooling (e.g., machining cutter bodies, pick-nplace/gantries arms, guide/bushing plates)

iv) Custom & Dedicated Gauges 

v) Bulk Processes (e.g., baskets, hangers, custom conveyors or walking arms)

vi) OPTIONAL (to be described w/ comment box if needed)
Page 135

c) As part of the tooling assessment, consideration is also given to the following:

i) Number of back-up tool sets

ii) Repair frequency, complexity, and costs

iii) Refurbishment frequency, complexity, and costs

d) Tooling costs for each operation included in the component analysis are summedup and entered in the tooling column of the Manufacturing Assumption and Quote 

Summary (MAQS) worksheet (Figure E.10-1). The tooling impact is 

automatically summed-up at the bottom of the MAQS worksheet similar to the 

direct manufacturing costs for every component evaluated; both the production 

stock Venza parts (baseline) and mass-reduced Venza parts (new technology 

configuration).

Figure E.10-1: Sample Excerpt from Mass-Reduced Front Brake Rotor MAQS worksheet 

Illustrating Tooling Column and Categories

5) Calculation of Net Differential Tooling Impact

a) Similar to the direct manufacturing cost roll-ups, Cost Model Analysis Templates 

(CMATs) are used to roll-up the tooling costs at each level of the analysis. 

b) Tooling costs are summed-up at the sub-subsystem, subsystem, system level and 

vehicle level. 

6) The Final step is the calculation of “Incremental Tooling Cost per Vehicle” and 

“Incremental Tooling Cost/Kilogram” of mass-reduction at the final assessed massreduced vehicle.
Page 136

a) Assumptions and calculation shown using the vehicle differential tooling cost and 

mass reduction value.

b) Additional details on incremental tooling costs by system can be found in 

Section F.

E.11 Cost Curve - % Mass Reduction vs. Cost per Kilogram

E.11.1 Cost Curve Development Overview

As previously discussed, the majority of the Toyota Venza baseline components were 

reviewed for potential mass reduction. While the focus of this study was to obtain 20% 

mass reduction, it is possible that manufacturers could adopt a portion of these 

technologies as part of their plan to increase gas mileage over the next decade. EPA’s 

rulemaking calculations utilize a variety of technology feasibility combinations as a part 

of their rulemaking requirements (e.g. mass reduction, advanced engine technologies, 

Assumptions:

Assumed Average Component Volume 450K units per year

Average product/tooling life 5 years

Cost of money 8%

Calculated incremental vehicle tooling cost: Increase $23M

Calculate mass-reduction/vehicle = -312.48kg (18.26%)

Calculations (for the 18.xx% mass reduced vehicle):

Cost of Over 5 years = Increase $28M (constant rate, uniform monthly 

payments)

Incremental Tooling Cost per Vehicle = $+12.44 ($28M tooling/[450K 

units/year x 5 years])

Incremental Tooling Cost per Kilogram @ Vehicle Level = $0.04/kilogram 

($12.44 Vehicle/312.48kg)
Page 137

etc.). EPA’s current technology packages include estimates of 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% 

mass reduction (Reference EPA & NHTSA, report EPA-420-D-11-901, November 2011 

“Draft Joint Technical Support Document: Proposed Rulemaking for 2017-2025 LightDuty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards & Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards,”) over a variety of vehicle platforms. The technologies examined by FEV for 

the Toyota Venza can be grouped such that they achieve these various mass reduction 

targets. 

FEV developed differential costs per component with the assumption that these are the 

costs when the components are in full production at 200,000 or 450,000 per year as 

appropriate per subsystem. These values do not include OEM markups for indirect costs –

as discussed in Section E.4, with the exception of tooling. In the mass-reduction analysis,

incremental direct manufacturing costs were calculated with and without assessing the 

impact of tooling.

E.11.2 Cost Curve Development Overview

FEV utilized their component mass reduction and cost estimates to create a cost perkilogram per-component. At the sub-subsystem level (which is generally the same as the 

assembly or module level) all mass-reduced ideas were listed in a table along with key 

calculated parameters and attributes (e.g., mass deltas, cost deltas, cost/kg impact, and 

compounded/non-compounded designation). Sub-subsystems were then identified as 

compounded or non-compounded. Sub-subsystems relying on other vehicle massreductions (also referred to as secondary mass savings) were considered compounded. 

Mass-reduction ideas not relying on a reduction in the overall vehicle mass were 

considered non-compounded. 

All sub-subsystems were then sorted by cost per kilogram in ascending order, i.e. least 

expensive to most expensive. Since all compounded sub-subsystems were created with a

20% mass reduction in mind, and would not be appropriate to apply to points which only 

had 5%, 10% or 15% mass reduction, all compounding sub-subsystems were placed at the 

bottom of the list. Cumulative sub-subsystem cost-per-kilogram values were calculated 

and the values plotted relative to percent vehicle mass-reduction. Because the 

compounded mass-reduction sub-subsystem ideas cannot be included in any point other 

than the 18.26% vehicle mass-reduction point, the line graph stops at approximately 9.3% 

vehicle mass-reduction with a single data point at 18.26%. Figure E.11-1 illustrates the 

data (Data-Trend Line) selected to establish a 2nd order polynomial trend line cost curve. 

Note these values are only incremental direct manufacturing costs and do not include 

tooling.
Page 138

Figure E.11-1: Development of Cost Curve using Mass-Reduction Ideas without Mass 

Compounding

The Data-Trend Line above (Figure E.11-1) only provides data points between the 2% 

and 9% vehicle mass-reduction. To develop a Data –Trend Line further along the percent 

mass-reduction axis, additional mass-reduction ideas were required. To accomplish this 

objective, those ideas which assumed secondary mass savings (SMS), as a result of the 

entire vehicle being reduced in mass by approximately 20%, were reevaluated. The 

vehicle system team leads (e.g. engine, brake, suspension, fuel, BIW) estimated the 

percent mass, and associated costs, which should be added back into the components with 

no SMS/compounding. In doing so, additional mass-reduction ideas were available to 

support the development of a Data – Trend Line between 2.5% and 15.5% vehicle massreduction (Figure E.11-2). As the new updated mass-reduction ideas were added back 

into the master list, a new sort was established as some of the ideas which were not 

originally included in the list now offered better value than ideas used to create the 

original Data-Trend Line. This explains the differences between the two cost curves in 

the 2-9% vehicle mass-reduction region. 
Page 139

Figure E.11-2: Development of Cost Curve using Mass-Reduction Ideas with Compounding 

Removed from Initial Assessment

The non-compounded cost curve shown in Figure E.11-3 below was developed by taking 

the average of the two polynomial cost curves above (Figure E.11-1 and Figure E.11-2) 

calculated between 0 and 20% vehicle mass-reduction. To create a cost curve with 

compounding, the difference in the cost/kilogram from the optimized vehicle solution, 

relative to the value without compounding, at the same percent vehicle mass-reduction 

(18.26%), was interpolated (Figure E.11-3). At 18.26% vehicle mass-reduction, the 

benefit from compounding was $2.44/kg (savings). Without compounding the cost 

increase due to mass-reduction is $1.97/kg. The mass-reduction cost savings as a result 

of compounding yielded a net cost/kilogram savings of $0.47/kg.
Page 140

Figure E.11-3: Toyota Venza Mass-Reduction Cost Curves
Page 141

F. Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Results

F.1 Vehicle Results Summary 

F.1.1 Mass-Reduction, Cost and Volume Study Assumptions 

As stated in the introduction, the foundation of the mass-reduction and cost analysis was a 

2010 model year, Toyota Venza. The midsize crossover-utility-vehicle (CUV) evaluated 

came equipped with a 2.7 liter, I4 internal combustion engine and a 6-speed automatic 

transmission.

The weight of production stock Toyota Venza vehicle, as measured, was 1711 kg (3772 

lbs). Figure F.1-1 shows the starting mass for each of the major vehicle systems 

evaluated. The target for the vehicle mass-reduction was 20% or 342 kg (754 lbs). 

The purchase price of the vehicle was $25,063. Based on the assumption of a 1.5 times 

retail price equivalent (RPE), the estimated direct manufacturing cost of the Venza 

vehicle was $16,709. The upper boundary condition to the vehicle direct manufacturing 

costs increase was set at 10% or $1671.

The 2011/2012 Toyota Venza annual production sales volume range is 60k-75k 

units/year. (http://pressroom.toyota.com/releases/june+2012+sales+chart.htm). For the 

overall project, an annual vehicle production volume of 200K units was assumed. In the 

case of the Toyota Venza, many of the components and assemblies (e.g. engine, 

transmission brake and other vehicle system components) are cross-platform shared well

beyond the 200K units per year (i.e., 500K+ units per year). For the cost portion of the 

analysis all components other than BIW were assumed to be manufactured at 450K 

units/year. The BIW and closures were assumed to be manufactured at 200K units per 

year.
Page 142

Figure F.1-1: Mass of 2010 Toyota Venza (Production Stock) Vehicle Systems

F.1.2 Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Summary

The entire vehicle achieved a 312.48 kg weight reduction and a $148.06 cost savings. The 

major mass saving systems in the Toyota Venza include: Body system (Group -A-), which

saved 3.99% of the vehicle weight; the Suspension system, 3.91%; Body system Interior 

(Group -B-), 2.45%; and Brake System, 1.91%. The Engine and Transmission systems

reduced vehicle mass by 1.77% and 1.10%, respectively. Figure F.1-2 presents the 

starting mass for each of the baseline vehicle systems along with the amount of mass 

reduction per system.
Page 143

Figure F.1-2: Calculated System Mass-Reduction Relative to Baseline Vehicle Starting Mass

Table F.1-1 is the vehicle mass-reduction summary, including the mass reduction and

cost impact from each of the major vehicle systems and subsystems evaluated. The net 

incremental direct manufacturing cost (NIDMC) per kilogram, for 18.26% vehicle massreduction, is a save of $0.47/kg. With incremental tooling costs included, the NIDMC 

equals a cost save of $0.43/kg.
Page 144

Table F.1-1: System/Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Summary (1 of 3) System Subsystem Sub-Subsystem System/ 

Subsystem/ SubSubsystem Weight "kg"

Estimate Mass 

Reduction 

"+" Mass Decrease, 

"-" Mass Increase

"kg"

% System/ 

Subsystem 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

% Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction

Estimated Cost Impact 

"+" Cost Decrease,

 "-" Cost Increase

"$"

Tooling Cost "$" 

(x1000)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram W/O 

Tooling

$/kg

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram W/ 

Tooling

$/kg

01 00 00 Engine System 172.60 30.25 17.53% 1.77% 33.69 5,892.20 1.11 1.22

01 00 00 Engine System Roll-up ((Eng Down Size)) 172.60 10.37 6.01% 0.61% 38.42 0.00 3.71 3.71

01 02 00 Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem 15.27 1.11 7.29% 0.07% (0.09) (2,778.60) (0.08) (1.43)

01 03 00 Crank Drive Subsystem 24.73 0.69 2.78% 0.04% 6.88 302.80 10.00 10.24

01 04 00 Counter Balance Subsystem 7.22 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

01 05 00 Cylinder Block Subsystem 30.13 7.11 23.58% 0.42% (32.33) (2,918.00) (4.55) (4.77)

01 06 00 Cylinder Head Subsystem 21.12 1.05 4.96% 0.06% 11.89 2,199.60 11.35 12.49

01 07 00 Valvetrain Subsystem 9.78 3.71 37.90% 0.22% (11.13) (2,171.00) (3.00) (3.32)

01 08 00 Timing Drive Subsystem 4.31 1.45 33.72% 0.08% 4.79 3,522.40 3.29 4.60

01 09 00 Accessory Drive Subsystem 0.55 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

01 10 00 Air Intake Subsystem 13.99 0.51 3.65% 0.03% 3.01 1,924.70 5.90 7.94

01 11 00 Fuel Induction Subsystem 0.54 0.11 21.32% 0.01% 2.13 1,533.40 18.51 25.73

01 12 00 Exhaust Subsystem 7.39 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

01 13 00 Lubrication Subsystem 3.34 0.23 7.00% 0.01% (0.20) 26.50 (0.86) (0.80)

01 14 00 Cooling Subsystem 14.10 2.59 18.38% 0.15% 4.62 2,977.60 1.78 2.40

01 17 00 Breather Subsystem 0.90 0.22 24.24% 0.01% 4.93 1,720.10 22.52 26.76

01 60 00 2.65 0.39 14.64% 0.02% 1.00 341.00 2.57 3.05

01 70 00 Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.) 16.56 0.71 4.28% 0.04% (0.23) (788.30) (0.33) (0.93)

02 00 00 Transmission System 92.76 18.90 20.37% 1.10% (114.15) (7,650.80) (6.04) (6.26)

02 00 00 Transmission System Roll-up 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

02 01 00 External Components 0.02 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

02 02 00 Case Subsystem 24.57 7.75 31.52% 0.45% (11.03) 0.00 (1.42) (1.42)

02 03 00 Gear Train Subsystem 41.44 3.49 8.42% 0.20% (119.68) 0.00 (34.29) (34.29)

02 05 00 Launch Clutch Subsystem 9.75 4.90 50.32% 0.29% 45.16 (7,650.80) 9.21 8.36

02 06 00 Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem 6.53 1.03 15.84% 0.06% 0.90 0.00 0.87 0.87

02 07 00 Mechanical Controls Subsystem 6.30 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

02 08 00 Electrical Controls Subsystem 0.78 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

02 09 00 Parking Mechanism Subsystem 0.90 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

02 20 00 Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem 2.48 1.73 69.55% 0.10% (29.49) 0.00 (17.08) (17.08)

03 00 00 Body System (Group -A-) 528.88 68.32 12.92% 3.99% (227.45) (22,900.00) (3.33) (3.51)

03 00 00 Body System (Group -A-) 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

03 01 00 Body Structure Subsystem 435.53 43.46 9.98% 2.54% (109.78) (22,900.00) (2.53) (2.81)

03 02 00 Front End Subsystem 70.96 16.69 23.52% 0.98% (80.70) 0.00 (4.84) (4.84)

03 03 00 Body Closures Subsystem 14.94 7.24 48.46% 0.42% (29.96) 0.00 (4.14) (4.14)

03 19 00 Bumpers Subsystem 7.45 0.35 4.70% 0.02% (10.71) 0.00 (30.60) (30.60)

03 00 00 Body System (Group -B-) 220.61 42.00 19.04% 2.45% 122.98 9,966.15 2.93 3.06

03 00 00 Body System (Group -B-) 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

03 05 00 Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem 65.20 8.92 13.69% 0.52% 37.72 0.00 4.23 4.23

03 06 00 Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body) 4.50 0.27 5.95% 0.02% 0.38 0.00 1.40 1.40

03 07 00 Sealing Subsystem 8.23 2.03 24.67% 0.12% 15.70 0.00 7.74 7.74

03 10 00 Seating Subsystem 92.55 23.39 25.28% 1.37% 84.55 14,507.05 3.61 3.95

03 12 00 Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem 32.69 6.33 19.36% 0.37% (12.49) (5,317.90) (1.97) (2.43)

03 20 00 Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem 17.44 1.06 6.08% 0.06% (2.88) 777.00 (2.71) (2.32)

03 00 00 Body System (Group -C-) 26.57 2.37 8.92% 0.14% 7.52 0.00 3.17 3.17

03 00 00 Body System (Group -C-) 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

03 08 00 Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem 13.38 1.15 8.57% 0.07% 2.31 0.00 2.01 2.01

03 09 00 Rear View Mirrors Subsystem 2.76 0.22 7.90% 0.01% 0.73 0.00 3.33 3.33

03 23 00 Front End Modules 5.03 0.49 9.75% 0.03% 2.24 0.00 4.56 4.56

03 24 00 Rear End Modules 5.39 0.51 9.54% 0.03% 2.32 0.00 4.52 4.52

Description

Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Electrical Subsystem
Page 145

Table F.1-1: System/Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Summary (1 of 3) System Subsystem Sub-Subsystem System/ 

Subsystem/ SubSubsystem Weight "kg"

Estimate Mass 

Reduction 

"+" Mass Decrease, 

"-" Mass Increase

"kg"

% System/ 

Subsystem 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

% Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction

Estimated Cost Impact 

"+" Cost Decrease,

 "-" Cost Increase

"$"

Tooling Cost "$" 

(x1000)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram W/O 

Tooling

$/kg

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram W/ 

Tooling

$/kg

03 00 00 Body System (Group -D-) Glazing & Body Mechatronics 63.46 6.16 9.71% 0.36% (15.25) 0.00 (2.48) (2.48)

03 00 00 Body System (Group -D-) 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

03 11 00 48.01 6.06 12.63% 0.35% (15.67) 0.00 (2.59) (2.59)

03 14 00 4.93 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

03 15 00 4.56 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

03 16 00 5.96 0.10 1.68% 0.01% 0.42 0.00 4.18 4.18

04 00 00 Suspension System 265.91 66.83 25.13% 3.91% 144.71 (7,544.37) 2.17 2.10

04 00 00 Suspension System 24.42 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

04 01 00 Front Suspension Subsystem 32.89 11.57 35.18% 0.68% 3.04 (5,172.38) 0.26 0.02

04 02 00 Rear Suspension Subsystem 23.58 8.32 35.28% 0.49% 4.91 (2,459.05) 0.59 0.43

04 03 00 Shock Absorber Subsystem 42.94 14.11 32.86% 0.82% 57.99 87.06 4.11 4.11

04 04 00 Wheels And Tires Subsystem 142.07 32.83 23.11% 1.92% 78.77 0.00 2.40 2.40

05 00 00 Driveline System 33.66 1.50 4.47% 0.09% (0.16) (685.86) (0.11) (0.36)

05 00 00 Driveline System 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

05 02 00 Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystem 8.63 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

05 03 00 Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem 6.35 0.73 11.54% 0.04% 1.54 (6.50) 2.10 2.09

05 04 00 Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem 18.67 0.77 4.12% 0.04% (1.70) (679.36) (2.21) (2.69)

06 00 00 Brake System 86.71 32.75 37.77% 1.91% 169.56 (1,426.12) 5.18 5.15

06 00 00 Brake System 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

06 03 00 Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem 32.97 12.65 38.36% 0.74% 35.91 (2,182.66) 2.84 2.75

06 04 00 Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem 23.44 6.24 26.62% 0.36% 17.44 (1,897.51) 2.79 2.63

06 05 00 Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem 13.40 9.63 71.88% 0.56% 82.98 1,526.28 8.61 8.70

06 06 00 Brake Actuation Subsystem 5.54 2.98 53.90% 0.17% 31.87 1,253.15 10.68 10.91

06 07 00 Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic) 2.83 1.24 43.89% 0.07% 1.35 (125.39) 1.09 1.03

06 09 00 Brake Controls Subsystem 8.53 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

07 00 00 Frame and Mounting System 43.73 16.34 48.54% 0.95% (3.28) (3,700.39) (0.20) (0.32)

07 00 00 Frame and Mounting System 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

07 01 00 Frame Sub System 43.73 16.34 37.36% 0.95% (3.28) (3,700.39) (0.20) (0.32)

09 00 00 Exhaust System 26.62 7.52 28.25% 0.44% 2.47 0.00 0.33 0.33

09 00 00 Exhaust System 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

09 01 00 Acoustical Control Components Subsystem 11.74 2.79 23.75% 0.16% (0.21) 0.00 (0.07) (0.07)

09 02 00 Exhaust Gas Treatment Components Subsystem 14.87 4.73 31.79% 0.28% 2.68 0.00 0.57 0.57

10 00 00 Fuel System 24.28 12.70 52.33% 0.74% 3.91 1,625.30 0.31 0.38

10 00 00 Fuel System 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

10 01 00 Fuel Tank And Lines Subsystem 21.02 12.21 58.08% 0.71% 2.70 1,492.80 0.22 0.29

10 02 00 Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem 3.26 0.50 15.26% 0.03% 1.21 132.50 2.44 2.59

11 00 00 Steering System 24.23 1.82 7.50% 0.11% 11.05 1,352.70 6.08 6.48

11 00 00 Steering System 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

11 01 00 Manual Steering Gear Subsystem 8.82 0.12 1.39% 0.01% 0.24 0.00 1.99 1.99

11 02 00 Power Steering Subsystem 7.48 0.21 2.81% 0.01% 0.10 186.80 0.46 0.94

11 04 00 Steering Column Subsystem 5.08 1.15 22.58% 0.07% 10.39 (1,910.00) 9.05 8.15

11 05 00 Steering Column Switches Subsystem 0.55 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

11 06 00 Steering Wheel Subsystem 2.29 0.34 14.69% 0.02% 0.32 3,075.90 0.94 5.89

Handles, Locks, Latches and Mechanisms Subsystem

Rear Hatch Lift assembly Wipers and Washers Subsystem

Description

Glass (Glazing), Frame and Mechanism Subsystem

Table F.1-1: System/Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Summary (1 of 3)
Page 146 System Subsystem Sub-Subsystem System/ 

Subsystem/ SubSubsystem Weight "kg"

Estimate Mass 

Reduction 

"+" Mass Decrease, 

"-" Mass Increase

"kg"

% System/ 

Subsystem 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

% Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction

Estimated Cost Impact 

"+" Cost Decrease,

 "-" Cost Increase

"$"

Tooling Cost "$" 

(x1000)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram W/O 

Tooling

$/kg

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram W/ 

Tooling

$/kg

12 00 00 Climate Control System 15.66 2.44 15.55% 0.14% 9.34 386.00 3.83 3.92

12 00 00 Climate Control System 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

12 01 00 Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem 12.81 2.03 15.88% 0.12% 7.27 146.00 3.58 3.61

12 02 00 Heating/Defrosting Subsystem 1.03 0.39 38.03% 0.02% 2.03 240.00 5.16 5.49

12 03 00 Refrigeration/Air Conditioning Subsystem 1.33 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

12 04 00 Controls Subsystem 0.48 0.01 1.84% 0.00% 0.04 0.00 4.21 4.21

13 00 00 Information, Gage and Warning Device System 1.90 0.08 4.01% 0.00% 0.19 0.00 2.45 2.45

13 00 00 Information, Gauge and Warning Device System 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

13 01 00 Instrument Cluster Subsystem 1.40 0.08 5.44% 0.00% 0.19 0.00 2.45 2.45

13 06 00 Horn Subsystem 0.50 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

14 00 00 Electrical Power Supply System 18.96 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

14 00 00 Electrical Power Supply System 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

14 01 00 Service Battery Subsystem 18.96 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

15 00 00 In-Vehicle Entertainment System 4.59 1.07 23.39% 0.06% 2.35 1,175.60 2.19 2.79

15 00 00 In-Vehicle Entertainment System 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

15 01 00 Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem 3.15 1.02 32.55% 0.06% 1.66 1,175.60 1.62 2.24

15 02 00 Antenna Subsystem 0.16 0.05 30.82% 0.00% 0.69 0.00 14.17 14.17

15 03 00 Speaker Subsystem 1.28 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

17 00 00 Lighting System 10.04 0.53 5.29% 0.03% (0.76) 400.00 (1.42) (1.01)

17 00 00 Lighting System 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

17 01 00 Front Lighting Subsystem 6.09 0.53 8.73% 0.03% (0.76) 400.00 (1.42) (1.01)

17 03 00 Rear Lighting Subsystem 3.83 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

17 05 00 Lighting Switches Subsystem 0.13 0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

18 00 00 Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System 23.94 0.89 3.71% 0.05% 1.35 103.50 1.52 1.58

18 00 00 Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control Sys. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

18 01 00 Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem 23.94 0.89 3.71% 0.05% 1.35 103.50 1.52 1.58

Sub-Total Vehicle Weight = 1685.10 312.48 18.26% 148.06 (23,006.09) 0.47 0.43 Weight Reconcile

Fluids = 68.52

NVH (Body Mastic) = 8.00

Misc. = (50.24)

Net Calculated Vehicle Weight = 1711.38

Vehicle Weight As Purchased= 1710.53

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Increase) (Decrease) (Decrease)

Description

In the vehicle level Cost Model Analysis Template (CMAT) below (Table F.1-2), the 

cost elements that generate the NIDMCs at a vehicle system level are presented. The 

costs, captured only for vehicle differences having an overall positive or negative cost 

impact, are broken out for each of the major systems. As mentioned previously, 

incremental costs are calculated by subtracting the baseline component costs from the 

mass-reduced component costs. Thus a negative incremental cost indicates a price 

increase of the mass-reduced technology over the baseline technology.

From the cost element breakdown within the table, the NIDMC shows an overall vehicle 

savings of $148.06. The material cost increase of $97.25 was offset by a decrease in 

labor and manufacturing overhead costs of $115.18 and $75.04 respectively. The 

resulting total manufacturing cost (TMC) was a savings of $92.96. Adding the mark-up 

savings ($55.09) associated with the TMC results in a NIDMC savings of $148.06. Also 

provided in the table is the cost build-up of the incremental tooling for the mass-reduce 

Venza vehicle ($23M additional tooling for mass-reduced Venza).

In the sections which follow, additional details on the components evaluated within each 

vehicle system and their associated costs will be discussed.
Page 147

Table F.1-2: Vehicle Level Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMATs): Baseline, New and 

Incremental

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

00 Vehicle

1 01 Engine 619.51 42.35 124.26 786.12 5.88 23.84 20.47 6.49 56.68 0 842.80 36,537.30 -

2 02 Transmission 261.26 19.48 33.32 314.05 2.20 28.98 20.12 3.30 54.61 0 368.66 - 11,487.50 -

3 03 Body System A 776.46 94.56 490.66 1,361.68 0.06 0.93 0.74 0.15 1.88 0 1,363.56 - 33,000.00 -

3 03 Body System B 335.28 47.79 111.10 494.18 1.77 29.86 22.55 6.13 60.31 0 554.49 - 16,181.40 -

3 03 Body System C 52.07 2.04 8.24 62.35 0.44 6.84 5.52 1.11 13.90 0 76.25 - - -

3 03 Body System D 27.90 5.78 114.79 148.48 0.38 7.59 5.09 1.26 14.33 0 162.81 - - -

4 04 Suspension System 354.97 81.45 110.32 546.73 4.80 43.36 34.25 9.37 91.78 0 638.51 - 15,871.24 -

5 05 Driveline System 16.59 2.84 5.87 25.30 0.34 2.61 2.57 0.95 6.47 0 31.77 - 801.66 -

6 06 Brake System 104.58 29.27 73.30 207.15 1.06 15.50 13.08 3.99 33.64 0 240.79 - 12,858.77 -

7 07 Frame and Mounting System 70.04 10.19 41.52 121.75 0.82 8.54 9.40 4.30 23.05 0 144.80 - 11,411.00 -

8 09 Exhaust System 36.97 0.95 0.97 38.88 0.12 1.57 1.45 0.60 3.74 0 42.62 - - -

9 10 Fuel System 46.98 5.97 17.74 70.69 0.48 5.28 5.61 2.47 13.84 0 84.54 - 3,565.70 -

10 11 Steering System 16.81 4.64 5.57 27.03 0.20 1.35 1.15 0.34 3.04 0 30.07 - 3,015.40 -

11 12 Climate Control 17.82 5.39 3.97 27.17 0.07 1.38 0.92 0.23 2.61 0 29.78 - 684.00 -

12 13 Info, Gage and Warning System 1.70 0.05 0.31 2.07 0.01 0.12 0.14 0.07 0.34 0 2.41 - - -

13 14 Electrical Power Supply - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

14 15 In-Vehicle Entertainment 1.26 0.64 0.78 2.67 0.01 0.27 0.18 0.02 0.49 0 3.16 - 216.70 -

15 17 Lighting 10.87 1.23 3.31 15.41 0.04 0.77 0.52 0.13 1.46 0 16.87 - - -

16 18 Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System 7.61 0.62 0.58 8.82 0.03 0.45 0.34 0.05 0.87 0 9.69 - 210.00 -

17 19 Electronic Features - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 2,758.69 355.25 1,146.60 4,260.53 18.71 179.25 144.10 40.97 383.04 0 4,643.57 - 145,840.67 -

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly) Item Vehicle System

NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:

Sub-Subsystem Description Investment

(X1000)

Markup Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Tooling (x1000)
Page 148

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

00 Vehicle

1 01 Engine 34.02 (0.59) (4.71) 28.72 (0.27) 2.63 2.15 0.46 4.97 0 33.69 - 5,892.20 -

2 02 Transmission (94.73) 4.84 (2.99) (92.88) (1.16) (11.00) (7.89) (1.21) (21.26) 0 (114.15) - (7,650.80) -

3 03 Body System A (175.99) (7.23) (44.32) (227.54) 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.09 0 (227.45) - (22,900.00) -

3 03 Body System B 20.73 51.24 35.35 107.32 0.53 5.97 6.14 3.02 15.66 0 122.98 - 9,966.15 -

3 03 Body System C 4.95 0.23 1.06 6.24 (0.03) 0.72 0.48 0.11 1.27 0 7.52 - 0.00 -

3 03 Body System D (2.15) 0.66 (12.48) (13.97) (0.03) (0.68) (0.45) (0.11) (1.28) 0 (15.25) - 0.00 -

4 04 Suspension System 74.13 22.15 27.62 123.91 1.16 10.00 7.69 1.95 20.80 0 144.71 - (7,544.37) -

5 05 Driveline System 0.19 (0.32) 0.09 (0.04) (0.05) (0.07) (0.02) 0.01 (0.13) 0 (0.16) - (685.86) -

6 06 Brake System 53.22 22.81 70.08 146.12 0.70 11.60 8.90 2.24 23.44 0 169.56 - (1,426.12) -

7 07 Frame and Mounting System 3.86 11.03 (24.09) (9.20) 0.16 3.79 2.21 (0.23) 5.92 0 (3.28) - (3,700.39) -

8 09 Exhaust System 2.05 (0.11) 0.08 2.02 0.01 0.19 0.17 0.07 0.44 0 2.47 - 0.00 -

9 10 Fuel System (18.32) 6.38 14.79 2.85 0.03 0.55 0.40 0.08 1.06 0 3.91 - 1,625.30 -

10 11 Steering System 1.67 3.19 3.28 8.15 0.18 1.34 1.13 0.25 2.90 0 11.05 - 1,352.70 -

11 12 Climate Control 0.30 (1.01) 9.24 8.53 0.02 0.43 0.29 0.07 0.81 0 9.34 - 386.00 -

12 13 Info, Gage and Warning System 0.25 0.01 (0.09) 0.16 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0 0.19 - 0.00 -

13 14 Electrical Power Supply - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

14 15 In-Vehicle Entertainment 0.20 0.91 0.84 1.95 0.03 0.21 0.14 0.02 0.40 0 2.35 - 1,175.60 -

15 17 Lighting (2.95) 1.03 1.24 (0.69) (0.00) (0.03) (0.02) (0.01) (0.07) 0 (0.76) - 400.00 -

16 18 Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System 1.31 (0.03) 0.04 1.32 (0.00) 0.06 0.00 (0.03) 0.03 0 1.35 - 103.50 -

17 19 Electronic Features - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 (97.25) 115.18 75.04 92.96 1.28 25.75 21.36 6.70 55.09 0 148.06 - (23,006.09) -

Markup

INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling (x1000)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP Item Vehicle System Sub-Subsystem Description

Manufacturing 

Investment 

(X1000)

Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Sections F.2 through F.21 below cover the details of the mass-reduction ideas reviewed 

and selected as part of the vehicle analysis. Both mass-reduction and incremental cost 

impact are presented at the vehicle system level (e.g. engine), susbsystem level (e.g. 

crankdrive) and sub-susbystem level (e.g piston). For each vehicle system evalauated, a 

major section (e.g. Section F.2, Engine) has been devoted. Each vehicle system is 

broken down futher into subsystems, each represented with its own subheadings (e.g.,

F.2.1 Engine Assembly, F.2.2 Frame and Mounting, F.2.3 Crankdrive, etc.).

Note at the conculsion of each vehicle system section, other than Section F.4 - Body 

Structure System, references to the cited works can be found. The cited references for the 

body structures and closures section can be found at the end of the report.
Page 149

F.2 Engine System

The Base Engine system comprises 10.1% of the total Venza vehicle mass. This system is 

divided into various subsystems as shown in Table F.2-1. Significant mass contributors 

to the Engine system include Cylinder Block, Crank Drive, and Cylinder Head 

subsystems. The 2.7 L inline 4-cylinder gasoline engine selected by Toyota is naturally 

aspirated with no Induction Air Charging subsystem. 
Page 150

Table F.2-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Engine System

System

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

System & 

Subsystem 

Mass

"kg"

01 00 00 Engine System

01 02 00 Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem 15.274

01 03 00 Crank Drive Subsystem 24.730

01 04 00 Counter Balance Subsystem 7.218

01 05 00 Cylinder Block Subsystem 30.135

01 06 00 Cylinder Head Subsystem 21.115

01 07 00 Valvetrain Subsystem 9.783

01 08 00 Timing Drive Subsystem 4.312

01 09 00 Accessory Drive Subsystem 0.554

01 10 00 Air Intake Subsystem 13.994

01 11 00 Fuel Induction Subsystem 0.539

01 12 00 Exhaust Subsystem 7.387

01 13 00 Lubrication Subsystem 3.342

01 14 00 Cooling Subsystem 14.098

01 15 00 Induction Air Charging Subsystem 0.000

01 16 00 Exhaust Gas Re-circulation Subsystem 0.000

01 17 00 Breather Subsystem 0.904

01 60 00 Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Electrical Subsystem 2.650

01 70 00 Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.) 16.562

Total System Mass = 172.598

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 10.09%

Table F.2-12 following summarizes mass and cost savings by subsystem. The systems 

largest savings results from engine downsizing permitted by a lightened vehicle. The 

largest subsystem contributors for mass savings are the Cylinder Block and Valvetrain 

subsystems. Detailed system analysis resulted in 30.3 kg saved and $1.45/kg savings. 

Lightening the 2.7L Venza Engine system, without the cost and mass benefit of 

downsizing, results in a cost save of $0.28/kg. Research and development, warranty costs, 

and NVH were not captured in this analysis. 93% of mass savings claimed for this system 

have current automotive production examples. 

All subsystems were reviewed for mass save opportunity. No opportunities were selected 

for the Counter Balance, Accessory Drive, Exhaust, and Exhaust Gas Re-circulation

subsystems. The Venza engine has no Induction Air Charging system, hence no mass 

savings for that subsystem.

Lotus used a hybrid approach to address the Venza engine system. This analysis focuses 

specifically on lightweighting the 2.7L and downsizing based on an equal technology 

approach. The horsepower requirement determined for the lightened Venza matches what 
Page 151

was calculated by Lotus. The components considered as part of the engine system in this 

analysis do not match what Lotus included. Due to the different approaches in analysis,

there will be no further mention of Lotus for this system.

Table F.2-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Engine System

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

Subsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

01 00 00 Engine System

01 01 00 Engine Assembly Downsize (2.4L) A 10.365 38.420 $3.71 6.01% 0.61%

01 02 00 Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets 

Subsystem A 1.114 -0.087 -$0.08 7.29% 0.07%

01 03 00 Crank Drive Subsystem A 0.688 $6.88 $10.00 2.78% 0.04%

01 04 00 Counter Balance Subsystem A 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 05 00 Cylinder Block Subsystem D 7.106 -32.325 -$4.55 23.58% 0.42%

01 06 00 Cylinder Head Subsystem A 1.047 11.887 $11.35 4.96% 0.06%

01 07 00 Valvetrain Subsystem D 3.707 -11.133 -$3.00 37.90% 0.22%

01 08 00 Timing Drive Subsystem A 1.454 4.792 $3.29 33.72% 0.09%

01 09 00 Accessory Drive Subsystem A 0.000 0.000 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 10 00 Air Intake Subsystem A 0.510 3.009 $5.90 3.65% 0.03%

01 11 00 Fuel Induction Subsystem A 0.115 2.127 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 12 00 Exhaust Subsystem A 0.000 0.000 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 13 00 Lubrication Subsystem B 0.234 -0.201 -$0.86 7.00% 0.01%

01 14 00 Cooling Subsystem A 2.591 4.620 $1.78 18.38% 0.15%

01 15 00 Induction Air Charging Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 16 00 Exhaust Gas Re-circulation Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 17 00 Breather Subsystem A 0.219 $4.93 $22.52 0.00% 0.00%

01 60 00 Engine Management, Engine Electronic, 

Electrical Subsystem A 0.388 $1.00 $2.57 0.00% 0.00%

01 70 00 Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, 

etc.) B 0.709 -$0.23 -$0.33 4.28% 0.04%

A 30.248 33.687 1.114 17.53% 1.77%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.2.1 Engine Assembly Downsize (2.4L)

F.2.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview

The intent of reviewing the engine as an assembly is to propose an engine with less mass 

yet capable of producing horsepower sufficient to accelerate the lightened Venza with 

performance equal to base Venza. Since new technologies such as direct injection and 

turbo charging have been the focus of previous research, only engines of equal 

technology (dual VVT with no induction) were considered for the downsize.
Page 152

F.2.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The 2.7L inline 4 cylinder engine selected by Toyota (Image F.2-1) for Venza is an allaluminum design with variable valve timing on both the Intake and Exhaust camshafts. 

The engine has no induction air charging system and utilizes port injection. The intake 

manifold is a dual runner design, optimizing torque.

Image F.2-1: Venza Base Engine (Toyota 2.7L 1AR-FE)

(Source: www.mr2.com/forums/mk-2-mr2-sw20/Toyota-MR2-20347-some-info-toyota-s-new-6-speed-ea-seriestransmissions.html)

F.2.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Mass reduction of passenger car engines has been driven by fuel economy. Valve control 

technology is one way engines have increased power output. Variable valve timing has 

become commonplace using hydraulic cam phasers on the intake or intake and exhaust 

camshafts. Variable valve duration such as in Fiats Multiair has further increased output. 

Forced induction has also become more popular but comes with additional hardware and 

associated mass.
Page 153

F.2.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

The downsized Venza mass was calculated by assuming a 20% reduced curb weight and 

maintaining the base payload. The resulting GVWR reduction factor is 84.8%.

Using this Scale factor new horsepower and torque requirements were calculated (Table 

F.2-3). Smaller displacement engines of equal technology were reviewed for power and 

torque at RMP compatibility.

Table F.2-3: Engine Downsize Selection

ENGINE SIZING - BASED ON 20% GVWR REDUCTION

Toyota Venza Curb Weight (kgs) 1711

Toyota Venza GVWR (kgs) 2249

20% Curb Weight Reduction 1369

Lightened Weight (GVWR) 1907

Power Reduction Factor 0.848

2.7 Power (kW) 136

2.7 Torque (N*m) 247

Reduced-Weight Power (kW) 115

Reduced-Weight Torque (N*m) 209

1AR-FE (Venza) DOHC I4 2672 (kW) 136 @5800 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Venza

1AR-FE (Venza) DOHC I4 2672 (N*m) 247 @4200 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Venza

2AZ-FE (Matrix) DOHC I4 2362 (kW) 119 @5600 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_AZ_engine

2AZ-FE (Matrix) DOHC I4 2362 (N*m) 220 @4000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_AZ_engine

1AR-FE 2.7L Bore & Stroke (mm) 89.9 x 104.9

2AZ-FE 2.4L Bore & Stroke (mm) 88.4 x 96

Engine Downsize Selection - Toyota DOHC I4 2362cc (Avensis, Matrix, ...)

F.2.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The Engine selected for the lightened Venza is Toyota’s 2.4L 2AZ-FE I4 DOHC (Image 

F.2-2). This Engine (EOP 2009) was featured in cars such as the Camry, Matrix, and Vibe

among others. The 2.4L exceeds power and torque requirements at lower engine speeds, 

indicating that acceleration and drivability would be equal or better. The 2.4L represents a 

data point for mass and output of a technologically similar power plant. As predecessor to 

the AR engine, the 2.4L AZ results in a conservative estimate for mass savings. 
Page 154

Image F.2-2: Engine Downsize Selection (Toyota 2.4L 2AZ-FE)

(Source: www.japparts.com.au)

F.2.1.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

As shown in Table F.2-4, Engine system downsize results in a mass reduction and cost 

savings.
Page 155

Table F.2-4: Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Engine Downsize

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

01 00 00 System downsize (2.7L I4 to 2.4L I4)

01 05 01 System downsize (2.7L I4 to 2.4L I4) A 10.365 $38.42 $3.71 6.04% 0.61%

A 10.365 38.420 $3.71 6.04% 0.61%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

The 2.4L engine mass was taken from a 2003 Avensis teardown performed by A2MAC1. 

The 2.7L engine subsystems were matched up with subsystems included in the 2.4L 

teardown resulting in a 12 kg savings.

New technology mass for the same subsystems was also totaled and compared to the base 

Venza. The ratio of new technology mass and base technology mass was used to scale 

down the mass savings for downsizing (Table F.2-45 below). This eliminates duplication 

of mass savings from further analysis using the 2.7L components as the baseline. The 

mass savings credited to downsizing was 10.4 kg.

Table F.2-5: Engine Downsize Mass Savings Lightweighted

MASS REDUCTION - 2010 VENZA VS. 2003 AVENSIS (A2MAC1)

2.7L Venza Base Mass Select Systems (kg) 129.482

2.4L Avensis Mass Select Systems (kg) 117.490

Total Engine Mass Savings 2.7L - 2.4L (kg) 11.992

Venza New Tech Mass Select Systems (kg) 111.914

Venza New Tech/Base Select Systems (kg) 86.4%

Mass Savings Toyota 2.7L - 2.4L (KG) 10.365

For the sub-systems included in the engine downsize (i.e., engine mounts, pistons, block, 

head, etc.) the 2.4L mass is 92% of the base Venza mass (Table F.2-6). The 2.7L material 

content for these subsystems was estimated using surrogate cost data.
Page 156

The mass reduction factor applied to the 2.7L material cost was used to estimate the 2.4L 

material cost. The difference in material costs results in a $38.42 engine downsize 

savings. It is assumed that labor and manufacturing burden costs are equal between the 

2.7L and 2.4L engines.

Table F.2-6: Engine Downsize Cost Savings

ENGINE COST - SAVINGS BASED ON 2.4L TOYOTA REPLACEMENT (HISTORICAL EST)

2.4L Mass/Base Mass (Downsize Related) 92.0%

2.7L Cost Estimate (Material Only) $ 480.00 Material Cost for displacement effected components 

only (block, crank, pistons, head,..) 

2.4L Cost Estimate (Material Only) $ 441.58 Material Cost for displacement effected components 

only (block, crank, pistons, head,..) 

2.7L - 2.4L Cost Reduction (OEM) $ 38.42

F.2.2 Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem

F.2.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen below in Table F.2-67, the most significant contributor to Engine Frames, 

Mounting, and Brackets subsystem mass is the Engine Mountings. This subsystem 

comprises 8.9% of the Engine mass. The Power Train Dampening Element supports the 

rear of the engine and was categorized with various bolts and fasteners as miscellaneous.
Page 157

Table F.2-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets 

Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

01 02 00 Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem

01 02 01 Engine Frames 0.000

01 02 02 Engine Mountings 12.387

01 02 10 Hanging Eyes 0.000

01 02 99 Misc. 2.887

Total Subsystem Mass = 15.274

Total System Mass = 172.598

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 8.85%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.89%

F.2.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

As pictured in Figure F.2-1, the Venza engine is secured in the vehicle with three (3)

engine mounts, a Torsion Strut, and Powertrain Dampening Element. Engine mounts 

(Image F.2-3) are constructed from stamped steel weldment with an isolated stud as an 

attachment point to the engine mounting bracket. The engine mounting brackets are cast 

iron construction. The engine mount and bracket serve as the link between the engine and 

vehicle subframe. 
Page 158

Figure F.2-1: Venza Engine Mount Diagram

(Source: www.villagetoyotaparts.com)

Image F.2-3: Venza Engine Mount (Stamped Steel Weldment)

(Source: autopartsnetwork.com)
Page 159

F.2.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Lightweighting trends for engine mounts include the use of plastic for components 

traditionally made from metal. Plastic polymer (Polyamide) torque dampeners are current 

production on Opel and Astra/Insignia (Image F.2-4). Polyamide is being tested as a 

lightweight material for engine mounts (Image F.2-5).

 

Source: www.contitech.de/pages/produkte/schwingungstechnik/motorlagerung/motorlagerkomponenten_en.html

F.2.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.2-8 lists the mass reduction ideas considered for the Engine Frames, Mounting, 

and Brackets Subsystem. Engine Mount scale down was included in the Engine 

downsizing calculation and therefore was not credited in this subsystem. Other ideas 

included material changes for the Engine Mounting Bracket and Torsion Strut Link. The 

Top Engine Mount Bracket PN12313 shown in Table F.2-8, was already a two piece cast 

iron/Aluminum design and assumed to be partially cast iron for NVH not considered for 

lightweighting.

Image F.2-5: Polyamide 

Engine Mount

Image F.2-4: Polyamide Torque 

Dampener
Page 160

Table F.2-8: Summary of mass-reduction concepts considered for the Engine Frames, Mounting, 

and Brackets Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Engine Mountings

Scale down engine mounts 

based on reduced 

powertrain size and weight 

reduction 15% mass reduction

Some components may cross other 

product lines

Engine Mounting 

Bracket

Material change from steel 

to Aluminum 50% mass reduction

 Increased NVH, FEA required for exact 

sizing

Torsion Strut Link

Material change from 

stamped steel to cast Al 50% mass reduction Simplified processing

Engine Mountings Polyamide Engine Mounts 50% mass reduction

F.2.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.2-9 lists the mass reduction ideas applied to Engine Frames, Mounting, and 

Brackets subsystem. Polyamide was not selected for the torsion strut application because 

at the time of the initial investigation no production applications were known. 

Table F.2-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets 

Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

01 02 00 Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem

01 02 01 Engine Frames N/A

01 02 02 Engine Mountings Steel to Aluminum Mounting Bracket & Link

01 02 10 Hangine Eyes N/A

01 02 99 Misc. N/A

Image F.2-6 shows the Torsion Strut Assembly as it is featured in the vehicle. Image 

F.2-7 shows the Torsion Strut with the bushings removed and NVH pad removed. This 

stamped steel weldment was changed to die-cast aluminum and 25% volume added to 

compensate for differences in yield strength.
Page 161

Image F.2-6: Torsion Strut Assembly

 

Image F.2-7: Torsion Strut Link

 Image F.2-8: Lower Engine Mounting Bracket

(Images F-7, F-8, Source: FEV, Inc. photos)

Image F.2-8 is a cast iron Engine Mounting Bracket changed to cast aluminum and 30% 

volume added for yield strength compensation.

Although not included in this analysis, additional lightweighting opportunity exists for 

engine mount material substitution. The stamped steel weldment (previous Image F.2-3) 

could be done in aluminum or plastic.
Page 162

F.2.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

As shown in Table F.2-100, engine mountings material change from steel to aluminum 

results in a mass reduction and cost savings. The Torsion Strut Link was a 55% mass 

reduction or .355kg and saved $.25. The Lower Engine Mounting Bracket was a 55% 

mass reduction, or .723kg and saved $.54.

Table F.2-10: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Cylinder Head Subsystem

(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

01 02 00 Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem

01 02 01 Engine Frames 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 02 02 Engine Mountings A 1.114 $0.79 $0.71 8.99% 0.00%

01 02 03 Hangine Eyes 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 02 04 Misc. 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

A 1.114 0.788 $0.71 7.29% 0.07%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.2.3 Crank Drive Subsystem

F.2.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.2-111, the most significant contributor to the Crank Drive subsystem 

is the Crankshaft comprising 14.3% of the Engine Mass.

Table F.2-11: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Crank Drive Subsystem
Page 163

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

01 03 00 Crank Drive Subsystem

01 03 01 Crankshaft 18.185

01 03 02 Flywheel 2.177

01 03 03 Connect Rods (Assemblies: Connecting Rod, Connecting Rod Cap) 2.680

01 03 04 Pistons (Assemblies, Including Pistons, Ring Packs, Piston Pins, Circlips) 1.688

01 03 05 Drive for Accessory Drives (Down force, Flywheel side) 0.000

01 03 10 Drive for Timing Drive (Down force, Flywheel side) 0.000

01 03 15 Adaptors 0.000

01 03 99 Misc. 0.000

Total Subsystem Mass = 24.730

Total System Mass = 172.598

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 14.33%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 1.45%

F.2.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Venza Crankshaft is a forged steel design with a pressed gear to drive the balance 

shafts and a pressed trigger wheel for crank speed monitoring. The connecting rods are 

hot forged with fully machined and doweled caps. System components are pictured in

Image F.2-9.
Page 164

Image F.2-9: Key Components – Crank Drive

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.2.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Aluminum connecting rods (Image F.2-10) are popular in the racing industry and can be 

purchased from a variety of manufactures. They are typically machined from billet but 

forged are also available. While lighter aluminum rods contribute to better engine 

acceleration they have durability and packaging issues not suiting them for production 

use. Metal Matrix composite has been tested for racing applications and has potential to 

offset durability issues but at this point is unfeasible for mass production.[1]

Titanium connecting rods are used in racing and production applications. Honda used 

titanium connecting rods in the Acura NSX in 1990. Other production examples include 

Corvette (Image F.2-11) and the Porsche GT3. Although titanium connecting rods have 

superior performance at high rpm titanium’s cost limits its use to high performance 

applications.
Page 165

F.2.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.2-122 lists the mass reduction ideas considered for the Crank Drive subsystem. 

Ideas considered include material substitutions for connecting rods and Flexplate. 

Aluminum Flexplates are available for aftermarket applications but the gear requires steel 

for strength and additional fasteners are required to join the Aluminum hub and gear 

offsetting mass savings and increasing cost. Lightening the connecting rods would likely 

lead to some savings in the crankshaft, however, quantifying the savings requires design 

work and was not considered. The Infinity 4.5L V8 has a forged crank with drilled 

connecting rod journals. This idea, not known during the Venza review, has 

lightweighting opportunity.

Table F.2-12: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for the Crank Drive Subsystem

Image F.2-10: Aluminum 

Connecting Rod

(Source: www.extremepsi.com)

Image F.2-11: Titanium Connecting 

Rod

(Source: http://www.citycratemotors.com)
Page 166

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Connecting Rods

Change Material for 

Connecting Rods (Al/MMC) 30% mass reduction No proven examples

Connecting Rods

Forged steel carburized 

connecting rods 25% mass reduction Feasible Honda S2000 & 1.0L Insight

Crankshaft

process change forged 

steel to hollow cast iron 15% mass reduction

BMW 745i 4.4L V8 Cast with cored 

mains 18.8kg

Infinity M45 4.5L V8 Forged with drilled 

conrod journals 23.2 kg

Crankshaft

reduced crankshaft weight 

due to lighter connecting 

rods 5% mass reduction Difficult to quantify

Connecting Rods split break 0% mass reduction

Cost save only; pair with mass reduction 

idea for reduced cost/kg

Drive Plate & Ring Gear Aluminum Flexplate 0% mass reduction Ring gear requires steel

F.2.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.2-13 lists the mass reduction ideas applied to Crank Drive subsystem. 

Table F.2-13: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Crank Drive Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem 

Description Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

01 03 00 Crank Drive Subsystem

01 03 01 Crankshaft N/A

01 03 02 Flywheel N/A

01 03 03

Connect Rods (Assemblies: 

Connecting Rod, Connecting Rod 

Cap)

Design optimization and material change

01 03 04

Pistons (Assemblies, Including 

Pistons, Ring Packs, Piston Pins, 

Circlips)

Design optimization of pistons & wristpins

01 03 05 Drive for Accessory Drives (Down 

force, Flywheel side) N/A

01 03 10 Drive for Timing Drive (Down force, 

Flywheel side) N/A

01 03 15 Adaptors N/A

01 03 99 Misc. N/A

The connecting rod is one of most highly stressed components of the engine. Its 

optimization is a delicate balance between reducing rotating mass and catastrophic 
Page 167

failure. Mahle, an automotive supplier of power cell units, performed an optimization on 

a 3.6L V6. The optimized rod design saved 27% mass and is currently in high volume 

production1. The Venza connecting rod, peak combustion pressure (surrogate estimate), 

and dimensional characteristics were provided to Mahle. After reviewing the connecting 

rod, the base design was found to be conservative. The base design was coplanar, 

meaning both the big and small end share the same width. The base Venza rod (Image 

F.2-12) is a plain carbon wrought forged design, requiring full machining and doweling 

of the cap connection (Image F.2-13). The Mahle redesign changes the material to 

46MnVs4, providing maximum strength and crack break properties. Crack break 

eliminates the machining and doweling of the cap connection (Image F.2-14). 

 

Image F.2-15 is a 3D rendering of the lightened Venza rod provided by Mahle. At the 

small end, the design is stepped, optimizing the pin-bore profile. The pin-bore features 

forged-in oil pockets (Image F.2-16) and eliminates the bushing. The shank cross-section 

shape was optimized for maximum strength. Mahle downsized the cap and fasteners to 

save additional weight. Improvements to the connecting rod extend to the wristpin and 

piston. The piston journals were brought in to meet the narrower small end of the rod 

which also shortened the wrist pin. 

Image F.2-13: Crack Break 

Rod Cap

(Source: www.pirate4x4.com)

Image F.2-12: Fully Machined & 

Doweled Rod Cap

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 168

 

Image F.2-14: Connecting Rod 

Assembly (Venza)

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.2-15: Connecting Rod Assembly 

(Lightweighted)

(Source: Mahle Engineering)
Page 169

Table F.2-144 breaks down the mass savings by component. The Mahle redesign reduced 

the Connecting Rod Assembly by 23% and the engine mass by .688 kg. While the Mahle 

redesign impacts the overall vehicle weight, the most significant benefit is reduced 

friction and improved mechanical efficiency[2].

Table F.2-14: Summary of Mahle Lightweighted PCU components

CONNECTING ROD & PISTON ASSEMBLY MAHLE LIGHTWEIGHTED REDESIGN

Reduction [%] Base [g] Mahle [g] Save [g]

Connecting Rod (46MnVs4) 24% 411 311 100

Connecting Rod Cap (46MnVs4) 14% 155 134 21

Connecting Rod Bolts Quantity x 2 25% 64 48 16

ConnectIng Rod Bushing 100% 12 0 12

Piston: (Mahle EvoTec, M174+) 3.4% 298 288 10

Wrist Pin (16MnCr5) 12% 107 94 13

Connecting Rod Assembly 23% 642 493 149

Piston Assembly 6% 405 382 23

Engine Quantity x 4 688

Image F.2-16: Forged In Oil Pockets 

(Lightweighted)

(Source: Mahle Engineering)
Page 170

F.2.3.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

As shown in Table F.2-155, mass reductions for the Crank Drive subsystem save $10/kg. 

The cost savings for this subsystem is a result of processing savings utilizing split break 

connecting rod technology.

Table F.2-15: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Crank Drive Subsystem

(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

01 03 00 Crank Drive Subsystem

01 03 01 Crankshaft 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 03 02 Flywheel 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 03 03 Connect Rods (Assemblies: Connecting Rod, 

Connecting Rod Cap) A 0.596 $6.51 $10.93 22.24% 0.03%

01 03 04 Pistons (Assemblies, Including Pistons, Ring 

Packs, Piston Pins, Circlips) A 0.092 $0.36 $3.96 5.45% 0.01%

01 03 65 Drive for Accessory Drives (Down force, Flywheel 

side) 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 03 66 Drive for Timing Drive (Down force, Flywheel side) 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 03 67 Adaptors 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 03 99 Misc. 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

A 0.688 6.878 $10.00 2.78% 0.04%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.2.4 Counter Balance Subsystem

F.2.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.2-166 summarizes the mass contributions for the Counter Balance subsystem. 

The balance shafts make up the Dynamic Parts sub-subsystem and are the largest 

contributors to the subsystem. 

Table F.2-16: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Counter Balance Subsystem.
Page 171

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

01 04 00 Counter Balance Subsystem

01 04 01 Dynamic Parts 2.583

01 04 02 Static Parts 2.494

01 04 03 Drives 0.000

01 04 99 Misc. 2.141

Total Subsystem Mass = 7.218

Total System Mass = 172.598

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 4.18%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.42%

F.2.4.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

Common on larger displacement 4-cylinder engines, the 2.7L Venza uses a balance shaft 

assembly (Image F.2-17) to counter vibrations from reciprocating piston mass. The 

assembly consists of two rotating shafts with offset weights and is housed underneath the 

crankshaft. A gear on the crankshaft drives the long balance shaft which in turn drives the 

short balance shaft. A set of oil ported journal bearings were used to support each balance 

shaft.

Image F.2-17: Venza Balance Shaft Assembly

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 172

F.2.4.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Lightweighting trends for balance shafts include the use of nylon drive gears and roller 

bearings. Development is being done using two mating nylon gears that would further 

reduce weight and cost.

F.2.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.2-177 summarizes ideas considered for balance shaft lighweighting.

Table F.2-17: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for the Crank Drive Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Balance Shaft Assembly

roller bearing supports 

enable weight optimized 

layout for balancer shafts 10% mass reduction Reduced system friction

Balance Shaft Drive 

Gear Nylon instead of Steel 80% mass reduction

Durability concern, no proven examples 

at this time

Schaeffler AG, winner of the 2011 Pace Awards, was recognized for applying roller 

bearings to the balance shaft in automotive applications (Image F.2-18). Roller bearings 

require less contact area than the journal bearings used on Venza, allowing for balance 

shaft mass reductions. Schaeffler’s review of the 2.7L balance shaft assembly determined 

a maximum of .4 kg could be removed from the balance shafts. Replacing the journal 

bearings with roller bearings would add .330 kg resulting in a system savings of .070 kg. 

Due to marginal mass savings this idea was not applied.

Roller bearings applied to balance shafts reduce friction by 50% and in production 

applications have saved 1.5 kW of power. Roller bearings do not require pressurized 

engine cooling and eliminate the need for oil galleries.

Using nylon for all balance shaft drive gears has potential to save additional weight, but 

no successful testing or applications have proven an all nylon drive feasible at this time.
Page 173

Image F.2-18: Schaeffler’s Low Friction Roller Bearing Balance Shaft

F.2.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Downsizing the balance shaft assembly to coincide with the downsized 2.4L engine was 

selected for the Counter Balance Subsystem. 

F.2.4.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

Mass reduction and cost impact for Counter Balance Subsystem is captured in the engine 

downsize calculation 

F.2.5 Cylinder Block Subsystem 

F.2.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.2-188, the most significant mass contributor to Cylinder Block 

subsystem is the cylinder block itself making up two-thirds of the subsystem mass. The 

Crank Case Adapter makes up 20% of the subsystem mass.
Page 174

Table F.2-18: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Cylinder Block Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

01 05 00 Cylinder Block Subsystem

01 05 01 Cylinder Block 19.955

01 05 02 Crankshaft Bearing Caps 3.640

01 05 03 Bedplates 0.000

01 05 04 Piston Cooling 0.138

01 05 65 Crankcase Adaptor 6.172

01 05 66 Water Jacket 0.190

01 05 67 Clinder Barrel 0.000

01 05 99 Misc. 0.040

Total Subsystem Mass = 30.135

Total System Mass = 172.598

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 17.46%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 1.76%

F.2.5.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota 2.7L cylinder block assembly incorporates lightweight technology (Image 

F.2-19). The cylinder block is made from lightweight, low-cost die cast aluminum with 

thin 2.5mm cylinder liners, further reducing weight. The crank case is ladder style with 

cast iron bearing caps. The Crankcase Adaptor is die cast aluminum, providing added 

strength to the engine block and integrates the oil filter. The crank case is ladder style 

with cast iron bearing caps. Oil jets, bolted to the block, provide bottom side piston 

cooling. A water jacket insert directs coolant flow where it is needed most, evening block 

operating temperatures. 
Page 175

Image F.2-19: Key Components – Cylinder Block Subsystem

F.2.5.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Grey cast iron is still a popular choice for engine blocks. Among the advantages are 

strength, wear performance, corrosion resistance, castability, NVH & cost. Compacted 

Graphite Iron GCI is increasing in popularity for its improved strength over grey cast 

iron, permitting thinner cross sections and weight reductions over conventional grey 

cast.[3] GCI is mostly used in European diesel engine applications. Over the past decade, 

the weight advantage of aluminum has fostered its growth as a material choice for engine 

blocks and now makes up 60% of engine blocks in production. Under consumer pressure 

for better fuel economy automakers are now turning their attention to the even lighter 

magnesium alloys for engine block applications. 

Volkswagen has used magnesium cylinders in its 4-cylinder air-cooled boxer engine used 

in the Beatle and other vehicles for decades. BMW has taken the lead in Magnesium alloy 

engine block applications. BMW’s Z4 Roadster debuted in 2004 as the lightest 3.0 L 

inline six-cylinder gas engine in the world, made possible by the composite magnesiumaluminum alloy engine. The engines success lead to its implementation in subsequent 

BMW models exceeding over 300,000 units in 2006[4].

In 2010 a joint effort by GM, Ford, and Chrysler concluded through extensive testing 

magnesium was a feasible engine block material as tested on the Ford Duratech 2.5L V6. 

Changes for successful implementation include ethylene glycol coolant with magnesium 
Page 176

protective additives and a new head gasket design to accommodate the aluminum head to 

Magnesium block interface. Iron bulkheads were also required for added strength and 

further bulk head development is required to prevent failures. The engine block mass was 

reduced by 25% without any significant compromises to performance[5].

F.2.5.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.2-19 lists the mass reduction ideas considered for the cylinder block subsystem.

Due to a majority mass contribution, cylinder block was the focus of this subsystem. 

Carbon fiber was reviewed as a lightweight material for the cylinder block. Composite 

Castings LLC has a patent-pending molding process used to produce carbon fiber engine 

blocks for the racing industry. The engine blocks are 45-50% lighter than a comparable 

aluminum block. Due to extreme cost and only one successful application, carbon fiber is 

not feasible for lightweighting the engine block. Magnesium, known for its superior 

specific strength, does have a high-volume production example and presents good 

opportunity for mass reduction. The main journal caps are constructed from cast iron and 

are a potential candidate for Metal Matrix Composite but no production examples or 

testing were identified and therefore questionable technology for the 2017 timeframe.

Table F.2-19: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for the Crank Drive Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Cylinder Block

Carbon fiber composite 

engine block 75% mass reduction Durability concern, unrealistic cost

Cylinder Block Aluminum to Magnesium 25% mass reduction Improved NVH

Main Journal Caps

Cast Iron to Aluminum 

MMC 50% mass reduction

No proven examples or successful 

testing at this time

Cylinder Oil Tubes press in rather than bolt on 50% mass reduction Reduced oil coverage

Cylinder Block Liner

Plasma sprayed cylinder 

bores 80% mass reduction

Crankcase Adapter Aluminum to Magnesium 65% mass reduction

Reduced elastic modulus & creep 

resistance

Highlighted in an April 2005 edition of MTZ was work performed by Audi on 

development of a magnesium engine block (Image F.2-20). The object of the study was 

to design, build and test a 1.8L turbo diesel engine with aluminum inserted (Image 

F.2-21) magnesium engine block. The publication details the many different factors 

considered in the use of magnesium applied to an engine block. The prototype passed 
Page 177

teardown inspection and demonstrated outstanding dampening properties. The 

magnesium engine weighed 23kg less than its cast iron counterpart and proved a highstrength, closed-deck design can be manufactured from pressure die casting.

Image F.2-20: Audi Lightweight Magnesium Hybrid Engine

(Source: MOTORTECHNISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT April 2005)

Audi 1.8L Turbo 

Diesel
Page 178

Image F.2-21: AlSi17Cu4 Gravity Die Casting

(.Source: MOTORTECHNISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT April 2005)

F.2.5.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.2-20: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Cylinder Block Subsystem Analysis

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem 

Description Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

01 05 00 Cylinder Block Subsystem

01 05 01 Cylinder Block Cylinder Block - Aluminum to Mg/Al hybrid.

Cylinder Liner - cast steel to plasma wire arc

01 05 02 Crankshaft Bearing Caps N/A

01 05 03 Bedplates N/A

01 05 04 Piston Cooling Oil Nozzles - bolt on to through bulk head

01 05 65 Crankcase Adaptor Stiffening Crankcase Housing - Al to Mg

01 05 66 Water Jacket N/A

01 05 67 Clinder Barrel N/A

01 05 99 Misc. N/A

F.2.5.5.1 Cylinder Block
Page 179

Aluminum inserted Magnesium was selected as a replacement to the all Aluminum 2.7L 

engine block. Like BMW’s 3.0L N52 (Image F.2-22), a cylinder insert including cooling 

duct (Image F.2-23) is die cast from Aluminum Silicon Alloy (Image F.2-24). This 

Aluminum insert strengthens the critical cylinder bore and bulk head structure while 

providing a coolant compatible interface. No coolant ever contacts the Magnesium. The 

insert is then coated with AlSi12 for adhesion and preheated before being inserted into 

the block die casting tool. The magnesium die casting machine is similar to an Aluminum 

die casting machine but material conveyance requires a gas cover to prevent contact 

between molten magnesium alloy and the atmosphere. Magnesium Alloy AJ62 is injected 

around the Aluminum insert and bonds within 20 seconds then removed and degated 

(Image F.2-25). Components are attached to the Magnesium block with Aluminum 

fasteners to prevent corrosion from dissimilar metals. High stress fasteners like the 

cylinder head and crankshaft caps are bolted into the Aluminum insert. Magnesium also 

requires a specialized rubber coated head gasket to prevent electrochemical corrosion 

between the sheet steel gasket and magnesium. Magnesium and its alloys are typically 

treated in aqueous passivating electrolytes to prevent corrosion. All these factors were 

considered in the differential cost build up. Mass savings was calculated by applying 

similar water jacket dimensions used by BMW to the 2.7L 1AR-FE and calculating the 

volume. The remaining volume for the Base engine block was used to calculate the 

Magnesium content.
Page 180

Image F.2-22: BMW N52 Magnesium Aluminum Hybrid Engine Block

(Source: http://www.mwerks.com/artman/publish/features/printer_960.shtml)

Image F.2-23: Aluminum Cylinder Insert with Integrated Water Jacket and Bulkheads

(Source: http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=zhravlik27&logNo=30080774016)

Image F.2-24: Die Casting - Aluminum Cylinder Insert

Source: http://www.7-forum.com/news/news2004/6zyl/bmw_6zylinder_ottomotor4.php
Page 181

Image F.2-25: Die Casting - Aluminum Cylinder Insert

(Source: http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=zhravlik27&logNo=30080774016)

F.2.5.5.2 Cylinder Liner

Toyota’s 2.7L uses standard cast iron cylinder liners (Image F.2-26). These liners are 

inserted into the die casting mold prior to filling. Following casting the liners are 

machined to finish the cylinder bore. Plasma Transfer Wire Arc (PTWA) is a new method 

of forming an iron surface for the cylinder wall (Image F.2-27). The alternative process 

began development by Ford in the early 1990s and was first implemented on the 2008 

Nissan GT-R and the 2011 Shelby Mustang GT500. With PTWA, the aluminum engine 

block is cast without liners and the aluminum bore is pre-machined to near net size. The 

bore is then cleaned and fluxed followed by a bonding coat. Low carbon steel wire is 

continuously fed into the nozzle apparatus and deposited on the cylinder wall. After 

machining the remaining plasma coating is .070 - .170 mm in thickness. This is roughly 

10% of the cast liner thickness found on Toyota’s 2.7L. This ultra-thin surface improves 

heat transfer between the combustion process and the aluminum block.

7 Although Ford 

has patented their PTWA process, plasma can be used to apply cylinder coatings in a 

variety of ways. BMW’s new N20 engine block uses two iron wires in a similar process. 

Volkswagen has a cylinder coating process in which steel and Molybdenum powder are 

applied by a plasma jet. Production applications include Touareg, Lupo, & Van T5. HighVelocity Oxy-Fuel (HVOF) has also been used for the cylinder friction surfaces.
Page 182

F.2.5.5.3 Crankcase Adapter

The 2.7L 1AR-FE has cast iron main bearing caps housing the crankshaft. A Crankcase 

Adapter is used to stiffen the engine block and integrates the oil filter (Image F.2-28). 

BMW’s N52 Engine uses a Magnesium Bedplate with integrated bearing caps bolted to 

the engine block, trapping the crankshaft (Image F.2-29). The 2.7L Crankcase Adapter 

was lightened by using a direct material replacement from Aluminum to Magnesium 

Alloy.

 

Image F.2-28: [Base Technology] Aluminum Crankcase Adapter 

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.2-26: [Base Technology] Cast Iron 

Cylinder Liners

Source: http://dwolsten.tripod.com/articles/jan96a.html

Image F.2-27: [New Technology] Plasma Transfer 

Wire Arc (PTWA)

Source: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/05/ptwa20090529.html
Page 183

Image F.2-29: [New Technology]

Magnesium Bedplate BMW N52

Source:http://www.mwerks.com/artman/publish/features/printer_960.shtml20090529.html

F.2.5.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

Cylinder Block subsystem results are listed in (Table F.2-21). The cylinder block 

represents the largest mass savings contribution to the engine system. The Magnesium 

outer block saves 3.3kg over the 2.7L’s conventional cast aluminum design. PTWA 

cylinder liners saved 1.7 kg over cast iron and are nearly cost neutral at $-0.36 per kg.

Substituting magnesium for aluminum in the crankcase adaptor saved 1.9 kg. While 

magnesium has a considerable weight advantage over aluminum, it comes at a significant 

cost, resulting in a high cost per kilogram value for the cylinder block subsystem. 

Isolating the cylinder block costs from the liner results in a Magnesium cylinder block 

cost per kilogram of $-8.08 per kg. This analysis assumes an additional 7% material 

scrap factor for Mg and a 5% scrap factor for over molding.

Table F.2-21: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Cylinder Block Subsystem
Page 184

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ 

Sub-Subs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

01 05 00 Cylinder Block Subsystem

01 05 01 Cylinder Block D 5.058 -$26.33 -$5.21 25.34% 0.30%

01 05 02 Crankshaft Bearing Caps 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 05 03 Bedplates 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 05 04 Piston Cooling A 0.124 $0.65 $5.20 89.86% 0.01%

01 05 65 Crankcase Adaptor C 1.924 -$6.64 -$3.45 31.17% 0.11%

01 05 66 Water Jacket 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 05 67 Clinder Barrel 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 05 99 Misc. 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

D 7.106 -32.325 -$4.55 23.58% 0.42%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.2.6 Cylinder Head Subsystem

F.2.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.2-212, the most significant mass contributors to the Cylinder Head 

subsystem are the cylinder head, camshaft carrier and cylinder head cover. 

Table F.2-22: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Cylinder Head Subsystem.
Page 185

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

01 06 00 Cylinder Head Subsystem

01 06 01 Cylinder Head 13.657

01 06 02 Valve, Guides, Valve Seats 0.000

01 06 03 Guides for Valvetrain 0.280

01 06 06 Camshaft Bearing Housing 1.288

01 06 07 Camshaft Speed Sensor 0.000

01 06 08 Camshaft Carrier 3.077

01 06 09 Other Parts for Cylinder Head 0.464

01 06 20 Cylinder Head Covers 2.349

01 06 99 Misc. 0.000

Total Subsystem Mass = 21.115

Total System Mass = 172.598

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 12.23%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 1.23%

F.2.6.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

Image F.2-30 highlights the key Cylinder Head subsystem components. The 2.7L 

cylinder head is a machined aluminum sand casting with dual overhead camshafts housed 

in a die cast aluminum camshaft carrier. Five independent aluminum camshaft bearing 

caps trap the camshafts in the carrier. A specialized bearing housing includes integrated 

pluming for the Cam Phaser hydraulic circuit. The cylinder head cover is made from cast 

Magnesium and adjoins via an inlay rubber seal. Providing access to the cylinder head 

cooling cavity is a steel threaded plug.
Page 186

Image F.2-30: Key Components – Cylinder Head Subsystem

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.2.6.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Cylinder head industry trends for lightweighting have been limited to the use of 

aluminum. Magnesium alloy development for cylinder heads is ongoing and aims to 

resolve stiffness, creep, and corrosion issues. In 2008, the Changchun Institute of Applied 

Chemistry of CAS and FAW Group successfully developed a magnesium alloy cylinder 

head for heavy-duty truck. Over 15,000 cylinder heads have been produced from 

magnesium alloy for heavy-duty truck.[8] A popular choice for lightweight camshaft 

covers continues to be plastic as well as some use of magnesium.

F.2.6.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

As a top subsystem mass contributor, the cylinder head was a focus for mass reduction. 

Magnesium as a material replacement for aluminum was researched. A production 

example of a magnesium cylinder head was difficult to find and no passenger car 

applications were identified. The cam cover, a commonly plastic component, was quickly 

identified as an opportunity. Hydraulic cam phaser control circuitry through the cam

cover was a point of concern for the composite replacement. The latest in valve spring 

technology offers reduced spring masses as well as reduced spring free lengths, enabling 
Page 187

cylinder head height and mass reductions. Table F.2-23 summarizes ideas considered for 

cylinder head subsystem. 

Table F.2-23: Summary of mass-reduction concepts considered for the Cylinder Head Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Cam Cover

Material change from 

magnesium to composite 28% mass reduction Cost effective, noise reducing

Cylinder Head Plug 

Large

Material change from steel 

to Aluminum 65% mass reduction

Cylinder Head Plug 

Small

Material change from steel 

to Aluminum 65% mass reduction

Cylinder Head Assembly Reduced Height 7% mass reduction Improved packaging

Cylinder Head

Material change from 

Aluminum to Magnesium 25% mass reduction Additional cost, no applicable examples

F.2.6.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.2-234 following outlines the mass reduction ideas selected for the Cylinder Head 

subsystem. As a result of valve spring lightweighting research, an opportunity to save 

mass on the cylinder head was identified. Optimizing the valve spring includes a 

shortening of the valve spring free length and creates opportunity to reduce cylinder head 

height. Although a reduction was assumed feasible and credited as a mass save, design 

work is required to validate this as an option.

Table F.2-24: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Cylinder Head Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

01 06 00 Cylinder Head Subsystem

01 06 01 Cylinder Head Cylinder Head - reduced height for shorter spring

01 06 02 Valve, Guides, Valve Seats N/A

01 06 03 Guides for Valvetrain N/A

01 06 06 Camshaft Bearing Housing N/A

01 06 07 Camshaft Speed Sensor N/A

01 06 08 Camshaft Carrier N/A

01 06 09 Other Parts for Cylinder Head Cylinder Head Plug - Steel to Al

01 06 20 Cylinder Head Covers Cylinder Head Cover - Mg to Plastic
Page 188

The Magnesium Cylinder head cover was changed to plastic as a weight save, cost save, 

and performance benefit (Image F.2-31). Production examples include Chrysler 4.7L V8 

and Ford Zetec-R. A plastic cam cover as applied to Venza represents a new challenge 

due to hydraulic Cam Phaser control circuitry. Base Venza integrates the valve mounting 

into the Cam Cover. A plastic cam cover would require a bolt-on housing for the cam 

phaser actuators. The plastic cam cover would seal around the bolt-on housing. Bolt-on 

housing cost and mass were included in the plastic cam cover. With detailed design 

work, an alternative would be a cylinder head with integrated control valve housing.

The coolant cavity Access Plug (Image F.2-32 and Image F.2-33) was changed from 

steel to aluminum. Common with the cylinder head, Aluminum is expected to work well 

for this application. A waxed base polymer applied to the threads was selected to stabilize 

tightening torques. Aluminum fasteners, common in the Aerospace industry are also 

being used in automotive. KMAX, a supplier of Aluminum fasteners, was consulted in 

this application. Production examples include transfer case to transmission bolts on the 

F150, fasteners on the BMW NG6 engine, and oil pan fasteners used on ZF 

transmissions. 

Image F.2-31: Mahle Composite Cam Cover

(Source: www.mahle.com/MAHLE/en/Products/AirManagement-Systems/Engine-and-cylinder-head-covers)
Page 189

Image F.2-32 (Left): Access Plug – Cylinder Head

Image F.2-33 (Right): Access Plug (close-up) – Cylinder Head

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.2.6.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

Table F.2-25 summarizes lightweight activities applied to Cylinder Head subsystem. 

Among ideas selected, cylinder head height reduction yields the greatest mass savings for 

the cylinder head subsystem and represents a 7% cylinder head mass reduction. The cost 

savings of changing the cam cover material from magnesium to composite curbs the 

entire subsystem cost structure.

Table F.2-25: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Cylinder Head Subsystem

(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
Page 190

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ 

Sub-Subs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

01 06 00 Cylinder Head Subsystem

01 06 01 Cylinder Head A 0.900 $3.49 $3.88 6.59% 0.05%

01 06 02 Valve, Guides, Valve Seats 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 06 03 Guides for Valvetrain 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 06 06 Camshaft Bearing Housing 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 06 07 Camshaft Speed Sensor 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 06 08 Camshaft Carrier 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 06 09 Other Parts for Cylinder Head A 0.095 $0.00 $0.00 20.56% 0.01%

01 06 20 Cylinder Head Covers A 0.052 $8.40 $162.52 2.20% 0.00%

01 06 99 Misc. 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

A 1.047 11.887 $11.35 4.96% 0.06%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.2.7 Valvetrain Subsystem

F.2.7.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen below in Table F.2-256, the most significant subsystem mass contributor is the 

camshafts. Second to the camshafts, the cam phasers make up a large portion of 

subsystem mass.
Page 191

Table F.2-26: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Valvetrain Subsystem.

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

01 07 00 Valvetrain Subsystem

01 07 01 Inlet Valves 0.392

01 07 02 Outlet Valves 0.352

01 07 03 Valve Springs 0.544

01 07 04 Spring Retainers, Cotters, Spring Seats 0.160

01 07 05 Valve Actuation Elements: Rockers, Finger Followers, Hydraulic Lash 

Adjusters,... 1.008

01 07 06 Camshafts 4.898

01 07 08 Camshaft Phaser and/or Cam Sprockets 2.429

01 07 99 Misc. 0.000

Total Subsystem Mass = 9.783

Total System Mass = 172.598

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 5.67%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.57%

F.2.7.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

2.7L Valvetrain Assembly can be seen in Image F.2-34. Venza baseline technology 

begins with solenoid actuated hydraulic cam phasers. These cam phasers independently 

vary the valve intake and exhaust timing events making this a Variable Valve Timing 

Engine. Toyota distinguishes this cam phaser design from their earlier tandem lobe 

concept by adding the character (i), meaning with intelligence (VVTi) engine. The cam 

phasers consist of three main components; the stator, rotor, and drive gear. These 

components are contructed from sintered iron. The cam phasers directly coupled to the 

camshafts, drive roller cam followers supported by hydraulic lash adjusters. The roller 

followers actuate the intake and exhaust valves (Image F.2-34). The camshafts on Venza 

are traditional solid cast design.
Page 192

Image F.2-34: Valvetrain Assembly (Phasers removed)

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.2.7.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Hollow cast camshafts are a new lightweighting technology that can be found in the 

Chevy Cruze Ecotec 1.4L turbo. As part of this study a 1.4L camshaft was purchased and 

a sectioned (Image F.2-35). Analysis found that the cored cavity saved 21% mass over 

the same camshaft cast from solid. 

Composite or tubular camshafts used in Europe, are made from tube stock. Cam lobes 

made from powder metal or forged steel are hydroformed in place. Composite camshafts 

offer weight savings of up to 50% over traditional solid cast.

Advances in valve spring technology have led to many new design options, including 

symmetrical, asymmetrical coiling and tapered springs or beehive springs. All spring 

types can be made from wire with round or profiled cross sections. Advances in materials 

and processing techniques now permit lighter spring weights, smaller retaining diameters, 

and shorter free lengths.
Page 193

Image F.2-35: Hollow Cast Camshaft – 1.4L Ecotec

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.2.7.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

As seen in Table F.2-27, the camshaft, phaser assembly, valve spring, and valve were 

considered for mass reduction. 

Table F.2-27: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for Valvetrain

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Camshaft

Solid cast to tubular 

composite 46% mass reduction

More expensive, current production 

examples

Intake Cam Phaser 

Assembly Steel to powder metal 66% mass reduction Current production examples

Exhaust Cam Phaser 

Assembly Steel to powder metal 66% mass reduction Current production examples

Valve Spring Keeper

Reduced size, paired with 

optimized valve spring 25% mass reduction Reduced valvetrain inertia

Valve Laser welded sheet steel 50% mass reduction cost build-up not feasable for this project

Valve Spring Design Optimization 26% mass reduction Current production examples

Mubea, a development leader in lightweight vehicle technology supplies composite 

camshafts to the European passenger car market (Image F.2-36). Mubea’s process uses 

internal high pressure fluid to expand the camshaft tube inside servo positioned camshaft 

lobes. This assembly process opens the range of materials that can be considered for lobe 

design and concentrates the material to the critical cam lobe region.[9]
Page 194

 

Image F.2-36 (Left): Hydroformed Camshaft

Source: http://www.mubea.com/english/download/NW_engl.pdf

Image F.2-37 (Right): Mahle Sheet Steel Valve

Source: http://www.tokyo-motorshow.com/show/2007/eng/public/gallery/photo/80_010_Parts-W/004.html

The Cam Phaser assembly, made up of many subcomponents can be manufactured from 

powder metal Aluminum rather than sintered iron. SHW, 2010 award winner for 

excellence in powder metal, offers this technology in large scale production (700,000 

units/year). In this application mass savings is complimented by a performance advantage 

of reducing valvetrain inertia.[10]

Mahle has developed a new lightweight engine valve with a welded structure made from 

cold formed steel sheet parts (Image F.2-37). The precision laser-welded joint and coldformed features require no additional processing: only the functional areas are still 

ground. Sodium can be introduced to the hollow cavity of the exhaust valves reducing 

valve temperatures. Weight reductions of up to 50% are possible over conventional solid 

stem valves. Lighter valves enable lighter cam lobes, cam followers, tappets and valve 

springs.[11]

Mubea offers a lightweight optimized option for valve springs. Not only are the new 

technology springs lighter than conventional, but they are shorter as well, impacting 

mating components.
Page 195

F.2.7.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

As seen in Table F.2-28, the camshaft, phaser assembly and valve springs were selected 

for mass reduction. Spring Retainers, Spring Seats, and Valve Actuation Elements were 

not investigated due to limited opportunity mass content.

Table F.2-28: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Valvetrain Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

01 07 00 Valvetrain Subsystem

01 07 01 Inlet Valves Shortened Valve post for shortened spring

01 07 02 Outlet Valves Shortened Valve post for shortened spring

01 07 03 Valve Springs Mass & free length reduction; optimized design

01 07 04 Spring Retainers, Cotters, Spring 

Seats N/A

01 07 05

Valve Actuation Elements: Rockers, 

Finger Followers, Hydraulic Lash 

Adjusters,...

N/A

01 07 06 Camshafts Solid cast to tubular hydroformed assembly

01 07 08 Camshaft Phaser and/or Cam 

Sprockets replace steel components with cast Al

01 07 99 Misc. N/A

Solid cast camshafts selected by Toyota (Image F.2-38, below) were replaced with 

Tubular composite camshafts (Image F.2-39). Forged cam lobes hydroformed onto the 

tube make up the base assembly. Additional details are pressed onto the ends providing 

geometry for the cam phaser and timing sensor. Production applications for assembled 

hollow tube camshafts include Fiat 1.8L Diesel, Ford 4.6/5.0/5.4/6.2L V8, Chrysler 3.7L 

V6 and 8.4L V10.

Image F.2-38: [Base Technology] Solid Cast Camshaft

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 196

Image F.2-39: [New Technology] Mubea Hydroformed Camshaft (Fiat 1.8L Diesel)

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Sinter iron cam phasers used on base Venza were lightweighted to Aluminum. Image 

F.2-40 shows the sintered iron cam phaser components selected by Toyota and

components from a 2008 Mini Cooper. The stator is die cast aluminum and the rotor is 

sintered powder aluminum (Image F.2-41). SHW, located in Aalen-Wasseralfingen,

Germany, offers a high silicon alloy Aluminum powder metal sprocket with wear 

properties sufficient for this roller chain application (Image F.2-42). SHW in conjunction 

with HILITE International, have produced Aluminum cam phaser assemblies, including 

aluminum sprockets for the BMW N52 & N55.

Image F.2-40: [Base Technology] Sintered Iron Cam Phaser Rotor, Stator, Sprocket

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 197

Image F.2-41: [New Technology]

PM Al Rotor, Die Cast Al Stator

Image F.2-42: [New Technology] SHW PM Al Sprocket

(Source: FEV, Inc. photos)

The base valve spring used on Venza is a symmetrical cylinder design with round cross 

section Image F.2-43. Mubea offers an optimized version with two advancements that 

enable reduced spring length Image F.2-44. The Mubea spring features an ovate wire 

profile. As compared to conventional round, ovate wire reduces the solid height of the 

spring. The installed height can be reduced proportionally. In addition, Mubea’s spring 

undergoes a special hardening process after coiling. This optimizes the residual stress 

profile, resulting in the best possible material properties and enabling a reduced wire 

diameter. The smaller wire diameter reduces the solid height and resultant installed 

height. The shorter spring offers a packaging advantage for cylinder head designers that 

can lead to reductions in cylinder head size and valve length. Further refinements include 

a honeycomb style or tapered spring that can reduce the valve keeper size. Lighter valve 

trains mean reduced inertia, less friction, and improved efficiency. 
Page 198

F.2.7.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

As seen in Table F.2-29, the camshaft offers the greatest opportunity for mass reduction. 

Additional processing associated with tubular camshafts result in higher costs. The 

optimized valve spring also comes at a cost increase. Valve spring optimization yields 

mass savings to the cylinder head and the valve itself. New technology applied to the 

Valvetrain subsystem results in a cost increase.

Table F.2-29: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Valvetrain Subsystem

Image F.2-43: [Base Technology] 

Valve Spring

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.2-44: [New Technology] 

Valve Spring

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 199

(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Estimated 

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Estimated 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

01 07 00 Valvetain Subsystem

01 07 01 Inlet Valves A 0.015 $0.17 $11.60 3.81% 0.00%

01 07 02 Outlet Valves A 0.015 $0.17 $11.60 4.25% 0.00%

01 07 03 Valve Springs X 0.154 -$1.06 -$6.92 28.24% 0.01%

01 07 04 Spring Retainers, Cotters, Spring Seats 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 07 05 Valve Actuation Elements: Rockers, Finger 

Followers, Hydraulic Lash Adjusters,... 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 07 06 Camshafts D 2.133 -$9.25 -$4.34 43.55% 0.12%

01 07 08 Camshaft Phaser and/or Cam Sprockets B 1.391 -$1.17 -$0.84 57.26% 0.08%

01 07 99 Misc. 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

D 3.707 -11.133 -$3.00 37.90% 0.22%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.2.8 Timing Drive Subsystem

F.2.8.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen following in Table F.2-2930, the most significant mass contributors to the 

Timing Drive subsystem are the Cover and Guides. Timing Sprockets and Chain make up 

the remainder of the weight.

Table F.2-30: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Timing Drive Subsystem.
Page 200

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

01 08 00 Timing Drive Subsystem

01 08 01 Timing Wheels (Sprockets) 0.184

01 08 02 Tensioners 0.247

01 08 03 Guides 0.539

01 08 05 Belts, Chains 0.522

01 08 06 Covers 2.820

01 08 99 Misc. 0.000

Total Subsystem Mass = 4.312

Total System Mass = 172.598

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 2.50%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.25%

F.2.8.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

Image F.2-45 shows the 2.7L timing drive. Toyoda used a timing chain to drive the 

valvetrain. A steel gear mounted to the crankshaft translates rotation to the overhead 

intake and exhaust camshaft sprockets. The action of the chain is contained by a fixed 

Guide, Vibration Dampener Guide, and Tensioning Guide.
Page 201

Image F.2-45: Venza Timing Drive System

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.2.8.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Timing belts are commonly use in the industry due to cost and quietness of operation. 

Timing chains, although more durable (service life double that of a belt) began fading out 

in the 1980s. In recent years, OEMs have trended back due to advances in highperformance chains[12] (Figure F.2-2).
Page 202

Figure F.2-2: Industry Trend Timing Belt vs. Chain Applications

(Source: http://www.ntn.co.jp/english/products/review/pdf/NTN_TR73_en_P110.pdf)

Front Covers or timing covers have trended to lightweight materials like Magnesium or 

plastic. Advances in plastic technology have improved thermal resistance and coolant 

compatibility. Magnesium, although more expensive, has the structural capability to 

support accessories and mountings. Plastic timing covers are common place on dry belt 

drive systems. Plastic timing covers on chain drive systems is a developing technology.

F.2.8.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

As seen in Table F.2-31, many of the timing drive components had opportunity for 

weight reductions. As largest mass contributor, the Front Cover was reviewed for 

alternate materials. Magnesium offers a weight advantage over the base aluminum cover,

but at a higher cost and still higher weight than plastic. Plastic timing covers have been 

mass produced for decades on belt drive (dry) systems and offer a substantial weight 

savings.

The Timing Chain Tensioner Guide for the 2.7L is composed of aluminum. DSM offers 

production proven plastic solutions for this component saving weight and cost. The 

Crankshaft Timing Sprocket was reviewed for lightweighting. The loading of this 

sprocket is higher and it is smaller in diameter than the cam drive sprocket. For these 

reasons, this component was eliminated as an opportunity for lightweighting.
Page 203

Table F.2-31: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for Timing Drive 

Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Front Cover

Material change from 

Aluminum to composite 34% mass reduction Cost effective, noise reducing

Timing Chain Tensioner

Material change from Steel 

to Aluminum 61% mass reduction Reduced durability

Timing Vibration 

Dampener

Steel reinforced to all 

composite 60% mass reduction Packaging concern

Front Cover Plug

Material change from Steel 

to Aluminum 66% mass reduction

Crankshaft Timing 

Sprocket

Material change from Steel 

to powder metal 30% mass reduction Reduced durability

Timing Cover Plate

material change from Steel 

to Aluminum 66% mass reduction

Timing Chain Guide

base bracket from steel to 

Al 66% mass reduction

F.2.8.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

As seen in below in Table F.2-312, the Chain Tensioner, Guide, and Front Cover were all 

selected for detailed evaluation. The timing chain was not selected due to durability 

concerns of timing belts, larger pulleys required, and the hydraulic cam phaser design 

requiring an oiled drive system. 

Table F.2-32: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Timing Drive Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

01 08 00 Timing Drive Subsystem

01 08 01 Timing Wheels (Sprockets) N/A

01 08 02 Tensioners Tensioner Housing - Cast Iron to Al

01 08 03 Guides Timing Chain Tensioner Base - Al to Plastic

01 08 05 Belts, Chains N/A

01 08 06 Covers

Front Cover - Al to Plastic. 

Timing Chain Cover Plate - Steel to Plastic

Front Cover Tight Plug - Steel to Al

01 08 99 Misc. N/A
Page 204

The 2.7L Tensioning Guide has a nylon contact pad over top an Aluminum base (Image 

F.2-46). DSM specializes in single piece and two piece plastic timing chain guides. 

Production examples include the 2007 Honda 1.8L and Chrysler TigerShark I4 (Image 

F.2-47). Stanyl was chosen for this engines timing and balancer drive system due to the 

hot temperature stiffness, fatigue, and overall efficiency benefit offered by Stanyl.

 

The Timing Chain Tensioner is a ratcheting spring plunger mechanism that applies 

pressure to the Tensioning Guide. On the Venza, the base construction of this tensioner is 

cast iron (Image F.2-48). Other applications including, 3.6L Pentastar are using 

aluminum housings (Image F.2-49).

Image F.2-46: [Base Technology]

Timing Chain Tensioning Guide

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.2-47: [New Technology]

Timing Chain Tensioning Guide

(Source: DSM)
Page 205

The timing drive system cover, commonly referred to as the Front Cover is made from die 

cast aluminum (Image F.2-50). Mann+Hummel, located in Ludwigsburg, Germany,

recently showcased a plastic concept integrating the engine bearing, oil filter and oil 

cooler (Image F.2-51). The Venza Front Cover integrates the oil pump presenting a 

challenge for plastic. This application was reviewed with DSM and was considered 

feasible for plastic. A molded insert is required for the oil pump case. Aluminum inserts 

would be used to support the mounting surface for the Torsion Strut Mounting Bracket 

and transfer load to the engine block.

Image F.2-50:

[Base Technology]

Front Cover

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.2-51:

[New Technology]

Front Cover

(Source: http://www.plasticstoday.com/articles)

/iaa-report-plastics-replace-metal-timing-case-cover)

Image F.2-48: [Base 

Technology]

Tensioner Housing – Cast Iron

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.2-49: [New Technology]

Tensioner Housing – Aluminum

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 206

The Front Cover provides a window for tensioner access. A stamped steel plate was used 

as a cover. This cover was lightweighted to plastic and a rubber inlayed gasket used to 

improve sealing. A steel tight plug used for phaser access was changed to aluminum.

F.2.8.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

As seen in Table F.2-33, the Front Cover contributes the most mass savings for the 

Timing Drive subsystem. The size of this component best leverages the aluminum to 

plastic density advantage. The material cost per unit volume of plastic offsets other costs 

in this system resulting in an overall cost savings.

Table F.2-33: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Timing Drive Subsystem

(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Estimated 

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Estimated 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

01 08 00 Timing Drive Subsystem

01 08 01 Timing Wheels (Sprockets) 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 08 02 Tensioners A 0.125 $0.50 $4.00 50.47% 0.01%

01 08 03 Guides A 0.054 $0.04 $0.72 9.94% 0.00%

01 08 05 Belts, Chains 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 08 06 Covers A 1.276 $4.25 $3.33 45.24% 0.07%

01 08 99 Misc. 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

A 1.454 4.792 $3.29 33.72% 0.08%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.2.9 Accessory Drive Subsystem

F.2.9.1 Subsystem Content Overview

The Accessory drive pulleys were paired with their associated assemblies and not 

included in this subsystem. The only components contained in this subsystem are the 

Accessory Drive Tensioner and Accessory Drive Belt (Table F.2-34). The Accessory 

Drive Tensioner uses lightweight aluminum for the tensioning mechanism and a plastic 

idler pulley. No lightweighting ideas were identified for this subsystem.
Page 207

Table F.2-34: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Accessory Drive Subsystem.

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

01 09 00 Accessory Drive Subsystem

01 09 01 Pulleys 0.000

01 09 02 Tensioners 0.440

01 09 03 Guides 0.000

01 09 05 Belts 0.114

01 09 99 Misc. 0.000

Total Subsystem Mass = 0.554

Total System Mass = 172.598

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 0.32%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.03%

F.2.10 Air Intake Subsystem

F.2.10.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As shown in Table F.2-35, the leading mass contributor to the Air Intake Subsystem is 

the Intake Manifold followed by the Throttle Housing Assembly.

Table F.2-35: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Air Intake Subsystem.
Page 208

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

01 10 00 Air Intake Subsystem

01 10 01 Intake Manifold 7.122

01 10 02 Air Filter Box 1.517

01 10 03 Air Filters 0.181

01 10 04 Throttle Housing Assembly; including Supplies 3.089

01 10 05 Adapters: Flanges for Port Shut-off 0.000

01 10 99 Misc. 2.085

Total Subsystem Mass = 13.994

Total System Mass = 172.598

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 8.11%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.82%

F.2.10.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Air Intake Subsystem consists of a variety of components used to plumb air to the 

engine. Image F.2-52 shows the base components used on Venza. The intake manifold is 

an all plastic vibration welded assembly. The manifold design features vacuum actuated 

dual runners for a broadened torque curve. A 65mm cast aluminum throttle body meters

mass air flow through the intake. The air box and remaining components are injection 

molded plastic with exception to the EPDM Main Intake Hose. Blow-molded and 

injection-molded resonators are used, though, the system to muffle engine noise.
Page 209

Image F.2-52: Air Intake Subsystem Components

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.2.10.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Industry trends for air intake lightweighting are focused on the intake manifold. This 

component, typically made from cast iron, then aluminum is now trending toward plastic. 

Plastic lends itself well to more complex and more efficient dual runner designs. 

Aftermarket suppliers offer carbon fiber Intake Tubes. Due to cost and resonator 

attachment points, carbon fiber was not considered.

F.2.10.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

As shown in Table F.2-36, plastic components were reviewed for MuCell lightweighting. 

The Intake Manifold weighing over 7kg was a target for lightweighting. MuCell was 

reviewed with Trexel and the highly engineered manifold was not a viable candidate. The 

Aluminum Throttle Body Housing was reviewed for a material change to plastic. The 

base Venza used fasteners to join the Upper and Lower Air Filter Box segments. 

Lightweight clips, found in other applications, simplify filter access and were considered 

for lightweighting.

Table F.2-36: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for Timing Drive 

Subsystem
Page 210

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Air Filter Box MuCell 9% mass reduction No thick mold flow sections

Throttle Body Housing Aluminum to Plastic 40% mass reduction Metal inserts required

Air Intake Ducting MuCell 9% mass reduction No thick mold flow sections

Air Filter Box Fasteners

Redesign for lightweight 

clips 75% mass reduction Less expensive design

F.2.10.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Ideas selected to lightweight the Air Intake Subsystem are listed in Table F.2-37. 

 

Table F.2-37: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Timing Drive Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

01 10 00 Air Intake Subsystem

01 10 01 Intake Manifold N/A

01 10 02 Air Filter Box MuCell; redesign for clips, ellimnate bolts

01 10 03 Air Filters N/A

01 10 04 Throttle Housing Assembly; including 

Supplies Throttle Body Housing - Al to Plastic

01 10 05 Adapters: Flanges for Port Shut-off N/A

01 10 99 Misc. Air Intake Housing/Cover/Duct/Main Intake Hose - MuCell

The Venza Throttle Body Housing is die cast aluminum (Image F.2-53). Plastic 

applications are now emerging on vehicles like the Mini Cooper (Image F.2-54). 

Aluminum, although still considered lightweight, has nearly twice the density of its 

plastic counterpart.
Page 211

The fasteners and threaded inserts (Image F.2-55) used to join the upper and lower Air 

Filter Box were replaced with light weight, low cost, quick clamps ().

 

After Consulting Trexel, MuCell was applied to all applicable intake components (Image 

F.2-58 through Image F.2-62). Due to the basic geometry of these components, material 

delivery webs could not be thinned and a 9% mass reduction was applied. MuCell 

technology is currently used by major OEM’s like, Audi, Ford, BMW and VW as 

introduced in section F.4B.1

Image F.2-53: [Base Technology]

Throttle Body: Aluminum Housing

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.2-54: [New Technology]

Throttle Body: Plastic Housing

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.2-55: [Base Technology] 

Air Filter Access Fasteners

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.2-56: [New Technology] 

Air Filter Access Clamp

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 212

Image F.2-57: Air Intake Cover

MuCell – 9% Mass Savings

Image F.2-58 : Air Intake Housing

MuCell - 9% Mass Savings

Image F.2-60: Air Intake Duct

MuCell - 9% Mass Savings

Image F.2-59 : Main Intake Hose

MuCell - 9% Mass Savings

Image F.2-61: Air Box Upper

MuCell - 9% Mass Savings

Image F.2-62: Air Box Lower

MuCell - 9% Mass Savings
Page 213

(Source, Images F-55 through F-60: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.2.10.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

Table F.2-38 shows the weight and cost savings for Air Intake Lightweighting. The 

Throttle Body cost savings by switching from aluminum to injection-molded plastic 

drives the $5.60/kg savings for this system.

Table F.2-38: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Air Intake Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Estimated 

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Estimated 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

01 10 00 Air Intake Subsystem

01 10 01 Intake Manifold 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 10 02 Air Filter Box A 0.144 $0.29 $2.04 9.48% 0.01%

01 10 03 Air Filters 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 10 04 Throttle Housing Assembly; including Supplies A 0.245 $2.27 $9.29 7.92% 0.01%

01 10 05 Adapters: Flanges for Port Shut-off 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 10 99 Misc. A 0.122 $0.29 $2.40 5.83% 0.01%

A 0.510 2.859 $5.60 3.65% 0.03%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.2.11 Fuel Induction Subsystem

F.2.11.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.2-39 details the mass breakdown for the Fuel Induction subsystem. The most 

significant subsystem mass contributor is the Fuel Rail. The Fuel Injection Pump and 

regulator were included in the Fuel system and therefore excluded from the Fuel 

Induction subsystem. At .5 kg, this subsystem has a minimum impact on the overall 

engine system mass. 

Table F.2-39: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Fuel Induction Subsystem
Page 214

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

01 11 00 Fuel Induction Subsystem

01 11 01 Fuel Rails 0.387

01 11 04 Fuel Injectors 0.152

01 11 06 Pressure Regulators 0.000

01 11 07 Fuel Injection Pumps 0.000

01 11 99 Misc. 0.000

Total Subsystem Mass = 0.539

Total System Mass = 171.648

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 0.31%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.03%

F.2.11.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Venza Fuel Induction system consists of a fuel rail, pulsation damper, and fuel 

injectors (Image F.2-63). The fuel system is returnless, meaning the regulator is located 

in the fuel tank. A returnless system eliminates the need for a return fuel line and 

minimizes tank fuel temperature reducing evaporation. The pulsation dampener acts as an 

accumulator to steady the injector supply pressure in the wake of injection pulse events. 

Image F.2-63: Fuel Induction Subsystem Components

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 215

F.2.11.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Fuel induction lightweighting trends include smaller more efficient fuel injectors and 

lightweight plastic fuel rails. Some plastic fuel rail designs integrate the pulsation 

dampener, eliminating mounting hardware and reducing cost (Image F.2-64).

Image F.2-64: Fuel Rail with Integrated Pulsation Dampener

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.2.11.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

As seen in Table F.2-40, concepts for Fuel Induction Lightweighting include a material 

change for the Fuel Rail and copper-clad aluminum wire for the Fuel Injector. 

Disassembly of the Fuel Injector revealed minimal copper content. In addition, to match 

current carrying capacity copper-clad aluminum wire must be 1.2 times larger in 

diameter, increasing package size. For these reasons the idea was not feasible.

Table F.2-40: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for Fuel Induction Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Fuel Rail aluminum to plastic 25% mass reduction Reduced cost

Fuel Injector

Copper Clad Aluminum 

Wire 5% mass reduction Larger wire gage for same performance
Page 216

F.2.11.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

As seen in Table F.2-41, the cast aluminum fuel rail was changed to plastic. Production 

examples include the 3.5L Toyota (Image F.2-65). Toyota’s reasoning for using plastic in 

particular engine applications and not exclusively is not understood. Factors such as crash 

safety may drive metal Fuel Rails.

Table F.2-41: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Fuel Induction Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

01 11 00 Fuel Induction Subsystem

01 11 01 Fuel Rails Al to Plastic

01 11 04 Fuel Injectors N/A

01 11 06 Pressure Regulators N/A

01 11 07 Fuel Injection Pumps N/A

01 11 99 Misc. N/A

Image F.2-65: Plastic Fuel Rail (Toyota 3.5L)

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.2.11.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

As seen in Table F.2-42, changing the Fuel Rail from aluminum to plastic saved .115 kg 

and $2.13.
Page 217

Table F.2-42: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Fuel Induction Subsystem

(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Estimated 

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Estimated 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

01 11 00 Fuel Induction Subsystem

01 11 01 Fuel Rails A 0.115 $2.13 $18.51 29.69% 0.01%

01 11 04 Fuel Injectors 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 11 06 Pressure Regulators 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 11 07 Fuel Injection Pumps 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 11 99 Misc. 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00%

A 0.115 2.127 $18.51 21.32% 0.01%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.2.12 Exhaust Subsystem

F.2.12.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.2-43, the Exhaust Manifold and Oxygen Sensor were included in the 

Exhaust subsystem.

Table F.2-43: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Exhaust Subsystem
Page 218

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

01 12 00 Exhaust Subsystem

01 12 01 Exhaust Manifold 7.210

01 12 04 Collector Pipes 0.000

01 12 05 Catalysts 0.000

01 12 06 Particle Filters 0.000

01 12 07 Silencers (Mufflers) 0.000

01 12 08 Oxygen Sensors 0.177

01 12 99 Misc. 0.000

Total Subsystem Mass = 7.387

Total System Mass = 172.598

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 4.28%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.43%

F.2.12.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

Image F.2-66 shows the manifold with integrated catalyst assembled to the Engine. 

These systems feature time to heat reductions and increase operating temperatures, 

improving emissions. The tubular weldment with integrated catalyst has a significant 

weight advantage over its cast counterpart with bolted catalyst.

No mass reduction ideas were identified for the Exhaust subsystem.
Page 219

Image F.2-66: Manifold with Integrated Catalyst – 2.7L Toyota

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.2.13 Lubrication Subsystem

F.2.13.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.2-44, the largest contributor to the Lubrication subsystem is the Oil 

Pan. Included within the miscellaneous sub-subsystem is the dipstick assembly.

Table F.2-44: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Lubrication Subsystem
Page 220

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

01 13 00 Lubrication Subsystem

01 13 01 Oil Pans (Oil Sump) 1.754

01 13 02 Oil Pumps 1.036

01 13 05 Pressure Regulators 0.099

01 13 06 Oil Filter 0.305

01 13 99 Misc. 0.148

Total Subsystem Mass = 3.342

Total System Mass = 172.417

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 1.94%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.20%

F.2.13.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Venza oil pump is a rotor type design. The Inner Rotor is driven on center with the 

Crankshaft and the Outer Rotor is housed in the Front Cover. The Oil Pump Cover houses 

the Pressure Regulator. A Baffle Plate mounted under the counter balance system reduces 

oil turbulence. The Oil Pan is a simple stamping and integrates no other features. Other 

components include the Oil Strainer, Dip Stick assembly, and Oil Filter Cap (Image 

D.2-2).
Page 221

Image F.2-67: Lubrication Subsystem Components

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.2.13.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Lightweighting trends for lubrication are metal to plastic applications. Common 

components include Oil Pans, Baffle Plates, and Dip Stick Cases. Plastic presents the best 

advantage when multiple components can be integrated into one, like the oil filter mount 

and the oil pan.

F.2.13.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.2-45 summarizes ideas considered for the Lubrication subsystem. The Oil Pan 

was considered for plastic or magnesium, but the simple steel stamping is low cost and 

the pans size limits savings opportunity. The stamped steel oil pan Baffle Plate requires 

less draw than the oil pan and was considered for an aluminum stamping. The oil pump 

inner and outer rotors were considered for powder metal aluminum but the severity of 

failure and lack of production examples discontinued the idea.

Table F.2-45: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for Lubrication Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Oil Pan

Mg or plastic instead of 

stamped steel 35% mass reduction Increased cost, reduced durability

Oil Pan Baffle Plate steel to plastic or Al 65% mass reduction

Oil Pump Steel to PM Al 50% mass reduction Durability Concern

Dip Stick Tube steel to plastic 50% mass reduction

F.2.13.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.2-46 summarizes the Ideas Implemented for the Lubrication subsystem.
Page 222

Table F.2-46: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Lubrication Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

01 13 00 Lubrication Subsystem

01 13 01 Oil Pans (Oil Sump) Oil Pan Baffle Plate - Steel to Al

01 13 02 Oil Pumps N/A

01 13 05 Pressure Regulators N/A

01 13 06 Oil Filter N/A

01 13 99 Misc. Dip Stick Tube - Stamped Steel to Plastic 

The stamped steel Oil Baffle Plate (Image F.2-68) is used in the oil pan to reduce 

turbulence and fluid restriction of moving parts. Preventing unintended grabbing of pan 

oil helps keep the oil pick submerged particularly at high RPM. This plate was changed to 

Aluminum.

 

Image F.2-68: Oil Pan Baffle Plate

Image F.2-69: Oil Pan Baffle Plate Assembled

(Source: FEV, Inc. photos)
Page 223

Austrian supplier, Schneegans Silicon GmbH, supplies a plastic Dip Stick Tube for 

BMW’s 2L diesel engine (Image F.2-70). Water-injection technology and DuPontTM

Zytel® nylon produce a lightweight economical alternative to steel. Plastic also allows 

easy integration of surrounding components. The Venza Dip Stick Tube is constructed 

from steel (Image F.2-71). The Dipstick Tube was lightweighted by a material change to 

plastic and scaling the volume up by 2.5.

Image F.2-70: Plastic Dip Stick Tube (BMW 2L Diesel)

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.2-71: Steel Dip Stick Tube (Venza)

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 224

F.2.13.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

As seen in Table F.2-47, lightweighting ideas applied to the Lubrication subsystem saves 

one-third of a kg and has little impact on cost. Results for the Oil Pan Baffle Plate are 

summarized in the Oil Pans sub-Subsystem. The Dip Stick Tube is in the Miscellaneous

sub-subsystem.

Table F.2-47: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Lubrication Subsystem

(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Estimated 

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Estimated 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ 

Sub-Subs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

01 13 00 Lubrication Subsystem

01 13 01 Oil Pans (Oil Sump) A 0.167 $0.09 $0.57 9.51% 0.01%

01 13 02 Oil Pumps 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 13 05 Pressure Regulators 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 13 06 Oil Filter 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 13 99 Misc. D 0.067 -$0.30 -$4.39 45.40% 0.00%

B 0.234 -0.201 -$0.86 7.00% 0.01%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Page 225

F.2.14 Cooling Subsystem

F.2.14.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.2-48 summarizes the mass breakdown for the Cooling subsystem. The largest 

mass contributor is the Radiator. Included in the Heat Exchanger sub-system is the AC 

Condenser.

Table F.2-48: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Cooling Subsystem.

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

01 14 00 Cooling Subsystem

01 14 01 Water Pumps 2.872

01 14 02 Thermostat Housings 0.205

01 14 04 Heat Exchangers 9.543

01 14 05 Pressure Regulators 0.030

01 14 06 Expansion Tanks 0.282

01 14 99 Misc. 1.166

Total Subsystem Mass = 14.098

Total System Mass = 172.417

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 8.18%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.82%
Page 226

F.2.14.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Venza radiator (Image F.2-72) uses standard aluminum heat transfer element with 

plastic end caps on top and bottom. The water pump is aluminum and has integrated 

mounting features for the thermostat, belt tensioner, and alternator. The Impeller Cover 

supports the Impeller Shaft and Drive Belt load. The Water Pump Pulley is steel. The 

Venza Thermostat Housing is already lightweight plastic. 

Image F.2-72: Toyota Venza Radiator

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.2.14.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Lightweighting trends for cooling system include the use of plastic water pump housings, 

plastic water pump impellers, and plastic thermostat housings. Coolant transfer tubes are 

now being manufactured from plastic. Plastic drive pulleys offer an attractive potential 

for mass savings. Although common for idler pulleys no examples of plastic drive pulleys 

were identified. Future development of plastic drive pulleys is expected. Transmission 
Page 227

heat exchangers assembled in the radiator are now being made from lightweight 

Aluminum (Image F.2-73) instead of copper alloy (Image F.2-74) and can save 50% 

mass.

Image F.2-73: Transmission Heat Transfer Element – Aluminum

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.2-74: Transmission Heat Transfer Element – Copper Alloy

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.2.14.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Lightweighting ideas considered for the cooling system are summarized in Table F.2-49.

Table F.2-49: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for Cooling Subsystem
Page 228

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Radiator

Downsize radiator to match 

engine size 10% mass reduction

Reduced opportunity for commonizing 

with other vehicles

Water Pump Aluminum to Plastic 50% mass reduction

Radiator Fan Shroud MuCell 17% mass reduction Optimum part for MuCell

Transmission Heat 

Exchanger Copper to Aluminum 80% mass reduction Already Aluminum

Water Pump Impeller Steel to Plastic 80% mass reduction

Radiator Fan Blade MuCell 8% mass reduction

Radiator housings MuCell 8% mass reduction

Water Pump Pulley Steel to Plastic 70% mass reduction friction loss, friction burn

F.2.14.4 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.2-50 summarizes lightweighting ideas selected for the Cooling subsystem.

Table F.2-50: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Cooling Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

01 14 00 Cooling Subsystem

01 14 01 Water Pumps

Water Pump Housing - Al to Plastic

Water Pump Impeller - Steel to Plastic

Impeller Housing - Al to Plastic

01 14 02 Thermostat Housings N/A

01 14 04 Heat Exchangers Radiator - Downsize for 2.4L Engine

Fan Shroud/Fan Blades - MuCell

01 14 05 Pressure Regulators N/A

01 14 06 Expansion Tanks N/A

01 14 99 Misc. N/A

A lightened Venza means that a smaller engine can match acceleration performance. The 

engine selected for this study is Toyotas 2.4L. A wet 2.4L radiator was compared to the 

Venza’s 2.7L radiator for mass savings. After disassembly the 2.4L radiator was found to 

have a copper alloy transmission heat exchanger. The 2.4L radiator mass was adjusted to 

assume a lightweight aluminum heat exchanger. Additional savings were applied to the 

2.4 Liter by using MuCell to lighten the plastic end caps.
Page 229

The water pump housing was changed to a two piece design. One section left as 

aluminum (Image F.2-76) to support the integrated Alternator and tensioner mount, and a 

second plastic section to serve as the water pump housing. The Audi A3 features a fully 

plastic water pump assembly. The water pump impeller housing and impeller were 

changed to plastic. Mini Cooper features a plastic impeller housing (Image F.2-75) and 

plastic impellers on commonplace.

Some sections of the fan shroud (Image F.2-77) are designed for material flow. Due to 

the improved flow characteristics of MuCell, these sections can be thinned to their 

structural requirement making the fan shroud a good candidate for MuCell and a mass 

savings of 15%. The Radiator fans were also MuCelled, so balancing may be required.

MuCell technology is currently used by major OEM’s like, Audi, Ford, BMW and VW as 

introduced in Section F.5.1.

Image F.2-76: [Base Technology] Water 

Pump Assembly – Aluminum 

(Source: FEV, Inc. photoy)

Image F.2-75: [New Technology] 

Water Pump Assembly – Plastic

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 230

Image F.2-77: Fan Shroud and Fan Blades Fan Shroud (MuCell – 15% Mass Savings); Fan Blades 

(MuCell - 7% Mass Savings)

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.2.14.5 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

As seen in Table F.2-51, changes made to the Cooling Subsystem saved 2.6kg and $4.62. 

Changes made to the radiator saved .82kg and $1.10. Changes made to the water pump 

saved 1.6 kg and $2.84. MuCell applied to the Fan Shroud and Blades saved .170kg and 

$.68.

Table F.2-51: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Cooling Subsystem

(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Estimated 

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Estimated 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

01 14 00 Cooling Subsystem

01 14 01 Water Pumps A 1.601 $2.84 $1.78 55.75% 0.09%

01 14 02 Thermostat Housings 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 14 04 Heat Exchangers A 0.990 $1.78 $1.79 10.37% 0.06%

01 14 05 Pressure Regulators 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 14 06 Expansion Tanks 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 14 99 Misc. 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

A 2.591 4.620 $1.78 18.38% 0.15%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.2.15 Induction Air Charging Subsystem

No Induction Air Charging was identified on the Venza: Toyota’s 2.7L AR FE is 

naturally aspirated.

F.2.16 Exhaust Gas Re-circulation

No EGR system was identified on the Venza.
Page 231

F.2.17 Breather Subsystem

F.2.17.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.2-52 summarizes the mass breakdown of the Breather Subsystem.

Table F.2-52: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Breather Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

01 17 00 Breather Subsystem

01 17 01 Oil/Air Separator 0.853

01 17 02 Valves 0.051

01 17 04 Misc. 0.000

Total Subsystem Mass = 0.904

Total System Mass = 172.598

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 0.52%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.05%

F.2.17.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

2.7L Venza has a baffle mounted to an aluminum cover and is housed in the engine block 

(Image F.2-71). The PCV valve is integrated into the hose fitting and plumed to the 

intake. The cover is made from die cast aluminum.

Image F.2-78: Breather Subsystem Components

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 232

F.2.17.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Positive Crankcase Ventilation system designs vary. In general, metal-to-plastic switching

opportunities exist for many systems. Multiple components can be integrated into a single 

plastic part, thus saving weight and cost.

F.2.17.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

As seen in Table F.2-53, the ideas generated for the Breather subsystem were a material 

substitution for the Crank Case Vent Baffle Housing and integrating the baffle into the 

housing, eliminating the need for fasteners.

Table F.2-53: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for Breather Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Crank Case Vent Baffle 

Housing Aluminum to Plastic 50% mass reduction Reduced cost

Crank Case Vent Baffle 

Fasteners. 

Integrate baffle into 

housing and eliminate 

fasteners

100% mass 

reduction Reduced cost

F.2.17.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Ideas selected for Breather subsystem (Table F.2-54) include a material change for the 

Crank Case Vent Housing. The die cast housing was changed to injection-molded plastic. 

The silicon gasket was changed to an inlay rubber seal. The fasteners securing the baffle 

were eliminated, and the baffle friction welded to the plastic housing.
Page 233

Table F.2-54: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Cooling Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

01 17 00 Breather Subsystem

01 17 01 Oil/Air Separator Crank Case Vent Housing - Al to Plastic

Crank Case Vent Baffle Fasteners - Elliminated

01 17 02 Valves N/A

01 17 04 Misc. N/A

F.2.17.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

As seen in Table F.2-55, the metal to plastic change and elimination of fasteners saved 

mass and cost.

Table F.2-55: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Breather Subsystem

(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Estimated 

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Estimated 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

01 17 00 Breather Subsystem

01 17 01 Oil/Air Separator A 0.219 $4.93 $22.52 25.69% 0.01%

01 17 02 Valves 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 17 05 Misc. 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

A 0.219 4.934 $22.52 24.24% 0.01%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Page 234

F.2.18 Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Elec. Subsystem

F.2.18.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.2-56, Engine Management systems is the largest contributor to the 

Engine Management, Electronic subsystem and is composed of the ECM and associated 

brackets. The engine wiring harness is included in System 18: Electrical Distribution & 

Electrical Control.

Table F.2-56: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Cooling Subsystem.

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

01 60 00 Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Electrical Subsystem

01 60 01 Spark Plugs, Glow Plugs 0.196

01 60 02 Engine Management Systems, Engine Electronic Systems 1.303

01 60 03 Engine Electrical Systems (including Wiring Harnesses, Earth Straps, 

Ignition Harness, Coils, Sockets) 1.065

01 60 99 Misc. 0.086

Total Subsystem Mass = 2.650

Total System Mass = 172.598

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 1.54%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.15%

F.2.18.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Engine Management, Electronic Subsystem includes the ECM, ECM Brackets, 

sensors, coils, and spark plugs (Image F.2-79).
Page 235

Image F.2-79: Engine Management, Electronic Subsystem Components

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.2.18.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

No Lightweighting industry trends were identified for Engine Management, Electronic 

subsystem.

F.2.18.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

As shown in Table F.2-57, the ECU Bracket Assembly and Spark Coil were considered 

for mass reduction.

Table F.2-57: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for Engine Management, 

Electronic Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

ECU Bracket Assembly Steel to Plastic 60% mass reduction Loss of Rigidness

Spark Coil

Copper Clad Aluminum 

Wire 10% mass reduction Larger wire gage for same performance
Page 236

F.2.18.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.2-58 summarizes the ideas selected for the Engine Management, Electronic 

Subsystem. The Venza ECU bracket is a three-piece stamping spot welded and bolted 

together. This assembly was changed to a single-piece injection molded component.

Table F.2-58: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Engine Management, Electronic Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

01 60 00 Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Electrical Subsystem

01 60 01 Spark Plugs, Glow Plugs N/A

01 60 02 Engine Management Systems, 

Engine Electronic Systems

ECU Bracket Assembly - Two piece stamped steel to single 

piece Plastic

01 60 03

Engine Electrical Systems (including 

Wiring Harnesses, Earth Straps, 

Ignition Harness, Coils, Sockets)

N/A

01 60 99 Misc. N/A

F.2.18.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

As seen in Table F.2-59, metal-to-plastic lightweighting applied to the ECU bracket 

saves both mass and cost.
Page 237

Table F.2-59: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Breather Subsystem

(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Estimated 

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Estimated 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

01 60 00 Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Electrical Subsystem

01 60 01 Spark Plugs, Glow Plugs 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 60 02 Engine Management Systems, Engine Electronic 

Systems

A

0.388 $1.00 $2.57 29.78% 0.02%

01 60 05

Engine Electrical Systems (including Wiring 

Harnesses, Earth Straps, Ignition Harness, Coils, 

Sockets)

0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 60 06 Misc. 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

A 0.388 0.998 $2.57 14.64% 0.02%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.2.19 Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.)

F.2.19.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.2-60 summarizes the mass breakdown for the 2.7L engine accessories. The top 

mass contributors include the AC compressor and the Alternator.

Table F.2-60: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Accessory Subsystem
Page 238

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

01 70 00 Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.)

01 70 01 Starter Motors 2.909

01 70 02 Alternators 6.028

01 70 03 Power Steering Pumps 0.000

01 70 04 Vacuum Pumps 0.000

01 70 05 Air Conditioning Compressors 7.225

01 70 06 Hydraulic Pumps 0.000

01 70 07 Ventilator 0.000

01 70 10 Other Accessories 0.000

01 70 99 Misc. 0.400

Total Subsystem Mass = 16.562

Total System Mass = 172.598

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 9.60%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.97%

F.2.19.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Venza Accessory Subsystem consists of the alternator, starter, AC compressor, and 

AC Bracket (Image F.2-80). The Venza utilizes an electric power steering pump.

Image F.2-80: Accessory Subsystem Components

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.2.19.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Lightweight technology for Accessories focuses on compact efficient designs. The Venza 

starter, weighing only 2.9 kg, represents a standard compact design.
Page 239

F.2.19.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.2-61 summarizes concepts considered for accessory lightweighting. Integrated 

starter alternators used on start-stop micro Hybrids were reviewed as a weight reduction. 

Systems reviewed included an additional starter motor for cold starts and complex 

controls. For this reason this idea was not implemented. The alternator case is made from 

lightweight aluminum and a change to plastic was considered. The poor thermo 

conductivity of plastic eliminated this from consideration. copper-clad aluminum wire has 

been applied to alternators due to increase copper cost and was reviewed for 

lightweighting opportunity. The copper content was quantified and mass save estimated 

to be 10%. The increased gauge diameter required by aluminum copper-clad wire would 

drive larger packaging potentially offsetting mass savings. In addition, special welding 

techniques may be required to address high joint temperatures. For these reasons, copperclad aluminum wire was not further considered as a weight savings. Standard filament 

bulbs were not replaced with LED’s as initially considered, therefore Alternator downsize 

was not an option.

Table F.2-61: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for Accessory Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Starter/Alternator

Replace these two devices 

with an Integrated StarterAlternator. This would 

require additional control 

circuitry 30% mass reduction

Additional control hardware, limited 

torque

Alternator

Make outer case out of 

plastics or some other light 

material 5% mass reduction Make outer case out of plastics

AC compressor bracket

material change from cast 

iron to cast aluminum 65% mass reduction NVH concern

AC compressor bracket

Integrate into block or 

stiffenging crankcase 65% mass reduction

Alternator

reduced load for LED - 

reduced size 10% mass reduction

Alternator Copper Clad Al windings 5% mass reduction Larger wire gage for same performance

F.2.19.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

As seen in Table F.2-62, the AC compressor mounting bracket was selected for 

lightweighting.
Page 240

Table F.2-62: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Accessory Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

01 70 00 Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.)

01 70 01 Starter Motors N/A

01 70 02 Alternators N/A

01 70 03 Power Steering Pumps N/A

01 70 04 Vacuum Pumps N/A

01 70 05 Air Conditioning Compressors Mounting Bracket - Cast Iron to Al

01 70 06 Hydraulic Pumps N/A

01 70 07 Ventilator N/A

01 70 10 Other Accessories N/A

01 70 99 Misc. N/A

The AC compressor bracket found on Venza was Cast Iron (Image F.2-81). While there 

may be NVH drivers for this material selection, similar applications have been 

constructed from cast Aluminum (Image F.2-82).

F.2.19.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

Table F.2-63 shows there is a cost increase for changing the AC Bracket material to 

aluminum.

Image F.2-82: [New Technology] 

AC Comp Bracket (Nissan 350z)

(Source: slidegood.com)

Image F.2-81: [Base Technology] 

AC Comp Bracket

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 241

Table F.2-63: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Accessory Subsystem

(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

01 70 00 Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.)

01 70 01 Starter Motors 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 70 02 Alternators 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 70 03 Power Steering Pumps 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 70 04 Vacuum Pumps 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 70 05 Air Conditioning Compressors B 0.709 -$0.23 -$0.33 9.82% 0.04%

01 70 06 Hydraulic Pumps 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 70 07 Ventilator 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 70 10 Other Accessories 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 70 99 Misc. 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

B 0.709 -0.231 -$0.33 4.28% 0.04%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

Works Cited:

1. http://www.forging.org/members/docs/pdf/A_mparison_of_Manufacturing_Techn

ologies_in_the_Connecting_Rod_Industry.pdf

2. http://www.sae.org/mags/AEI/10125

3. http://claymore.engineer.gvsu.edu/~nguyenn/egr250/automotive%20engine%20bl

4. http://www.intlmag.org/files/mg001.pdf

5. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2010/wednesday

/presentations/deer10_powell.pdf

6. www.intlmag.org/files/mg001.pdf

7. http://www.me.berkeley.edu/~mford/Ford_Fisher_PTWA.pdf

8. http://www.foundryworld.com/english/news/view.asp?bid=106&id=2649
Page 242

9. http://www.mubea.com/english/download/NW_engl.pdf

10. http://www.shw.de/cms/en/business_segments/pumps_and_engine_components/pr

oducts_passenger_vehicles/camshaft_phasers/

11. http://www.mahle.com/MAHLE/en/Products/Valve-Train-Systems/Valves-valveseat-inserts-and-valves-guides/Lightweight-valves

12. http://www.ntn.co.jp/english/products/review/pdf/NTN_TR73_en_P110.pdf

F.3 Transmission System

The Toyoda Venza transmission package (U660e) is a 6-speed automatic with a 

traditional torque converter. Some weight reduction concepts were employed when it was 

designed. As shown in Table F.3-1, we have targeted some key areas in the unit that hold

further reduction opportunities.
Page 243

Table F.3-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Transmission System

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

System & 

Subsystem 

Mass

"kg"

02 00 00 Transmission System

02 01 00 External Components 0.023

02 02 00 Case Subsystem 24.573

02 03 00 Gear Train Subsystem 41.437

02 05 00 Launch Clutch Subsystem 9.745

02 06 00 Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem 6.526

02 07 00 Mechanical Controls Subsystem 6.296

02 08 00 Electrical Controls Subsystem 0.777

02 09 00 Parking Mechanism Subsystem 0.904

02 20 00 Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem 2.482

Total System Mass = 92.763

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 5.42%

Description

Image F.3-1: Toyota Automatic Transaxle Transmission

(Source: Toyoland.com)

As shown in Table F.3-2, there are material, technological, and process opportunities that 

have come to the industry that are available in the search for mass reduction in 

tomorrow’s vehicles.

Table F.3-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Transmission System 2
Page 244

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

Subsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

1711

02 00 00 Transmission System

02 01 00 External Components 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

02 02 00 Case Subsystem C 7.745 -$11.03 -$1.42 31.52% 0.45%

02 03 00 Gear Train Subsystem X 3.490 -$119.68 -$34.29 8.42% 0.20%

02 05 00 Launch Clutch Subsystem A 4.904 $45.16 $9.21 50.32% 0.29%

02 06 00 Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem A 1.034 $0.90 $0.87 15.84% 0.06%

02 07 00 Mechanical Controls Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

02 08 00 Electrical Controls Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

02 09 00 Parking Mechanism Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

02 20 00 Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem X 1.726 -$29.49 -$17.08 69.55% 0.10%

X 18.900 -$114.15 -$6.04 20.37% 1.10%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

Description

F.3.1 External Components

F.3.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview

After a systematic investigation there were no opportunities taken for mass reduction or 

cost benefit in this subsystem.

F.3.2 Case Subsystem

F.3.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.3-3, the most significant contributor to the mass of the Case 

subsystem is the raw material in the case components themselves. The case subsystem is 

made up of three sections that enclose the transmission and are currently an aluminum 

SAE 390 alloy. 
Page 245

Image F.3-2: Transaxle Housing

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Table F.3-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Cass Subsystem
Page 246

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

02 02 00 Case Subsystem

02 02 01 Transaxle Case 8.300

02 02 02 Transaxle Housing 11.480

02 02 03 Covers 4.793

Total Subsystem Mass = 24.573

Total System Mass = 92.763

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 26.49%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 1.44%

Description

F.3.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

Toyota has been using aluminum transmission cases for years and has optimized the thin 

wall casting technique that they use. The strength and integrity of their cases has never 

been an issue for them. Its mass weight compares to others in the industry using 

aluminum in their cases has never been a concern. 

F.3.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

There are vehicles manufactures in the industry that have adopted alternate materials one 

being Magnesium alloy to reduce their transmission weight and maintain their case 

integrity, one of them being Mercedes-Benz 7G-TRONIC, and, at present, General 

Motors also has approximately 1 million GMT800 full size trucks and sport utility 

vehicles (SUV) that are produced annually that have two magnesium transfer cases with a 

(total weight 7 kg) per unit. Since 2002, VW has produced 600 magnesium alloy manual 

transmission cases daily for the VW Passat and the Audi A4/A6. The magnesium 

transmission case is a proven mass weight reduction product.

Industry experts have also looked at carbon fiber combinations as alternate material for 

the transmission cases; however, at this time there are no viable products for us to look at 

as an option.
Page 247

F.3.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.3-4shows the mass reduction ideas considered for the Case subsystem. Toyoda 

has always been mass reduction conscious in their designs but tend to lean toward the 

conservative side of the engineering spectrum in drive train design. That is why carbon 

fiber and magnesium have not found their way into drive train components in their 

vehicles.

Table F.3-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for Transmission Case 

Subassembly

F.3.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The mass reduction ideas selected from this subassembly fell into the “A” group as shown 

in Table F.3-5. Components shown utilizing magnesium alloy will meet the integrity 

needs of the system and fulfill the mass reduction parameters. 

Table F.3-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Case Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

2 2 00 Case Subsystem

02 02 01 Transaxle Case Replace a 390 aluminum casting with Mg AJ62 (Mg-Al-Sr). For 

30% weight save

02 02 02 Transaxle Housing Replace a 390 aluminum casting with Mg AJ62 (Mg-Al-Sr). For 

30% weight save

02 02 03 Covers Replace a 390 aluminum casting with Mg AJ62 (Mg-Al-Sr). For 

30% weight save

02 02 99 Misc. n/a

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Aluminum Case 

Assemble Reduce wall thickness 10% weight save Integrity and strength compromised

Aluminum Case 

Assemble

Carbon fiber material 

replacement 50% weight save Extensive engineering hurdles to overcome

Aluminum Case 

Assemble

Magnesium material 

replacement 30% weight save Low risk moderate cost increase 
Page 248

F.3.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates

The greatest mass reduction was gained by the material selection of magnesium alloy as 

shown in Table F.3-6. Doing thin wall analysis on each of the components of the 

subassembly did not garner an outcome that would have proven to be advantages to the 

end product. Although there were opportunities to reduce the actual mass of the Case 

subsystem we have not pursued them at this time. The choice of magnesium has proven to 

be cost effective and met the mass reduction goals.

Table F.3-6: Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Case Subsystem

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

1711

02 00 Case Subsystem

02 01 Transaxle Case C 2.947 -$3.38 -$1.15 35.51% 0.17%

02 02 Transaxle Housing C 3.706 -$6.48 -$1.75 32.28% 0.22%

02 03 Covers C 1.092 -$1.18 -$1.08 22.78% 0.06%

C 7.745 -$11.03 -$1.42 31.52% 0.45%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

"+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

"+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.3.3 Gear Train Subsystem

F.3.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.3-7, the gear train offered some opportunities to reduce weight and 

lower cost for the transmission. We will look outside of the auto industry for ideas to shed 

weight.

Table F.3-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Gear Train Subsystem
Page 249

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

02 03 00 Gear Train Subsystem

02 03 01 Planetary Gears 32.407

02 03 02 Carrier Gears 9.030

Total Subsystem Mass = 41.437

Total System Mass = 92.763

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 44.67%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 2.42%

Description

F.3.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Gear Train Subsystem in the Toyota U660e transmission is a very compact unit. Care 

was taken to insure that only minimal space was give between aligning components, with 

this said lightning exercises done on the gear train did not open many doors for mass 

reduction. 

F.3.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

In the automotive transmission industry the Gear Train has its opportunities for light 

weight, cost effective and longer life cycles. The use of aerospace lightened gear designs 

and raw materials, using new plastic components to reduce weight and cost, reducing the 

overall mass of the transmission when new and smaller components are used are some of 

the tactics that we will employ. The actual transmission is getting smaller and gear 

selection is getting larger in the industry today.

F.3.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Used

Table F.3-8 shows the mass reduction ideas used for the U660e Gear Train Subsystem. 

The present Toyoda design of the gear train is compact and demonstrates a conscious 

engineering choice towards light weight. 

Replacing the Industry Standard Needle Bearings with Vespel SP-21 was an easy 

decision; we looked at other products but deduced that the Dupont product had all the 

qualities required for a worry free replacement in our application. Vespel has a proven 

track record of success in other transmissions.
Page 250

Replacing the Cast Iron Differential Carrier with Aluminum proved to be a significant 

weight savings’ and the cost was not prohibitive after investigation. There are many 

vehicles in the field that utilize aluminum for this weight save in their differential 

application.

The Helical Ring Gear inside this transmission to transmit power through the differential 

to the axels is a traditional 4140 crab and hardened gear. We chose a stronger gear 

material in Ferrium C61 to help insure that we maintained the gear integrity after going 

through an aerospace type mass reduction analyses which garnered a 25% weight 

reduction. At this time the cost and limited availability of the material is a concern but we 

see this product as a key component in mass weight reduction throughout the drive train 

in the future. We believe that utilizing C61 throughout the transmission gear train could 

have garnered another 20% weight save and a reduction in the total size in the 

transmission package.

Table F.3-8: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Gear Train 

Subsystem

F.3.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The mass reduction ideas selected from this subassembly fell into the “A” group are 

shown in Table F.3-9. 

The first component shown utilizes Vespel SP-21D, a DuPont product that is being used 

by other transmission builders. The second component is the Differential Carrier, which

will be casted from a high-strength aluminum alloy. 

The third component will be a lightened gear configuration utilizing a high-strength C61 

aerospace alloy to insure its integrity in the subassembly.

Component/ Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs 

and/or Benefits

Planetary Gear SubSubsystemReplace Thrust Bearings 

with Vespel SP-21D 75% weight save Low risk cost benefit

Carrier Gear SubSubsystem

Replace cast iron 

differential carrier with 

aluminum

50% weight save Low risk moderate 

cost increase 

Carrier Gear SubSubsystem

Change 4140 ring gear raw 

material with high strength 

C61 alloy and lighten gear

10% weight save Low risk moderate 

cost increase 
Page 251

Table F.3-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Gear Train Subsystem

F.3.3.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates

The mass reductions in this subsystem were gained by the material selection and gear 

lightening techniques as shown in Table F.3-10. The use of Vespel reduces the cost of 

the bearings by 60 to 70% with a weight loss per bearing of more than 75%.

Using aluminum instead of cast iron on the differential carrier is a 40% weight saving

with a cost that is well within the realm of reason for this large of a weight loss.

Using aerospace gear lighting techniques on all of the gears in an automotive 

transmission should be the norm.

Image F.3-3: Vespel Thrust Bearing

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

2 3 00 Gear Train Subsystem

02 03 02 All 9 thrust bearing in the gear train

Replace Steel thrust bearings with Dupont 

(Vispel SP-21D)

02 03 07 Differential carrier housing

Replace ASTM A536, 80-55-06 differential 

housing with aluminum housing

02 03 07 Differential carrier ring gear

Replace 4140 differential ring gear with high 

strength reduced mass C61 alloy
Page 252

Table F.3-10: Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Case Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

1711

02 03 00 Gear Train Subsystem

02 03 01 Planetary Gears A 0.263 $26.05 $98.91 0.81% 0.02%

02 03 02 Carrier Gears X 3.227 -$145.74 -$45.16 35.74% 0.19%

X 3.490 -$119.68 -$34.29 8.42% 0.20%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.3.4 Internal Clutch Subsystem

F.3.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview

After a systematic investigation there were no opportunities for mass reduction or cost 

benefits in this subsystem.

F.3.5 Launch Clutch Subsystem

F.3.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.3-11, the most significant contributor to the mass of the Launch 

Clutch subsystem is the Torque converter itself. The case subsystem of the torque 

converter is a welded construction with SAE 1018 steel as its raw material. 
Page 253

Image F.3-4: Torque Converter Assembly

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Table F.3-11: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Launch Clutch Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

02 05 00 Launch Clutch Subsystem

02 05 01 Torque Converter Asm 9.745

Total Subsystem Mass = 9.745

Total System Mass = 92.763

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 10.51%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.57%

Description

F.3.5.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Launch Clutch system on this vehicle is a direct result of the traditional style of 

transmission that was selected for it. The present torque converter is an old style auto 

industry standard that has been around since the 1950. Improvements on this unit will 

lead to a lighter and better drive system.

F.3.5.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Although DCTs (Dual Clutch Transmissions) have increased in popularity, they are still 

more expensive than torque converter style transmissions (depending, of course, on the 

segment you are looking at). DCTs are coming down in price, especially with the 

introduction of dry twin-plate designs. They are less complex than a torque converter 

automatic with planetary gears, much lighter and there will be further price reductions 

once they are produced in high volume, for instance when some of the new Chinese 

manufacturing plants come on stream. For a new entrant into the automatic transmission 
Page 254

market with no legacy investment in planetary automatics, it is an attractive step. 

Innovations in advanced engineering always come to the top.

F.3.5.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.3-12 shows the mass reduction ideas considered for the Launch Clutch system. 

The Toyota gear train design is compact and demonstrates a conscious decision toward

light weight. Replacing the industry standard steel torque converter with plastic or 

aluminum would be a huge improvement. Eliminating the torque converter completely by 

using a DCT transmission would be the best idea.

Table F.3-12: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Launch Clutch 

System

F.3.5.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The mass reduction ideas selected from this subassembly fell into the A group are shown 

in Table F.3-13. Regarding the torque converter application, we have proposed using a 

full Aluminum torque converter assembly in our system. Aluminum torque converters are 

Component/ Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs 

and/or Benefits

Torque Converter

Replace with Plastic 

Converter using DuPont 

Zytel® HTN51LG50HSL 

BK083

75% weight save application still in R&D

Torque Converter Replace with DCT 

transmission 100% Low risk moderate cost increase 

Torque Converter

Replace steel converter 

with Atlas aluminum 

component converter

50% weight save Medium risk moderate 

cost increase 
Page 255

being used in off-road, racing and heavy industrial equipment and some automotive 

applications. The casted design of an aluminum turbine, impeller and stator reduce the 

assemble step process and make for a simpler assembly. There are companies in the 

industry like Alcast Company Aluminum Foundry that have honed the process of 

producing the required quality components for the OEMs that produce these converters. 

Table F.3-13: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Launch Clutch System

F.3.5.6 Preliminary Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates

The mass reductions in this subsystem were gained by the material selection as shown in 

Table F.3-14. The use of a 5083 Aluminum/Magnesium alloy will give us a 50 to 60%

weight loss. This application is in the field today with material and technology in place to 

produce a good replacement to the traditional steel converter.

Image F.3-5: Aluminum Torque Converter

(Source : alcastcompany.com)

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

2 5 00 Launch Clutch System

02 05 01 Torque Converter Replace Steel Torque converter with Aluminum
Page 256

Table F.3-14: Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Launch Clutch System

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

1711

02 05 00 Launch Clutch Subsystem

02 05 01 Torque Converter Asm A 4.904 $45.16 $9.21 50.32% 0.29%

A 4.904 $45.16 $9.21 50.32% 0.29%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.3.6 Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem

F.3.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.3-15, the most significant contributor to the mass of the Oil Pump and 

Filter Subsystem is the Oil Pump unit itself. The pump unit is cast iron in our test vehicle.

Table F.3-15: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

02 06 00 Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem

02 06 01 Oil Pump Asm 4.646

02 06 02 Covers 1.666

02 06 03 Filters 0.214

Total Subsystem Mass = 6.526

Total System Mass = 92.763

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 7.04%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.38%

Description
Page 257

F.3.6.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Oil Pump is a traditional style cast iron pump that has been around for decades and is 

a great candidate for new lightweight materials that are on the market. There is no benefit 

in this component staying cast iron.

F.3.6.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Every day, the auto industry embraces new and innovative technology that comes to them 

from other sectors of commerce. In the case of the transmission oil pump, the racing 

industry has led the way in developing light-weight and efficient oil pumps. Aluminum, 

aluminum-magnesium alloys, and even plastic polymers are available today. This will be 

a great application match for mass weight reduction at a reasonable cost.

F.3.6.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.3-16 contains the mass reduction ideas considered for the Oil Pump and Filter 

Subsystem. The use of Aluminum, Magnesium and Plastic are viable materials in this 

application today.

Table F.3-16: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for the Oil Pump and Filter 

Subsystem,

F.3.6.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The mass reduction ideas selected from this subassembly fell into the C group are shown 

in Table F.3-17. TCI Automotive has been producing state of the art aluminum 

Component/ Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs 

and/or Benefits

Transmission Oil Pump Replace cast iron pump 

with Aluminum 65% weight save Low risk moderate cost increase 

Transmission Oil Pump Replace cast iron pump 

with Magnesium 77% weight save Low risk medium cost increase 

Transmission Oil Pump Replace cast iron pump 

with Plastic 84% weight save High risk low cost
Page 258

components for the racing world since the late 60’s and supplies light weight transmission 

components to its customers. We can use mass production processes to lower the cost and 

bring a light weight pump to the industry.

Table F.3-17: Preliminary Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Oil Pump 

and Filter Subsystem

Image F.3-6: Aluminum Oil Pump Assembly

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

2 6 00 Oil Pump and Filter Subasystem

02 06 01 Oil Pump Assemble Replace cast iron with aluminum
Page 259

(Source: Samarins.com)

F.3.6.6 Preliminary Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates

The mass reductions in this subsystem were gained by the material selection as shown in

Table F.3-18. The use of an Aluminum AA390 alloy will reduce the weight of the 

assembly by 65% this application is used by racing component manufacturers to lighten 

their transmissions and some OEM’s with the same intent.

Table F.3-18: Preliminary Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Launch 

Clutch System

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

1711

06 00 Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem

06 01 Oil Pump Asm C 1.034 $0.90 $0.87 22.26% 0.06%

06 02 Covers C 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

06 03 Filters C 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

C 1.034 $0.90 $0.87 15.84% 0.06%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

"+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

"+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.3.7 Mechanical Controls Subsystem

After a systematic investigation it is determined there are no opportunities for mass 

reduction or cost benefits in this subsystem.

F.3.8 Electrical Controls Subsystem

After a systematic investigation it is determined there are no opportunities for mass 

reduction or cost benefits in this subsystem.
Page 260

F.3.9 Parking Mechanism Subsystem

After a systematic investigation it is determined there are no opportunities for mass 

reduction or cost benefits in this subsystem.

F.3.10 Misc. Subsystem

After a systematic investigation it is determined there are no opportunities for mass 

reduction or cost benefits in this subsystem.

F.3.11 Electric Motor & Controls Subsystem

After a systematic investigation it is determined there are no opportunities for mass 

reduction or cost benefits in this subsystem.

F.3.12 Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem

F.3.12.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.3-19, a floor-mounted manual shifter with a steel cable connecting it 

to the transmission is what is presently in the vehicle, the floor unit itself is plastic and 

steel. Our proposal will change it to a push button aluminum and plastic control.

Image F.3-7: Shift Module

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 261

Table F.3-19: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Driver Operated External Controls 

Subsystem

F.3.12.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

Toyota used their standard floor-mounted shifting system in the Venza. It is made up of a 

floor console-mounted shift module assembly and a cable assembly that interfaces with 

the transmission.

F.3.12.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

There are vehicles manufactures in the industry that have adopted the idea of electronic 

shift controls. One is the Toyota-Tesla Rav4 E, for its light-weight and compact design.

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

02 20 00 Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem

02 20 01 Shift Module Assembly 2.482

Total Subsystem Mass = 2.482

Total System Mass = 92.763

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 2.68%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.15%

Description
Page 262

F.3.12.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.3-20 is the compilation of the mass reduction ideas considered for the Driveroperated External Controls subsystem. The presence of more and more electronics is 

welcomed in today’s state-of-the-art vehicles. We will see more electronic innovations in 

coming models as today’s customers expect this in a car.

Table F.3-20: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Driver-Operated 

External Controls Subsystem,

F.3.12.5 Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas

The mass-reduction ideas selected from this subassembly fell into the A group and are 

shown in Table F.3-21. Components shown utilizing an electronic control will meet the

integrity needs of the system and fulfill the mass-reduction parameters.

Table F.3-21: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected 

for Detail Evaluation

2 20 00 Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem

02 20 01 Shift Module

Replace with Electronic Control

Component/ Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs 

and/or Benefits

Shift Module

Replace michanical unit 

with electronic 70% weight save New tedhnology low risk higher cost

Shifter Cable

Replaced by a 

comunication wire 70% weight save Low risk cost decrease

Shift Cable Bracket

Replaced by a aluminum 

bracket 30% weight save Low risk moderate cost increase 
Page 263

F.3.12.6 Preliminary Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates

The mass reductions in this subsystem were gained by replacing Mechanical technology 

with Electronic as shown in Table F.3-22.

Table F.3-22: Preliminary Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Driver 

Operated External Controls Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

1711

02 20 00 Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem

02 20 01 Shift Module Assembly C 1.726 -$29.49 -$17.08 69.55% 0.10%

C 1.726 -$29.49 -$17.08 69.55% 0.10%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.3.12.7 Total Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates

During the teardown and subsequent evaluation of the Transmission subsystem there were 

components and materials that were candidates for change.

Materials such as Magnesium, Aluminum, High Strength Steel Alloys and Thermoplastics 

in our component analysis helped to reduce weight out of our transmission mass. 

Integrating these materials into the OEM’s material used list is the challenge. Only 

through process development and test will the individual OE’s embrace the new materials 

and components that are available to them in the market place.
Page 264

Table F.3-23: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for New Transmission System

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

Subsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

1711

02 00 00 Transmission System

02 01 00 External Components 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

02 02 00 Case Subsystem C 7.745 -$11.03 -$1.42 31.52% 0.45%

02 03 00 Gear Train Subsystem X 3.490 -$119.68 -$34.29 8.42% 0.20%

02 05 00 Launch Clutch Subsystem A 4.904 $45.16 $9.21 50.32% 0.29%

02 06 00 Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem A 1.034 $0.90 $0.87 15.84% 0.06%

02 07 00 Mechanical Controls Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

02 08 00 Electrical Controls Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

02 09 00 Parking Mechanism Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

02 20 00 Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem X 1.726 -$29.49 -$17.08 69.55% 0.10%

X 18.900 -$114.15 -$6.04 20.37% 1.10%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

Description

Works Cited:

1. www2.dupont.com/Vespel/en_US/products/s/sp21.html

2. www.alcastcompany.com/torqueconverteraluminumcastings.html

3. www.questek.com/ferrium-c61.html

4. http://www.aisin.com/product/automotive/drivetrain/ot.html
Page 265

F.4 Body Structure System

F.4.1 System Content Overview

The team evaluated the body system of a Toyota Venza using computer-aided engineering 

(CAE). Noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH) of the vehicle and crash load cases were 

built based on physical NVH test requirements and regulatory crash and safety 

requirements respectively. CAE baseline models for each of the NVH and crash-load 

cases were built and simulated to correlate the CAE results with the test results of a 

similar vehicle (in this case, the 2009 Toyota Venza with panoramic roof). Upon 

verifying the model quality based on EDAG CAE guidelines and meeting the correlation 

targets (<5% difference), the EDAG baseline model was treated as the baseline reference 

for further development of NVH and crash-iteration models and lightweight optimization 

processes.

The project scope included the objective of determining lightweight design possibilities 

of the baseline vehicle. It consisted of optimizing the weight of the baseline model in the 

areas of body structure, closures, and front bumper. EDAG expertise and standards of 

lightweight optimization processes were followed throughout the project. The typical 

lightweight optimization process followed is shown in .
Page 266

Figure F.4-1: Lightweight Design Optimization Process

Based on EDAG lightweight optimization process standards and research materials [8]-[17], 

the following weight reduction strategy was carried out:

Change material gauges and grades

o Vary the combinations of part thicknesses and material grades within 

allowable limits

Change joining technologies

o Convert spot-weld connections into laser-weld connections on the body 

structure

Apply alternative materials

o Use aluminum alternatives for panel parts (closures) and bumpers

Explore alternate manufacturing technologies

o Use tailor rolled blanks (TRB) instead of tailor welded blanks (TWB)

Geometry changes
Page 267

o Make minimum, if any, design changes needed to meet the performance 

targets

Manufacturability constraints

o Incorporate simultaneously the manufacturability of the parts that are 

undergoing the changes, in each stage of the optimization process.

Cost constraints

o Analyze cost impact due the changes in the optimization process

Even though by redesigning the body parts (geometry change), the potential for weight 

reduction is increases significantly, since geometry change was not part of the project 

scope, weight optimization was carried out without undertaking any major design 

changes.

The final acceptance of the weight reduction options was reviewed to ensure the changes 

did not impact performance (required to be within 5% of the target). The overall 

principles followed during the study included:

Minimize cost impact

Minimize changes to the components

Minimize the use of exotic materials

Minimize the amount of redesign, retooling, or new processing

F.4.2 Lightweight Design Optimization Process

The lightweight design optimization process involved identifying the components, 

variables, and constraints to be included in the optimization iteration. A load path analysis 

(as explained in Appendix B) was conducted on the baseline model to filter out the parts 

of higher cross-section forces. 

The optimization variables and constraints were defined as per EDAG 3G optimization 

guidelines [2] [3]. The variables were gauge (part thickness), grade (material grade), and 

geometry (part shape). As previously mentioned, geometry change was not included in the

optimization; so the entire weight optimization cycle included the following steps:

Identify components

Select optimization variables

Set up optimization model
Page 268

Perform computer automated optimization

Extract optimized design variables (response surface)

Validate optimized results

F.4.3 Gauge and Grade Optimization Model

A commercially available computerized optimization tool called HEEDS MDO was used 

to build the optimization model. The model consisted of 484 design variables, 7 load 

cases (2 NVH + 5 crash), and 1 cost evaluation. The design variables included 242 gauge 

variables and 242 grade variables for the identified parts. The load cases selected for 

optimization were frontal impact with a flat rigid wall barrier, frontal impact with ODB, 

side impact, roof crush, and rear impact. These load cases were linked in the optimization 

process in a logical order of structural and crash requirement targets. A typical 

optimization model built in the HEEDS modeler is shown in Figure F.4-2.

Figure F.4-2: Toyota Venza Body Weight Optimization Model

The objective, constraints, and responses considered for this optimization model are 

found in the Table F.4-1.

Table F.4-1: Optimization Objective, Response, and Constraints
Page 269

Objective: Minimize Total Weight

Parameter Requirement Response Constraints/ Target

Bending Stiffness Disp. @ Shock tower < 0.36 mm

Torsion Stiffness Disp. @ Rocker < 0.69 mm

Frontal Flat FMVSS 208 Max. Pulse 35 - 38 G

Dynamic Crush < 600 mm

Max. Dash Intrusion < 100 mm

Frontal ODB FMVSS 208 Max. Pulse 35 - 38 G

Dynamic Crush < 600 mm

Max. Dash Intrusion < 150 mm

Side IIHS IIHS Intrusion Gap > 125 mm

Roof crush FMVSS 216A Max. Load > 47000 N

Rear Impact FMVSS 301 Zone1 Deformation < 125 mm

Zone2 Deformation > 350 mm

Cost Total Material Cost ≤ $ 302 (+10%)

F.4.4 Gauge and Grade Optimization Response Surface

The optimizer was set to 500 design iterations with the objective of minimizing the total 

weight. The optimizer was checked for convergence of the solution in the course of the 

optimization cycle. After 11 design cycles (24 designs in the first cycle and 20 designs per 

subsequent cycles), a response surface of 204 designs was found. The response surface 
Page 270

obtained for all the load cases was investigated to determine the best optimized design. 

Figure F.4-3shows the response surface output of the optimization cycle.

Figure F.4-3: Response Surface Output from Optimizer

F.4.5 Gauge and Grade Optimization Results

The optimizer returned the optimized set of design variables and the mass optimized 

NVH and crash models for bending, torsion, frontal impact, frontal ODB, side impact, 

roof crush resistance, and rear impact models. The responses output by the optimizer, 

however, were mathematically predicted. As a result, further CAE simulations were 

performed using the optimized model to confirm the predicted optimum design met the 

targets.

Best Design
Page 271

F.4.6 Alternative Joining Technology

In the process of lightweight optimization, an exploration was made into the alternative 

joining technologies for part assembly. One of the options considered was changing spot 

welds to laser welds. The potential areas of applying laser welding were identified and the 

existing spot welds were converted to laser welds. Figure F.4-4 represents the areas in 

green where the spot welds were replaced with laser welds.

Figure F.4-4: Laser Welds Application on Body Structure

F.4.7 Alternative Materials

Alternative material choices for an automobile’s body structure have been one of the 

recent considerations in building a lightweight vehicle. Aluminum (Al) based materials 

are proven for their better strength-weight ratio equivalent when compared to steel based 

materials.[11] They are, therefore, good replacements for the steel grades of bigger panels 

(Al). Considering the cost and manufacturing constraints, the selected closure and bumper 

parts were changed to aluminum grade materials. 

The thickness was changed by incorporating EDAG expertise and performing further 

CAE simulations while at the same time also meeting structural and crash performance 

targets. This option was further supported by the work done by ThyssenKrupp [13] and the 

Superlight-Car [14] projects. The gauge and material maps of the closure parts are shown

in Figure F.4-5 and Figure F.4-6.
Page 272

Figure F.4-5: Gauge Map of Optimized Closure parts

Figure F.4-6: Material Map of Optimized Closure parts
Page 273

F.4.8 Alternative Manufacturing Technology

Recent advancements in manufacturing technologies led to the conclusion alternative 

manufacturing options should also be included in the lightweight design optimization 

process. One such technology is the manufacturing of hot stamped parts of varied 

thicknesses using tailor rolled blanks (TRB). In this technology, the blank is prepared by a

special rolling process which can produce varied thicknesses along the length of the blank 

without needing any seam or laser welding or trimming processes. This is considered to 

achieve better structural strength against weight of the part. For a baseline body structure, 

the parts of tailored welded blanks (TWB) are good choices. Accordingly, considering the 

cost impact, potential TWB parts were identified and assessed for the possibility of 

producing the same parts using TRBs. B-pillar, A-pillar, roof rail, and seat cross members 

are examples of the parts which were assessed using TRB technology. The parts replaced 

using TRB technology are shown in Figure F.4-7 and Figure F.4-8.

Figure F.4-7: Body Side Parts Replaced with TRB Parts
Page 274

Figure F.4-8: Crossmembers Replaced with TRB Parts

F.4.9 Geometry Change

In order to achieve the performance target for the side impact load case, three bulkhead 

reinforcements were included in each of the inner rocker of driver and passenger side. 

The bulkhead reinforcements are shown in Figure F.4-9. These design changes improved 

the frontal crash performance in terms of crash pulse and dash intrusion, and improved 

side impact performance in terms of an increased intrusion gap.

Bulkhead 

Reinforcements
Page 275

Figure F.4-9: Design Change on Side Inner Rocker (Driver Side)

F.4.10 Optimized Body Structure

The outcome of the lightweight design optimization included the optimized vehicle 

assembly and incorporated the following:

Optimized gauge and material grades for body structure parts

Laser welded assembly at shock towers, rocker, roof rail, and rear structure 

subassemblies

Aluminum material for front bumper, hood, and tailgate parts

TRBs on B-pillar, A-pillar, roof rail, and seat cross member parts

Design change on front rail side members

The optimized gauge and grade map on the Toyota Venza body structure is shown in 

Figure F.4-10 and Figure F.4-11.

Figure F.4-10: Gauge Map of Optimized Model
Page 276

Figure F.4-11: Material Map of Optimized Model

The major subassembly weights were calculated and tabulated with respect to the baseline 

weights. 

Table F.4-2 lists the major subassembly weights of the optimized model against the 

baseline model.
Page 277

Table F.4-2: Optimized Weights

The UVW of the optimized model was 1,403.1 kg, which includes a combined 13% 

weight reduction from BIW, closures, and bumper parts (
Page 278

Table F.4-2). It also includes a 20% mass reduction of the rest of the non-structural parts. 

This 20% reduction is an estimated weight reduction from trim and non-structural parts.

The final weight distribution of the optimized full vehicle is tabulated in Table F.4-3, 

showing the UVW of baseline and optimized models.
Page 279

Table F.4-3: Final Weight Summary for Optimized Vehicle

From this it can be seen that an overall 18% weight reduction was achieved by weight 

optimization.

F.4.11 Optimized Results

The optimization outcome was validated by carrying out further NVH and crash 

simulations on the optimized model. The optimized NVH and crash models were directly 
Page 280

carried over from the optimizer and appropriate load cases were set up. The following 

sections explain the NVH and crash model results in comparison to the baseline results.

F.4.11.1 NVH Performance Results

The NVH model (containing only BIW parts and a few bolt-on parts as explained earlier) 

was once again subjected to static bending, static torsion, and modal frequency 

simulations by incorporating the optimization outcome. Table F.4-4 lists the results of the 

optimized model for bending stiffness, torsion stiffness, and modal frequency load cases.

Table F.4-4: NVH Results Summary for Optimized BIW Model

From the table it can be seen the NVH performance of the optimized CAE model is very 

similar to the baseline model in terms of modal analysis, whereas torsion and bending 

stiffness meet the <5% comparison error requirement. The optimized model reflects an 

overall reduction in stiffness due to gauge reduction throughout the BIW structure. This 

reduction was considered acceptable relative to the amount of weight saving.

The total weight reduction in the optimized BIW is about 14% when compared to the 

BIW weight of the baseline model.

F.4.11.2 Crash Performance Results

The optimized crash model was validated further for the following five different crash 

load cases and compared with the results of baseline models respectively.

1) FMVSS 208—35 MPH flat frontal crash (US NCAP), 

2) Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB frontal crash (Euro NCAP/IIHS), 
Page 281

3) FMVSS 214—38.5 MDB side impact,

4) FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB rear impact,

5) FMVSS 216a—Roof crush resistance (utilizing the more stringent IIHS roof crush 

resistance requirement). 

The model set up and test requirements were maintained consistent to that of EDAG 

baseline models, as explained earlier.

F.4.11.3 FMVSS 208—35 MPH flat frontal crash (US NCAP)

Deformation Mode

The deformation modes at 80ms (end of crash event) of the optimized model were 

compared to that of the baseline model. The deformation modes are presented in Figure 

F.4-12 to Figure F.4-15. The left-hand side illustrations show the deformation modes of 

the baseline model, and the right-hand side illustrations show the deformation modes of 

the optimized model. 

Observing the exterior vehicle deformation mode comparisons in different views, the 

optimized model shows similar characteristics in structural deformation.

Baseline Optimized

Figure F.4-12: Deformation Mode Left Side View @ 80ms
Page 282

Baseline Optimized

Figure F.4-13: Deformation Mode Right Side View @ 80ms

Baseline Optimized

Figure F.4-14: Deformation Mode Top Side View @ 80ms

Baseline Optimized

Figure F.4-15: Deformation Mode Top Side View @ 80ms

The underbody structural deformation modes are compared as shown in Figure F.4-16. It 

is observed the optimized model shows the same level of deformation as that of the 

baseline target. The engine compartment was well protected from significant deformation 
Page 283

in both the optimized and baseline models. From the deformation modes, it is also noted 

the crush energy is absorbed by the engine compartment, rails, and front cradle. The 

remaining crush is transferred to understructure members without any major failure on the 

engine compartment under-ladder structure.

 

 

Figure F.4-16: Deformation Mode Top Side View @ 80ms

Crash Pulse

Figure F.4-17 shows the pulse comparison between the optimized model and the baseline 

model. For the final optimized model, the vehicle velocity was measured at the driver and 

passenger side rear seat cross members respectively. The velocity was differentiated to 

Optimized

Baseline
Page 284

get pulses: 47.2G for the driver side and 46.2G for the passenger side. The baseline model 

pulses are 45.9G and 44.9G for the driver and passenger sides, respectively.

Figure F.4-17: Vehicle Pulse Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized

The optimized model pulse, then, met the performance target requirement of baseline 

model within a <5% difference.

Dynamic Crush and Dash Intrusions

The deformation indicator of the vehicle structure dynamic crush is compared as shown in

Figure F.4-18. The optimized model shows a shorter dynamic crush (578.0 mm) than that 

of the baseline model (610.5 mm) at the same level of body pulse. This is an improvement 

from the baseline model showing better structural performance: It indicates the optimized 

model retains a good level of vehicle dynamic stiffness even though there is significant 

mass reduction.

Driver Passenger

___ Optimized (LH-47.2/RH-46.2G)

___ Baseline (LH-45.9/RH-44.9G)
Page 285

Figure F.4-18: Dynamic Crush Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized

Another parameter of structural performance comparison is the time-to-zero velocity 

(TTZV). TTZV is the time measured when the vehicle approaches zero velocity during 

impact. The TTZV plot is shown in Figure F.4-19. 
Page 286

Figure F.4-19: TTZV Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized

The TTZV of the optimized model (57.2 ms) is less than that of the baseline model (60.5 

ms), showing improved front-end stiffness.

For comparison purposes, the dash intrusions also were measured and are summarized in

Table F.4-5. 

Table F.4-5: Dash Intrusion Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized

Vehicle Driver Footwell 

(mm)

Driver Toe pan 

Left (mm)

Driver Toe pan 

center (mm)

Driver Toe pan 

Right (mm)

Baseline 56.7 131.3 147.2 105.2

Optimized 22.0 46.3 79.5 101.3 

In the case of the optimized model, the dash panel footwell and toe pan intrusions were 

significantly reduced when compared to that of the baseline model. This also indicates the 

optimized model met baseline targets.
Page 287

F.4.11.4 Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB Frontal Crash (Euro NCAP/IIHS)

Deformation Mode

The deformation modes at 140 ms (end of crash event) of the optimized model were 

compared to that of the baseline model. The deformation modes are presented in Figure 

F.4-20 to Figure F.4-22 . The left-hand side illustrations show the deformation modes of 

the baseline model and the right-hand side illustrations show the deformation modes of 

the optimized model. 

Observing the exterior vehicle deformation mode comparisons in different views, the 

optimized model shows similar characteristics of structural deformation.

Baseline Optimized

Figure F.4-20: Deformation Mode Top View @ 140ms

Baseline Optimized

Figure F.4-21: Deformation Mode ISO View @ 140ms
Page 288

Baseline Optimized

Figure F.4-22: Deformation Mode Left Side View @ 140ms

The underbody structural deformation modes are compared as shown Figure F.4-23 and 

Figure F.4-24 where it can be seen the optimized model shows the same level of 

deformation as that of the baseline target. The compartment area is well protected from 

significant deformation in both the optimized and baseline models. From the deformation 

modes, it is also noted the crush energy is absorbed by the engine compartment, rails, and 

front cradle. The remaining crush is transferred to understructure members without any 

major failure on the compartment under-ladder structure.

Figure F.4-23: Deformation Mode Bottom View @ 140ms - Baseline

Baseline
Page 289

Figure F.4-24: Deformation Mode Bottom View @ 140ms - Optimized

Crash Pulse

Figure F.4-25 shows the pulse comparison between the optimized model and the baseline 

model. For the final optimized model, the vehicle acceleration pulse target was achieved 

as < 44G for driver side and passenger side, measured at driver and passenger side rearseat cross members respectively. 

Optimized
Page 290

Figure F.4-25: Body Pulse Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized

In this case, the optimized model shows a slightly better performance than the baseline 

model in terms of crash pulse.

Dynamic Crush

The deformation indicator of the vehicle structure dynamic crash is compared in Figure 

F.4-26 and Figure F.4-27. The total dynamic crush shown in Figure F.4-26 includes the 

barrier deformation, also consistent for comparison purposes. Subtracting the barrier 

deformation from the total crush (Figure F.4-27), the optimized model shows less 

dynamic crush (505.3 mm) than the baseline model (566.7 mm) at the same level of body 

pulse. This is an improvement from the baseline model showing a better structural 

performance. This indicates the optimized model retains an acceptable level of vehicle 

dynamic stiffness even though there is significant mass reduction.

Driver 

side

Passenger 

side
Page 291

Figure F.4-26: Dynamic Crush Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized (with Barrier Deformation)

Figure F.4-27: Dynamic Crush Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized (without Barrier Deformation)

Dash Panel Intrusions
Page 292

The compartment dash panel intrusions measured at the footwell, toe pan, brake pedal, 

instrument panel cross member, and door openings is plotted with respect to the 

performance rating chart and is shown in Figure F.4-28.

Figure F.4-28: Dash Panel Intrusion Plot for Euro NCAP

The intrusion plot shows the optimized model has improved in terms of fewer intrusions 

and has achieved the better rating (good) as that of the baseline model for all of the 

critical dash panel locations. 

A summary of Euro NCAP performance measurements is provided in Table F.4-6 and

Table F.4-7.

Table F.4-6: Dash Intrusions, Baseline vs. Optimized Model for Euro NCAP

Good

Acceptable

Poor

Marginal

___ Optimized 

___ Baseline 
Page 293

No. Frontal crash 

Measurements Baseline Optimized

1 Dynamic Crush (mm) 1082.9 1021.3

2 UVW Weight (kg) 1710.5 1403.1

Table F.4-7: Dash Intrusions - Baseline vs. Optimized Model for Euro NCAP

Vehicle

Driver 

Footrest 

(mm)

Driver Toe 

pan Left 

(mm)

Driver 

Toe pan 

center 

(mm)

Driver Toe 

pan Right 

(mm)

Baseline 141.6 180.7 179.0 84.6 

Optimized 48.1 68.8 74.7 28.6 

Based on the analysis, the optimized model meets the frontal offset impact performance 

requirements.

F.4.11.5 FMVSS 214—38.5 MPH MDB side impact

Deformation Mode

The deformation modes of the side impact optimized model and the baseline model are 

shown in Figure F.4-29 to Figure F.4-31. Figure F.4-29 shows the global deformation 

of the driver side. It indicates both the baseline and the optimized models have similar 

deformation. 
Page 294

Baseline Model

Optimized Model

Figure F.4-29: Global Deformation Modes of Baseline and Optimized Models

Figure F.4-30 shows front and rear door deformation modes at the impact area of Bpillar. It is observed the optimized model shows similar characteristics of deformation at 

the impact area.
Page 295

Baseline Optimized

Figure F.4-30: Deformation Modes of Front and Rear Doors of Baseline and Optimized Models

Similarly, Figure F.4-31 shows the same characteristics of rear door aperture area 

deformations for both the baseline and the optimized models.

 

Baseline Optimized

Figure F.4-31: Rear Door Aperture Deformations of Baseline and Optimized Models

Body Intrusion

The key performance requirement of the side structure intrusion of the optimized model 

was compared with the baseline model. Figure F.4-32 shows the relative intrusion of the 

side structure in the optimized model at sections 1200L and 1650L with respect to the undeformed model. The sectional contour in red indicates the deformed shape and the 

sectional contour in black indicates the un-deformed shape. 
Page 296

Image F.4A-28—Side Structure Intrusion Plot of Optimized Model @ B-pillar Section

Figure F.4-32: Side Structure Intrusion Plot of Optimized Model @ 1200L Section

A summary of the relative intrusions of the B-pillar of the optimized model is shown in

Table F.4-8.

 Table F.4-8: Optimized Model, Relative Intrusions of Side Structure @1200L for FMVSS 214

Measured Level CAE 2010 Baseline CAE 2010 Optimized

Level-5 6.0 3.1

Level-4 165.5 145.0

Level-3 245.0 215.6

Level-2 233.3 205.2

Level-1 133.7 131.6

* All measured points are taken at the vehicle exterior point

In order to have a better perspective of the comparison, the optimized model result is 

overlaid on top of the baseline model result. Figure F.4-33 shows the intrusion contours 

of both the optimized and the baseline models. The contours in red represent the 

deformation of the optimized model and the contours in black represent the deformation 

of the baseline model. 
Page 297

Figure F.4-33: Side Structure Intrusion Plot of Optimized Model @ 1650L Section

Table F.4-9: Optimized Model, Relative Intrusions of Side Structure @1650L for FMVSS 214

Measured Level CAE 2010 Baseline CAE 2010 Optimized

Level-5 7.0 3.1

Level-4 149.7 132.7

Level-3 282.2 244.4

Level-2 269.9 232.9

Level-1 146.6 127.2

* All measured points are taken at the vehicle exterior point
Page 298

The summary of intrusion numbers is shown in Table F.4-10 and Table F.4-11. The

negative sign indicates the optimized model shows less deformation than the baseline.

Figure F.4-34: Side Structure Intrusion Plot of Baseline vs. Optimized Model @ 1200L Section

Table F.4-10: Baseline vs. Optimized Model - Relative Intrusions of Side Structure @1200L for 

FMVSS 214

Measured Level Baseline Optimized Difference

Level-5 6.0 3.1 -2.9

Level-4 165.5 145.0 -20.5

Level-3 245.0 215.6 -29.4

Level-2 233.3 205.2 -28.1

Level-1 133.7 131.6 -2.1

* All measured points are taken at the vehicle exterior point
Page 299

Figure F.4-35: Side Structure Intrusion Plot of Baseline vs. Optimized Model @ 1650L Section

Table F.4-11: Baseline vs. Optimized Model, Relative Intrusions of Side Structure @1650L for 

FMVSS 214

Measured Level Baseline Optimized Difference

Level-5 7.0 3.1 -3.9

Level-4 149.7 132.7 -17.0

Level-3 282.2 244.4 -37.8

Level-2 269.9 232.9 -37.0

Level-1 146.6 127.2 -19.4

* All measured points are taken at the vehicle exterior point

As shown previously in Table F.4-10, the maximum side structure intrusions of 215.6 

mm at 1200L section and 244.4 mm at 1650L section are less than the baseline results of 

245.0mm at 1200L section and 282.2 mm at 1650L section. Therefore, the side structure 

intrusion performance of the optimized model is judged to be acceptable.
Page 300

F.4.11.6 FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB Rear Impact

Deformation Mode

The deformation modes of the rear impact simulation of the optimized model are shown

in Figure F.4-36 to Figure F.4-39. Similar to the baseline model, these deformation 

modes indicate the rear structures protect the fuel tank system well during the crash event. 

In Figure F.4-36, the rear door area shows no jamming shut of the door opening.

The skeleton view of the rear inner structure deformation view in Figure F.4-37 shows the 

rear underbody was involved resulting in maximizing the crush energy absorption and 

minimizing the deformation of the rear door and fuel tank mounting areas.

Figure F.4-36: Deformation Mode of Optimized Model - Left Side View
Page 301

Figure F.4-37: Deformation Mode of Optimized Model Rear Structure Area - Left Side View

The bottom view of the rear underbody structure around the fuel tank area at the end of 

crash (100 ms) is shown Figure F.4-38 and Figure F.4-39. This deformation mode shows 

the rear rail structure and the rear suspension mounting are also intact to protect the fuel 

tank system. 

Figure F.4-38: Deformation Mode of Optimized Model - Bottom View
Page 302

Figure F.4-39: Deformation Mode of Optimized Model Rear Structure Area - Bottom View

Fuel Tank Integration

The fuel tank integrity of the optimized model is further analyzed by its plastic strain plot 

and is compared to the baseline model. The fuel tank system strain plot was monitored as 

one of the necessary parameters in a rear impact scenario. Figure F.4-40 shows the 

comparison of the top and bottom of the fuel tank system's strain plot after the crash.
Page 303

Figure F.4-40: Comparison of Fuel Tank System Integrity

Compared to the baseline model, the optimized model also indicates no significant risk of 

fuel system damage as the maximum strain amount is less than 20% of the entire fuel tank 

system's plastic strain. It thus meets the baseline target in terms of fuel tank integrity.

Structural deformation

The rear impact structural performance of the optimized model is further compared with 

the baseline model in terms of zonal deformation and rear door opening area deformation. 

Figure F.4-41 shows different deformation zones of the rear end of the vehicle. The 

structural deformations measured at these locations are listed and compared to the 

baseline model in Table F.4-12.
Page 304

Figure F.4-41: Structural Deformation Measuring Area in Rear Impact

Table F.4-12: Summary of Structural Deformation Measuring

 Model Under Structure Zone Deformation (mm) Door Opening (mm)

Zone-1 Zone-2 Zone-3 Zone-4 Beltline Dogleg

Baseline 140.2 292.5 0 0 1.9 0.2

Optimized 112.2 340.5 0 0 0.9 0.4

Based on our acceptance criteria that the rear door must be capable of opening after the 

impact event and there must be fuel system integrity, the optimized model is judged 

acceptable. The increase in intrusion value in Zone 2 is related to the reduced gauges in 

the rear structure.

F.4.11.7 FMVSS 216a—Roof Crush Resistance

Deformation Mode

The driver side roof crush deformation mode of the optimized model was compared with 

the baseline model. The roof crush deformation mode at 140 ms after crush event is 

shown in Figure F.4-42. It is noted that, similar to the baseline model, most of the 

deformation is concentrated on the roof rail, the A-pillar, and the B-pillar of the load side. 

The other neighboring structures remained un-deformed. The optimized model structure 

thus has the same level of roof crush resistance performance as the baseline model.
Page 305

Baseline Optimized

Figure F.4-42: Deformation Mode of Roof Crush

Structural Strength

The strength of the roof rail and the B-pillar structure in terms of rear passenger head 

protection during rollover scenario is determined by the maximum plastic strain plot and 

platen force vs. displacement. Figure F.4-43 shows plastic strain distribution of the roof 

and B-pillar structures of the optimized model. The maximum plastic strain over the roof 

rail and B-pillar parts are within the 20% limit, the same as the baseline model.
Page 306

 Figure F.4-43: Plastic Strain Contour of Side Upper Structure in Optimized Model

Similar to the baseline model, using four times UVW criteria, the optimized model is 

evaluated for its roof crush resistance strength. The force vs. displacement curve of the 

platen is illustrated in Figure F.4-44. 
Page 307

Figure F.4-44: Roof Crush Load vs. Displacement Plot

As explained in Section F.4.10, the UVW of the optimized roof crush resistance model is 

1,403.1 kg. From Figure F.4-45, it is seen the maximum load (66.4 kN) is greater than 

four times UVW (55.1 kN) within the platen displacement of 127 mm. Therefore, the 

optimized model also meets both FMVSS 216a and IIHS requirements. 

A comparative summary of the optimized model's roof crush performance is found in 

Table F.4-13.

Table F.4-13: Summary of Roof Crush Load vs. Displacement Plot
Page 308

Model 

Name

UVW (kg) BIW, Closures Weight (kg) Force 

Criteria 

(kN)

Max Load 

(kN) UVW Delta BIW, Closures Delta

Baseline 1710.5 n/a 528.9 n/a 67.1 85.8 

Optimized 1403.1 307.4 457.7 71.2 55.1 66.4 

F.4.12 Cost Impact

The necessary cost constraints were included in the weight optimization cycle to be 

consistent with each of the strategies applied. The gauge and grades were modified 

accordingly, while opting for different alternatives such as laser welded assembly and 

TRB parts. The costs of the changes were obtained based on engineering estimates of the 

original design cost. The following cost factors were included in the estimation.

Manufacturing CO2 emissions

Material price

Labor cost

Energy cost

Equipment cost

Tooling

Building

Maintenance

Overhead

EDAG standards and best practices were followed in performing the cost estimate with 

the following general assumptions:

1. Cost of money = 8%

2. Production Volume = 200,000 / year

3. Equipment life = 20 years

4. Product life = 5 years
Page 309

In addition to these factors, the cost changes in assembly due to the change of laserwelded assembly and introduction of rocker bulkhead reinforcements (Ref. Section 

F.4A.9) also were estimated. The weight and cost impact of the optimized changes is 

shown in Table F.4-14. 

Table F.4-14: Weight and Cost Impact of Optimized Vehicle

The cost impact of assembling the parts due to laser welding is shown in Table F.4-15.

Table F.4-15: Cost Impact of Part Laser Welded Assembly
Page 310

The cost impact of introducing rocker bulkhead reinforcements is shown in Table F.4-16.

Table F.4-16: Cost Impact of Part Laser Welded Assembly

From the information in the tables, the overall weight savings on the Toyota Venza is 

about 68.1 kg, with a manufacturing cost increase of $208.26 and an assembly cost 

increase of $19.63.
Page 311

F.4.13 Summary

In summary, the 2010 Toyota Venza was studied for potential weight reduction by 

utilizing EDAG lightweight design optimization procedures. The performance of the 

lightweight vehicle was verified by applying CAE principles. The necessary vehicle data 

was collected from completely disassembling a 2010 Toyota Venza. Weight reduction 

was optimized while maintaining safety performance regulations and requirements. The 

weight reduction optimization was carried out in stages based on EDAG lightweight 

optimization strategies. The result of the weight optimization was a 14% weight reduction 

on a BIW only (

Table F.4-2) and a 13.0% weight reduction including closures and bumpers (Table 

F.4-3), while still meeting the structural performance targets. Additionally, an estimated 

20% weight reduction of non-structural parts was included on the full vehicle weight 

structure. The overall weight reduction of 18% was achieved (Table F.4-3).

The cost impact of the changes that took place in the lightweight design optimization 

process was also analyzed. The changes were mostly to body parts, thus the difference 

was estimated to be an increase of $208.26 in manufacturing costs (Table F.4-14) and a 

$6.05 increase in assembly costs of the body parts (Table F.4-15).

F.4.14 Future Trends and Recommendation

Common practices followed in automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) are 

within the strategies of component integration, functionality tweaking, 
Page 312

innovative/alternative materials use, manufacturing technology advancements, and costweight optimization. EDAG’s principle of continual research enabled an exploration of 

alternatives beyond common practices. The lightweight optimization study of the Toyota 

Venza utilized most of them. There are, however, additional possibilities of weight 

reduction: 

Exploration of alternative materials for subsystems

Exploration of alternative technologies for subsystems

Optimization of the topology of load path subsystems

Executive-level vehicles (low volume) are currently manufactured using aluminum 

materials in order to create a super light vehicle, but with the associated higher costs. 

Volkswagen Audi is the recent success story, however, of utilizing aluminum alternatives.

[8] An attempt was made in the Toyota Venza study to use aluminum as an alternative 

material for the front bumper, hood, and tailgate parts. This resulted in a savings of 17 kg 

(13%), with a cost increase of $26.58/kg. In a similar approach, aluminum can be used for 

door parts. A test of replacing the door materials in the CAE model has shown a weight 

savings of about 25%.

Magnesium (Mg) based materials are also proven for their better strength-weight ratio 

equivalent when compared to steel based materials [11]. A similar test of replacing steel 

materials by magnesium material on the front module of the Toyota Venza revealed 

approximately 57.26% weight savings with 100% cost increase. The use of magnesium as 

a viable alternative will be a consideration in future research. Another area where 

magnesium has the potential to be used is the powertrain housing. [21]

Utilizing a carbon fiber, the proposition of composite materials is one of the emerging 

ideas in building lightweight vehicles. Currently, the utilization of fiber-composite 

materials for supporting body parts has been limited to special series, as well as premium 

and racing models.[22] Assuming a positive cost impact due to an improvement in 

efficiency, research into using composite materials for auto body parts would be 

worthwhile. 

Another candidate for alternative materials is long-fiber reinforced thermoplastics (LFT). 

Today, most LFT end products are produced for the automobile industry.[23] These 

molded parts include body panels, sound shields, front-end assemblies, structural body 

parts, truck panels and housings, as well as doors, tailgates, and fender (wing) sections. 

LFT could be tried on these parts of the Toyota Venza.

The use of TRB is yet another example of a recent development in the manufacturing 

process. It is expected TRB will replace parts manufactured with tailor-welded blanks. 

Recently, major American and European automotive OEMs have introduced TRB-based 
Page 313

parts. They are currently applied on the simple stamped parts of high strength steel. Based 

on EDAG’s experience of TRB trials in other programs, extending the TRB application to 

chassis member, frames, cross members, etc., are recommended. From the experience of 

applying TRB in the Toyota Venza study, it is expected significant cost and weight 

savings will be achieved.

Topology optimization is a computer-simulation based design optimization method used 

to determine optimized structural load paths in a pre-specified three-dimensional space. 

This technique helps to optimize load path parts at the design level. Since any major 

design change is beyond the scope of this project, design optimization was not 

undertaken. The potential of weight reduction by design optimization is significant (about 

10 – 17% based on EDAG’s proven expertise in the Future Steel Vehicle program). [24]

This is a clear motivation to attempt topology optimization techniques to achieve further 

weight reduction in the Toyota Venza.

F.5 Body System Group B

Body System Group B includes the subsystems shown in Table F.5-1. The largest mass 

contributors are the Seating, Interior Trim, and Instrument Panel/Console subsystems. As 

seen in Table F.5-2, a substantial amount of mass (41.98 kg) is reduced from Body 

System Group B. This provides a cost savings of $122.98 and a dollar per kilogram 

savings of $2.93/kg. The largest contributor of this mass and cost reduction is the Seating 

subsystem, followed by the Interior Trim and the Instrument Panel subsystems.

Table F.5-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Body System Group B
Page 314

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

System & 

Subsystem 

Mass

"kg"

03 00 00 Body System (Group -B-)

03 05 00 Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem 65.202

03 06 00 Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body) 4.502

03 07 00 Sealing Subsystem 8.226

03 10 00 Seating Subsystem 92.548

03 12 00 Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem 32.688

03 20 00 Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem 17.438

Total System Mass = 220.604

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 12.90%

Description

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

Subsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

03 00 00 Body System (Group -B-)

03 05 00 Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem A 8.924 $37.72 $4.23 13.69% 0.52%

03 06 00 Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body) A 0.268 $0.38 $1.40 5.95% 0.02%

03 07 00 Sealing Subsystem A 2.029 $15.70 $7.74 24.67% 0.12%

03 10 00 Seating Subsystem A 23.392 $84.55 $3.61 25.28% 1.37%

03 12 00 Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem C 6.330 -$12.49 -$1.97 19.36% 0.37%

03 20 00 Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem D 1.039 -$2.88 -$2.77 5.96% 0.06%

A 41.982 $122.98 $2.93 19.03% 2.45%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

Description

Table F.5-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body System Group B
Page 315

F.5.1 Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem

F.5.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview

The Toyota Venza uses a conventional interior trim package as well as upgrade packages.

Considerable focus has been paid to the interior regarding the different types of materials 

used: plastic, rubber, cloth, leather, and steel. As with many of today’s vehicle 

manufacturers, the larger amount of the vehicle sought for weight reductions are those 

areas which can do so without sacrificing looks, comfort and performance. Image 

F.5-1shows the inside interior of the Toyota Venza

Image F.5-1: Toyota Venza Interior

(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)

F.5.1.2Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Industry trends for mass reduction in the interior include many different considerations 

due to the fact that the interior trim is made up of many different components and 

materials. Among the ways to reduce mass includes reducing the density of the vinyl trim 

or the thickness of the vinyl trim. Mass density can be reduced by using PolyOne foaming 

additives or the MuCell® foaming process for the vinyl trim injection molding. Using 

carbon fiber as a replacement for vinyl trim results in mass reduction, although doing so 

will add cost to the interior due to carbon fiber’s limited availability and raw material 

cost. Products and techniques using light-weight wood, wood fiber, or foam with a 

laminated interior surface treatment also involve added processing. 

MuCell® by TrexelTM is a microcellular foam injection molding process for 

thermoplastics materials that injects nitrogen bubbles into the plastic during the injection 

stage of the molding process. MuCell® by TrexelTM is used in many applications, 

automotive, medical and the packaging industry. The process is currently used by major 
Page 316

OEM’s like, Audi, Ford, BMW and VW. The quality advantages of the MuCell Process 

are complemented by certain direct economic advantages, including the ability to produce 

20-33% more parts per hour on a given molded machine, and the ability to mold parts on 

lower tonnage machines as a result of the viscosity reduction and the elimination of the 

packing requirement that accompanies the use of supercritical gas.

MuCell® has an added capital cost to a standard injection molding machine, but with this 

process a smaller machine can be used and a faster cycle time can be realized. MuCell® 

also provides for a reduction in the amount of plastic used, which offers an overall 

material savings. MuCell® is not recommended for Class “A” surfaces; however, all nonClass “A” surfaces were quoted with a 10% mass reduction as a conservative estimate. 

With re-engineering of the component up to 30% is possible
Page 317

Figure F.5-1: MuCell® by TrexelTM Foaming Process Presentation

(MuCell® presentation information provided by TrexelTM)
Page 318
Page 319
Page 320

PolyOne® has a foaming agent incorporated into pellets which can be added directly into 

a standard mold machine plastic hopper and mixed with base material plastic pellets to 

provide the proper ratio of foaming agent to the base material. PolyOne can be used on 

Class “A” surfaces: all class “A” surfaces using PolyOne were quoted with a 10% mass 

reduction.

PolyOne Corporation is a global supplier of polymer materials, services, and solutions. 

PolyOne specializes in performance materials, colors and additives, thermoplastic 

elastomers, coatings and resins, and inks, among other things. The industries they serve 

are vast, including building and construction, electrical and electronics, healthcare, 

industrial, packaging, and transportation.

Of particular interest to this study is PolyOne’s OnCapTM Chemical Foaming Agents 

(CFAs), which is a part of its OnCapTM Additives product line. This line is part of 
Page 321

PolyOne’s Global Color, Additives & Inks business unit. In typical industry use, these 

CFAs provide a multitude of benefits to improve polymer processing in a variety of 

situations. They can also reduce the weight of the plastic part to which they are added. 

CFAs are formulated products that will decompose in a polymer during processing at a 

specific temperature and liberate a gas that will form a controlled cellular structure in the 

solid phase of the polymer.

(PolyOne® presentation information provided by PolyOneTM)
Page 322

 

Image F.5-2: Sample part cross section view

 

Image F.5-3: Sample part front face view

(Images supplied by PolyOne)

PolyOne’s OnCapTM CFA additive family of density reduction and anti-sink technologies 

provide customized solutions enabling you to reduce scrap rates caused by sink marks and 

become cost effective by off-setting resin costs. OnCapTM CFA technology has been 

tested and proven and is compatible across a wide range of polymers.

OnCapTM CFA will positively impact the bottom line in the following ways:
Page 323

Reduce Part Weight Without compromising performance:

The most direct way that reducing your part density will improve your profitability, is by 

displacing resin costs.

Improved Production Efficiencies:

Density reductions typically range from 10-50%. Value determination is based 

operational savings through density reduction, and less scrap generated from surface 

flaws.

Acceptable for regrind in-line streams.

Reduced Scrap– more profits derived from increased part quality.

Density Reduction– Resin Cost off-set, competitive advantage for new and existing 

business.

Examples: automotive parts such as dash frames, and fan guards

 

(PolyOne® presentation information provided by PolyOneTM)

GM SUV Instrument panel
Page 324

GM SUV Instrument panel results

(PolyOne® presentation information provided by PolyOneTM)

Why OnCapTM Foaming Agents? 

OnCapTM Foaming Agents grow the bottom line by: 

• Reducing Material Usage 

Customers have achieved up to 50 percent reductions in material usage while maintaining 

finished part integrity. 

• Finished Part Weight Reduction 

Reduced weight of finished products can improve fuel efficiency and reduce shipping costs. 

• Improving Quality 

Sink mark surface defects are minimized due to consistent mold cavity pressure provided by 

OnCapTM Foaming Agents. 
Page 325

• Improving Production Efficiencies 

OnCapTM Foaming Agents promote increased nucleation to reduce cooling times and thereby 

reduce production cycle times. 

• Helping Customers Grow 

Many industries are required to reduce the weight of their products because of government 

mandates or just a desire to reduce shipping costs. OnCapTM Foaming Agents help customers 

achieve these goals.

• Reduces scrap caused by sink –marks or unfilled areas of the products

Resulting in increased profitability and competitiveness.

(Ref. http://www.polyone.com/enus/docs/Documents/OnCap%20Chemical%20Foaming%20Agents.pdf)

PolyOne’s CFAs can effectively reduce the mass of plastic parts both with and without 

Class “A” surface finishes. For this study, however, the most significant advantage of 

CFAs is the former. Therefore, PolyOne’s CFAs were applied to numerous Class “A” 

surface-finished plastic parts in this study. PolyOne Corporation provided generic 

feedback and advice regarding the amount of weight reduction feasible for plastic parts. 

These CFA application guidelines included considerations for a respective part’s material, 

geometry, and application. In general, a 10% weight reduction was applied to parts for 

which a CFA was used. Higher mass reduction may be possible for many components, 

but would require a detailed analysis on the component and its use in order to safely apply 

such savings. Instead, a conservative estimate was applied based on PolyOne’s expertise 

where parts’ properties would not be adversely affected. For parts with a non-Class “A”

surface finish, a weight reduction in the 20-30% range is possible.

The use of CFAs for light-weighting must be addressed on a part-by-part basis. Several 

variables must be taken into account for each component to understand the impact mass 

reduction will have on the final part’s processing and performance. A feasibility 

breakdown provided by PolyOne is presented here, indicating guidelines and stipulations 

for the most common plastics used in the Toyota Venza:

20% Talc-filled Polypropylene (PP-GF20)

Talc can influence the success of the CFA. Based on the grade and particle size 

talc can improve cell size or potentially increase the rate of splay. The grain can 

help reduce the visual defects.

Class “A” surface finish can be difficult to maintain. This will depend upon the 

geometry of and the gate location on the part.

Potential weight reduction would be more in the 5-10% range at 1-3% LDR. 
Page 326

Above 10% will begin to reduce the physical properties and affect the Class “A”

surface finish.

Due to polypropylene’s shrinkage rate, the CFA will fill the cavity: weight loss is 

reduced due to the complete fill of the cavity.

It does aid in sink mark removal at lower 0.5-1% CFA loadings.

PolyOneTM CFA CC10117068WE or CC10122763WE would be suggested for 

polypropylene.

Surface texture can potentially hide the effects of a CFA so various grain options 

should be explored.

Polycarbonate / Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (PC/ABS) 

This resin could achieve a 10-15% weight reduction. Careful selection of the 

proper CFA is required since the alloyed blends can have different ratios. Testing 

with the high heat CC10153776WE and CC10117068WE would be recommended.

Class “A” surface finish can be difficult to maintain above 10%. This will depend 

upon the geometry of and the gate location on the part. 

Surface texture can potentially hide the effects of a CFA so various grain options 

should be explored.

Polyamide 66 (PA66)

Processing with the high heat CFA CC10153776WE would be recommended.

Class “A” surface finish can be difficult to maintain. This will depend upon the 

geometry of and the gate location on the part.

Potential weight reduction would be more in the 5-10% range. 

Above 10% will begin to reduce the physical properties and affect the Class “A”

surface finish.

20% Glass-filled Polyamide (PA-GF20)
Page 327

Processing with the high heat CFA CC10153776WE would be recommended.

Glass will reduce the success of the CFA due to potential cell coalescence causing 

larger voids.

Class “A” surface finish can be difficult to maintain. This will depend upon the 

geometry of and the gate location on the part.

Potential weight reduction would be more in the 5-10% range. 

Above 10% will begin to reduce the physical properties and affect the Class “A”

surface finish.

15% Glass-filled / 25% Mineral-filled Polyamide 6 (15G/25M PA6)

Processing with the high heat CFA CC10153776WE would be recommended.

Glass will reduce the success of the CFA due to potential cell coalescence causing 

larger voids.

Class “A” surface finish can be difficult to maintain. This will depend upon the 

geometry of and the gate location on the part.

Potential weight reduction would be more in the 5-10% range. 

Above 10% will begin to reduce the physical properties and affect the Class “A”

surface finish.

High-Density Polyethylene / Polypropylene (HDPE/PP)

This resin could achieve a 10-15% weight reduction. CC10117068WE and 

CC10122763WE are potential CFAs depending upon part geometry.

Class A surface finish can be difficult to maintain above 10%. This will depend 

upon the geometry of and the gate location on the part. 

Surface texture can potentially hide the effects of a CFA so various grain options 

should be explored.

Above 10% will begin to reduce the physical properties and affect the Class “A”

surface finish.
Page 328

PolyOne’s Chemical Foaming Agents are currently used in production in industrial 

housings and structural foam applications, and the automotive industry. Its CFAs, are 

also currently undergoing testing by many automotive OEMs and can be feasibly 

implemented by the 2017 model year.

Please refer to PolyOne’s Technical Data Sheets for more information.

F.5.1.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Some ideas that were considered for weight reduction on the interior trim are shown in

Table F.5-3.

Table F.5-3: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Interior Trim and 

Ornamentation Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Interior trim with class 

"A" surface Carbon fiber 10 to 20% Mass Reduction

High cost of raw material, high cost of 

processing

Interior trim with class 

"A" surface

Laminated surface to wood 

underlayment

10 to 20% Mass 

Reduction

Added processing, Wood underlayment 

availability

Interior trim with class 

"A" surface

Laminated surface to wood 

fiber underlayment

10 to 20% Mass 

Reduction

Added processing, Wood fiber 

underlayment availability

Interior trim with class 

"A" surface

Laminated surface to foam 

underlayment

15 to 25% Mass 

Reduction high processing cost

Interior trim with class 

"A" surface PolyOne® foaming process 10% Mass Reduction

No added capital equip. needed, Faster 

cycle time per part

Interior trim with nonclass "A" surfaceMuCell® gas foaming 

process

10% Mass 

Reduction Added capital equip., faster cycle time

Carpet floor mats Reduce total weight 20 to 30% Mass 

Reduction

Less material, may have durability issues, 

may require testing

Retractable cargo cover Replace heavy pull cover 

with pull screen

50 to 65% Mass 

Reduction

Diff. product for same function, may have 

customer preference issues

F.5.1.4 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The mass reduction ideas selected for the Interior Trim and Ornamentation subsystem

were those to use the PolyOne foaming process for Class “A”-surfaced injection-molded 

parts and the MuCell® foaming process for injection molded parts without a Class “A” 

surface. All PolyOne and MuCell® deductions are conservative at a 10% mass reduction 

per part. With proper engineering of the parts, however, up to 30% weight reduction may

be achieved.
Page 329

The rear luggage pull screen was replaced with a lightweight cargo net. This could be 

considered an inferior replacement of the original part, however, if weight reduction is an 

OEM priority, replacing the cargo screen can be done without dramatically affecting

functionality and looks. In order to reduce the density (thickness) of the floor mats from 

22oz carpet to 14 oz carpet, proper OEM testing will have to be done (Table F.5-4).

Table F.5-4: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Page 330

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas 

Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

03 05 00 Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem

03 05 01 Main Floor Trim PolyOne® Class "A" 

Surfaces

MuCell® Non-Class "A" 

Surfaces

03 05 03 Headliner Assembly PolyOne® Class "A" 

Surfaces

MuCell® Non-Class "A" 

Surfaces

03 05 04 Sun Visors PolyOne® Class "A" 

Surfaces

MuCell® Non-Class "A" 

Surfaces

03 05 05 Front RH & LH Door Trim Panel PolyOne® Class "A" 

Surfaces

MuCell® Non-Class "A" 

Surfaces

03 05 06 Rear RH & LH Door Trim Panel PolyOne® Class "A" 

Surfaces

MuCell® Non-Class "A" 

Surfaces

03 05 07 Pillar Trim Lower PolyOne® Class "A" 

Surfaces

MuCell® Non-Class "A" 

Surfaces

03 05 08 Load Compartment Side Trim PolyOne® Class "A" 

Surfaces

MuCell® Non-Class "A" 

Surfaces

03 05 09 Rear Closure Interior Trim Panel PolyOne® Class "A" 

Surfaces

MuCell® Non-Class "A" 

Surfaces

03 05 10 Cargo Retention Replace heavy pull cover 

with pull screen

03 05 11 Floor Mats - OEM Reduce total weight

03 05 12 Load Compartment Floor Trim PolyOne® Class "A" 

Surfaces

MuCell® Non-Class "A" 

Surfaces

03 05 13 Pillar Trim Upper PolyOne® Class "A" 

Surfaces

MuCell® Non-Class "A" 

Surfaces

03 05 14 Load Compartment Transverse Trim PolyOne® Class "A" 

Surfaces

MuCell® Non-Class "A" 

Surfaces

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Page 331

F.5.1.5Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates

Table F.5-5 shows the 8.924kg weight and $37.72 cost reductions per sub-subsystem. In 

this Interior Trim and Ornamentation subsystem, Polyone® used on all of the subsystems 

Class “A” surface interior trim is 4.18kg of the total weight savings and $7.21 cost 

savings. MuCell® used on all non-Class “A” surface trim provides 1.31kg of the total 

weight savings and $2.96 of the cost savings. The 10% plastic mass reduction in the parts 

is replaced with a chemical foaming agent (CFA) or Nitrogen gas, which adds to a faster 

cycle time and a lower press tonnage for the weight and cost reductions. The lighter cargo 

cover provides 2.62kg of the total weight savings and $25.50 of the cost savings.

Reducing the floor mat carpet fiber weight from 22oz to 14oz is .81kg for the total weight 

saved and $2.05 of the total cost.

Table F.5-5: Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Interior Trim and 

Ornamentation Subsystem.

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Sub-Subs./ 

Sub-Subs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

1711

03 05 00 Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem

03 05 01 Main Floor Trim A 0.075 $0.26 $3.44 1.27% 0.00%

03 05 02 NVH Pads 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

03 05 03 Headliner Assembly A 0.010 $0.17 $17.30 0.18% 0.00%

03 05 04 Sun Visors A 0.067 $0.19 $2.88 6.60% 0.00%

03 05 05 Front RH & LH Door Trim Panel A 0.726 $1.31 $1.80 10.71% 0.04%

03 05 06 Rear RH & LH Door Trim Panel A 0.689 $1.41 $2.05 10.30% 0.04%

03 05 07 Pillar Trim Lower A 0.289 $0.54 $1.87 19.90% 0.02%

03 05 08 Load Compartment Side Trim A 3.842 $27.15 $7.07 34.68% 0.22%

03 05 09 Rear Closure Interior Trim Panel A 0.027 $0.12 $4.33 9.93% 0.00%

03 05 10 Cargo Retention A 0.161 $0.64 $4.01 9.99% 0.01%

03 05 11 Floor Mats - OEM A 0.809 $2.05 $2.53 11.95% 0.05%

03 05 12 Load Compartment Floor Trim A 1.077 $2.05 $1.90 20.00% 0.06%

03 05 13 Pillar Trim Upper A 0.275 $0.58 $2.13 15.65% 0.02%

03 05 14 Load Compartment Transverse Trim A 0.858 $1.13 $1.31 16.77% 0.05%

03 05 15 Carpet Support A 0.021 $0.11 $5.15 5.33% 0.00%

A 8.924 $37.72 $4.23 13.69% 0.52%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Page 332

F.5.2 Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)

F.5.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 

As Table F.5-6 shows, the Sound and Heat Control subsystem (Body) includes the Heat 

Insulation Shields - Engine Bay, Noise Insulation - Engine Bay, and Engine Compartment 

Trim sub-subsystems.

Table F.5-6: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Sound and Heat Control Subsystem 

(Body)

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

03 06 00 Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)

03 06 01 Heat Insulation Shields - Engine Bay 2.553

03 06 02 Noise Insulation, Engine Bay 0.421

03 06 03 Engine Compartment Trim 1.528

Total Subsystem Mass = 4.502

Total System Mass = 220.604

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 2.04%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.26%

Description

F.5.2.2Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

Due to the large amounts of heat given off by the engine, heat shields are used to protect 

components and bodywork from heat damage. Along with protection, effective heat 

shields can provide a performance benefit by reducing under-hood temperatures, 

therefore reducing the air intake temperatures. There are two main types of automotive 

heat shields: rigid and flexible. The rigid heat shields, once made from solid steel, are 

now often made from aluminum. Some high-end rigid heat shields are made out of 

aluminum sheet or other composites, with a thermal barrier, to improve the heat 

insulation. A flexible heat shielding is normally made from thin aluminum foils, sold 

either flat or in a roll, and is formed at installation. High-performance, flexible heat 

shields sometimes include extras, such as insulation. Image F.5-4 shows the under-hood 

heat and engine shields of the Toyota Venza.
Page 333

Image F.5-4: Toyota Venza Heat and Engine Shields

(Source: FEV Photo)

F.5.2.3Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Mass reduction industry trends on the heat shields show using a high-temperature plastic 

incorporating the MuCell® foaming process and engineering geared for this process 

reduce the weight by up to 30%. Noise shields vary from two layers of perforated metal 

with high-temperature foam in between, to a very dense tar-like substance between the 

layers of body metal.

F.5.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.5-7 shows the ideas for mass reductions on the Sound and Heat Control 

subsystem (Body). Reductions were made on the heat shields/engine compartment trim, 

but none on the noise shields. 

Table F.5-7: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Sound and Heat 

Control Subsystem (Body)

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Interior trim with nonclass "A" surfaceMuCell® gas foaming 

process

10% Mass 

Reduction

Added capital equip., faster cycle time, 

lower cost
Page 334

F.5.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.5-8 shows the weight deduction idea used for the Sound and Heat Control 

Subsystem (Body) is based on the MuCell® foaming process for injection molded parts.

To see more about the MuCell®or PolyOne® process’s reference section F.4B.1 Interior 

Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem.

Table F.5-8: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas 

Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

03 06 00 Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)

03 06 03 Engine Compartment Trim MuCell® Non-Class "A" 

Surfaces

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

F.5.2.6Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates

Table F.5-9 shows the .268kg weight and the $.38 cost reductions per sub-subsystem. 

Using MuCell® on the Engine Compartment Trim sub-subsystem is 100% of the weight 

and cost savings. As stated in the Interior section, the reduction of the 10% plastic mass in

the parts is replaced with a chemical foaming agent or Nitrogen gas, adding to a faster 

cycle time and lower press tonnage for the weight and cost reductions.

Table F.5-9: Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Sound and Heat Control 

Subsystem (Body)
Page 335

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Sub-Subs./ 

Sub-Subs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

1711

03 06 00 Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)

03 06 01 Heat Insulation Shields - Engine Bay 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

03 06 02 Noise Insulation, Engine Bay 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

03 06 03 Engine Compartment Trim A 0.268 $0.38 $1.40 17.54% 0.02%

A 0.268 $0.38 $1.40 5.95% 0.02%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.5.3 Sealing Subsystem

F.5.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview 

Table F.5-10 displays what is included in the Sealing subsystem: Front Side Door 

Dynamic Weatherstrip, Static Sealing, Rear Side Door Dynamic Weatherstrip, Hood 

Dynamic Weatherstrip, and Fender Seals sub-subsystems.

Table F.5-10: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Sealing Subsystem
Page 336

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

03 07 00 Sealing Subsystem

03 07 01 Front Side Door Dynamic Weatherstrip 1.709

03 07 02 Static Sealing 4.792

03 07 03 Rear Side Door Dynamic Weatherstrip 1.427

03 07 04 Hood Dynamic Weatherstrip 0.124

03 07 05 Fender Seals 0.175

Total Subsystem Mass = 8.226

Total System Mass = 220.604

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 3.73%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.48%

Description

F.5.3.2Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Venza has typical sealing/weather-stripping. Automotive sealing/weather-stripping 

must endure extreme hot and cold temperatures, be resistant to automotive liquids such as 

oil, gasoline, and particularly windshield washer fluid, and must resist years of full sun 

exposure. Automotive sealing/weather-stripping is commonly made of EPDM, TPE, TPO

polymers. Image F.5-5 shows the Toyota Venza’s door weather stripping
Page 337

Image F.5-5: Toyota Venza Door Weather Stripping

(Source: FEV Photo)

F.5.3.3Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Mass reduction industry trends for sealing/weather-stripping show that TPE-v or TPV 

thermoplastic polyurethanes, thermoplastic copolyester and thermoplastic polyamides can 

be used to replace EDPM. These materials are 10 to 25% lighter.

F.5.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.5-11 contains the ideas considered for mass reductions on the Sealing subsystem.
Page 338

Table F.5-11: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Sealing 

Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Front Side Door 

Dynamic Weatherstrip Use TPV 25% Mass Reduction Lower cost for material and processing

Static Sealing Use TPV 25% Mass 

Reduction Lower cost for material and processing

Rear Side Door Dynamic 

Weatherstrip Use TPV 25% Mass Reduction Lower cost for material and processing

Hood Dynamic 

Weatherstrip Use TPV 25% Mass Reduction Lower cost for material and processing

Fender Seals Use TPV 25% Mass 

Reduction Lower cost for material and processing

F.5.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Jyco thermoplastic vulcanizates (TPV) weather-stripping materials and technologies were 

selected in consideration of weight savings and cost savings with a lighter, greener, cost 

effective product.
Page 339

Figure F.5-2: Jyco Presentation

(All presentation information supplied by Jyco)
Page 340

Table F.5-12: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Sealing Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas 

Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

03 07 00 Sealing Subsystem

03 05 01 Front Side Door Dynamic Weatherstrip Use TPV

03 05 02 Static Sealing Use TPV

03 05 03 Rear Side Door Dynamic Weatherstrip Use TPV

03 05 04 Hood Dynamic Weatherstrip Use TPV

03 05 05 Fender Seals Use TPV

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

F.5.3.6Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates

Table F.5-13 shows the 2.029kg weight and the $15.70 cost reductions per subsubsystem. Using the Jyco TPV material and process provided 100% of the weight and

cost savings per the Sealing subsystem. 

Table F.5-13: Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Sealing Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Sub-Subs./ 

Sub-Subs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

1711

03 07 00 Sealing Subsystem

03 07 01 Front Side Door Dynamic Weatherstrip A 0.427 $4.21 $9.85 25.00% 0.02%

03 07 02 Static Sealing A 1.198 $7.17 $5.98 25.00% 0.07%

03 07 03 Rear Side Door Dynamic Weatherstrip A 0.356 $3.75 $10.53 24.95% 0.02%

03 07 04 Hood Dynamic Weatherstrip A 0.030 $0.29 $9.44 24.54% 0.00%

03 07 05 Fender Seals A 0.018 $0.29 $16.36 10.13% 0.00%

A 2.029 $15.70 $7.74 24.67% 0.12%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Page 341

F.5.4 Seating Subsystem

F.5.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview 

Table F.5-13 shows included in the Seating subsystem are the Front Drivers Seat, Front 

Passengers Seat, Rear 60% Seat, and Rear 40% Seat sub-subsystems.

Table F.5-14: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Seating Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

03 10 00 Seating Subsystem

03 10 01 Frt Drivers Seat 26.907

03 10 02 Frt Passenger Seat 22.754

03 10 03 Rear 60% Seat 26.481

03 10 04 Rear 40% Seat 16.406

Total Subsystem Mass = 92.548

Total System Mass = 220.604

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 41.95%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 5.41%

Description

F.5.4.2Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Venza front and rear seat frames are a complex array of stamped and welded parts to 

construct the back and bottom frames for all four seat groups. The foam is then placed on 

the back and bottom frames over steel springs. The covering is then added over the foam. 

The covering can be made from number of different materials: cloth, leather, or a blend. 

Image F.5-6 through Image F.5-12 show the seat and seat frames for the Toyota Venza.
Page 342

Image F.5-6: Front Seat Frame

(Source: FEV Photo)

 

Image F.5-7: Front Passenger Seat Image F.5-8:Front Passenger Seat Frame

 (without tracks and active head rest)

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 343

Image F.5-9: Rear 60% & 40% Seat

(Source: FEV Photo)

The rear seat is split into two parts: the 60% portion is split to include the center arm rest 

section while the 40% portion composes the remainder of the rear seat.

The 40% rear seat frame (Image F.4B-11) shows the two independent bottom frames. 

When the fold flat seat back is moved down the bottom seat frame moves outward, this is 

to give the seat back more room to fold flat. Also in Image F.4B-12 is the bottom frame2 

removed from the bottom frame1. 

Image F.5-10: Rear 40% Seat Frame

(Source: FEV Photo)

Seat “split” line
Page 344

Image F.5-11: Bottom pivot frame for the rear 60% seat;

both 40% & 60% have these frames

(Source: FEV Photo)

Image F.5-12: Rear 60% seat back frame

(Source: FEV Photo)

With all of the stampings and weldings in the front and rear seat frames, the weight can 

be considerable, not counting the tooling and capital cost that goes with them. This is why 

a Thixomolding® one-piece magnesium bottom or back frame can save a considerable 

amount of money in piece price. The example used for the calculations was a 

Thixomolded Lexus seat back

F.5.4.3Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

A lot of attention is placed on the automobile seats for the weight that they contribute to 

the overall vehicle weight, especially the high weight of the frames. In today’s market,

more and more emphasis is placed on reducing seat weight. Therefore, many different 

types of seat frame constructions are emerging, such as those of high-strength steel, 
Page 345

carbon fiber, plastics, cast magnesium, and aluminum. There are magnesium and plastic 

seat frames in some production vehicles today. Some seat suppliers have been reluctant to 

the changeover due to a few different reasons; they might have their own stamping 

facility and assembly equipment that has been paid for through many years of seat 

production, so to change over would be too costly, or the cost fluctuation of plastic and 

mag and other lightweight materials are too volatile. Mag was over $6 per kg in 2008 and 

as low as $2.1 in 2007 as were today it’s at $3.1. Also some seat suppliers are not 

concerned with weight over cost. Carry over seat construction is another reason that new 

technologies are not being used. The cost of design and testing can add considerable 

costs. Some OEMs are now pulling seat design in house to get better control over the 

design and build of more light weight seats. As new seat suppliers emerge with proven 

light weight seat technologies and manufacturing process's the thought process will 

change. In the Venza study steel to mag seat frames was a considerable cost increase - for 

the front drivers and passengers seat frames the cost per Kg was in increase of $1.53 per 

Kg and an average $9 cost increase per front seat. With other added weight saving ideas 

the cost was brought down to show an overall seat cost and weight savings. 

F.5.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Reviewing the best option for removing seat frame mass, an in-depth study has to be done 

looking at current materials and processes. Plastic is less weight and cost, but unproven 

for durability, safety, and overall performance. Welded stamped and steel tube is proven, 

and is today’s market mainstay. While it is lower in cost, it is not the best option for 

reducing weight. Welded stamped aluminum provides a good weight savings, but 

aluminum is expensive in comparison to alternative material selections and 

manufacturing costs. Cast aluminum offers the weight savings again, but not the best cost 

savings-to-weight ratio. Carbon fiber offers the best weight savings, but its availability 

and cost of material and manufacturing put this technology out of reach for the near-term. 

Cast magnesium offers a proven track record for durability and safety as well as cost 

savings. A new technology from Thixomat® for injection molding of magnesium stands 

out as a preferred manufacturing process.

Other ideas for seat weight reductions include using different types of foam for the seats, 

such as soy or pine wood. After reviewing these types of foam, however, it was 

determined that they did not provide a substantial weight savings. They also are not 

readily available for mass production. The costs of these materials are also very high. 

Their manufacturing process may actually add to greenhouse gas emissions, as well as 

being non-recyclable. Different types of manufacturing and welding were looked at as 

well for reducing weight and cost.

When analyzing the various options for seat mass reduction, the same solution was used 

for the front seat backs and seat bottoms: using the Thixomolded® Magnesium process. 
Page 346

This process was also used for the 60/40 rear seat backs. The rear seat bottom solution 

that provided the best cost to weight improvement came from The Woodbridge 

Company®. Woodbridge® has developed an EPP foam process and seat design that was 

selected based on weight reduction and manufacturing cost.

Recliner mechanisms contribute a considerable amount of weight to the overall seat 

weight total. These were resized using the Lear EVOTM Mini recliner for all seats to 

reflect the overall reduction in the weight of the seat backs. Table F.5-15 shows some of 

the ideas considered.

Table F.5-15: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Seating 

Subsystem
Page 347

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Frt Seat Bottom & Back 

Frames

Composite Seat Frame 

((Carbon))

20 to 30% Mass 

Reduction

Material not readily available and higher 

cost for material

Frt Seat Bottom & Back 

Frames Cast aluminum seat frames 10 to 20% Mass Reduction Higher material and processing costs

Frt Seat Bottom & Back 

Frames

Hydro-form seat frame 

tubes

10 to 20% Mass 

Reduction Higher processing and capital costs

Frt Seat Bottom & Back 

Frames Plastic 20 to 30% Mass Reduction Warranty and safety issues

Frt Seat Bottom & Back 

Frames Cast Mag 20 to 30% Mass Reduction High material cost and porosity issues

Frt Seat Bottom & Back 

Frames

Reduce size of recliner 

mechanism using Lear 

EVOTM Mini Recliner

 35% Mass 

Reduction Higher cost than conventional recliners

Rear 60/40 Back 

Frames Stamped AL-6022-T4 10 to 20% Mass Reduction

high costs for tooling, processing and 

material

Bottom & Back Frames Laser/Resistance/Friction 

stir weld instead of mig

2 to 5% Mass 

Reduction

Not enough weight save for capital and 

process investment

Bottom & Back Frames Use Velcro to attach fabric 

to frame NA No advantage

Bottom & Back Frames Eliminate center cross rod 

on lower 60% frame NA After review this was feasible

Air Bag Sensor Replace strain gauges with 

pressure sensitive mat

5 to 10% Mass 

Reduction

Not app. For weight distribution weight 

calibration

Foam Cushions Use pine wood based foam 5 to 10% Mass 

Reduction Expensive and not avail.

Foam Cushions Use soy based foam 5 to 10% Mass 

Reduction Expensive and not avail.

Foam Cushions Use NuBax® foam insert 5 to 10% Mass 

Reduction Remove active head rest

Brkts, Armrest RR Seat Make out of ABS 5 to 10% Mass 

Reduction No cost increase

All plastic parts Use MuCell® for non-class 

A surface

10% Mass 

Reduction No cost increase

All plastic parts Use Polyone® for class A 

surface

10% Mass 

Reduction No cost increase

F.5.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.5-16 contains the mass-reduction ideas selected for the Seating subsystem.

Table F.5-16: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Seating Subsystem
Page 348

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas 

Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

03 10 00 Seating Subsystem

03 10 01 Front Drivers Seat

03 10 01 Front Drivers Seat ((Seat Back & Seat Bottom)) Thixomold® Mag Seat Back 

& Bottom

03 10 01 Front Drivers Seat ((Seat Back & Seat Bottom)) Lear EVOTM Mini Recliner

03 10 01 Front Drivers Seat ((Seat Bottom)) ProBax® Structural Foam 

Insert

03 10 01 Front Drivers Seat MuCell® Non-Class "A" 

Surfaces

03 10 01 Front Drivers Seat PolyOne® Class "A" 

Surfaces

03 10 02 Front Passenger Seat

03 10 02 Front Passenger Seat ((Seat Back & Seat Bottom)) Thixomold® Mag Seat Back 

& Bottom

03 10 02 Front Passenger Seat ((Seat Back & Seat Bottom)) Lear EVOTM Mini Recliner

03 10 02 Front Passenger Seat MuCell® Non-Class "A" 

Surfaces

03 10 02 Front Passenger Seat PolyOne® Class "A" 

Surfaces

03 10 03 Rear 60% Seat

03 10 03 Rear 60% Seat ((Seat Back & Seat Bottom)) Lear EVOTM Mini Recliner

03 10 03 Rear 60% Seat ((Seat Back)) Thixomold® Mag Seat Back 

03 10 03 Rear 60% Seat ((Seat Bottom))((Weight and cost w60% 

seat))

Woodbridge® PU/EPP 

Foam 

03 10 03 Rear 60% Seat MuCell® Non-Class "A" 

Surfaces

03 10 03 Rear 60% Seat PolyOne® Class "A" 

Surfaces

03 10 03 Rear 40% Seat

03 10 03 Rear 40% Seat ((Seat Back & Seat Bottom)) Lear EVOTM Mini Recliner

03 10 03 Rear 40% Seat ((Seat Back)) Thixomold® Mag Seat Back 

03 10 03 Rear 40% Seat ((Seat Bottom)) Woodbridge® PU/EPP 

Foam 

03 10 03 Rear 40% Seat MuCell® Non-Class "A" 

Surfaces

03 10 03 Rear 40% Seat PolyOne® Class "A" 

Surfaces

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Page 349

Magnesium was chosen as the best option going forward in the study, many tier one 

suppliers use magnesium in seat frame applications and using magnesium is a wellaccepted material for the front seats back and bottom frames. Magnesium was also 

selected for the back frame of the rear 60/40 seat. Magnesium is 75% lighter than steel 

and 33% lighter than aluminum. Magnesium is the lightest structural material (1.8g/cm3). 

Magnesium is the eighth most abundant element in the Earth's crust. The attributes behind 

selecting Mg are:

High impact resistance

High strength-to-weight ratio

Can be cast and molded to net shape

Excellent dimensional stability/repeatability

Abundant material supply

100% recyclable

The Thixomolding® process of injection-molding magnesium provides reductions in cost 

compared to High Pressure magnesium die casting, the porosity is a major issue with 

High Pressure Die Casting – HPDC. In order to get a good porosity from HPDC 

expensive specialty heat treatable alloys must be used or a squeezing process during 

solidification would need to be done and both add cost. Also ductility and elongation with 

the Thixomolding process is better. There is no need for a holding furnace for molting

metal, in the Thixomolding process which has a high energy cost as well. HPDC is not 

recyclable due to dross and slag whereas Thixomolding is heated during the injection 

cycle and does not produce slag or dross and therefore it is recyclable back into the 

process. Thixomolding is not a hazard to personal whereas HPDC operations need 

personal safety guards put into place at an added cost. HPDC has its place in 

manufacturing, but for this study and the seat frames Thixomolding was chosen as a 

better process due to cost, recyclability and safety.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE

INSTITUTE FOR PROSPECTIVE TECHNOLOGICAL

STUDIES

One significant development is the adoption by Johnson Controls of the new Thixomold 

casting process for some magnesium seat components to go into production for the 1996 

model year. In this process, the metal is forced into the dies in the form of slurry - a state 

between liquid and solid metal - which results in high-density castings free of porosity. 

This highly productive process is another factor improving the prospects of magnesium, 

and for that matter, aluminum. The seat structure is produced as magnesium castings by 
Page 350

the new method, and weighs 2.02 kg, compared with 3.84 kg for optimized steel 

components, offering a weight reduction of 9.1 kg/car.

Also other industries use the Thixomolding process, such as Panasonic uses it to

manufacture their 36" TV consoles face. The Venza seat frame fits well into the size 

limits of the Thixomold size perimeters

The Following are some facts about the Thixomolding® process.

Thixomolding® is an environmentally friendly, high-speed, net-shape, semisolid, 

magnesium injection molding process;

In a single step, the process transforms room-temperature magnesium chips, heated 

to a semi-solid slurry inside a barrel and screw, into precision-molded components;

No sintering or debinding steps are required as in the MIM (metal injection 

molding) process to complete the densification process;

Thixomolded® components, after air cooling, are ready for trimming and assembly 

or secondary operations;

50% lower porosity than high pressure die casting makes them good candidates for 

coating or plating without blistering or out gassing;

Superior mechanical properties and faster cycle rates compared with high pressure 

die casting;

EMI-RFI shielding;

High strength-to-weight ratio;

Dent resistance and good machine ability;

Heat transfer capability;

No surface sinks at wall junctions;

Wide variety of surface finishes available;

Low draft (zero draft possible, 0.5° to 2° typical);

Environmentally friendly process with foundry-free environment liquid-free - no 

molten metal handling as compared to high pressure die casting;

Excellent dimensional repeatability, tight tolerances and the ability to mold thin 

walls;

Better ductility then high pressure die casting;
Page 351

Longer die life compared to high pressure die casting , due to lower temperature of 

material entering mold, and reduced gate velocities;

Environmentally friendly production – worker safe and friendly, cooler work area, 

no global-warming SF6 cover gas, no dross or sludge (unlike Mg foundry 

operations in die casting);

Net or near net-shape parts with little, if any, machining;

No heat treatment required;

Higher metal yield, hence lower costs;

New part design, consolidating several parts into one molding and integrating 

multiple functions.

 

 

Figure F.5-3Thixomolding® examples
Page 352

(All presentation material supplied by Thixomolding®)

Actual production example of a Thixomolded® seat back. Due to confidentiality reasons

the current vehicle or OEM cannot be mentioned

Image F.5-13: Thixomolding® examples

(All presentation material supplied by Thixomolding®)
Page 353

Image F.5-14 (top); Image F.5-15 (bottom): Thixomolding® examples

(All presentation material supplied by Contractor: United States Automotive Materials Partnership 

(USAMP)

i

Contract No.: DE-FC26-020R22910 through the DOE National Energy Technology 

Laboratory

The above Thixomolded Ford F150 Shotgun from the Light weighting Materials FY 2007 

Progress Report by the USAMP & DOE is approximately 21.5” x 13.95”

X-rays were obtained for approximately 75 shotgun parts and representative tensile, yield, 

and elongation (TYE) testes were obtained along with porosity, solids fraction, 
Page 354

dimensional variation for numerous parts and operating conditions. Dimensional 

performance was found to be excellent.

Full front-end structure system-durability testing indicates the Mg shotgun equals the 

performance of the current steel version and weighs approximately 50% less than the steel

components. 240 castings per hour from a single cavity die in the Thixomolding® process 

were made

Utilizing a process such as HPDC to make structural parts is highly desirable by the 

industry. Unfortunately, the presence of porosity in HPDCs has a detrimental effect on 

mechanical properties. A plethora of countermeasures have been developed to combat 

porosity (and other shortcomings) of the HPDC process by introducing into the process 

vacuum, non-turbulent filling of the shot sleeve, and "squeezing" during solidification. 

There are also expensive, specialty, heat-treatable alloys that are used along with one or 

more of the countermeasures to lower porosity levels and improve quality, but not without 

significant increase in cost. In spite of these enhancements and spin-off HPDC-based 

processes, HPDCs continue to be challenged by tradeoff between quality and cost. This 

inhibits the wide use of HPDCs as primary structural parts. 

Besides porosity and non-uniform mechanical properties, adapting HPDC to ULCsUltra-Large Castings, presents other challenges such as low yield. In some cases, over 

50% of the shot weight consists of biscuits, runners and overflows. This has an effect on 

economics, especially for Mg die-castings since Mg is not able to be recycled in-process. 

As casting size increases, runner systems become larger and more complex, increasing 

tooling cost and necessitating the use of larger tonnage die-casting machines. This 

significantly increases the cost of capital equipment.

(Front seat specific) As part of the front seat frames weight reduction, the Lear EVOTM 

Mini Recliner was selected to replace the current Venza recliner mechanisms. The Lear 

EVOTM provides 35% weight reduction and uses 50% less packaging space.
Page 355

 

 Image F.5-16: Lear EVO® Recliner Image F.5-17: Toyota Venza recliner

(Source: LearTM website) (Source: FEV Photo)

Also included was the ProBax® structural foam insert. This technology used in testing 

with three global automotive OEMs allows for the removal of the active head rest as well 

as the lumbar system. No change to the current fir and or function of the seat was made 

using the ProBax foam insert. The following are other advantages to using the ProBax®

system:

ProBax® requires no changes to the existing seat frame, vehicle homologation, or

occupant restraint systems;

ProBax® seating concept tested and patented in 2001;

Feasibility confirmed for principal production processes - molded foam, foam in 

place, cut foam;

Technology now available in automotive industry, U.K. and U.S. contract seating 

(healthcare, corporate, educational) and private aircraft;

First product launch – 2006MY Lotus Elise;
Page 356

Image F.5-18: Lotus Elise Seat

(Source: Supplied by EPA)

Currently in testing with three global Automotive OEMs;

ProBax® insert supports ischial tuberosities to rotate occupant pelvis forward;

Support occupant skeletal structure – not musculature;

Prevent slumped posture (kyphotic spine);

Promote correct posture (lordotic spine);

Increase blood flow with less muscle fatigue: See ProBax web site for 

documentation.

ProBax Foam insert Without ProBax With ProBax

ProBax® reduces distance from cranium to head restraint by improving posture

Figure F.5-4: ProBax® System
Page 357

(All ProBax® presentation material and information provided by ProBax®)

Removal / reduction of lumbar and active head rest mechanisms

 

Image F.5-19: Top of Toyota Venza Active Head Rest (left)

Image F.5-20: Bottom of Toyota Venza Active Head Rest (right)

(Source: FEV Photo)

Removal of additional components

Reduction in production time

Reduction of warranty costs

Reduction in vehicle weight

Overall weight reduction from the Lotus Elise seat resulting from introduction of 

ProBax® technology .8kg

This equals $15-20 per vehicle savings over all

(Rear seat specific) Looking at the back seat frame bottom, The Woodbridge GroupTM has 

a PU/EPP foam process that was reviewed for weight and manufacturing. This process 

removes the welded steel frame and replaces it with a PU/EPP foam structure. The 

welded steel frame structure that was in the Toyota Venza was a carryover seat from the 

Toyota Highlander. Even though the carryover of the seat saved Toyota in a unique 

design and manufacturing costs it was very heavy and not designed for the Toyota Venza 

application.
Page 358
Page 359

Examples

 

Figure F.5-5: The Woodbridge GroupTM Concept and Process

(All presentation material and information provided by The Woodbridge GroupTM)

Economics

Reduced trim assembly labor 

No tooling required for trim assembly 

Eliminate steel welding and fixtures 

BIW savings from integration of anti-sub feature 

Market Examples

Kia TF 30% weight save

Chevy Impala weight save 4kg

Porsche Cayenne weight save 10.5kg

Conclusion
Page 360

Structural foam concept results in weight savings of 20% - 40% 

System designed to pass FMVSS 207 requirements 

Engineered for comfort 

Overall system cost savings 

Several variants currently in production 

F.5.4.6Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates

Table F.5-17 shows the 22.908kg weight and $83.44 cost reductions per sub-subsystem.

Front Drivers Seat

There are magnesium and plastic seat frames in some production vehicles today. Some 

seat suppliers have been reluctant to the changeover due to a few different reasons; they 

might have their own stamping facility and assembly equipment that has been paid for 

through many years of seat production, so to change over would be too costly. Carry over 

seat construction is another reason that new technologies are not being used. The cost of 

design and testing can add considerable costs. Or the cost fluctuation of plastic and mag 

and other lightweight materials are too volatile. Mag was over $6 per kg in 2008 and as 

low as $2.1 in 2007. Also some seat suppliers are not concerned with weight over cost. 

Company's like Ford are now pulling seat design in house to get better control over the 

design and build of more light weight seats. As new seat suppliers emerge with proven 

light weight seat technologies and manufacturing process's the thought process will 

change. In the Venza study steel to mag seat frames was a considerable cost increase - for 

the front drivers and passengers seat frames the cost per Kg was in increase of $1.53 per 

Kg and an average $9 cost increase per front seat. With other added weight saving ideas 

the cost was brought down to show an overall seat cost and weight savings. 

Back Frame

For the front driver’s seat back frame going from welded steel construction to a 

Thixomolded magnesium injected frame, the weight savings was 1.313kg. The frame, 

however, needed new upper recliner mounting brackets welded to the new recliners and 

bolted to the magnesium back frame. This added .749kg back in, for a final welded steelto-a-Thixomolded injection magnesium back frame total weight savings of .563kg. The 
Page 361

cost for going to the Thixomolded magnesium frame and adding in the brackets is an 

increase of $10.07.

Bottom Frame

The addition of the NuBax foam insert to the bottom frame is a 2.158kg weight savings 

due to the ability to remove the active head rest assembly and the lumbar system. This 

also gives a cost decrease of $24.57. Although the NuBax systems data show the 

possibility and potential of removing the active head rest and lumbar systems, it has not

yet been done in production.

The bottom frame going from a welded steel construction to a Thixomolded injection 

molded magnesium frame is a 2.213kg decrease in weight. Plus, with the new Lear EVO 

recliners, another .296kg savings can be found.

The bottom recliner brackets, as with the back frame, will have to be added at a .749kg 

increase, for a total decrease in weight for the bottom seat frame of 1.76kg and a cost

increase of $5.30

Front Drivers Seat Trim

The front seat trim also used the PolyOne for Class “A” surfaces (.206kg/$.38 cost and 

weight savings) and MuCell® for non-Class “A” surfaces (.028kg/$.15 weight and cost 

savings) for a total front driver seat weight savings of 4.715kg and a cost savings of 

$9.73. To see more about the MuCell® or PolyOne® process’s reference section F.4B.1 

Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem

Front Passenger Seat

Back Frame

For the front passenger seat back frame, going from welded steel construction to a 

Thixomolded magnesium injected frame, the weight savings was 1.313kg. The frame, 

however, needed new upper recliner mounting brackets welded to the new recliners and 

bolted to the magnesium back frame. This added .749kg back in. For a welded steel to a 

Thixomolded injection magnesium back frame total weight savings of .564kg. The cost 

for going to the Thixomolded magnesium frame and adding in the brackets is a $10.06 

cost increase.
Page 362

Bottom Frame

The addition of the NuBax foam insert to the bottom frame is a 1.349kg weight savings 

due to the ability to remove the active head rest assembly. This also is a cost decrease of 

$16.21. Although the NuBax systems data shows the possibility and potential of removing 

the active head rest system, it has not yet been done in production.

The bottom frame, going from a welded steel construction to a Thixomolded injection 

molded magnesium frame, is a 2.006kg decrease in weight. Plus, with the new Lear EVO 

recliners, another .252kg savings can be found.

The bottom recliner brackets, as with the back frame, will have to be added at a .749kg 

increase, for a total decrease in weight for the bottom seat frame of 1.509kg – but with a 

cost increase of $10.19. The cost increase is larger than the front driver seat due to more 

magnesium used for the bottom frame.

Front passenger seat trim

The front passenger seat trim also used the PolyOne for Class “A” surfaces (.200kg/$.48

weight and cost savings) and MuCell for non-Class “A” surfaces (.018kg/$.062 weight 

and cost savings) for a total front passenger seat weight savings of 3.638kg and a cost 

increase of $3.49

Rear 60% Seat

Back Frame

For the rear 60% seat portion back frame, a welded steel construction changed to a 

Thixomolded magnesium injected frame that will be bolted to the BIW and not to the rear 

60% seat base and bottom, a weight savings of 3.622kg can be achieved. The arm rest 

bracket was also changed from a stamped steel bracket to ABS plastic, with an added 

30% volume of plastic for strength. The arm rest bracket is a non-critical load part with a 

.439kg weight savings.

The overall weight decrease/savings for a welded steel back frame construction to a 

Thixomolded injection magnesium back frame with an added weight decrease/savings of 
Page 363

the arm rest bracket a total weight savings of 4.061kg and a cost savings of $14.94 can be 

achieved.

Bottom & Base Frame

For the base and bottom frames to be calculated, the rear seat 40% and 60% base and 

bottoms had to be added together. Using the Woodbridge GroupTM PU/EPP foam process 

(as shown in section 5.3B.4.5) the overall savings are 9.289kg weight and $67.28 cost.

Rear 60% seat trim

The rear 60% seat trim also used the PolyOne for Class “A” surfaces (.083kg/$.25 weight 

and cost savings) and MuCell for non-Class “A” surfaces (.117kg/$.41 weight and cost 

savings) for a total rear 60% seat and the 40% rear seat base and bottom weight savings 

of 13.551kg and a cost savings of $82.87

Rear 40% Seat

Back Frame

For the rear seat 40% portion of the back frame, which is a welded steel construction,

being changed to a Thixomolded magnesium injected frame that will be bolted to the 

BIW and not to the rear 40% seat base and bottom, the weight saved was 1.35kg with a 

$4.94 cost increase.

Rear 40% seat trim

The rear 40% seat trim also used the PolyOne for Class “A” surfaces (.05kg/$.08 weight 

and cost savings) and MuCell for non-class “A” surfaces (.089kg/$.302 weight and cost 

savings) for a total rear 40% seat back and trim weight savings of 1.488kg and a cost 

increase of $4.56.

Table F.5-17: Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Seating Subsystem
Page 364

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Sub-Subs./ 

Sub-Subs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

1711

03 10 00 Seating Subsystem

03 10 01 Seat Drivers Frt A 4.715 $9.73 $2.06 17.53% 0.28%

03 10 02 Seat Passenger Frt D 3.638 -$3.49 -$0.96 15.99% 0.21%

03 10 03 Seat Rear 60% A 13.551 $82.87 $6.12 51.17% 0.79%

03 10 04

Seat Rear 40% ((Weight & Cost reduction of 

40% seat base & bottom w/60% Seat, the weight 

and cost save calculated here is for the rear 40% 

seat back & trim only))

D 1.488 -$4.56 -$3.06 9.07% 0.09%

A 23.392 $84.55 $3.61 25.28% 1.37%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.5.5 Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem

F.5.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.5-18, the Instrument Panel and Console subsystem has four subsubsystems containing mass. The primary ones are the Cross-Car Beam (CCB), 

Instrument Panel Main Molding, and Center Stack sub-subsystems. The CCB includes the 

beam and all welded brackets. It serves as the primary mounting structure for all 

Instrument Panel sub-assemblies and modules like the HVAC Main Unit, radio, glove 

box, center stack, and steering wheel. The Instrument Panel Main Molding includes the 

instrument panel trim and other plastic covers and structural components that surround 

the dash. The Center Stack sub-subsystem is made up of the center console and center 

stack (connects the IP to the center console).

Table F.5-18: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Instrument Panel and Console 

Subsystem
Page 365

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

03 12 00 Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem

03 12 01 Cross-Car Beam (IP) (CCB Beam and welded brackets) 10.366

03 12 03 Instrument Panel Main Molding 11.838

03 12 06 Applied Parts - (IP) (Access Panels) 0.008

03 12 18 Center Stack (Center Console) 10.476

Total Subsystem Mass = 32.688

Total System Mass = 220.604

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 14.82%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 1.91%

Description

F.5.5.2Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza has a traditional steel CCB with welded brackets and fixtures as shown 

in Image F.5-21. The beam has two sections with different diameters. Components are 

mostly welded together with some use of fasteners.

Image F.5-21: Toyota Venza Cross-Car Beam

(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)

The Instrument Panel Base Dash, shown in Image F.5-22 and Image F.5-23, is a 

polypropylene and polyethylene talc-filled blend. There is polyurethane foam (Image 
Page 366

F.5-24) under the skin cover. The glove box assembly and all lower dash trim also make 

up the Instrument Panel Main Molding sub-subsystem. The majority of the glove box and 

dash trim parts has a Class “A” surface finish and is either talc-filled polypropylene or 

nylon.

Image F.5-22: Top of Dash, IP Base with Skin Cover

(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)

Image F.5-23: Bottom of Dash, IP Base

(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
Page 367

Image F.5-24: Dash, IP Base with Skin Cover Removed

(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)

The Center Stack sub-subsystem of the Instrument Panel includes the entire Center 

Console and the trim that connects the instrument panel to the console. The Center Stack 

Trim includes several storage compartments, cup holders, and accessory power outlets. 

The Center Stack includes some non-Class “A” parts made of ABS, but is mostly 

composed of Class “A” surface parts made of talc-filled PP or nylon.

F.5.5.3Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

The most notable opportunity for light-weighting the Instrument Panel and Console 

subsystem is with the CCB. There are a variety of light-weighting technologies and ideas 

being applied to CCBs throughout the industry. Traditionally, CCBs have been rolled 

steel products, but this is starting to transform. Mubea, Inc. is a company that specializes 

in Tailor Rolled Products. They use specialty rolling equipment that varies the thickness 

of a single piece so that thick sections are only applied where structurally necessary 

(Figure F.5-6) Other sections of the same beam are manufactured to be thinner, thus 

saving weight compared to a traditional CCB. Utilizing this technology not only saves 

weight, but the reduced raw material cost will offset the additional processing cost, 

resulting in a near cost-neutral exchange. Tailor Rolled Beams are currently used on the 

CCBs of BMW’s 1, 3, 5, and 7 Series vehicles.
Page 368

Figure F.5-6: Illustration of Mubea’s Tailor Rolled Blank Process

(Source: Mubea http://www.stahl.karosserie-netzwerk.info/59.htm)

Automakers have also begun using alternative materials on cross-car beams. These 

include the use of both aluminum and magnesium. The McLaren MP4-12C uses 

aluminum CCBs, and the Jaguar XKR, BMW X5, and BMW X6 all use magnesium. 

Chrysler has also embraced non-ferrous CCBs, using magnesium in the Dodge Caliber 

and on numerous Jeep models. The magnesium CCB from the 2010 Dodge Caliber 2.4 

R/T is shown in Image F.5-25. This magnesium beam differs significantly in design and 

manufacturing process than the baseline Venza beam in Image F.5-21. The magnesium 

beam is a one-piece die casted component while the steel beam is a multi-piece rolled, 

stamped, and welded assembly. 

The Stolfig® Group in Europe conducted a comparison of three CCBs as shown in Image 

F.5-26. The weight savings associated with aluminum and magnesium beams compared 

to steel is immediately apparent, but of course this mass reduction is not without a cost 

penalty.
Page 369

(a) Front View

(b) Back View

Image F.5-25: Dodge Caliber Magnesium Cross-Car Beam

(Source: A2mac1 

http://www.a2mac1.com/Autoreverse/reversepart.asp?productid=150&clientid=1&producttype=2)
Page 370

Image F.5-26: CCB Examples Compared by the Stolfig® Group

(Source: Stolfig http://www.stolfig.com/lang/en/services/carbeam.php)

Concerning the plastic components that make up the IP Subsystem, the use of Trexel’s 

MuCell® technology is beginning to be used by Ford to reduce the weight of plastic parts. 

Also, PolyOne’s Chemical Foaming Agents (CFAs) are capable of reducing the mass of 

plastic components while attempting to maintain a Class “A” surface finish. MuCell 

technology is currently used by major OEM’s like Audi, Ford, BMW and VW as 

introduced in section F.4B.1. PolyOne technology is currently used in production in 

industrial housings and structural foam applications as introduced in section 

F.4B.1.SABIC® is a materials supplier with much of their focus on plastics. They are one 

of the largest plastics suppliers in the world and provided numerous mass reduction ideas 

across all systems of the vehicle, one of which is the Instrument Panel subsystem. 

SABIC’s long glass fiber polypropylene (LGF-PP), Stamax®, is a material used on 

instrument panels to maintain rigidity requirements while also reducing weight. 

Material: Steel

Thickness: 1.0 mm

Mass: 8.54 kg

Material: 

Aluminum

Thickness: 1.5 mm

Mass: 4.41 kg

Material: 

Magnesium

Thickness: 1.7 mm

Mass: 3.22 kg
Page 371

According to SABIC®, a mass reduction of 30% is attainable as the use of LGF-PP 

allows the wall thickness of the Instrument Panel Dash Base to be reduced to 2 mm (the 

thickness of the Venza IP is 3 mm). The rigidity is maintained over a wide temperature 

range. Instrument Panel thicknesses as thin as 1.8 mm are currently in production. LGFPP has a higher modulus than talc-filled PP, and the use of advanced engineering 

simulation (Autodesk® Moldflow® software) and FEA allow SABIC® to achieve such 

mass reduction.

F.5.5.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Ideas that were considered to reduce the Instrument Panel and Console subsystem mass 

are compiled in Table F.5-19. For the CCB, aluminum and magnesium material changes 

were judged along with Mubea’s TRB technology. For the plastics parts, Chemical 

Foaming Agents and MuCell® were options along with SABIC’s Stamax® for the 

Instrument Panel Dash.

Table F.5-19: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Instrument 

Panel and Console Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Cross-Car Beam Tailor Rolled Beam 10% mass reduction Low cost increase, in production on 

BMW 1, 3, 5, & 7 Series

Cross-Car Beam Change material to 

Aluminum

30-50% mass 

reduction

Moderately high cost, used in low volume 

production on McLaren MP4-12C 

Cross-Car Beam Change material to 

Magnesium

40-60% mass 

reduction

High cost, used in high volume 

production on Dodge Caliber, Jeep 

Grand Cherokee, BMW X5 & X6

Plastic Components

(non-Class A surface 

finish)

MuCell® 10% mass reduction Low cost, MuCell used in high volume 

production by Ford

Plastic Components

(Class A surface finish)

PolyOne Chemical 

Foaming Agent

10-20% mass 

reduction

Low cost, CFA for PP currently under test 

for use in high volume production 

vehicles

Instrument Panel Plastic 

Core

SABIC's LGF-PP 

(Stamax®)

30% mass reduction Moderately high cost, used on high 

volume production vehicles

F.5.5.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The three sub-subsystems to which mass reduction ideas were applied are shown in Table 

F.5-20. Magnesium was selected to be used for the CCB. While high in material cost, 

magnesium offers a substantial weight savings and, after evaluation, was favorable to the 
Page 372

aluminum CCB and Mubea’s TRB process. Magnesium beams are also in current use by 

multiple OEMs. The multi-piece steel CCB was reduced to a two-component assembly 

with the magnesium beam. The magnesium beam was manufactured using die casting, 

which lends itself to component integration. Some general assumptions were initially 

applied to convert the CCB from steel to magnesium. In particular, the gauge of the 

material was doubled to account for the reduced strength magnesium exhibits compared 

to steel. Magnesium’s yield strength is in the 200-275 MPa range depending on the alloy 

used. A common steel used for a CCB is HSLA 420, which exhibits a yield strength of 

around 420-550 MPa. For the rough assumptions in this analysis, the increase in thickness 

of the magnesium CCB would increase its moment of inertia, thereby making up for the 

relatively low strength of magnesium compared to steel. In order to validate this, 

mathematical modeling would need to be conducted based on the testing requirements for 

the CCB. Such an engineering analysis was beyond the scope of this study. In light of 

this, the benchmarking results were cross-referenced. The Dodge Caliber’s magnesium 

beam is 5.6 kg and the BMW X5’s is 5.8 kg. In reality, the magnesium CCB will take a 

much different shape than the baseline steel one as illustrated in the pictures in the 

previous sections. It was determined that using the mass of existing magnesium CCBs 

would be a secure approach as opposed to the mass that resulted using the thickness 

increase assumptions. Therefore, an average of these two numbers was used for the 

Venza’s redesigned CCB resulting in a final mass of 5.7 kg, saving approximately 4 kg 

versus the baseline steel beam. The magnesium CCB was not considered in the NVH or 

crash analyses performed.The NVH analysis provided in the report does not include the 

Cross Car Beam (CCB). The dynamic and static modes did not include "bolted" on parts 

/ components. But rather the configuration was the same as actually tested in the NVH 

Lab. While it is true the CCB plays a significant role in vehicle level NVH modal 

separation strategy it was not considered in the BIW structure analysis. The crash models 

on the other hand did include the CCB and it was modeled in steel. Once again based on 

the scope of the project and using the crash models for comparison it was felt the use of a 

steel CCB would result in a realistic comparison of the body performance during major 

crash events.

The Tailor Rolled Blank CCB for this particular vehicle did not result in a favorable 

dollar-per-kilogram ratio. For typical steel CCBs, Mubea’s process is competitive; 

however, for the Toyota Venza, Mubea determined that there were no potential weight 

savings without a significant cost penalty.

Some general assumptions were initially applied to convert the CCB from steel to 

magnesium. In particular, the gauge of the material was doubled to account for the 

reduced strength magnesium exhibits compared to steel. Magnesium’s yield strength is in 

the 200-275 MPa range depending on the alloy used. A common steel used for a CCB is 

HSLA 420, which exhibits a yield strength of around 420-550 MPa. For the rough 

assumptions in this analysis, the increase in thickness of the magnesium CCB would 
Page 373

increase its moment of inertia, thereby making up for the relatively low strength of 

magnesium compared to steel. In order to validate this, mathematical modeling would 

need to be conducted based on the testing requirements for the CCB. Such an engineering 

analysis was beyond the scope of this study. In light of this, the benchmarking results 

were cross-referenced. The Dodge Caliber’s magnesium beam is 5.6 kg and the BMW 

X5’s is 5.8 kg. In reality, the magnesium CCB will take a much different shape than the 

baseline steel one as illustrated in the pictures in the previous sections. It was determined 

that using the mass of existing magnesium CCBs would be a secure approach as opposed 

to the mass that resulted using the thickness increase assumptions. Therefore, an average 

of these two numbers was used for the Venza’s redesigned CCB resulting in a final mass 

of 5.7 kg, saving approximately 4 kg versus the baseline steel beam. The magnesium 

CCB was not considered in the NVH or crash analyses performed.

SABIC’s Stamax® LGF-PP was applied to the Dash Instrument Panel Base as it yielded a 

30% weight reduction. MuCell® was used on eligible plastic parts that had a non-Class 

“A” surface finish to reduce the weight by 10%. PolyOne’s CFAs were applied to eligible 

plastic parts that had Class A surface finishes resulting in a 10% mass reduction per part.

MuCell technology is currently used by major OEM’s like Audi, Ford, BMW and VW as 

introduced in Section F.5.1. PolyOne technology is currently used in production in 

industrial housings and structural foam applications as introduced in Section F.5.1.

Table F.5-20: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Instrument Panel and 

Console Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

03 12 00 Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem

03 12 01 Cross-Car Beam (IP) (CCB Beam 

and welded brackets) Change CCB from steel to magnesium

03 12 03 Instrument Panel Main Molding SABIC's Stamax LGF-PP applied to Dash Core. MuCell® and 

PolyOne CFA on non-Class A and Class A parts, respectively.

03 12 06 Applied Parts - (IP) (Access Panels) n/a

03 12 18 Center Stack (Center Console) MuCell® and PolyOne CFA on non-Class A and Class A parts, 

respectively.

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Page 374

F.5.5.6Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.5-21 shows the weight savings for the ideas applied to the Instrument Panel and 

Console Subsystem as well as their cost impact. As seen in the first line of this table, the 

magnesium CCB generates a cost increase of $11.57 and saves approximately 4 kg.

The Instrument Panel Main Molding sub-subsystem includes the Instrument Panel Dash 

Base, to which the Stamax® LGF-PP was applied, and it accounted for 70% of the 1.627

kg weight saved. The remaining 30% of the mass reduction was reduced by applying 

PolyOne’s CFAs. The Stamax LGF-PP raises the cost of this sub-subsystem by over 

$3.30, but the cost is decreased to a $2.38 hit when the CFA is applied to the other 

components in the sub-subsystem.

The Center Stack sub-subsystem resulted in a cost savings because only MuCell® and 

PolyOne’s CFAs were applied. Even though both of these technologies initially add cost, 

the mass reduction from the parts results in a lower material cost, which typically leads to 

an overall cost savings. PolyOne’s CFAs contribute to 95% of the 0.728 kg weight 

savings and to 90% of the $1.46 cost savings. The rest is accounted for by MuCell®.

MuCell technology is currently used by major OEM’s like Audi, Ford, BMW and VW as 

introduced in Section F.5.1. PolyOne technology is currently used in production in 

industrial housings and structural foam applications as introduced in Section F.5.1.

Table F.5-21: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

03 12 00 Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem

03 12 01 Cross-Car Beam (IP) D 3.975 -$11.57 -$2.91 38.35% 0.23%

03 12 03 Instrument Panel Main Molding C 1.627 -$2.38 -$1.46 13.74% 0.10%

03 12 06 Applied Parts - (IP) (Access Panels) 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

03 12 18 Center Stack (Center Console) A 0.728 $1.46 $2.00 6.95% 0.04%

C 6.330 -$12.49 -$1.97 19.36% 0.37%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Page 375

F.5.6 Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem

F.5.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview

The Occupant Restraining Device subsystem includes seat belt assemblies and airbag 

modules. The sub-subsystem breakdown by name and mass is shown in Table F.5-21. 

The Seat Belt Assembly Front Row sub-subsystem and Seat Belts – Second Row subsubsystem weights largely come from the gear and spring mechanisms that retract the seat 

belt and lock it into position. There are a total of seven airbags in the Toyota Venza: 

Steering Wheel, Driver’s Side Knee, Passenger Side, Front Driver’s Seat, Front 

Passenger’s Seat, Driver’s Side Air Curtain, and Passenger’s Side Air Curtain.

The seat belt restraints did not have any mass reduced and were assumed to remain 

unchanged going from the baseline to the redesign. An engineering analysis may have to 

be performed on the seat belt reaction time for the new vehicle due to its overall reduction 

in mass and different response to a crash, but such an investigation was beyond the scope 

of this study.

Table F.5-22: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
Page 376

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

03 20 00 Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem

03 20 01 Seat Belt Assembly Front Row 4.250

03 20 03 Passenger Airbag / Cover Unit 2.427

03 20 06 Restraint Electronics (Crash Sensor and Airbag Cables) 0.232

03 20 08 Seat Belts - Second Row 3.353

03 20 10 Front Side Airbag (Side Seat Airbags) 0.862

03 20 13 Deployable Roll Bar Systems (Air Curtains) 3.186

03 20 14 Inflatable Knee Bolster or Active Leg Protection (Driver Knee Airbag) 2.024

03 20 15 Tether Anchorages - Non Integrated 0.006

03 20 18 Steering Wheel Airbag 1.097

Total Subsystem Mass = 17.438

Total System Mass = 220.604

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 7.90%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 1.02%

Description

F.5.6.2Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza represents a conservative approach to the design of the airbag 

modules. Steel is used for nearly all of the housings and brackets as shown for the 

Passenger Side Airbag Housing in Image F.5-27 and Image F.5-28. The airbag material 

itself is a standard nylon fabric (used on most airbags in the industry) and dual-stage 

airbag inflators are used (Image F.5-29 and Image F.5-30). As a result of the metal 

housings used in the baseline Steering Wheel Airbag, numerous fasteners are necessary to 

assemble components together as pointed out in Image F.5-30. These include screws, 

rivets, studs, nuts, and springs.

Image F.5-27: Toyota Venza Passenger Side Airbag Housing (without airbag)
Page 377

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.5-28: Toyota Venza Passenger Side Airbag Housing (with airbag)

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.5-29: Toyota Venza Passenger Side Airbag Housing (rear view with inflator)

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Despite the numerous fastening commodity components in the Steering Wheel Airbag 

(Image F.5-30), it is initially a lightweight design. The main housing is die cast from 

magnesium and is even lighter than many plastic housings.
Page 378

Image F.5-30: Toyota Venza Steering Wheel Airbag Assembly, showing various fasteners

(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)

F.5.6.3Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Plastic airbag housings are used on many high volume vehicle applications. DSM 

Engineering Plastics is a global plastics supplier and specializes in metal to plastic 

replacements in automotive applications. Their Akulon® products, glass fiber reinforced 

glass-filled polyamide, have been used on many driver and passenger air bag housings for 

all of the domestic OEMs over the last 10 years. An example of a steel to plastic airbag 

housing is shown in Figure F.5-7. As seen, the design remains quite similar when 

changed from a multi-piece steel unit to a single-piece injection-molded housing. This 

allows for easy integration into an existing product line. Figure F.5-8, in fact, displays 

the baseline Toyota Venza Passenger Side Airbag Housing next to a rendering of a very 

similar design when converted to plastic. This resemblance reinforces the applicability of 

a plastic injection molded airbag for the Venza.

Nut & Stud (Qty: 4)

Spring Assembly

(Qty: 3)

Rivet (Qty: 2)

Nut (Qty: 2)
Page 379

Figure F.5-7: Passenger Side Airbag Housings, Fabricated Steel Assembly (left) and Injection 

Molded Plastic Component (right)

(Source: Images Courtesy of DSM Engineering Plastics & Takata)

 

Figure F.5-8: Toyota Venza’s Steel Airbag Housing (left) and Plastic Airbag Housing Rendering 

(right)

(Left Picture Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)

(Right Picture Source: Photo Courtesy of DSM Engineering Plastics)

Takata Corporation, a leading global supplier of automotive safety systems, provided 

significant mass-reduction ideas for the airbag modules for this study. The most 
Page 380

innovative of which was its Vacuum Folding Technology (VFT). VFT is a process that 

allows the bags to be packed much more tightly than airbags traditionally have been by 

pulling a vacuum during its packaging. The surrounding components (housings, covers, 

etc.) can then be made smaller and, therefore, with lighter weight. A size reduction of 30-

60% is typically observed accompanied by a mass reduction of around 20-35%. A size 

comparison of a standard airbag module versus a VFT is illustrated in Image F.5-31.

Image F.5-31: Standard Airbag Module (left) and VFT Module (right)

(Source: Photo Courtesy of Takata)

To keep the airbag tightly packed in a low-pressure state, it is sealed in a multi-layer 

plastic foil as shown in Figure F.5-99. This foil is the only added component in a VFT 

airbag module and weighs only a few grams.
Page 381

Figure F.5-9: VFT Airbag Foil

(Source: Courtesy of Takata)

The VFT airbag meets all required FMVSS and other safety standards and won a Society 

of Plastics Engineers award in 2010 and a Pace Award in the Process category for VFT in 

April of 2011. This VFT technology has already been applied to the Ferrari 458 Italia and 

McLaren MP4-12C (Image F.5-32), which are both low-volume production vehicles. In 

2012, a high-volume vehicle will be released utilizing Takata’s VFT airbag.

Image F.5-32: VFT Airbag used in Ferrari 458 Italia (left) and McLaren MP4-12C (right)

(Source: Photo Courtesy of Takata)

Highly compressed 

cushion pack

Upper Foil

Lower Foil

Cushion 

Retention

Ring
Page 382

In addition to mass reduction, Takata’s VFT airbag module also provides styling benefits 

allowing the steering wheel designer more freedom as the airbag module decreases in 

size. Smaller airbag modules may also allow for a possible standardization of hardware as 

surrounding components can become more common in size due to the now-predictable 

size of a VFT airbag.

Takata shed light upon single-stage airbag inflators, which will likely replace dual-stage 

inflators in the near future. Dual-stage inflators were used to vary the force and speed at 

which the airbag deployed based on the size and orientation of the person in the seat. This 

will no longer be necessary, however, as the airbags themselves are passively adapting to 

the passenger allowing the inflators to revert to a smaller and lighter single-stage design 

as shown in Image F.5-32. The inflators shown are from the same vehicle generation and 

application for the purposes of a direct and fair comparison. The dual-stage inflator in 

picture (a) of Image F.5-33weighs 415 grams compared to 340 grams, which is the mass 

of the single-stage inflator in picture (b). The diameter of each inflator is the same, but 

the height of the single-stage is 6.8 mm less than the dual-stage.

 

(a) Dual-stage Inflator (b) Single-stage Inflator

Image F.5-33: Comparison of Dual and Single-Stage Airbag Inflators

(Source: Photo Courtesy of Takata)

Takata has also been utilizing plastic airbag housings. They have worked with DSM 

Engineering Plastics to use the 40% glass-filled polyamide (as shown earlier for the 

passenger airbag housing in Image F.5-28 and Image F.5-29) for steering wheel airbag 

housings also. A high volume production example is shown in Image F.5-34, which is 

currently being produced for the Chevrolet Cruze. By going to a plastic housing, assembly

becomes less complicated. A plastic housing can snap to the mating plastic cover 

eliminating the need for fastening components thus simplifying design, reducing mass, 

and reducing cost.
Page 383

Image F.5-34: Steering Wheel Airbag Housing for Chevrolet Cruze

(Source: Part Courtesy of Takata, FEV, Inc. Photo)

F.5.6.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Mass reduction ideas that were considered for the Occupant Restraining Device 

subsystem are shown in Table F.5-23 . Converting the Venza’s steel airbag housing 

assemblies for the passenger side, driver’s side knee, and steering wheel were all options 

as proposed by DSM. Takata’s ideas noted in the previous section were also all 

considered. PolyOne’s Chemical Foaming Agent (reference Section 5.3B.1.1 for detailed 

information) was considered for the Driver’s Side Knee Airbag Cover. Lotus Engineering 

did not apply any light-weighting ideas to the safety systems. Note that the estimated 

mass reduction percentages in Table F.5-23 are relative to the component(s) for that line 

item, not relative to the entire airbag assembly. MuCell technology is currently used by 

major OEM’s like Audi, Ford, BMW and VW as introduced in Section F.5.1. PolyOne 

technology is currently used in production in industrial housings and structural foam 

applications as introduced in Section F.5.1.

Table F.5-23: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Occupant

Restraining Device Subsystem
Page 384

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Passenger's Side Airbag 

Housing

Change from fabricated 

steel assembly to single 

piece injection molded 

DSM Akulon part

50% mass reduction Potential cost save, used on numerous 

high volume production applications

Driver's Side Knee 

Airbag

Change from welded steel 

assembly to single piece 

injection molded DSM 

Akulon part

50% mass reduction Potential cost save, used on numerous 

high volume production applications

Driver's Side Knee 

Airbag Cover

Apply PolyOne CFA to 

plastic cover 10% mass reduction

Low cost, CFA for PP currently under test 

for use in high volume production 

vehicles

Steering Wheel Airbag

Use Takata's Vacuum 

Folding Technology to 

reduce size

20 - 35% mass 

reduction

Moderately high cost, used on low 

volume production Ferrari 458 Italia and 

McLaren MP4-12C

Steering Wheel Airbag Replace dual-stage inflator 

with single-stage 20% mass reduction To be used on 2013 model year car according to Takata

Steering Wheel Airbag

Change from 

magnesium/steel housing 

to single piece injection 

molded part

5 - 10% mass 

reduction

Allows part integration and reduction in 

fasteners, currently used in Chevrolet 

Cruze

Steering Wheel Airbag

Replace complex spring 

mechanism & bracket for 

horn with singe trace horn 

system

80% mass reduction

Reduces fasteners and other horn 

bracket components, easily integrates 

with plastic housing, in production on 

multiple Nissan and Toyota models

F.5.6.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

All ideas that were considered for weight savings for this subsystem from Table 

F.5-23were applied as shown in Table F.5-24. There were no ideas for parts in the subsubsystems, which contain an “n/a” designation. Each of the ideas that were applied are 

either being used in high-volume production currently or will be soon.

Table F.5-24: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Occupant Restraining 

Device Subsystem
Page 385

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

03 20 00 Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem

03 20 01 Seat Belt Assembly Front Row n/a

03 20 03 Passenger Airbag / Cover Unit DSM's Akulon® (PA6) replaces steel for housing.

03 20 06 Restraint Electronics (Crash Sensor 

and Airbag Cables) n/a

03 20 08 Seat Belts - Second Row n/a

03 20 10 Front Side Airbag (Side Seat Airbags) n/a

03 20 13 Deployable Roll Bar Systems (Air 

Curtains) n/a

03 20 14 Inflatable Knee Bolster or Active Leg 

Protection (Driver Knee Airbag)

DSM's Akulon® (PA6) replaces steel for housing. PolyOne's 

Chemical Foaming Agent applied in plastic cover.

03 20 15 Tether Anchorages - Non Integrated n/a

03 20 18 Steering Wheel Airbag

Takata's VFT process used to decrease airbag packaging size 

thereby allowing a size/mass reduction of surrounding 

components. Use single-stage inflator instead of dual-stage. 

Convert housing to DSM's Akulon® (PA6). Simplify horn 

spring assembly.

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

F.5.6.6Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

The estimated mass reduction and associated cost impacts are shown in Table F.5-25 for 

the Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem. 

The single idea in the Passenger Airbag/Cover Unit sub-subsystem was to replace the 

multi-piece steel Passenger Side Airbag Housing with a one piece injection molded PA6-

GF40 part. This resulted in a 0.483 kg weight save at a $0.72 cost increase as shown in 

the table.

The Inflatable Knee Bolster sub-subsystem included two mass reduction ideas. The 

Driver’s Side Knee Airbag Housing was converted to plastic and a Chemical Foaming 

Agent was applied to its already plastic cover. The mass reduction due to the steel to 

plastic housing conversion accounts for 95% of the 0.377 kg saved and increased the cost 

by $0.47. Applying the CFA reduced the cost by $0.06 resulting in an overall $0.41 cost 

hit for this sub-subsystem.

All of the modifications imposed on the Steering Wheel Airbag saved 0.2 kg and caused 

an overall cost increase of $1.75 for the sub-subsystem as seen in the last line of Table 

F.5-25. There were four separate ideas applied to the Steering Wheel Airbag. The 
Page 386

breakdown on a percentage basis of how much each contributed to the 0.2 kg savings is 

shown in Figure F.5-1010.

VFT

10%

Plastic Housing

20%

Single Trace Horn

29%

Inflator Down-size

41%

Figure F.5-10: Breakdown of Steering Wheel Airbag Mass Reductions

It should be noted that the Vacuum Folding Technology applied to the Steering Wheel 

Airbag can also be applied to other airbag modules throughout the vehicle and will likely 

be done so on future vehicles although it is not currently in production and was not 

performed in this study.

Table F.5-25: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
Page 387

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

03 20 00 Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem

03 20 01 Seat Belt Assembly Front Row 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

03 20 03 Passenger Airbag / Cover Unit C 0.483 -$0.72 -$1.49 19.90% 0.03%

03 20 06 Restraint Electronics (Crash Sensor and Airbag 

Cables) 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

03 20 08 Seat Belts - Second Row 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

03 20 10 Front Side Airbag (Side Seat Airbags) 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

03 20 13 Deployable Roll Bar Systems (Air Curtains) 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

03 20 14 Inflatable Knee Bolster or Active Leg Protection 

(Driver Knee Airbag) C 0.377 -$0.41 -$1.08 18.64% 0.02%

03 20 15 Tether Anchorages - Non Integrated 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

03 20 18 Steering Wheel Airbag X 0.200 -$1.75 -$8.76 18.19% 0.01%

D 1.060 -$2.88 -$2.71 6.08% 0.06%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.6 Body System Group C

The Body System Group C includes the Exterior Trim and Ornamentation, Rear View 

Mirror, Front End Module and Rear End Module subsystems. Table F.6-1 identifies the 
Page 388

Exterior Trim and Ornamentation subsystem as the most significant weight contributor to 

this system, supplying approximately 50% of the system mass. 

 Table F.6-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Body System Group C

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

System & 

Subsystem 

Mass

"kg"

03 00 00 Body System (Group -C-) 

03 08 01 Exterior Trim and Ornamentation 13.383

03 08 02 Rear View Mirrors 2.760

03 08 04 Front End Modules 5.033

03 08 07 Rear End Modules 5.390

Total System Mass = 26.566

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 1.55%

Description

The main contributor to the mass reduction and cost savings was the Exterior Trim and 

Ornamentation subsystem, with the front and rear fascias attributing nearly all savings for 

the Body System Group C.

Table F.6-2: Mass Reductions and Cost Impact for System Group C
Page 389

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

System/ 

Subsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

03 00 00 Body System (Group -C-) 

03 08 01 Exterior Trim and Ornamentation A 1.147 $2.31 $2.01 4.32% 0.07%

03 08 02 Rear View Mirrors A 0.218 $0.73 $3.35 0.82% 0.01%

03 08 04 Front End Modules A 0.514 $2.24 $4.36 1.93% 0.03%

03 08 07 Rear End Modules A 0.514 $2.32 $4.51 1.93% 0.03%

A 2.393 $7.60 $3.18 9.01% 0.14%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

Description

F.6.1 Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem

F.6.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.6-3 identifies the most significant contributor to the mass of the Exterior Trim 

and Ornamentation subsystem as the lower exterior trim finishers. The rocker trim and all 

lower door finishers, upper exterior and roof finishers, rear closure finisher, emblems, 

rear spoiler, cowl vent grill assembly, and subsystem attachments make up the rest of the 

weight.

Table F.6-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Page 390

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

03 08 00 Exterior Trim and Ornamentation

03 08 01 Radiator Grill 1.460

03 08 02 Lower Exterior Finishers 4.350

03 08 04 Upper Exterior and Roof Finishers 0.870

03 08 07 Rear Closure Finisher 1.334

03 08 12 Emblems 0.096

03 08 14 Rear Spoiler 1.843

03 08 15 Cowl Vent Grill Assembly 2.720

03 08 99 Exterior Trim Attachments 0.710

Total Subsystem Mass = 13.383

Total System Mass = 26.57

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 50.38%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.78%

Description

F.6.1.2Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza’s Exterior Trim and Ornamentation is typical for the industry. There is 

a chrome-plated plastic grill with emblem, a rear hatch finishing panel with license plate 

lighting provisions, and emblems. Also, there is a spoiler, door finishing panels, roof 

ditch moldings, and cowl vent screen. The materials and the thickness used are common: 

the differences lay in the size and the intent of their utilization.
Page 391

Image F.6-1: Exterior Trim – Lower Exterior Finisher

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.6-2: Exterior Trim - Cowl Vent Grill Assembly

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.6-3: Exterior Trim – Rear Spoiler

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.6-4: Exterior Trim – Radiator Grill

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 392

F.6.1.3Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Down-gauging material thickness is the most common method used to reduce the weight 

of the exterior trim. Designing in reinforcements while varying material thickness for the 

whole component or the thickness of a specific section, can provide a significant mass 

reduction.

Another common industry method for mass reduction is to change materials and 

processes for selected components. The most promising emerging technology for hard 

trim is gas assist injection molding. . MuCell technology is currently used by major 

OEM’s like Audi, Ford, BMW and VW as introduced in Section F.5.1. PolyOne 

technology is currently used in production in industrial housings and structural foam

applications as introduced in Section F.5.1.

F.6.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.6-4 compiles the mass reduction ideas considered for the Exterior Trim and 

Ornamentation subsystem. 

Table F.6-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Exterior Trim and 

Ornamentation Subsystem
Page 393

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Radiator Grill

Gas Assist Injection 

Molding (MuCell®, 

PolyOne)

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings

Low or no Cost Impact with Mass 

reduction

Radiator Grill Mold in Color 0 - 10% Mass 

Savings Low Cost, Little Mass Savings Potential

Radiator Grill Material Change 0 - 10% Mass 

Savings Low Cost, Durability Issues

Lower Exterior Finishers

Gas Assist Injection 

Molding (MuCell®, 

PolyOne)

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings

Low or no Cost Impact with Mass 

reduction

Lower Exterior Finishers Mold in Color 0 - 10% Mass 

Savings Low Cost, Little Mass Savings Potential

Lower Exterior Finishers Material Change 0 - 10% Mass 

Savings Low Cost, Durability Issues

Upper Exterior Finishers

Gas Assist Injection 

Molding (MuCell®, 

PolyOne)

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings

Low or no Cost Impact with Mass 

reduction

Upper Exterior Finishers Mold in Color 0 - 10% Mass 

Savings Low Cost, Little Mass Savings Potential

Upper Exterior Finishers Material Change 0 - 10% Mass 

Savings Low Cost, Durability Issues

Rear Closure Finishers

Gas Assist Injection 

Molding (MuCell®, 

PolyOne)

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings

Low or no Cost Impact with Mass 

reduction

Rear Closure Finishers Mold in Color 0 - 10% Mass 

Savings Low Cost, Little Mass Savings Potential

Rear Closure Finishers Material Change 0 - 10% Mass 

Savings Low Cost, Durability Issues

Emblems Decals 20% Mass Savings Low Cost, Aesthetically Unappealing, 

Durabilty Issues

Emblems Mold in Feature then Paint 

or Apply Decal

0 - 10% Mass 

Savings Low Cost, Aesthetically Unappealing

Rear Spoiler

Gas Assist Injection 

Molding (MuCell®, 

PolyOne)

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings

Low or no Cost Impact with Mass 

reduction

Rear Spoiler Mold in Color 0 - 10% Mass 

Savings Low Cost, Little Mass Savings Potential

Rear Spoiler Material Change 0 - 10% Mass 

Savings Low Cost, Durability Issues

Cowl Vent Screen

Gas Assist Injection 

Molding (MuCell®, 

PolyOne)

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings

Low or No Cost Impact with Mass 

reduction

Cowl Vent Screen Material Change 0 - 10% Mass 

Savings Low Cost, Durability Issues

F.6.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The mass reduction ideas selected that fell into the “Ae” group are shown in Table F.6-5. 
Page 394

Table F.6-5: Summary of mass-reduction concepts selected for the Exterior Trim and Ornamentation 

Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

03 08 00 Exterior Trim and Ornamentation

03 08 01 Radiator Grill PolyOne Process - Injection Molding

03 08 02 Lower Exterior Finishers PolyOne Process - Injection Molding

03 08 04 Upper Exterior and Roof Finishers PolyOne Process - Injection Molding

03 08 07 Rear Closure Finishers PolyOne Process - Injection Molding

03 08 14 Rear Spoiler PolyOne Process - Injection Molding

03 08 15 Cowl Vent Screen PolyOne Process - Injection Molding

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem 

Description

F.6.1.6Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates

The PolyOne process was utilized on the Exterior Trim and Ornamentation subsubsystems listed in Table F.6-6. This resulted in a mass savings of 1.147 kg and a cost 

savings of $2.31.The changes to emblems were not implemented since there were wear 

and durability issues with the decal life and performance.

Table F.6-6: Summary of Mass-Reduction and Cost Impacts for the Exterior Trim and Ornamentation 

Subsystem
Page 395

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

SubSubsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

03 08 00 Exterior Trim and Ornamentation

03 08 01 Radiator Grill A 0.155 $0.23 $1.48 1.16% 0.01%

03 08 02 Lower Exterior Finishers A 0.463 $0.83 $1.79 3.46% 0.03%

03 08 04 Upper Exterior and Roof Finishers A 0.090 $0.31 $3.44 0.67% 0.01%

03 08 07 Rear Closure Finisher A 0.145 $0.23 $1.59 1.09% 0.01%

03 08 14 Rear Spoiler A 0.190 $0.42 $2.21 1.42% 0.01%

03 08 15 Cowl Vent Grill Assembly A 0.104 $0.29 $2.79 0.78% 0.01%

A 1.147 $2.31 $2.01 8.58% 0.07%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.6.2 Rear View Mirrors Subsystem

F.6.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.6-7 shows that the most significant contributor to the mass of the Rear View 

Mirror subsystem is the outside rear view mirrors. This includes both front driver and 

passenger side outside rear view mirrors. The inside rear view mirror and the trim cover 

make up the balance of the mass.

Table F.6-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Rear View Mirrors Subsystem
Page 396

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

03 09 00 Rear View Mirror Subsystem

03 09 01 Inside Rear View Mirrors 0.530

03 09 02 Outside Rear View Mirrors 2.218

03 09 99 Trim Cover - Inside Rear View Mirror Wiring 0.012

Total Subsystem Mass = 2.760

Total System Mass = 26.566

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 10.39%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.16%

Description

Image F.6-5: Outside Rear View Mirrors

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.6.2.2Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza’s rear view mirrors utilize materials and the thicknesses used by most 

automobile manufacturers and their suppliers. 
Page 397

F.6.2.3Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Down-gauging the material thickness is the most common method used to reduce mass. 

Designing in reinforcements while varying thickness for the whole component or the 

thickness of a specific section, can provide a significant mass reduction.

Another common industry method is to change materials and manufacturing processes. 

These component processes are altered based on materials technology and process 

production for interior/exterior hardware. The most promising emerging technology for 

hard trim is gas assist injection molding. 

MuCell technology is currently used by major OEM’s like Audi, Ford, BMW and VW as 

introduced in Section F.5.1. PolyOne technology is currently used in production in 

industrial housings and structural foam applications as introduced in Section F.5.1.The 

F.6.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.6-8 compiles the mass reduction ideas considered for the Rear View Mirrors 

subsystem. 

Table F.6-8: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Rear View Mirrors 

Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Inside Rear View Mirror

Gas Assist Injection 

Molding (MuCell®, 

PolyOne)

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings

Low or no Cost Impact with Mass 

Reduction

Outside Rear View 

Mirror - Left

Gas Assist Injection 

Molding (MuCell®, 

PolyOne)

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings

Low or no Cost Impact with Mass 

Reduction

Outside Rear View 

Mirror - Right

Gas Assist Injection 

Molding (MuCell®, 

PolyOne)

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings

Low or no Cost Impact with Mass 

Reduction

Trim Cover - Inside Rear 

View Mirror

Gas Assist Injection 

Molding (MuCell®, 

PolyOne)

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings

Low or no Cost Impact with Mass 

Reduction

F.6.2.5 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected

The mass reduction ideas selected that fell into the “Ae” group are shown in Table F.6-9. 

Table F.6-9: Summary of mass-reduction concepts selected for the Rear View Mirrors Subsystem
Page 398

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

03 09 00 Rear View Mirrors Subsystem

03 09 02 Outside Rear View Mirror - Left Gas Assist Injection Molding

03 09 02 Outside Rear View Mirror - Right Gas Assist Injection Molding

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

F.6.2.6 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts and Cost Impacts

The PolyOne gas assist system was utilized for all components in Table F.6-10. This 

resulted in a mass savings of .218 kg and a cost savings of $0.73.

Table F.6-10: Summary of mass-reduction & cost impact concepts for the Rear View Mirror Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

SubSubsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

03 09 00 Rear View Mirrors

03 09 01 Outside Rear View Mirror - Left A 0.109 $0.37 $3.35 3.95% 0.01%

03 09 02 Outside Rear View Mirror - Right A 0.109 $0.37 $3.35 3.95% 0.01%

A 0.218 $0.73 $3.35 7.90% 0.01%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.6.3 Front End Module Subsystem

F.6.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.6-11 shows that the most significant contributor to the mass of the Front End 

Module subsystem is the front bumper fascia (Image F.6-6). The front lower grill, fog 

lamp housings, front energy absorber, attachment brackets, and attachments make up the 

balance of the mass for this subsystem. The front bumper analysis was done along with 

the Body in White and resides in Body System -A-.

Table F.6-11: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Front End Module Subsystem.
Page 399

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

03 23 00 Front End Module Subsystem

03 23 02 Module - Front Bumper & Fascia 5.033

Total Subsystem Mass = 5.033

Total System Mass = 26.57

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 18.95%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.29%

Description

Image F.6-6: Front Fascia

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.6.3.2Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The materials and thickness used are in common use by many automobile manufacturers 

and their suppliers.
Page 400

F.6.3.3Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Down-gauging the material thickness is the most common method used to reduce mass. 

Designing in reinforcements while varying material thickness for the whole component or 

the thickness of a specific section, can provide a significant mass reduction.

Another common industry method is to change materials and manufacturing processes. 

These component processes are altered based on materials technology and process 

production for interior hardware. The most promising emerging technology for hard trim 

is gas assist injection molding. 

MuCell technology is currently used by major OEM’s like Audi, Ford, BMW and VW as 

introduced in Section F.5.1. PolyOne technology is currently used in production in 

industrial housings and structural foam applications as introduced in Section F.5.1.The 

F.6.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.6-12 compiles the mass reduction ideas considered for the Front End Module 

subsystem.

Table F.6-12: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Front End Module 

Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Front Fascia

Gas Assist Injection 

Molding (MuCell®, 

PolyOne)

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings

Low or no Cost Impact with Mass 

reduction

Front Fascia Attachment 

Brackets

Gas Assist Injection 

Molding (MuCell®, 

PolyOne)

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings

Low or no Cost Impact with Mass 

reduction

F.6.3.5 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected

The mass reduction ideas selected that fell into the “Ae” group are shown in Table 

F.6-13.

Table F.6-13: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected for the Front End Module Subsystem
Page 401

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

03 23 00 Front Module Subsystem

03 23 02 Module - Front Bumper and Fascia PolyOne Process - Injection Molding

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

F.6.3.6Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

The PolyOne gas assist system was utilized for all components in Table F.6-14. This 

produced a mass savings of .514 kg and a cost savings of $2.24 primarily from the front 

fascia.

Table F.6-14: Summary of Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact for the Front End Module Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

SubSubsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

03 23 00 Front End Module

03 23 02 Module - Front Bumper and Fascia A 0.491 $2.23 $4.54 9.76% 0.03%

A 0.491 $2.23 $4.54 9.76% 0.03%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.6.4 Rear End Module Subsystem

F.6.4.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.6-15 illustrates that the most significant contributor to the mass of the Rear End 

Module subsystem is the rear fascia. The rear reflectors, rear energy absorber, attachment 

brackets, and attachments make up the balance of the mass for this subsystem.
Page 402

Table F.6-15: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Rear End Module Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

03 24 00 Rear End Module Subsystem

03 24 02 Module - Rear Bumper and Fascia 5.293

03 24 99 Rear Bumper Fascia - Attachments 0.097

Total Subsystem Mass = 5.390

Total System Mass = 26.57

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 20.29%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.32%

Description
Page 403

Image F.6-7: Rear Fascia

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.6.4.2Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The materials and thickness used are in common use by many automobile manufacturers 

and their suppliers.

F.6.4.3Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Down-gauging the material thickness is the most common method used to reduce mass. 

Designing in reinforcements while varying material thickness for the whole component or 

the thickness of a specific section, can provide a significant mass reduction.

Another common industry method is to change materials and manufacturing processes. 

These component processes are altered based on materials technology and process 

production for interior hardware. The most promising emerging technology for hard trim 

is gas assist injection molding. 

MuCell technology is currently used by major OEM’s like Audi, Ford, BMW and VW as 

introduced in Section F.5.1. PolyOne technology is currently used in production in 

industrial housings and structural foam applications as introduced in Section F.5.1.

F.6.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.6-16: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Rear End Module 

Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Rear Fascia

Gas Assist Injection 

Molding (MuCell®, 

PolyOne)

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings

Low or no Cost Impact with Mass 

reduction

Rear Fascia Attachment 

Brackets

Gas Assist Injection 

Molding (MuCell®, 

PolyOne)

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings

Low or no Cost Impact with Mass 

reduction
Page 404

F.6.4.5 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected

The mass reduction ideas selected that fell into the “Ae” group are shown in Image F.4C17. 

Table F.6-17: Summary of mass-reduction concepts selected for the Rear End Module Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

03 24 00 Rear Module Subsystem

03 24 02 Module - Rear Bumper and Fascia PolyOne Process - Injection Molding

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

F.6.4.6Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

The PolyOne gas assist system was utilized for all components in Table F.6-18. The end 

result is a mass savings of .514 kg and a cost savings of $2.32. Most of the savings is 

attributable to the rear fascia.

Table F.6-18: Summary of Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Concepts Estimates for the Rear End Module 

Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

SubSubsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

03 24 00 Rear End Module Subsystem

03 24 02 Module - Rear Bumper and Fascia A 0.514 $2.32 $4.51 9.54% 0.03%

A 0.514 $2.32 $4.51 9.54% 0.03%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Page 405

F.7 Body System Group D

Group D of the Body system includes the Glazing; Handles, Locks , Latches; Rear Hatch 

Lift Assembly; and Wipers & Washers subsystems, as shown in Table F.7-1. The most 

significant contributor to this system’s mass is the Glazing subsystem, which accounts for 

approximately 75% of the system mass. The Liftgate Modules, Wiper and Cowl Modules, 

and Door Modules subsystems are not applicable. The Toyota Venza was broken down 

such that these modules are integrated into other subsystems. For example, the 

Windshield Wipers are part of the Wipers and Washers subsystem as opposed to the 

Wiper and Cowl Modules subsystem.

Table F.7-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for the Body System Group –DSystem Subsystem Sub-Subsystem

System & 

Subsystem 

Mass

"kg"

03 00 00 Body System (Group -D-) Glazing and Body Mechatronics Modules

03 11 00 Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem 48.010

03 14 00 Handles, Locks, Latches, and Mechanism Subsystem 4.934

03 15 00 Rear Hatch Lift Assembly Subsystem 4.556

03 16 00 Wipers and Washers Subsystem 5.960

03 25 00 Liftgate Modules 0.000

03 28 00 Wiper and Cowl Modules 0.000

03 33 00 Door Modules 0.000

Total System Mass = 63.460

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 3.71%

Description

As shown in Table F.7-2, the mass reduction ideas applied to the Glazing subsystem 

resulted in the greatest weight reduction for Body System Group D. The Glazing 

Subsystem was the largest mass contributor and therefore had more opportunity to reduce 

weight. The overall weight savings for Body System Group D is 6.153 kg with a cost of 

$15.25. Approximately 10% of the Body System Group D mass was reduced.
Page 406

Table F.7-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Body System Group -DSystem Subsystem Sub-Subsystem

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

Subsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

03 00 00 Body System (Group -D-) Glazing & Body Mechatronics

03 11 00 Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism 

Subsystem D 6.062 -$15.67 -$2.59 12.63% 0.35%

03 14 00 Handles, Locks, Latches, and Mechanism 

Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

03 15 00 Rear Hatch Lift Assembly Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

03 16 00 Wipers and Washers Subsystem A 0.091 $0.42 $4.62 1.53% 0.01%

03 25 00 Liftgate Modules 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

03 28 00 Wiper and Cowl Modules 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

03 33 00 Door Modules 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

C 6.153 -15.250 -$2.48 9.70% 0.36%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

Description

F.7.1 Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem

F.7.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As shown in Table F.7-3, the most significant contributor to the Glazing, Frame, & 

Mechanism subsystem mass is the glass. This includes the Windshield, four Side 

Windows, Backlight (rear hatch glass), and Front and Rear Fixed Quarter Windows. The 

Window Regulators, Switch Packs, and Glass Runs and Belts make up the remainder of 

the mass for this subsystem.
Page 407

Table F.7-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism 

Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

03 11 00 Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem

03 11 01 Windshield and Front Quarter Window (Fixed) 15.730

03 11 03 First Row Door Window Lift Assy (Window Regulators) 3.132

03 11 05 Back and Rear Quarter Windows (Fixed) 2.134

03 11 11 Second Row Door, Qtr & Rear Closure Window Lift Assy (Window 

Regulators) 3.131

03 11 12 Back Window Assy (Backlight, Rear Hatch Glass) 7.036

03 11 13 Front Side Door Glass 8.850

03 11 14 Rear Side Door Glass 6.590

03 11 16 Switch Pack - Front Door (Window Up/Down Controls) 0.373

03 11 17 Switch Pack - Rear Door (Window Up/Down Controls) 0.244

03 11 19 Front Side Doors Glass Runs & Belts 0.464

03 11 20 Rear Side Doors Glass Runs & Belts 0.327

Total Subsystem Mass = 48.010

Total System Mass = 63.460

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 75.65%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 2.81%

Description

F.7.1.2Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The 2010 Toyota Venza’s glass is representative of today’s typical industry standards. 

This includes a laminated glass front windshield, tempered side windows, and a tempered 

rear window. The windshield is approximately 5 mm thick, the front side windows a 

nominal 4.85 mm thick, and the rear side windows and the backlight are nominally 3.85 

mm. The fixed quarter windows are tempered glass as well and are a nominal 4.85 mm 

thick in the front and 3.85 mm in the rear. Each window regulator (Image F.7-1) contains 

a motor/gearbox assembly and a galvanized steel stamped linkage assembly that bolts to 

two clips (Image F.7-2) attached to the window.
Page 408

Image F.7-1: Toyota Venza Window Regulator.

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.7-2: Window Clips on Front Side Door Window of Toyota Venza.

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Laminated glass, as used on the windshield, is a type of safety glass that holds together 

when shattered. Front windshields use laminated glass exclusively because in the event 

the glass breaks it is held in place by an interlayer, typically of polyvinyl butyral (PVB), 

between two layers of glass (Figure F.7-1). Laminated glass is typically used when there 

is a possibility of human impact or where the glass could fall if shattered. The PVB 

interlayer also gives the glazing a much higher sound insulation rating, due to the 

damping effect, and blocks 99% of incoming UV radiation.

Window Clips
Page 409

Figure F.7-1: Exploded View of Laminated Glass Cross-Section.

(Source: Thermal Windows, Inc. http://www.thermalwindows.com/ThermalSafe.htm)

The side windows and backlight also follow industry convention, which is the use of 

tempered glass. The brittle nature of tempered glass causes it to shatter into small ovalshaped pebbles when broken. This eliminates the danger of sharp edges. Due to this 

property along with its strength, tempered glass is often referred to as safety glass. It is 

also less expensive than laminated glass. Tempered glass, however, does not have the 

favorable acoustic properties that laminated glass exhibits.

F.7.1.3Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

The industry is beginning to use laminated glass, similar to what is used for the 

windshield, for the side windows. Guidelines for this were provided by NSG GroupPilkington, a leading international supplier of glass both within and outside of the 

automotive industry. Pilkington pioneered float manufacturing, the process by which most 

glass in the world is manufactured today. It also stands out as a leader in the automotive, 

building, and specialty glass glazing industry. For side laminated windows, Pilkington 

provided data indicating that the inner and outer glass layers can be reduced in thickness 

to 1.6 mm since the plastic interlayer provides additional strength. Applying laminated 

glass to the four side windows can provide considerable weight savings and favorable 

acoustic properties, but with a significant cost impact. Nonetheless, it is a proven 

technology that is currently being used in many high-production vehicles including the 

Jaguar XJ, Mercedes R-class. It is also used in the front doors of the Chevrolet Malibu, 

Chevrolet Equinox, and Ford Taurus, to name a few.

Pilkington also suggests down-gauging the tempered glass thickness as another method to 

reduce the vehicle glass overall weight. The standard side window tempered glass 

thickness in Europe is 3.15 mm and in Japan it is 2.6 mm. Vehicles sold in the United 
Page 410

States typically have slightly higher window thicknesses for NVH purposes, so reducing 

the window thickness does pose a trade-off: there will be increased sound transmittance 

through the windows (mostly apparent in the front of the vehicle). Currently in the U.S., 

however, the Honda Accord, Chevrolet Cobalt, and Toyota Tacoma all have 3.15 mmthick side windows. There is a slight cost increase when the windows are down-gauged as 

a result of more expensive processing.

One of the most notable trends to lower glazing weight is to transition away from glass 

and use polycarbonate (PC) for windows. This is an expensive option, but it can yield 

substantial weight savings. PC is a thermoplastic, which can be molded and/or 

thermoformed into a variety of shapes and still act as a clear, transparent window. Aside 

from weight savings, it also has attractive aesthetic and styling properties as many more 

shapes can be achieved than with glass. Moreover, the use of PC for windows has 

favorable thermal insulation characteristics and excellent impact resistance.

In order for PC windows to be useful on a vehicle, two types of coatings need to be 

applied: Weather and plasma. Exatec®, LLC, a subsidiary of SABIC, is the leading 

supplier of these coatings. The weather coating helps resist the elements and damage 

caused by UV radiation. The revolutionary plasma coating developed by Exatec® also 

increases abrasion resistance. The plasma coating is the most recent development, capable 

of meeting and exceeding the ECE R43, FMVSS 205, JIS R 3212, and ANSI 26.1 

standards. Even with these two coatings, however, polycarbonate is still only applicable 

for non-moving window applications (not including the windshield). Therefore, front and 

rear fixed quarter windows and the backlight are all potential candidates for PC. The 

Smart Fortwo, Chevrolet Corvette, and the Porsche 911 GT3 RS 4.0 are all examples of 

production vehicles that use polycarbonate glazing.

Exatec® highlighted that the real benefit of polycarbonate is realized when taking 

advantage of the integration opportunities. When a PC window is injection-molded, the 

surrounding plastic components can be integrated with it in a two-shot mold, reducing 

what were numerous components into one piece. The most prominent opportunity for this 

is with the backlight. The hatchback European version of the Honda Civic integrates the 

backlight and spoiler into one large injection molded piece as shown in Image F.7-3. This 

can be a styling, aerodynamic, and potential cost reduction advantage as well as a weightsavings opportunity.
Page 411

Image F.7-3: European Honda Civic Backlight/Spoiler Integration through Use of Polycarbonate

(Source: Wheel-O-Sphere http://www.wheelosphere.org/2012-honda-civic-spied-in-europe/european-honda-civichatchback-rear-view/)

F.7.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.7-4 shows the mass-reduction ideas considered for the Glazing subsystem. The 

industry trends provided by Pilkington regarding the use of laminated glass for side 

windows and to reduce the gauge of the tempered side windows were each considered. 

Pilkington also suggests reducing just the inner glass layer of the laminated windshield as 

a method to lighten the weight of the windshield, also included in Table F.7-4. Replacing 

the quarter windows and rear backlight with polycarbonate were also considered. 

Additional ideas are also applied that are not necessarily motivated by current industry 

trends. For example, the window regulator linkages are galvanized steel. The idea to go to 

aluminum was judged and analyzed.

The Lotus Engineering study did not apply mass reduction ideas to the Glazing system. 

Polycarbonate was mentioned as a possible substitute that the industry is taking into 

account, but this was not included in their final mass reduction results.

Table F.7-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Glass (Glazing), 

Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem.
Page 412

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Backlight Reduce thickness from 

3.85 mm to 3.15 mm 17% mass reduction Low cost increase, in production on Dodge Durango

Backlight Replace with polycarbonate 

glazing 45% mass reduction High cost increase, in production on European Honda Civic

Backlight Replace tempered glass 

with laminated glass 25% mass reduction High cost increase

Windshield Reduce inner glass layer 

thickness to 1.6 mm 10% mass reduction Low cost increase, increased sound transmittance to passengers

Front/Rear Fixed 

Quarter Windows

Reduce thickness from 

4.85 (front) and 3.85 (rear) 

to 3.15 mm

10% mass reduction Low cost

Front/Rear Fixed 

Quarter Windows

Replace with polycarbonate 

glazing 30% mass reduction High cost increase, in production on Smart For Two

Front/Rear Side Door 

Windows

Reduce thickness from 

4.85 (front) and 3.85 (rear) 

to 3.15 mm

20-30% mass 

reduction

Low cost increase, increased sound 

transmittance to passengers, was in 

production on Chevrolet Cobalt

Front/Rear Side Door 

Windows

Replace tempered glass 

with laminated glass

25-40% mass 

reduction

High cost increase, in production on 

Jaguar XJ

Window Regulator 

Linkage Assembly

Make out of aluminum 

instead of steel 60% mass reduction Moderate cost increase

Window Regulator 

Linkage Assembly

Make out of plastic/steel 

combination 40% mass reduction Low cost increase, in production on Chevrolet HHR

F.7.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The mass reduction ideas selected are shown in Table F.7-5. Reducing the thickness of 

the tempered Rear Side Windows, Backlight, and the two Rear Quarter Windows to 3.15 

mm was chosen. Reducing window gauge was the most favorable option from a cost-permass perspective, compared to using laminated or polycarbonate windows. The 3.15 mm 

thickness is used on production cars sold in the United States. The thickness of the Front 

Side Windows and the Front Quarter Fixed windows, however, was not reduced. It was 

determined that the unfavorable NVH effects would be classified as decontenting. If this 

option were chosen, then an additional 3 kg would have been saved. NVH conditions are 

more severe at the front of the car since wind makes contact here and it is also closest to 

the powertrain. Noises caused by these things are much less apparent in the rear of the 

vehicle, especially on a larger car like the Toyota Venza. It is common for OEMs to 

design the front windows to be thicker than the rear for these reasons, Polycarbonate and 

laminated windows are worthy options, but deemed as too pricey for the constraints of 

this study. If an in-depth engineering analysis were performed on a backlight/rear hatch 

lift assembly polycarbonate integration, then the cost may be reduced. Such an analysis, 

however, was beyond the scope of this study. 

The inner glass layer of the laminated windshield was reduced in thickness to 1.6 mm. It 

was determined that this would not result in adverse acoustic effects since the PVB 

interlayer of the laminated glass is an outstanding sound insulator. The Window 

Regulators were constructed of aluminum instead of steel. The new aluminum linkages 
Page 413

were assumed to increase in gauge to support the same bending stresses as on the baseline 

steel pieces. The thickness of the aluminum linkage was multiplied by 1.55, which was 

estimated to increase the section modulus of the beam to make up for aluminum’s lower 

yield strength (compared to steel).

Table F.7-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Glass (Glazing), Frame, and 

Mechanism System.

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

03 11 00 Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem

03 11 01 Windshield and Front Quarter 

Window (Fixed) Reduce windshield inner layer thickness from 2.1 to 1.6mm

03 11 03 First Row Door Window Lift Assy 

(Window Regulators)

Fabicate window regulator linkages out of aluminum instead of 

steel

03 11 05 Back and Rear Quarter Windows 

(Fixed) Reduce quarter window thickness from 3.85 to 3.15mm

03 11 11

Second Row Door, Qtr & Rear 

Closure Window Lift Assy (Window 

Regulators)

Fabicate window regulator linkages out of aluminum instead of 

steel

03 11 12 Back Window Assy (Backlight, Rear 

Hatch Glass) Reduce backlight thickness from 3.85 to 3.15mm

03 11 13 Front Side Door Glass n/a

03 11 14 Rear Side Door Glass Reduce glass thickness from 3.85 to 3.15mm

03 11 16 Switch Pack - Front Door (Window 

Up/Down Controls) n/a

03 11 17 Switch Pack - Rear Door (Window 

Up/Down Controls) n/a

03 11 19 Front Side Doors Glass Runs & Belts n/a

03 11 20 Rear Side Doors Glass Runs & Belts n/a

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem 

Description

F.7.1.6Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

The mass reduction and cost impact results for the Glazing subsystem can be seen in

Table F.7-6. The greatest weight savings came as a result of down-gauging the thickness 

of the glass on the Venza in various sub-subsystems. Decreasing the thickness of the 

inner glass layer of the laminated windshield saved 1.559 kg at a cost of $1.68. The Rear 

Side Windows, Rear Quarter Fixed Windows, and the Backlight collectively saved 2.624 

kg by being reduced to a 3.15 mm thickness and cost an additional $9.25 to do so. 

Reducing the thickness of the glass saved some on material cost (since less material is 

used); however, it increased the processing cost. When thinner glass is produced, the float 

manufacturing line has a lower output per unit time. Therefore, the cost of the equipment 
Page 414

is not being paid off as fast. Additionally, when tempering thinner glass additional 

cooling equipment is needed to complete the tempering process in time, which the 

supplier may not already have and would increase the cost of the glass.

Using aluminum in place of steel for the Window Regulator Linkages for all four 

regulators resulted in a total weight savings of 1.878 kg at a cost of $4.74. The Window 

Regulator Linkages were more expensive due to material cost. 

Table F.7-6: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism 

Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

03 00 00 Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem

03 11 01 Windshield and Front Quarter Window (Fixed) C 1.559 -$1.68 -$1.08 9.91% 0.09%

03 11 03 First Row Door Window Lift Assy (Window 

Regulators) C 0.939 -$2.37 -$2.52 29.98% 0.05%

03 11 05 Back and Rear Quarter Windows (Fixed) D 0.230 -$0.81 -$3.53 10.80% 0.01%

03 11 11 Second Row Door, Qtr & Rear Closure Window 

Lift Assy (Window Regulators) C 0.939 -$2.37 -$2.52 29.99% 0.05%

03 11 12 Back Window Assy (Backlight, Rear Hatch Glass) D 1.218 -$4.29 -$3.52 17.31% 0.07%

03 11 13 Front Side Door Glass 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

03 11 14 Rear Side Door Glass D 1.176 -$4.15 -$3.53 17.85% 0.07%

03 11 16 Switch Pack - Front Door (Window Up/Down 

Controls) 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

03 11 17 Switch Pack - Rear Door (Window Up/Down 

Controls) 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

03 11 19 Front Side Doors Glass Runs & Belts 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

03 11 20 Rear Side Doors Glass Runs & Belts 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

D 6.062 -15.670 -$2.59 12.63% 0.35%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.7.2 Handles, Locks, Latches & Mechanisms Subsystem.

F.7.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 

Table F.7-7 illustrates that the Latches are the most significant contributor to the mass of 

the Handles, Locks, Latches, Frame, & Mechanisms subsystem. This includes the front 
Page 415

doors, rear doors, and the rear hatch. The handle assemblies and the prop rod provide the 

remainder of the subsystem weight. 

Table F.7-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Handles, Locks, Latches and Mechanisms 

Subsystem.

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

03 14 00 Handles, Locks, Latches and Mechanisms Subsystem

03 14 04 Latch Assembly - Front Side Doors 1.180

03 14 04 Latch Assembly - Rear Side Doors 1.038

03 14 05 Latch Assembly - Rear Hatch 1.056

03 14 13 Handle Pull, Carrier and Closeout - Front Side Doors 0.666

03 14 13 Handle Pull, Carrier and Closeout - Rear Side Doors 0.579

03 14 19 Prop Rod - Hood 0.346

03 14 99 Subsystem Attachments 0.069

Total Subsystem Mass = 4.934

Total System Mass = 63.46

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 7.77%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.29%

Description

Image F.7-4: Door Latch Mechanism
Page 416

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.7-5: Outer Door Handle and Carrier

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.7.2.2Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza utilizes the Smart key entry system. This allows the driver to keep the 

key fob in their pocket when unlocking, locking and starting the vehicle. The key is 

identified via one of several antennas in the car's bodywork and a radio pulse generator in 

the key housing. The vehicle is automatically unlocked when the door handle, rear hatch 

release, or an exterior button is pressed. This system also disengages the immobilizer and 

activates the engine without inserting a mechanical key, provided the driver has the 

electronic key inside the car. This is done by pressing a starter button on the Instrument 

panel.

The Venza has a mechanical back up system, in the form of spare key blades supplied 

with the vehicle and stored in the electronic keys. The result is an approach to the use and 

activation of the Handles, Locks, Latches and Mechanisms which is more electrical in 

nature than traditional subsystems using mechanical keys or Remote Keyless Entry 

(RKE).
Page 417

F.7.2.3Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Smart Keys were introduced by Mercedes-Benz in 1998. It was a plastic key to be used in 

place of the traditional metal key. Electronics that control locking systems and the 

ignitions made it possible to replace the traditional key with a computerized “Key.” This 

system is considered a step up from remote keyless entry. The Smart Key adopts the 

remote control buttons from keyless entry into the Smart Key fob. Some vehicles 

automatically adjust settings based on the smart key used to unlock the car: user 

preferences such as seat positions, steering wheel position, exterior mirror settings, 

climate control temperature settings, and stereo presets are popular adjustments, and some 

models such as the Ford Escape even have settings which can prevent the vehicle from 

exceeding a maximum speed when a certain key is used to start it.

Manufacturers’ Keyless Authorization Systems Names:

Acura: Keyless Access System

Audi: Advanced Key

BMW: Comfort Access

Cadillac: Adaptive Remote Start & Keyless Access

Ford: Intelligent Access with push-button start or Ford MyKey

General Motors: Passive Entry Passive Start

Hyundai: Proximity Key

Infiniti: Infiniti Intelligent Key with Push Button Ignition

Jaguar Cars: Smart Key System

Jeep Sentry Key Immobiliser System "SKIS"

KIA: Keyless Entry

Lexus: SmartAccess System

Lincoln: Intelligent Access System

Mazda: Advanced Keyless Entry & Start System

Mercedes-Benz: Keyless Go integrated into SmartKeys

Mini: Comfort Access

Mitsubishi Motors: FastKey
Page 418

Nissan: Intelligent Key

Porsche: Porsche Entry & Drive System

Renault: Hands Free Keycard

Ssang Yong: Smart Key System

Subaru: Keyless Smart Entry With Push-Button Start

Suzuki: SmartPass Keyless entry & starting system

Toyota: Smart Key System

Volkswagen: Keyless Entry & Keyless Start or KESSY

Volvo: Personal Car Communicator "PCC" and Keyless Drive or 

Keyless Drive

(Table Source: Wikipedia)

F.7.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.7-8 compiles the mass reduction ideas considered for the Handles, Locks, 

Latches, Frame, & Mechanisms Subsystem. Emphasis was placed on materials and 

processing to create mass reduction ideas.

The Venza production closure latches, hinges and related mounting hardware were 

retained; the Venza hardware mass was used for these components. Ancillary sub-system 

masses, which include handles, latches and locks were not changed because these are 

typically core components shared corporate wide. 

Table F.7-8: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Handles, Locks, 

Latches & Mechanisms Subsystem
Page 419

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Hood Stand 

(Prop Rod)

Replace Hood Stand with 

Gas Springs 20% Mass Savings Higher Cost, Mass Savings vs Hood Stand Questionable

Hood Stand 

(Prop Rod)

Replace Hood Stand - 

Hood Front with Hood 

Stand - Hood Side

10% Mass Savings Low Cost, Location on Side a Marketing 

and Service Issue

Door Handles Manufacture from Plastic 10% Mass Savings Low Cost, Ancillary and Esthetic 

Degrade, Wear and Warranty Issues

Door Handles Manufacture with Carbon 

Fiber 15% Mass Savings High Cost, After Market, Wear and Warranty issues

Door Lock Housings Manufacture Comonents 

from Structural Plastic 60% Mass Savings Low Cost, Wear and Safety Issues

F.7.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The mass reduction ideas selected that fell into the “Ae” group are shown in Table F.7-9.

Table F.7-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Handles, Locks, Latches & Mechanisms 

Subsystem Analysis

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

03 14 00 Handles, Locks, Latches and Mechanisms Subsystem None Selected

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Page 420

F.7.2.6Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

There was potential shown for mass reduction within this subsystem. Each idea had its 

own inherent risk or concern. This approach to component changes in the Handles, Locks 

& Latching subsystem resulted in the decision to not recommend any mass reduction 

initiatives at this time. Most mass savings and cost impacts were modest yet posed risks to 

durability, aesthetics, and safety.

F.7.3 Rear Hatch Lift Assembly Subsystem

F.7.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.7-10, the most significant contributor to the mass of the Rear Hatch

Lift Assembly subsystem is the rear hatch lift mechanism. The trim, switches, sensor, 

switch, and attachments provide the rest of the subsystem weight. 

Table F.7-10: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Rear Hatch Lift Assembly Subsystem.
Page 421

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

03 15 00 Rear Hatch Lift Mechanism Subsystem

03 15 01 Rear Hatch Lift Mechanism 3.272

03 15 02 Rear Hatch Switches 0.029

03 15 03 Rear Hatch Sensor 0.088

03 15 06 Rear Hatch Trim 0.849

03 15 99 Misc. 0.316

Total Subsystem Mass = 4.554

Total System Mass = 63.46

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 7.18%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.27%

Description

Image F.7-6: Rear Hatch Lift Mechanism

(Source: FEV, Inc. photrograph)

F.7.3.2Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza utilizes the Smart key entry system. It allows the driver to keep the key 

fob in their pocket when unlocking, locking and starting the vehicle. The key is identified 

via one of several antennas in the car's bodywork and a radio pulse generator in the key 

housing. The vehicle is automatically unlocked when the door handle, hatch release, or an 

exterior button is pressed. 
Page 422

The Venza has a mechanical back up system, in the form of spare key blades supplied 

with the vehicle and stored in the electronic keys. The result is an approach to the use and 

activation of the Handles, Locks, Latches and Mechanisms which is more electrical in 

nature than traditional subsystems using mechanical keys or Remote Keyless Entry 

(RKE).

F.7.3.3Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Most Rear lift mechanisms are based on the chain lift concept. Toyota and other upperend companies now use a more complex, but mass-reduced, gear design to operate the 

rising and lowering features of the rear hatch door.

F.7.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.7-11 compiles the mass reduction ideas considered for the Rear Hatch Lift 

Assembly Subsystem. Emphasis was placed on materials and processing to create mass 

reduction ideas.

Table F.7-11: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Rear Hatch Lift 

Assembly Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Rear Hatch Lift 

Mechanism

Use Single Motor and 

Mechanism to Operate 

Rear Latch and Lift 

Functions

50% Mass Savings Different Functions Drive Components 

and Motors That are Not Interchangable

Rear Hatch Lift 

Mechanism

Eliminate Power Features 

for Automatic Lift and 

Automatic Latch

10% Mass Savings Low Cost, Functional Degrade

Rear Hatch Lift 

Mechanism

Hatch Mass Reduction 

Drives Downsizing of Lift 

Mechanism

10% Mass Savings Low Cost, Could Affect Functionality

Rear Hatch Lift 

Mechanism

Manufacture Components 

from Structural Plastic 15% Mass Savings Low Cost, Wear and Load Bearing Issues

F.7.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.7-12: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Rear Hatch Lift Assembly Subsystem Analysis
Page 423

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

03 15 00 Rear Hatch Lift Mechanism None Selected

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

F.7.3.6Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

There was potential shown for mass reduction within this subsystem. Each idea had its 

own inherent risk or concern. This approach to component changes in the rear lift 

mechanism resulted in the decision to not recommend any mass reduction initiatives at 

this time. Most mass savings and cost impacts were modest yet proposed risks to both 

durability and safety.

F.7.4 Wipers and Washers Subsystem

F.7.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.7-13 identifies the most significant contributor to the mass of the Wipers and 

Washers subsystem as the Front Wiper Assembly (includes linkage, bracket, arms and 

blades). The Rear Wiper Assembly (includes bracket, arm and blade), the Container 

Assembly – Solvent Bottle, sensors, hoses, nozzles, and attachments provide the rest of 

the subsystem weight. 

Table F.7-13: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Wipers and Washers Subsystem.
Page 424

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

03 16 00 Wipers and Washers Subsystem

03 16 01 Wiper Motor Assembly - Front 4.000

03 16 08 Wiper Motor Assembly - Rear 1.028

03 16 99 Misc. 0.930

Total Subsystem Mass = 5.958

Total System Mass = 63.46

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 9.39%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.35%

Description

Image F.7-7: Front Wiper Assembly

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 425

Image F.7-8: Rear Wiper Assembly

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.7-9: Solvent Bottle

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 426

F.7.4.2Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The wipers combine two mechanical systems to perform their task: an electric motor and 

worm gear reduction provides power to the wipers. A linkage converts the rotational 

output of the motor into the back-and-forth motion of the wipers. The worm gear 

reduction can multiply the torque of the motor by 40 times, while slowing the output 

speed of the electric motor by 40 times as well. The output of the gear reduction operates 

the linkage that moves the wipers back and forth. A lever arm is attached to the output 

shaft of the gear reduction; the lever arm rotates as the wiper motor turns. The lever is 

connected to a rod and the rotational motion of the lever moves the rod back and forth. 

The longer rod is connected to a shorter rod that actuates the wiper blade on the driver's 

side. Another linkage transmits the force from the driver-side to the passenger-side wiper 

blade. 

F.7.4.3Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Some of the different wiper blade schemes used by various Automotive Manufacturers: 

Pivot Points – Many vehicles have similar wiper designs: Two blades which move 

together to clean the windshield. One of the blades pivots from a point close to the 

driver's side of the car, and the other blade pivots from near the middle of the windshield. 

This is the “Tandem System.” This design clears most of the windshield that is in the 

driver's field of view. 

There are other designs used on some automobiles. Mercedes uses a single wiper arm that 

extends and retracts as it sweeps across the window – Single Arm (Controlled). This 

design also provides good coverage, but is more complicated than the standard dual-wiper 

systems. Some systems use wiper blades mounted on opposite sides of the windshield and 

move in opposing directions. Other vehicles have a single wiper mounted in the middle. 

Blades – The beam (flat) blade wiper blade is the main trend in wiper blade design. The 

market drivers are product quality and durability. The contact pressure over the wiper 

blade element is no longer distributed by the claws of the wiper bracket, but by a spring 

specifically designed to optimize wiper blade contact with the windshield. 

Beam (Flat) Blade Conventional Blade
Page 427

Drive Units – Another trend is the fact that many wiper systems are being controlled by 

electronic drive units which determine the arc of wipe and speed. There are few wiper 

systems that solely move the wiper blades back and forth without electronic speed 

control, except on some entry level vehicles. 

Direct drive systems for windshield wipers are currently in production by Bosch and 

Valeo for a number of recently launched carlines. The two drives of a dual motor wiper 

system do not require an additional mechanical linkage and are therefore smaller than 

traditional wiper systems. The mass of each unit is approximately half a liter. The new 

Bosch direct drive system needs up to 75 percent less space and is over a kilogram lighter 

than standard drive and linkage systems. Each wiper has its own compact drive motor and 

is mounted directly on the drive shaft, which makes the new system easier to integrate 

into vehicles. Since the direct drives require no linkage, there is more room for other 

components in the engine compartment. An electronic control unit takes the place of the 

mechanical linkage. The control unit synchronizes the two drives by monitoring the 

position of the two wiper arms. Each drive unit consists of a mechatronic drive that can 

run either backwards or forwards. Specifications for the sweep angle and rest position are 

programmable. This allows the wiper systems to be designed symmetrically for right and 

left hand drive since the blade alignment is controlled by the software. 

F.7.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.7-14 compiles the mass-reduction ideas considered for the Wiper & Washers 

subsystem.

Table F.7-14: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Wipers & Washers 

Subsystem
Page 428

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Front Washer and 

Wiper Assembly

Use More Plastic Parts or 

Castings

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings Wear and Durability Issues

Front Washer and 

Wiper Assembly

Use Lighter Materials to 

Mount the Motor to the 

Assembly

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings Durability Issues

Front Washer and 

Wiper Assembly

Use Bayonet Wiper Module 

Installation

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings

Blade Attachment Process - No 

Significant Mass Savings

Front Washer and 

Wiper Assembly

Use Direct Drive Motor 

Scheme. Ref. Ford Focus 20% Mass Savings

Electronic Control of Arm Positon and 

Sweep, More Compact in Size than 

Mass and Lends Itself to Platform 

Sharing

Front Wiper Arms Use Injection Molded Arms 10% - 20% Mass 

Savings NVH, Wear and Durability Issues

Front Wiper Arms Use Carbon Fiber Arms 10% - 20% Mass 

Savings

 High Cost, NVH, Wear and Durability 

Issues

Front Wiper Arms Use Aluminum Arms 10% - 20% Mass 

Savings

High Cost, NVH, Wear and Durability 

Issues, Billet Aluminum Arms used on 

Vintage Hot Rods

Front Wiper Arms Use Overmolded Plastic 

Arms

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings Eliminate Paint and Corrosion Protection

Front Wiper Arms Use Fiberglass Arms 10% - 20% Mass 

Savings NVH, Wear and Durability Issues

Front Wiper Arms Place Holes in Arms 0 - 10% Mass 

Savings NVH, Wear and Durability Issues

Rear Wiper Assembly

Use Lighter Materials to 

Mount the Motor to the 

Assembly

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings Durability Issues

Rear Wiper Assembly

Mount Rear Wiper Motor to 

Glass - Eliminate Mounting 

Brackets

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings

Brackets Replaced by Reinforcements or 

Built into Assembly

Solvent Body

Gas Assist Injection 

Molding (MuCell®, 

PolyOne)

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings

Low or no Cost Impact with Mass 

reduction

F.7.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The mass-reduction ideas selected for detailed analysis are shown in Table F.7-15.

Table F.7-15: Summary of mass-reduction concepts selected for the Wipers & Washers Subsystem
Page 429

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

03 16 00 Wipers and Washers Subsystem

03 16 99 Container Assembly - Solvent Bottle PolyOne Process - Injection Mold

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

F.7.4.6Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

Table F.7-16: Summary of Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact for the Wipers & Washers Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

SubSubsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

03 16 00 Wipers and Washers Subsystem

03 16 99 Container Assembly Solvent Bottle A 0.091 $0.42 $4.62 1.53% 0.01%

A 0.091 $0.42 $4.62 1.53% 0.01%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

Table F.7-17 and Table F.7-18 illustrate that there are very limited opportunities for 

mass reduction in the Toyota Venza Front & Rear Wiper systems. The Venza Front Wiper 

Assembly is very close in mass to the Ford Focus Direct Drive Wiper system; the Venza 

Rear Wiper system is close in mass to the Ford Fiesta Rear Wiper Assembly. There was 

potential shown for mass reduction within this subsystem. 

Table F.7-17: Summary of Mass Benchmarking for the Front Wipers & Washers Subsystem
Page 430

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Venza: Tandum 

Drive, Standard 

Blades with 

Traditional "Hook 

" Style 

Attachment,

Fiesta: Tandum 

Drive, Beam 

Blades with 

"Bayonet" Style 

Attachment

Focus: Direct 

Drive, Beam 

Blades with 

"Bayonet" Style 

Attachment

03 16 01 Wipers and Washers - Front

Front Wiper Assembly (Includes Linkage and 

Brackets) 2.623 5.003 2.589

Front Hoses and Nozzles 0.061 0.064 0.064

Front Arms & Blades 1.316 1.224 1.224

Mass (kg) Front Wipers and Washers 4.000 6.291 3.877

Description

Table F.7-18: Summary of Mass Benchmarking for the Rear Wipers & Washers Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Venza: Tandum 

Drive, Standard 

Blades with 

Traditional "Hook 

" Style 

Attachment,

Fiesta: Tandum 

Drive, Beam 

Blades with 

"Bayonet" Style 

Attachment

Focus: Direct 

Drive, Beam 

Blades with 

"Bayonet" Style 

Attachment

03 16 08 Wipers and Washers - Rear

Rear Wiper Assembly (Includes Brackets) 0.715 0.841 N/A

Rear Hose and Nozzle 0.121 0.073 N/A

Rear Arm & Blade 0.192 0.192 N/A

Mass (kg) Front Wipers and Washers 1.028 1.106 0.000

Description

Component changes in the Wipers and Washers subsystem are not recommended at this 

time. These systems were left intact except for the application of the PolyOne process for 

the solvent bottle.

F.8 Body System Misc (Group A Components Not Include in EDAG Analysis)

F.8.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.8-1 shows that the most significant nonmetallic contributor to the Body Structure 

subsystem mass is the Rear Wheelhouse Arch Liners (Image F.8-1).

Table F.8-1: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Body Structure Subsystem
Page 431

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

03 01 00 Body Structure Subsystem

03 01 07 Rear Wheelhouse Arch Liners 1.460

Total Subsystem Mass = 1.460

Total System Mass = 517.860

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 0.28%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.09%

Description

Image F.8-1: Rear Wheelhouse Arch Liner

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.8.1.1Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The materials and thickness used are in common use by many automobile manufacturers 

and their suppliers. They finish off the wheel wells as well as protect the wheelhouse 

from noise and damage caused by rocks, debris, tires and conditions caused by inclement 

weather.
Page 432

F.8.1.2Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Down-gauging the material thickness is the most common method used to reduce mass. 

Designing in reinforcements while varying material thickness for the entire component or 

the thickness of a specific section can provide a significant mass reduction.

Another common industry method is to change materials and manufacturing processes. 

These component processes are altered based on materials technology and process 

production for interior hardware. 

Fiber lined wheelhouse arch liners are being utilized to further reduce NVH that emanates 

from the wheelhouse areas. They are useful in achieving cab acoustics targets while 

meeting durability standards. 

Spray on products are also being tested as a viable alternative to traditional wheelhouse 

arches, but as of yet do not provide enough protection or noise reduction to warrant 

consideration in this study.

The most promising emerging technology for hard trim is gas assist injection molding. 

The PolyOne and the MuCell® processes were reviewed: These processes are outlined in 

Exterior Trim & Ornamentation.

F.8.1.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.8-2 compiles the mass reduction ideas considered for the Body Structure 

subsystem. Emphasis was placed on materials and processing to create mass reduction 

ideas.

Table F.8-2: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Nonmetallic 

Components of the Body Structure Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Rear Wheelhouse Arch 

Liners

Gas Assist Injection 

Molding

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings

Low or no Cost Impact with Mass 

Reduction

F.8.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected

The mass reduction idea selected that fell into the “A” group is shown in Table F.8-3.
Page 433

Table F.8-3: Summary of mass-reduction concepts selected for the nonmetallic Components of the 

Body Structures Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

03 01 00 Body Structure Subsystem

03 01 07 Rear Wheelhouse Arch Liners PolyOne Process - Injection Molding

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

F.8.1.5Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

The PolyOne gas assist system was utilized for all components, as shown in Table F.8-4. 

The mass was reduced .043 kg and cost decreased $0.21.

Table F.8-4: Summary of mass-reduction & cost impacts for the nonmetallic components of the 

Body Structure Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

SubSubsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

03 01 00 Body Structure Subsystem

03 01 07 Rear Wheelouse Arch Liners A 0.043 $0.21 $4.88 0.01% 0.00%

A 0.043 $0.21 $4.88 0.01% 0.00%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.8.2 Front End Subsystem

F.8.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.8-5 demonstrates that the most significant nonmetallic contributors to the Front 

End subsystem mass are the Rock Shields and the Front Wheelhouse Arch Liners.
Page 434

Table F.8-5: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Front End Module Subsystem.

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

03 02 00 Front End Subsystem

03 02 04 Front Wheelhouse Arch Liners 1.598

03 02 10 Under Engine Closures or rock shields 2.145

Total Subsystem Mass = 3.743

Total System Mass = 517.860

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 0.72%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.22%

Description

F.8.2.2Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The materials and thickness used are in common use by many automobile manufacturers 

and their suppliers. They protect the wheelhouse and engine components from noise and 

damage caused by rocks, debris, tires and conditions caused by inclement weather. The 

wheelhouse arches also serve to finish off the wheel wells.

F.8.2.3Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Down-gauging the material thickness is the most common method used to reduce mass. 

Designing in reinforcements while varying material thickness for the entire component or 

the thickness of a specific section can provide a significant mass reduction.

Another common industry method is to change materials and manufacturing processes. 

These component processes are altered based on materials technology and process 

production for interior hardware. 

Fiber lined wheelhouse arch liners are being utilized to further reduce NVH that emanates 

from the wheelhouse areas. They are useful in achieving cab acoustics targets while 

meeting durability standards. 

Spray on products are also being tested as a viable alternative to traditional wheelhouse 

arches and under engine closures, but as of yet do not provide enough protection or noise 

reduction to warrant consideration in this study.

The most promising emerging technology for hard trim is gas assist injection molding. 

MuCell technology is currently used by major OEM’s like Audi, Ford, BMW and VW as 
Page 435

introduced in section F.4B.1. PolyOne technology is currently used in production in 

industrial housings and structural foam applications as introduced in section F.4B.1.The 

F.8.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.8-6: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Nonmetallic 

Components of the Front End Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Front Wheelhouse Arch 

Liners

Gas Assist Injection 

Molding (MuCell®, 

PolyOne)

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings

Low or no Cost Impact with Mass 

reduction

Rock Shields

Gas Assist Injection 

Molding (MuCell®, 

PolyOne)

10% - 20% Mass 

Savings

Low or no Cost Impact with Mass 

reduction

F.8.2.5 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected

The mass reduction ideas selected that fell into the Ae group are shown in Table F.8-7. 

Table F.8-7: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected for the Nonmetallic Components of 

the Front End Subsystem
Page 436

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

03 02 00 Front End Subsystem

03 02 10 Under Engine Closures or Rock 

Shields PolyOne Process -Injection Molding

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem 

Description

F.8.2.6Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

The PolyOne gas assist system was utilized for all components in Table F.8-8. The 

resulting mass reduction is 0.103 kg and a $0.25 cost decrease.

Table F.8-8: Summary of Mass-Reduction and Cost Impacts for the Nonmetallic Components of 

the Front End Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

SubSubsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

03 02 00 Body Structure Subsystem

03 02 10 Under Engine Closures or Rock Shields A 0.103 $0.25 $2.43 1.73% 0.01%

A 0.103 $0.25 $2.43 1.73% 0.01%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Page 437

F.9 Suspension System

The Suspension system is composed of seven subsystems: Front Suspension, Rear 

Suspension, Shock Absorber, Wheels and Tires, Suspension Load Leveling Control, Rear 

Suspension Modules and Front Suspension Modules subsystems, as shown in Table 

F.9-1. Comparing the seven subsystems, the greatest mass is located in the Wheels and 

Tires subsystem with approximately 53.6%.

Table F.9-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for the Suspension System

The Final Calculated Results Summary for the entire Toyota Venza Suspension system is 

shown in Table F.9-2. This combination of proposed solutions was selected for this cost 

group due to the significant weight savings calculated to be obtained (approximately 

66.835kg) while also allowing for lower overall costs (approximately $ 144.71).

Table F.9-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Suspension System

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

System & 

Subsystem 

Mass

"kg"

04 00 00 Suspension System 24.416

04 01 00 Front Suspension Subsystem 33.194

04 02 00 Rear Suspension Subsystem 23.749

04 03 00 Shock Absorber Subsystem 42.945

04 04 00 Wheels And Tires Subsystem 141.815

04 05 00 Suspension Load Leveling Control Subsystem 0.000

04 06 00 Rear Suspension Modules 0.000

04 07 00 Front Suspension Modules 0.000

Total System Mass = 266.120

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 15.56%
Page 438

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

Subsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

04 00 00 Suspension System

04 01 00 Front Suspension Subsystem 11.572 -$3.04 -$0.26 55.40% 0.68%

04 02 00 Rear Suspension Subsystem 8.320 -$4.91 -$0.59 41.53% 0.49%

04 03 00 Shock Absorber Subsystem 14.111 -$57.99 -$4.11 35.88% 0.82%

04 04 00 Wheels And Tires Subsystem 32.833 -$78.77 -$2.40 25.69% 1.92%

04 05 00 Suspension Load Leveling Control Subsystem 0.000 0.000 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

04 06 00 Rear Suspension Modules 0.000 0.000 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

04 07 00 Front Suspension Modules 0.000 0.000 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

66.835 -$144.71 -$0.46 26.47% 3.91%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.9.1 Front Suspension Subsystem

F.9.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Image F.9-1 shows the major suspension components in the Front Suspension subsystem 

and their location and position relevant to one another as located on the vehicle front end.

Image F.9-1: Front Suspension Subsystem Relative Location Diagram
Page 439

(Source: Lotus – 2010 March EPA Report)

As shown in Image F.9-2, the Front Suspension subsystem major components consists of 

the Front Control Arms, Front Knuckle Assemblies, Front Stabilizer Bar, Bushings & 

Mounts and the miscellaneous attaching components. 

Image F.9-2: Front Suspension Subsystem Current Major Components

(Source: FEV Inc photo)

As seen in Table F.9-3, there are three sub-subsystems that make up the Front 

Suspension subsystem: the Front Suspension Links/Arms Upper and Lower, Front 

Suspension Knuckle Assembly, and the Front Stabilizer (Anti-Roll) Bar Assembly. The 

most significant mass contributor within this subsystem was found to be within the Front 

Suspension Knuckle Assembly (approx 37.6%), followed closely by the Front Suspension 

Links/Arms Upper and Lower (approx 35.0%), and then the Front Stabilizer (Anti-Roll) 

Bar Assembly (approx 27.4%).

Table F.9-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Front Suspension Subsystem
Page 440

F.9.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza’s Front Suspension subsystem (Image F.9-3) follows typical industry 

standards for design and performance. This includes a focus on strength and durability 

with least material cost. Steel is the material of choice with most components. Welding 

and assembly of multiple components is automated and requires careful setup, 

maintenance, and observation to assure quality. Toyota also focuses on providing similar, 

if not identical, components across all platform variants to take advantage of economies 

of scale for minimizing production costs. This approach, however, is not optimal for 

design efficiency based on applications and does not allow for maximum weight-versusperformance efficiency. 

The Front Suspension subsystem contains a variety of sub-assemblies and components 

with a variety of noteworthy characteristics. The Ball Joint Sub-Assembly (Image F.9-5) 

has a cast steel base plate socket while the spindle is forged steel. Both are machined and 

assembled with other various assembled components. The Ball Joint Sub-Assembly 

Fasteners (Image F.9-6) are typical cold headed steel fabrications. The Control Arm 

Assembly (Image F.9-4) is made up of many components assembled to the control arm. 

The Control Arm Sub-Assembly (Image F.9-5) is composed of several components, 

including the Control Arm (Image F.9-8), which is made from various stamped steel 

pieces welded together at several locations. The Control Arm Mounting Shaft (Image 

F.9-9) is a single-piece steel design. The Steering Knuckle (Image F.9-10) is cast iron 

and precision machined. The Stabilizer Bar system (Image F.9-11) contains the Stabilizer 

Bar, Bar Mounts, Mount Bushings, and Link Assemblies. The Stabilizer Bar (Image 

F.9-12) is a solid steel bar bent into shape and pinched flanges with punched holes for 

mounting points. The Stabilizer Bar Mounts (Image F.9-13) are of standard construction 

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

04 01 00 Front Suspension Subsystem --

04 01 02 Front Suspension Links/Arms Upper and Lower 11.614

04 01 04 Front Suspension Knuckle Assembly 12.494

04 01 05 Front Stabilizer (Anti-Roll) Bar Asm 9.086

Total Subsystem Mass = 33.194

Total System Mass = 266.120

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 12.47%

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 1.94%
Page 441

with stamped steel brackets. The Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings (Image F.9-14) are 

molded rubber isolators. The Stabilizer Link Assemblies (Image F.9-15) are standard 

steel design. The steel components include the link rod, link cup diameters, cup bottom 

plates and ball studs. 

Image F.9-3: Front Suspension Subsystem Current Assembly Example

(Source http://www.vehicledynamicsinternational.com)

F.9.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Automakers are deploying a wide variety of low mass materials in new vehicle models 

regarding all subsystems including suspensions. Implementations have been documented 

showing reduced component mass for the same functionality using alternative materials 

such as high-strength steel, aluminum, magnesium, plastics and polymer composites. 

Design approaches for the active components of suspensions are primarily focused on 

higher strength steels with lower part volume and high strength aluminum. Also, some 

notable ventures are into limited applications of magnesium, long fiber polymer 

composites, and in rare cases, carbon fiber and titanium. The progress has been slow over 

the years because of the typically higher resultant costs relative to steel. However, recent 

studies have shown cost comparisons near parity with well-designed parts using alternate 

materials, primarily high strength steel.
Page 442

Another significant consideration should be the secondary mass-reduction effects - weight 

reductions for all other vehicle subsystems. Less total vehicle mass reduces the 

suspension loading and provides opportunities to further reduce suspension mass.

In the last decade, basalt fiber has emerged as a contender in the fiber reinforcement of 

composites. Proponents of this technology claim their products offer performance similar 

to S-2 glass fibers at a price point between S-2 glass and E-glass, and may offer 

manufacturers a less-expensive alternative to carbon fiber for products in which the latter 

represents over-engineering and much higher cost.

Another technology that bears watching is bulk compound molding using polymer 

material that is filled with long carbon fiber.

Applications of basalt fiber and bulk molded carbon fiber will be delayed into the 

indefinite future because of limited production capacity. However, the continental United 

States has very large deposits of basalt, including the upper peninsula of Michigan. Basalt 

fiber research, production and most marketing efforts are based in countries once aligned 

with the Soviet bloc. Companies currently involved in production and marketing include 

Kamenny Vek (Dubna, Russia), Technobasalt (Kyiv, Ukraine), Hengdian Group 

Shanghai Russia & Gold Basalt Fibre Co. (Shanghai, China), and OJSC Research 

Institute Glassplastics and Fiber (Bucha, Ukraine). Basaltex, a division of Masureel 

Holding (Wevelgem, Belgium), Sudaglass Fiber Technology Inc. (Houston, Texas), and 

Allied Composite Technologies LLC (Rochester Hills, Michigan).

F.9.1.3.1 Front Control Arm Assembly

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Control Arm Assembly (Image F.9-4) is a multipiece assembly, with the major components made from steel and assembled together. The 

total mass of this assembly is 5.81kg. This assembly consists of the following 

components: Ball Joint Assembly, Ball Joint Fasteners and a Control Arm Sub-Assembly. 

The arm sub-assembly is made up of a Control Arm Sub-Assembly, Rubber Isolator (with 

a steel ID insert) and the Lower Bushing & Shaft. 
Page 443

Image F.9-4: Front Control Arm Current Assembly Example

(Source: http://www.piranamotorsports.com/servlet/the-990/Toyota-Sienna-2004-2005/Detail)

F.9.1.3.1.1 Front Ball Joint Sub-Assembly

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Ball Joint Assembly (Image F.9-5) is a 

multi-piece design assembly. The base plate socket is cast steel while the 

spindle is forged steel. Both are machined and assembled with various 

components for the socket boot, retaining ring, castle nut, zerk fitting, 

grease, etc. The overall assembly has a mass of 0.896kg. No other viable 

high volume manufactured alternate designs were found to substitute. Due 

to performance requirements for loading and strength, no cost effective 

material substitutions were identified for replacement. Therefore it was 

determined that a sizing and normalization activity would need to be 

performed based on GVW to see if any opportunities exist. 

Image F.9-5: Front Ball Joint Sub-Assembly

(Source:http://www.1aauto.com/1A/BallJoint/Toyota)
Page 444

F.9.1.3.1.2 Front Ball Joint Fasteners

The OEM Toyota Venza Ball Joint design utilizes bolt fasteners, Image 

F.9-6, in a standard attachment configuration to the Control Arm SubAssembly. In the design utilized there are two pressed in flanged bolts 

secured with hex nuts. While these items are of minimal weight contributors 

there are other designs that use mechanical rivets to attach the ball joint. 

This fastener design has less assembly process time and less costly 

components but results in a less serviceable front suspension assembly.

Each OEM chooses their own design based on these trade-offs and 

historical warranty data. The fasteners are common steel and have a 

combined mass of 0.190kg.

Image F.9-6: Front Ball Joint Sub-Assembly Fastener Example

(Source:http://www.1aauto.com/1A/BallJoint/Toyota)

F.9.1.3.1.3 Front Control Arm Sub-Assembly

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Control Arm Sub-Assembly (Image 

F.9-7) is a multi-piece assembly, with major components made from 

stamped steel and welded together. It has a total mass of 3.821kg. The rest 

of the sub-assembly is two hard-rubber isolators (one with a steel ID insert) 

and the Control Arm Mounting Shaft with bushing. 
Page 445

Image F.9-7: Front Control Arm Current Sub-Assembly Example

(Source: http://www.autopartsexpress.com/Parts/TOYOTA_Control_Arm.html)

F.9.1.3.1.4 Front Control Arm

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Control Arm Sub-Assembly 

(Image F.9-8) is a multi-piece assembly. The various pieces are 

made from stamped steel and welded together at several locations. It 

has a mass of 3.106kg. Traditionally control arms have been made 

from either welded steel assemblies or from being cast out of iron. 

This allows for adequate strength and component life without using 

more expensive processes or materials. Now with advances in 

materials and processing methods, other choices are available that 

have become more cost effective and are being utilized in 

aftermarket and high performance applications as well as OEM 

vehicle markets. Among some of these alternate mediums are Al, Ti, 

Steel, Mg and MMC. Forming methods now include sand casting, 

semi-permanent metal molding, die casting, machining from billet, 

and welded fabrications.
Page 446

Image F.9-8: Front Control Arm Current Component Example

(Source: http://www.autopartsexpress.com/Parts/TOYOTA_Control_Arm.html)

While these alternatives now are designed with the strength and 

performance required, they do add a significant cost-versus-mass 

increase. However, the weight savings achieved is quite substantial 

and assists with reducing vehicle requirements for suspension loads, 

handling, ride quality, engine hp requirements, etc. Other advanced 

development includes using bulk molding compound using long 

randomly oriented carbon fiber continues to be of interest due to the 

ability to easily mold it into complex shapes. 

F.9.1.3.1.5 Front Control Arm Mounting Shaft

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Control Arm Mounting Shaft

is a single-piece steel design with a mass of 0.390kg. Mounting 

shafts (Image F.9-9) have normally been made from various grades 

of cast iron for adequate strength and function. Now, with advances 

in materials and processing methods, other choices are available and 

being utilized in aftermarket and high performance applications as 

well as OEM vehicle markets. Among some of these alternate 

mediums are Al, Ti, Steel and Mg. Forming and fabrication methods 

include casting, forging and billet machining.
Page 447

Image F.9-9: Front Control Arm Mounting Shaft Current Component Example

(Source: http://autoparts2k.com/moog-control-arm-bushings-lower-k200037)/

F.9.1.3.2 Front Steering Knuckle

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Steering Knuckle (Image F.9-10) is a single 

piece cast iron knuckle of a standard design configuration with a mass of 5.865kg. 

Knuckles are historically made from cast iron for strength and function. Over the last 

several years, advances in alternative materials and processing methods have made new 

choices available. Rather than cast iron only, Al alloys are now a common choice and are 

used in high-volume applications by many OEMs. This allows not only similar functional 

performance, but substantial weight savings along with minimal, if any, cost increase.

Image F.9-10: Front Steering Knuckle Current Component

(Source: Lotus – 2010 March EPA Report)
Page 448

F.9.1.3.3 Front Stabilizer Bar System

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Stabilizer Bar system (Image F.9-11) is standard 

design and construction composed of solid steel forged bar, molded rubber mount 

bushings, steel stamped brackets, and miscellaneous fasteners. Together, this system has 

an overall mass of approximately 9.086kg. The stabilizer bar system has recently 

undergone some changes relative to design, materials, and processing. Steel bars are now 

made with a hollow design as well as with alternative materials. Mounting Bushings are 

being made with various plastics in order to increase rigidity and life. Brackets and 

mountings are now being made from new casted, forged and molded processes as well as 

with new materials such as Al, Ti, Mg, and fiber-reinforced plastics.

Image F.9-11: Stabilizer Bar System Current Component Example

(Source: http://www.hotchkis.net/6472_gm_abody_extreme_sway_bar_set.html)

Another trend in suspension stabilization technology is integrating more and more 

electronics. Electronic dampers allow a wide range between maximum and minimum 

damping levels and adjust instantly to ensure ride comfort and firm vehicle control. By 

integrating mechanical and electronic functions within the shock absorber system, 

automakers can improve handling and potentially reduce costs as technologies mature. 

BMW has redesigned a standard suspension piece to resolve some past suspension 

problems. While roll bars—or sway bars—help control vehicle pitch, they are also a 

detriment to ride quality because they transmit vibrations from one side of the vehicle to 

the other.

To remedy this problem, BMW has developed Active Roll Stabilization (Image F.9-12) 

for its 7-series vehicles. On these vehicles, roll bars have evolved into two-piece hydro 

mechanical parts. Now, when one side of the vehicle noses sharply into a turn or drops 
Page 449

down to meet the road, a hydraulic motor located between the bars turns the roll bar on 

the other side of the vehicle in a counter rotation motion, thereby keeping the entire 

vehicle flat.

Since the roll bar is separated into two pieces, vibrations from one side are no longer 

transmitted to the other. That allows the two sides of the vehicle to be truly independent. 

The result is a vehicle with improved handling and no trade off in ride comfort while also 

allowing a potential reduction in vehicle front end mass.

Image F.9-12: BMW Active Roll Stabilization System

(Source : http://www.search-autoparts.com/searchautoparts/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=68222)

F.9.1.3.3.1 Front Stabilizer Bar

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Stabilizer Bar (Image F.9-13) is 

standard construction with a solid steel bar bent into shape and pinched 

flanges with punched holes for mounting points. This bar has a mass of 

7.099kg. The stabilizer bar has begun being redesigned in recent years. 

Design, materials and processing changes now allow hollow designs as well 

as using alternative materials such as Al, Ti, HSS and fiber reinforced 

composites. While these materials can effect performance and handling 

under various conditions, significant mass savings can also be achieved.
Page 450

Image F.9-13: Stabilizer Bar Current Component

(Source: Lotus – 2010 March EPA Report)

F.9.1.3.3.2 Front Stabilizer Bar Mountings

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Stabilizer Bar Mountings (Image 

F.9-14) are of standard construction. There are two stamped steel brackets, 

one bracket nesting inside the other when assembled. They have a mass of 

0.62kg. These brackets have had some changes in design, materials and 

processing recently. Various configurations include alternate materials for 

Al, Mg, HSS and plastics. Among the process variations for manufacturing 

are casting, molding, and forging.

Image F.9-14: Stabilizer Bar Mounting Current Components

(Source: FEV Inc Photos)
Page 451

F.9.1.3.3.3 Front Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings 

(Image F.9-15) are of standard design made of molded rubber. They have a 

mass of 0.091kg. Mounting bushings have had some changes in design, 

materials, or processing recently. Most changes are material differences and 

it is now common that nylons and urethanes are used by many OEMs and 

nearly all after-market manufacturers. While there is only a minimal 

accomplishment in mass savings, there is a cost savings and functional 

performance enhancement that is realized.

Image F.9-15: Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushing Current Components

(Source:http://www.wundercarparts.com/item.wws?sku=K90546&itempk=777630&mfr=MOOG&weight=3)

F.9.1.3.3.4 Front Stabilizer Link Sub-Assembly

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Stabilizer Link Sub-Assembly is 

standard steel construction and has a mass of 0.400kg. This link assembly 

(Image F.9-16) has had little change in design, materials, or processing in 

recent years. Most are of steel construction components – link rod, link cup 

diameters, cup bottom plates, and ball studs. The other components include 

the rubber boots, retaining rings, fastening nuts, and grease. Little has been 

done to change the basic design of these units, but some manufacturers are 

beginning to use alternative materials. 
Page 452

Image F.9-16: Front Stabilizer Link Current Sub-Assembly

(Source:http://www.autopartswarehouse.com/details/QQToyotaQQVenzaQQMoogQQSway_Bar_LinkQQ2010QQ

MOK90344.html)

F.9.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Brainstorming activities generated the ideas shown in Table F.9-4 for the Front 

Suspension subsystem and their various components. The majority of these mass 

reduction ideas offer alternatives to traditional steel parts and assemblies. They include 

part modifications, material substitutions, processing and fabrication differences, and the 

use of alternative parts currently in production and used on other vehicles and

applications. Our team approach to idea selection used judgment from extensive 

experience and research to prepare a list of the most promising ideas.
Page 453

Table F.9-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Front Suspension 

Subsystem
Page 454

Table F.9-4 continued on next page

Component/ Assembly Mass Reduction Idea Estimated Impact

Risk & Trade-offs and/or 

Benefits

Front Suspension Subsystem

Ball Joint Fasteners Rivet ball joints & eliminate 

fasteners 10-20% wt save Low Cost. In production - automotive.

Control Arm Mounts

Control Arm Mounts - Use 

through bolt & nut design and 

eliminate heavy anchor rods

10% wt save Not feasible - no room for 

design chg.

Control Arm Mounting Shaft Al forging 60-70% wt save Higher Cost. Auto production 

C5 Corvette.

Pulltrude control arms 20-30% wt save Not analyzed due to low ranking 

score

Al (cast) control arms 30-40% wt save Higher Cost. Auto production C5 

Corvette.

Make Bottom arms out of 

Titanium (sheet) 40-50% wt save High Cost. Low production - auto racing.

Replace from 2005 VW 

Passat (mass:8.66-7.54 & 

cost:0.98)

10-20% wt save Low Cost. In production - VW 

Passat.

Al (sheet) weld fab control 

arms

60-70% wt save Higher Cost. Auto production 

BMW & GM.

SS stamped & welded fab 

control arms 20-30% wt save Higher Cost.

Mg cast control arms 30-40% wt save High Cost. Low production - 

auto.

HSS stamped control arms 10-20% wt save Higher Cost. Auto production.

Combination. Replace from 

Passat & chg to Al Welded 

Fabrication.

70-80% wt save Higher Cost. Auto production - 

VW.

Make Frt Stabilzer Link Asm 

RH & LH out of Forged Al 60-70% wt save Higher Cost. Low volume production - racing.

Make Frt Stabilzer Link Asm 

RH & LH out of Titanium 40-50% wt save High Cost. Low volume production - off-road.

Replace from 2005 VW 

Passat (mass:0.86-0.69 & 

cost:0.96)

20-30% wt save Low Cost. In production - VW 

Passat.

Replace from 2005 VW 

Passat (is Al) (mass:5.95-3.50 

& cost:1.65)

30-40% wt save High Cost. In production - VW 

Passat.

Normalized Cast Aluminum 30-40% wt save Higher Cost. Auto production - 

VW & GM.

Control Arms

Frt Stabilizer Link Asms

Knuckles
Page 455

Table F.9-4 continued on next page

Make stabilizer bars hollow 30-40% wt save Higher Cost. Auto production 

BMW & GM.

Make stabilizer bars out of 

Aluminum (solid) 40-50% wt save High Cost. Low production.

Make stabilizer bars out of 

Titanium (hollow) 60-70% wt save High Cost. Low production - auto racing

Glass/Epoxy Filament winding 

(solid) 70-80% wt save Higher Cost. Auto production BMW & Audi

Carbon/Epoxy Filament 

winding (solid) 60-70% wt save High Cost. Low production - auto racing

Replace from 2005 VW 

Passat (hollow) (mass:6.09-

3.09 & cost:0.82)

40-50% wt save Low Cost. In production - VW & 

BMW.

Make stabilizer bars out of 

Aluminum (hollow or tubular) 50-60% wt save Mod Cost. Development for low production.

Combination. Replace from 

Passat & chg to Al (hollow). 60-70% wt save Moderate Cost.

Make stabilizer bar mountings 

out of cast aluminum 30-40% wt save High Cost. Low production - auto

Make stabilizer bar mountings 

out of sheet stamped 

aluminum

30-40% wt save High Cost. Low production - 

auto racing

Make stabilizer bar mountings 

out of cast magnesium 40-50% wt save High Cost. Low production - auto racing

Overmold stabilizer bar 

mountings 5-10% wt save In production - VW & BMW.

Use hook & bolt design on 

stabilizer mounting bracket to 

eliminate (1) fastener

5-10% wt save In production - GM.

Combination. Cast Al & 

Overmolded. 40-50% wt save Higher Cost. Low production European Auto.

Stabilizer Bar Mount 

Bushings

Make stabilizer bushings out of 

nylon 5-10% wt save High Cost. Low production - auto racing

Strut Modules & Wheel 

Carriers

Lt wt suspension composite 

strut module with integrated 

wheel carrier

40-50% wt save High Cost. Development

Front Suspension System

Optimize for downsized (nonhybrid) powertrain, smaller 

wheels-See Future Steel 

Vehicle: 25-33% reduction

20-30% wt save

Idea to all encompassing for 

scope of project - done instead 

with specific components

Stabilizer Bar

Stabilizer Bar Mounts
Page 456

F.9.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.9-5 shows a subset of the ideas generated from the brainstorming activities. 

These ideas were selected for detailed evaluation of both the mass savings achieved and 

the manufacturing cost. Several ideas suggest alternative materials as well as part 

substitutions from other vehicle designs, such as those currently being used on the VW 

Passat (as determined in the March 2010 Lotus Report).

Table F.9-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Front Suspension Subsystem Analysis

Balljoints

Replace from 2005 VW 

Passat (mass:1.97-1.32 & 

cost:0.93)

40-50% wt save Low Cost. In production - VW 

Passat.

Dust Covers

Replace from 2005 VW 

Passat (mass:0.00-0.75 & 

cost:x)

Lotus idea - wt 

increase.

Not implemented due to wt 

increase. In production - VW 

Passat.

Mass Damper

Replace from 2005 VW 

Passat (mass:1.30-0.00 & 

cost:x)

100% wt save In production - VW Passat.
Page 457

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

04 01 00 Front Suspension Subsystem

04 01 00 Ball Joint Fasteners Rivet ball joints & eliminate fasteners

04 01 00 Control Arm Mounting Shaft Al forging

04 01 00 Control Arms Combination. Replace from Passat & chg to Al 

Welded Fabrication.

04 01 00 Frt Stabilizer Link Asms Make Frt Stabilzer Link Asm RH & LH out of 

Forged Al

04 01 00 Knuckles Normalized Cast Aluminum

04 01 00 Stabilizer Bar Combination. Replace from Passat & chg to Steel 

Tubing (hollow).

04 01 00 Stabilizer Bar Mounts Make stabilizer bar mountings out of cast 

magnesium

04 01 00 Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings Make stabilizer bushings out of nylon

04 01 00 Strut Modules & Wheel Carriers Lt wt suspension composite strut module with 

integrated wheel carrier

04 01 00 Balljoints Replace from 2005 VW Passat (mass:1.97-1.32 

& cost:0.93)

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem 

Description

The new mass-reduced front suspension system configuration (Image F.9-17) is still that 

of typical vehicle designs utilized by nearly all OEMs. The mass reductions achieved 

were done so by improving and replacing individual sub-assemblies and components. The 

overall design and function remains the same, thus eliminating drastic revisions that will 

cause significant vehicle interface redesigns.
Page 458

Image F.9-17: Front Suspension Rotor Mass Reduced System Example

(Source http://www.vehicledynamicsinternational.com)

F.9.1.5.1 Front Control Arm Assembly

The solutions chosen for implementation on the final Front Control Arm Assembly 

(Image F.9-18) are a combination of multiple ideas across several different subassemblies and components. The total mass of this new sub-assembly is 4.33 kg. These 

ideas included modifications to design, material utilized, and processing methods required 

to the following sub-assemblies and components: Ball Joint Assembly, Ball Joint 

Fasteners, and a Control Arm Sub-Assembly. The Arm Sub-Assembly is made up of a 

Control Arm, Rubber Isolator (with a steel ID insert), and the Lower Bushing & Shaft. 
Page 459

Image F.9-18: Front Control Arm Mass Reduced Assembly Example

(Source: http://www.amazon.com/Dorman-521-026-Front-Lower-Control/dp/B0049E2L2I)

F.9.1.5.1.1 Front Ball Joint Sub-Assembly

The solution used for the Ball Joint Assembly (Image F.9-19) is the subassembly substitution from the VW Passat application. No other viable 

high-volume manufactured alternate designs were found for substitution. 

Due to loading and strength performance requirements, no cost-effective 

material substitutions were identified for replacement. Therefore, it was 

determined that a sizing and normalization activity would be applied based 

on GVW. The overall sub-assembly has a 0.60kg replacement mass. 
Page 460

Image F.9-19: Front Ball Joint Mass Reduced Sub-Assembly

(Source:http://www.1aauto.com/1A/BallJoint/Toyota)

F.9.1.5.1.2 Front Ball Joint Fasteners

The answer implemented for Ball Joint Fasteners (Image F.9-20) was to 

eliminate the bolts used in the standard attachment configuration to the 

Control Arm Sub-Assembly. Rivets replaced these bolts for simpler and 

easier assembling process time as well as a small weight savings. These 

new rivets have a new net mass of 0.102kg.

Image F.9-20: Front Ball Joint Sub-Assembly Mass Reduced Fastener Example

(Source: http://www.ecklerscorvette.com/corvette-ball-joint-rivet-set-lower.html)

F.9.1.5.1.3 Front Control Arm Sub-Assembly
Page 461

The new Front Control Arm Sub-Assembly (Image F.9-21) is still a multipiece assembly; however, now with the major components being made from 

forged aluminum together. This design utilizing Al for the control arm is 

now very common in the industry and used by nearly all major OEMs, in 

particular GM, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda, and Audi. This 

component has a total mass of 3.73 kg. The rest of the sub-assembly 

consists of two hard-rubber isolators (one with a steel ID insert) and the 

Control Arm Mounting Shaft with bushing. 

Image F.9-21: Front Control Arm Mass Reduced Sub-Assembly Example

(Source: http://www.amazon.com/Dorman-521-026-Front-Lower-Control/dp/B0049E2L2I)

F.9.1.5.1.3.1 Front Control Arm

The solution for Front Control Arm Sub-Assembly (Image F.9-22) 

is still a single piece forged aluminum component. Due to the 

replacement of steel with Al, an additional material volume of 30-

40% was made. This design, utilizing Al for the control arm, is now 

very common in the industry and used by nearly all major OEMs, in 

particular GM, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda, and Audi. This 

cast component has a total mass of 2.74kg. 

Traditionally control arms have been made from either welded steel 

assemblies or from being cast out of iron. This allowed for adequate 

strength and component life without using more expensive processes 

or materials. Now with advances in materials and processing 

methods, other choices are available that have become more cost 

effective and are often being utilized in aftermarket and by OEMs. 

Among some of these alternate mediums are Al, Ti, Steel and Mg. 
Page 462

Forming methods now include sand casting, semi-permanent metal 

molding, die casting, machining from billet, and welded fabrications.

Image F.9-22: Front Control Arm Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source: http://www.amazon.com/Dorman-521-026-Front-Lower-Control/dp/B0049E2L2I)

The weight savings achieved is quite substantial and assists with 

reducing vehicle requirements for suspension loads, handling, ride 

quality, engine hp requirements, etc. Consideration must still be 

given to adequate validation testing to fit this solution to particular 

vehicle requirements. 

F.9.1.5.1.3.2 Front Control Arm Mounting Shaft

The change utilized on the Front Control Arm Mounting Shaft 

(Image F.9-23) is to now use forged Al instead of a steel component.

Due to the replacement of steel with Al, an additional material 

volume of 20-30% was made. Mounting shafts have normally been 

made from various grades of steel for adequate strength. Now, with 

advances in materials and processing methods, other choices are 

available and being utilized in aftermarket and high-performance 

applications as well as in some OEM vehicle markets. Among some 

of these alternate are Al and Ti. Forming and fabrication methods 

include forging and billet machining. This new component had a 

mass of 0.18kg.
Page 463

Image F.9-23: Front Control Arm Mounting Shaft Mass Reduced Example

(Source: http://www.track-star.net/store/corvette-c6-z06-suspension/pfadt-racing-spherical-bushing-set-2006-2011-

c6-z06)

F.9.1.5.2 Front Steering Knuckle

The new Front Steering Knuckle (Image F.9-24) is a component substitution from the 

VW Passat application. In addition to this the material will be changed to Al as well. Due 

to the replacement of steel with Al, an additional material volume of 20% was made. Al 

alloys are now a common choice and are used in high volume applications by many 

OEMs, including GM, BMW, Audi, Honda, Toyota, Ford, and Chrysler. Due to loading 

and strength performance requirements, proper validation testing would be required 

dependent on the application. Therefore, it was determined that a sizing and 

normalization activity would be applied based on GVW. The overall sub-assembly has a 

replacement mass of 2.71kg. 
Page 464

Image F.9-24: Front Steering Knuckle Mass Reduced Component

(Source: Lotus – 2010 March EPA Report)

F.9.1.5.3 Front Stabilizer Bar System

The proposed Front Stabilizer Bar system (Image F.9-25) is of standard configuration 

with a different design and construction. Rather than solid steel forged bar composition 

with molded rubber mount bushings and steel stamped brackets, it is now a hollow Steel 

Tube with cast Mg mounting brackets and nylon bushings. Together, this new system has 

reduced mass to a total of 2.879kg. 
Page 465

Image F.9-25: Stabilizer Bar System Mass Reduced System Example

(Source: http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/toyota-tundra-trd-parts-accessories)

F.9.1.5.3.1 Front Stabilizer Bar

The mass reduced Front Stabilizer Bar (Image F.9-26) is now of hollow 

design with steel tubing material. Additional for increasing the bar diameter 

from 25.0mm diameter solid to 28.0mm diameter hollow to allow an 

adequate cross-section relative to being hollow versus solid. Hollow 

stabilizer bars are mass produced by Mubea and are becoming common on 

many European vehicles and beginning to being utilized in North America. 

This new bar now has a mass of 2.329kg. As with other suspension 

components, proper validation must be performed based on the vehicle 

performance requirements.
Page 466

Image F.9-26: Stabilizer Bar Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source: http://www.i-club.com/forums/suspension-brakes-handling-wheels-tires-162)

F.9.1.5.3.2 Front Stabilizer Bar Mountings

The new Front Stabilizer Bar Mountings (Image F.9-27) are now mad of 

die cast Mg brackets. Due to the replacement of steel with Al, an additional 

material volume of 50-60% was made. They have a mass of 0.335kg. These 

brackets have progressed with some changes in design, materials, and 

processing. These designs include alternate materials for Al, Mg, HSS, and 

fiber plastics. Among the process variations for manufacturing include 

casting, molding, and forging.

Image F.9-27: Stabilizer Bar Mounting Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source: http://www.tickperformance.com/products/UMI-Heavy-Duty-Billet-Aluminum-Rear-Sway-BarMounts.html)

F.9.1.5.3.3 Front Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings
Page 467

The redesigned Front Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings (Image F.9-28) are of 

standard design but utilize an alternate material of nylon versus rubber. 

They have a mass of 0.086kg. Many aftermarket as well as OEM 

manufacturers now utilize this new material choice for many vehicle 

applications. This is due to improved handling performance, increase 

component life and even a small amount of mass reduction.

Image F.9-28: Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushing Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source: http://www.suspensionconnection.com/cgi-bin/suscon/18-1116.html)

F.9.1.5.3.4 Front Stabilizer Link Sub-Assembly

The new Front Stabilizer Link Sub-Assemblies (Image F.9-29) are now 

redesigned using cast Al construction for a 0.298kg mass. Due to the 

replacement of steel with Al, an additional material volume of 60-70% was 

made. This link assembly eliminates several components and a great deal of 

assembly and machining for a simplified design. Components combined 

include: link rod, link cup diameters, and cup bottom plates. 
Page 468

Image F.9-29: Front Stabilizer Link Mass Reduced Sub-Assembly

(Source: http://www.mjmautohaus.com/catalog/VW)

F.9.1.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.9-6 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated for the 

Front Suspension subsystem. These ideas resulted in an overall subsystem mass savings 

of 11.572kg and a cost increase differential of $3.04.

Table F.9-6: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Front Suspension Subsystem
Page 469

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Selec

t

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ 

Sub-Subs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

04 01 00 Front Suspension

04 01 01 Front Road Spring 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

04 01 02 Front Suspension Links/Arms Upper & 

Lower

A

1.934 $0.65 $0.34 39.31% 0.11%

04 01 03 Front Suspension Knuckle Assembly A 6.759 -$6.78 -$1.00 62.70% 0.40%

04 01 04 Front Stabilizer Bar Assembly C 2.879 $3.09 $1.07 65.93% 0.17%

A 11.572 -$3.04 -$0.26 55.40% 0.68%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.9.2 Rear Suspension Subsystem

F.9.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview

The Image F.9-30 pictorial diagram represents the major suspension components in the 

Rear Suspension subsystem and their relative location and position relevant to one 

another as located on the vehicle rear end.
Page 470

Image F.9-30: Rear Suspension Subsystem Relative Location Diagram

(Source: Lotus – 2010 March EPA Report)

As seen in Image F.9-31, the Rear Suspension subsystem consists of the major 

components of the Rear Arms – Upper and Lower, Rod Arms, Rear Carrier Assemblies, 

Rear Stabilizer Bar, Bushings and Mounts, and the miscellaneous attaching components. 

Image F.9-31: Rear Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem Current Major Components

(Source: FEV, Inc Photo)

As seen in Table F.9-7, the three sub-subsystems that make up the Rear Suspension 

subsystem are: the Rear Suspension Links/Arms Upper and Lower; Rear Suspension 

Knuckle Assembly; and Rear Stabilizer (Anti-Roll) Bar Assembly. The most significant 

contributor to the mass of the Rear Suspension subsystem is the Knuckle Assembly 

(approx 47.8%), followed closely by Links/Arms Upper and Lower (approx 35.7%) and 

then the Stabilizer Bar (approx 16.5%).

Table F.9-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Rear Suspension Subsystem
Page 471

F.9.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

As with the front suspension, the Toyota Venza’s rear suspension system follows typical 

industry standards. See Section F.4.1 for additional information.

The Toyota Venza’s Rear Suspension subsystem, Image F.9-32, follows typical industry 

standards for design and performance. This includes a focus on strength and durability 

with least material cost. Steel is the material of choice with most components, with 

welding and assembly being done on multiple components. Toyota also focuses on 

providing similar if not identical components across all platform variants to take 

advantage of economies of scale in minimizing production costs. This approach, however, 

is not optimal for design efficiency based on applications and does not allow for 

maximum weight-versus-performance efficiency. 

The Rear Suspension subsystem contains a variety of sub-assemblies and components 

with a variety of noteworthy characteristics: The Rear Arm #1 Assembly (Image F.9-33) 

is a steel welded fabrication with two assembled rubber isolators, as is the Rear Arm #2 

Assembly (Image F.9-34). The Rear Rod Assembly (Image F.9-35) is made from various 

steel pieces are welded together and assembled with two rubber isolators. The Bearing 

Carrier Knuckle (Image F.9-36) is cast iron and precision machined. The Stabilizer Bar 

system (Image F.9-37) contains the Stabilizer Bar, Bar Mounts, Mount Bushings and 

Link Assemblies. The Stabilizer Bar (Image F.9-38) is a solid steel bar bent into shape 

and pinched flanges with punched holes for mounting points. The Stabilizer Bar Mounts 

(Image F.9-39) are standard construction with stamped steel brackets. The Stabilizer Bar 

Mount Bushings (Image F.9-40) are molded rubber isolators. The Stabilizer Link 

Assemblies (Image F.9-41) are standard steel design. The steel components include the 

link rod, link cup diameters, cup bottom plates, and ball studs. 

System 

Subsystem 

SubSubsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

04 02 00 Rear Suspension Subsystem --

04 02 02 Rear Suspension Links/Arms Upper and Lower 8.479

04 02 03 Rear Suspension Knuckle Assembly 11.341

04 02 05 Rear Stabilizer (Anti-Roll) Bar Asm 3.929

Total Subsystem Mass = 23.749

Total System Mass = 266.120

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 8.92%

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 1.39%
Page 472

Image F.9-32: Rear Suspension Subsystem Current Assembly Example

(Source http://www.bestcarsguide.com/what-is-rear-end-suspension)

F.9.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Automakers are deploying a wide variety of low-mass materials in new vehicle models 

regarding all subsystems, including suspensions. Implementations have been documented 

showing reduced component mass for the same functionality using alternative materials 

such as high-strength steel, aluminum, magnesium, plastics, and polymer composites. 

Design approaches for the active components of suspensions are primarily focused on 

higher strength steels with lower part volume and high-strength aluminum. Also, some 

notable ventures are into limited applications of magnesium, long fiber polymer 

composites, and in rare cases, carbon fiber and titanium. The progress has been slow over 

the years because of the typically higher resultant costs relative to steel. However, recent 

studies have shown cost comparisons near parity with well-designed parts using alternate 

materials, primarily high strength steel.

Another significant consideration should be the secondary mass-reduction effects - weight 

reductions for all other vehicle subsystems. Less total vehicle mass reduces the 

suspension loading and provides opportunities to further reduce suspension mass.

F.9.2.3.1 Rear Arm Assembly #1

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Arm Assembly #1 (Image F.9-33) is a multi-piece 

assembly with the major portions being made from steel tubing welded together. The total 

mass of this assembly is 0.826kg. This assembly also consists of two rubber isolators with 

metal ID sleeves. No other viable high volume manufactured alternate designs were 
Page 473

found to substitute. Due to loading and strength performance requirements, no costeffective material substitutions were identified. Therefore, it was determined that a sizing 

and normalization activity would need to be performed based on GVW to see if any 

opportunities exist. 

Image F.9-33: Rear Arm #1 Current Assembly

(Source: http://www.streetperformance.com/auto/2000-toyota-camry-ce/trailing-arm)

F.9.2.3.2 Rear Arm Assembly #2

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Arm Assembly #2 (Image F.9-34) is a multi-piece 

assembly, with the major portions being made from steel tubing welded together. The 

overall assembly mass is 1.130kg. 

Image F.9-34: Rear Arm #2 Current Assembly Example

(Source: http://www.streetperformance.com/auto/2000-toyota-camry-ce/trailing-arm)

F.9.2.3.3 Rear Rod Assembly
Page 474

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Control Arm Sub-Assembly (Image F.9-35) is a 

multi-piece assembly with major components made from steel tubing and welded 

together. It contains an installed threaded insert for adjustability. This unit has a total 

mass of 1.222kg. The rest of the sub-assembly is two hard-rubber isolators (one with a 

steel ID insert) and the Control Arm Mounting Shaft with bushing. 

Image F.9-35: Rear Rod Current Assembly Example

(Source: http://www.ebay.com/itm/REAR-SUSPENSION-LEFT-LATERAL-LINK-TOYOTA)

F.9.2.3.4 Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle (Image F.9-36) is a 

single piece cast iron knuckle of a standard design configuration with a mass of 5.282kg. 

Knuckles are historically made from cast iron for strength and function. Over the last 

several years, advances in alternative materials and processing methods have allowed new 

choices to be available. Rather than cast iron only, Al alloys are now a common choice 

and are used in high volume applications by many OEMs. This allows not only similar 

functional performance but substantial weight savings along with minimal, if any, cost 

increase.
Page 475

Image F.9-36: Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle Current Component

(Source: Lotus – 2010 March EPA Report)

F.9.2.3.5 Rear Stabilizer Bar System

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Stabilizer Bar system (Image F.9-37) is standard 

design and construction composed of solid steel forged bar, molded rubber-mount 

bushings, steel-stamped brackets, and miscellaneous fasteners. Together, this system has 

an overall mass of approximately 3.929kg. The stabilizer bar system has undergone some 

changes relative to design, materials, and processing recently. Steel bars are now being 

made with a hollow design as well as with alternative materials. Mounting Bushings are 

now made with various plastics in order to increase rigidity and life. Brackets and 

mountings are now being made from new casting, forging, and molding processes as well 

as utilizing new materials such as Al, Ti, Mg and fiber-reinforced plastics.
Page 476

Image F.9-37: Stabilizer Bar System Current Component Example

(Source: http://www.hotchkis.net/6472_gm_abody_extreme_sway_bar_set.html)

F.9.2.3.5.1 Rear Stabilizer Bar

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Stabilizer Bar (Image F.9-38) is 

standard construction with solid steel bar bent into shape and pinched 

flanges with punched holes for mounting points. This bar has a mass of 

2.880kg. The stabilizer bar has undergone redesign in recent years: Design, 

materials, and processing changes now allow for hollow designs as well as 

using alternative materials such as Al, Ti, HSS, and fiber-reinforced 

composites. While these materials can effect performance and handling 

under various conditions, significant mass savings is also achieved.

Image F.9-38: Stabilizer Bar Current Component Example

(Source: http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.2.3.5.2 Rear Stabilizer Bar Mountings

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Stabilizer Bar Mountings (Image 

F.9-39) are of standard stamped steel construction and have a mass of 

0.127kg. These brackets have had some recent changes in design, materials 
Page 477

and processing, including alternate configurations with materials such as 

Al, Mg, HSS, and plastics. Process variations for manufacturing include 

casting, molding, and forging.

Image F.9-39: Stabilizer Bar Mounting Current Components

(Source: FEV Inc Photo)

F.9.2.3.5.3 Rear Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings 

(Image F.9-40) are of standard design made of molded rubber. They have a 

mass of 0.073kg. Mounting bushings have had some changes in design, 

materials or processing recently. Most changes are material differences and 

it is now common that nylons and urethanes are used by many OEMs and 

nearly all after-market manufacturers. While there is only a minimal 

accomplishment in mass savings, there is a cost savings and functional 

performance enhancement that is realized.
Page 478

Image F.9-40: Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushing Current Components

(Source:http://www.wundercarparts.com/item.wws?sku=K90546&itempk=777630&mfr=MOOG&weight=3)

F.9.2.3.5.4 Rear Stabilizer Link Sub-Assembly

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Stabilizer Link Sub-Assembly is 

standard steel construction and has a mass of 0.2974kg. This link assembly 

(Image F.9-41) has had little change in design, materials or processing in 

recent years. Most are of steel construction components – link rod, link cup 

diameters, cup bottom plates, and ball studs. The other components include 

the rubber boots, retaining rings, fastening nuts, and grease. Little has been 

done to change the basic design of these units, but some manufacturers are 

beginning to use alternative materials.

Image F.9-41: Rear Stabilizer Link Current Sub-Assembly

(Source:http://www.autopartswarehouse.com/details/QQToyotaQQVenzaQQMoogQQSway_Bar_LinkQQ2010QQ

MOK90344.html)

F.9.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

The brainstorming activities generated the ideas shown in Table F.9-8 for the Rear 

Suspension subsystem and its various components. The majority of these mass reduction 

ideas offer alternatives to steel with material substitutions, part modifications, processing 

and fabrication differences, and the use of alternative parts currently in production and 

used on other vehicles and applications.
Page 479

Table F.9-8: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Rear Suspension 

Subsystem
Page 480

Table F.9-8 continued on next page

Component/ Assembly Mass Reduction Idea Estimated Impact

Risk & Trade-offs and/or 

Benefits

Rear Suspension Subsystem

Make LH Rear Arm Asm out of 

Forged Aluminum Bars 40-50% wt save Higher Cost. In Production - Auto.

Make LH Rear Arm Asm out of 

Steel Tube 30-40% wt save In Production - Most Auto Makers

Make LH Rear Arm Asm out of 

Titanium (Hollow) 20-30% wt save Low production - auto racing

Replace from 2005 Alfa 

Romeo 147 (mass:3.128-

3.119 & cost:0.95)

5-10% wt save In production - Alfa Romeo.

Make RH Rear Arm Asm out 

of Forged Aluminum Bars 40-50% wt save Higher Cost. In Production - Auto.

Make RH Rear Arm Asm out 

of Steel Tube 30-40% wt save In Production - Most Auto Makers

Make RH Rear Arm Asm out 

of Titanium (Hollow) 20-30% wt save Low production - auto racing

Replace from 2005 Alfa 

Romeo 147 (mass:3.119-

2.856 & cost:0.99)

5-10% wt save In production - Alfa Romeo.

Make Rear Rod Asm out of 

Forged Aluminum Bars 40-50% wt save Higher Cost. In Production - Auto.

Make Rear Rod Asm out of 

Steel Tube 30-40% wt save In Production - Most Auto Makers

Make Rear Rod Asm out of 

Titanium (Hollow) 20-30% wt save Low production - auto racing

Replace from 2005 Alfa 

Romeo 147 (mass:2.366-

2.061 & cost:0.99)

5-10% wt save In production - Alfa Romeo.

Rear Suspension System

Lightweight elastomeric rear 

suspension system DCX 

ESX3

20-30% wt save

In production - GM C5 Corvette. 

Not implemented due to 

complexity of system validation 

& scope of work req'd.

Make Frt Stabilzer Link Asm 

RH & LH out of Forged Al 60-70% wt save Higher Cost. Low volume production - racing.

Make Frt Stabilzer Link Asm 

RH & LH out of Titanium 40-50% wt save High Cost. Low volume production - off-road.

Replace from 2005 Alfa 

Romeo 147 (mass:0.620-

0.586 & cost:1.00)

20-30% wt save Low Cost. In production - Alfa 

Romeo.

Replace from 2005 Alfa 

Romeo 147 & Al 

(mass:11.160-3.820 & 

cost:1.00)

30-40% wt save High Cost. In production - Alfa 

Romeo.

Normalized Cast Aluminum 30-40% wt save Higher Cost. Auto production - 

VW & GM.

Frt Stabilizer Link Asms

Rear Arm Asm #1

Rear Arm Asm #2

Rear Rod Asm

Knuckles
Page 481

F.9.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.9-9 shows a subset of the ideas generated from the brainstorming activities. 

These ideas were selected for detailed evaluation of both the mass savings achieved and 

the manufacturing cost. Also included are part substitutions from other vehicle designs 

such as those currently in use in the Alfa Romeo 147 (as determined in the March 2010 

Lotus Report). 

Make stabilizer bars hollow 30-40% wt save Higher Cost. Auto production 

BMW & GM.

Make stabilizer bars out of 

Aluminum (solid) 40-50% wt save High Cost. Low production.

Make stabilizer bars out of 

Titanium (hollow) 60-70% wt save High Cost. Low production - auto racing

Replace from 2005 Alfa 

Romeo 147 (mass:2.866-

2.344 & cost:1.00)

40-50% wt save Low Cost. In production - Alfa 

Romeo, VW & BMW.

Make stabilizer bars out of 

Aluminum (hollow or tubular) 50-60% wt save Mod Cost. Development for low production.

Make stabilizer bar mountings 

out of cast aluminum 30-40% wt save High Cost. Low production - auto

Make stabilizer bar mountings 

out of sheet stamped 

aluminum

30-40% wt save High Cost. Low production - 

auto racing

Make stabilizer bar mountings 

out of cast magnesium 40-50% wt save High Cost. Low production - auto racing

Overmold stabilizer bar 

mountings 5-10% wt save In production - VW & BMW.

Use hook & bolt design on 

stabilizer mounting bracket to 

eliminate (1) fastener

5-10% wt save In production - GM.

Combination. Cast Al & 

Overmolded. 40-50% wt save Higher Cost. Low production European Auto.

Stabilizer Bar Mount 

Bushings

Make stabilizer bushings out of 

nylon 5-10% wt save High Cost. Low production - auto racing

Strut Modules & Wheel 

Carriers

Lt wt suspension composite 

strut module with integrated 

wheel carrier

40-50% wt save High Cost. Development

Rear Suspension System

Replace dual coil spring 

system w/ traverse leaf spring 

(and anti-roll bar, mounts & 

links and two control arms)

30-40% wt save

Not analyzed - out of scope of 

study due to magnitude of 

design changes & validation rqd.

Mass Damper

Replace from 2005 Alfa 

Romeo 147 (mass:1.263-

0.000 & cost:x)

100% wt save In production - Alfa Romeo.

Stabilizer Bar

Stabilizer Bar Mounts
Page 482

Table F.9-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Rear Suspension Subsystem Analysis

The new mass-reduced Rear Suspension system (Image F.9-42) configuration is still that 

of typical vehicle designs utilized by nearly all OEMs. The mass reductions achieved 

were done so by improving and replacing individual sub-assemblies and components. The 

overall design and function remains the same thus eliminating drastic revisions causing 

significant vehicle interface redesigns.

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

04 02 00 Rear Suspension Subsystem

04 02 00 Rear Arm Asm #1 Replace from 2005 Alfa Romeo 147 (mass:3.128-

3.119 & cost:0.95)

04 02 00 Rear Arm Asm #2 Replace from 2005 Alfa Romeo 147 (mass:3.119-

2.856 & cost:0.99)

04 02 00 Rear Rod Asm Replace from 2005 Alfa Romeo 147 (mass:2.366-

2.061 & cost:0.99)

04 02 00 Frt Stabilizer Link Asms Make Frt Stabilzer Link Asm RH & LH out of 

Forged Al

04 02 00 Knuckles Replace from 2005 Alfa Romeo 147 & Al 

(mass:11.160-3.820 & cost:1.00)

04 02 00 Stabilizer Bar Make stabilizer bars out of Aluminum (solid)

04 02 00 Stabilizer Bar Mounts Combination. Cast Al & Overmolded.

04 02 00 Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings Make stabilizer bushings out of nylon

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Page 483

Image F.9-42: Rear Suspension Rotor Mass Reduced System Example

(Source http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/2010/09/lamborghini-miura-sv-05.jpg)

F.9.2.5.1 Rear Arm Assembly #1

The solution chosen for implementation on the final Rear Arm #1 Assembly (Image 

F.9-43) was the normalization of size from an Alfa Romeo 147 arm assembly. This 

allowed for both a mass and cost reduction. The total mass of this replacement assembly 

is 0.764kg.
Page 484

Image F.9-43: Rear Arm #1 Mass Reduced Assembly

(Source: http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.2.5.2 Rear Arm Assembly #2

The solution chosen to be implemented on the final Rear Arm #2 Assembly (Image 

F.9-44) was the normalization of size from an Alfa Romeo 147 arm assembly. This 

allowed for both mass and cost reduction. The total mass of this replacement assembly is 

1.574kg.

Image F.9-44: Rear Arm #2 Mass Reduced Assembly

(Source: http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.2.5.3 Rear Rod Assembly

The solution chosen to be implemented on the final Rear Rod Assembly (Image F.9-45) 

was the normalization of size from an Alfa Romeo 147 arm assembly. This allowed for 

both a mass and cost reduction. The total mass of this replacement assembly is 1.518kg.
Page 485

Image F.9-45: Rear Rod Mass Reduced Assembly

(Source: http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.2.5.4 Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle

The new Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle (Image F.9-46) is combination of a component 

substitution from the Alfa Romeo 147 Knuckle (Image F.9-47) application and utilizing 

an Al knuckle (Image F.9-48). Al alloys are now a common choice and are used in highvolume applications by many OEMs, including GM, BMW, Audi, Honda, Toyota, Ford, 

and Chrysler. The replacement of steel with Al, an additional material volume of 10-20% 

was made. Due to loading and strength performance requirements, proper validation 

testing would be required dependent on the application. Therefore, it was determined that 

a sizing and normalization activity would be applied based on GVW. The overall subassembly has a replacement mass of 2.620kg. 

 

Image F.9-46 (Left): Rear Carrier Alfa Romeo (Source: Lotus – 2010 March EPA Report)

Image F.9-47 (Right): Rear Bearing Al Carrier (Source: http://forums.vwvortex.com)
Page 486

Image F.9-48: Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source: http://www.factoryfive.com/table/ffrkits/GTM/donorpartslist.html)

F.9.2.5.5 Rear Stabilizer Bar System

The proposed Rear Stabilizer Bar system (Image F.9-49) is of standard configuration 

with a different design and construction. Rather than solid steel forged bar composition 

with molded rubber mount bushings and steel stamped brackets, it is now a hollow Al bar 

with cast Mg mounting brackets and nylon bushings. Together, this new system has 

reduced mass to a total of 2.205kg. 

Image F.9-49: Stabilizer Bar System Mass Reduced System Example

(Source: http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/toyota-tundra-trd-parts-accessories)
Page 487

F.9.2.5.5.1 Rear Stabilizer Bar

The mass-reduced Rear Stabilizer Bar (Image F.9-50) is now made with an 

Al material. Additional material volume of 35-45% was added for 

increasing the bar strength relative to steel. This new bar now has a mass of 

1.410kg. As with other suspension components, proper validation must be 

performed based on vehicle performance requirements.

Image F.9-50: Stabilizer Bar Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source: http://www.i-club.com/forums/suspension-brakes-handling-wheels-tires-162/racecomps-financial-crisisbuy-parts-help-economy-sale-192991/)

F.9.2.5.5.2 Rear Stabilizer Bar Mountings

The new Rear Stabilizer Bar Mountings (Image F.9-51) are now made of 

die cast Mg brackets. Due to the replacement of steel with Al, an additional 

material volume of 150-160% was made. They have a mass of 0.112kg. 

These brackets have had some progress with changes in design, materials, 

and processing. These designs include alternate materials for Al, Mg, HSS, 

and fiber plastics. Among the process variations for manufacturing include 

casting, molding, and forging.
Page 488

Image F.9-51: Stabilizer Bar Mounting Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source: http://www.tickperformance.com/products/UMI-Heavy-Duty-Billet-Aluminum-Rear-Sway-BarMounts.html)

F.9.2.5.5.3 Rear Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings

The redesigned Rear Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings (Image F.9-52) are of 

standard design but utilize an alternate material of nylon versus rubber. 

They have a mass of 0.070kg. Many aftermarket as well as OEM 

manufacturers now utilize this new material choice for several vehicle 

applications. This is due to improved handling performance, increase 

component life, and even a small amount of mass reduction.

Image F.9-52: Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushing Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source: http://www.suspensionconnection.com/cgi-bin/suscon/18-1116.html)

F.9.2.5.5.4 Rear Stabilizer Link Sub-Assembly
Page 489

The new Rear Stabilizer Link Sub-Assemblies (Image F.9-53) are now 

redesigned using cast Al construction for a mass of 0.262kg. Due to the 

replacement of steel with Al, an additional material volume of 40-50% was 

made. This link assembly eliminates several components and a great deal of 

assembly and machining for a simplified design. Components combined 

include: link rod, link cup diameters, and cup bottom plates. 

Image F.9-53: Rear Stabilizer Link Mass Reduced Sub-Assembly

(Source: http://www.mjmautohaus.com/catalog/VW)

F.9.2.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.5-10 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas evaluated for the Rear 

Suspension subsystem, which resulted in a subsystem overall mass savings of 8.32kg and 

a cost savings differential of $-4.91.

Table F.9-10: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Rear Suspension Subsystem
Page 490

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Selec

t

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ 

Sub-Subs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

04 02 00 Rear Suspension

04 02 01 Rear Road Spring 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

04 02 02 Rear Suspension Links/Arms Upper & 

Lower

A

0.995 $2.31 $2.32 6.03% 0.06%

04 02 03 Rear Suspension Knuckle Assembly A 5.765 $9.46 $1.64 62.53% 0.34%

04 02 04 Rear Stabilizer Bar Assembly X 1.560 -$6.86 -$4.39 57.55% 0.09%

04 02 05 Heavy Truck Lifting Mechanism 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

A 8.320 $4.91 $0.59 41.53% 0.49%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.9.3 Shock Absorber Subsystem

F.9.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Image F.9-54 represents the major strut assembly components in the Shock Absorber 

subsystem. There are separate assemblies for the front and the rear of the vehicle. Each 

group has some small differences in design but share the same basic component layouts. 

These include the Shock tower Sub-assemblies, Upper and Lower Strut Mounts, Coil 

Springs, Upper and Lower Spring Seats, Upper and Lower Spring Isolators, and 

associated hardware and fasteners.
Page 491

Image F.9-54: Front & Rear Shock Absorber Subsystem, Current Sub-Assembly Components

(Source: Lotus – 2010 March EPA Report)

As seen in Image F.5-55, the Rear Strut Damper subsystem consists of the major 

components of the Rear Shock Tower, Shock Piston Shaft, Shock Lower Mount, Lower 

Mount Fasteners, Rear Coil Spring, Bump Stop/Jounce Bumper, Upper Strut Mount, 

Upper and Lower Isolators, and the Shock Tower Boot. 

Image F.9-55: Rear Strut / Damper Subsystem Current Major Components

(Source: FEV Inc Photo)
Page 492

As seen in Image F.5-56, the Front Strut Damper subsystem consists of the major 

components of the Rear Shock Tower, Shock Piston Shaft, Shock Lower Mount, Lower 

Mount Fasteners, Rear Coil Spring, Bump Stop/Jounce Bumper, Upper Strut Mount, 

Upper and Lower Isolators, and the Shock Tower Boot. 

Image F.9-56: Front Strut / Damper Subsystem Current Major Components

(Source: FEV Inc Photo)

It can be seen in Table F.5-11 that the Shock Absorber subsystem consists of the Front 

and the Rear Strut/Damper Assemblies. The most significant contributor to the mass of 

the Shock Absorber subsystem is the Front Strut/Damper Assembly (approx 51.5%), 

followed closely by the Rear Strut/Damper Assembly (approx 48.5%).

Table F.9-11: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Shock Absorber Subsystem
Page 493

F.9.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza’s Rear Strut/Damper (Image F.5-57) and Front Strut/Damper Subsystems (Image F.5-58) represent typical industry standards. This includes a focus on 

functional performance and durability with least material cost. Toyota also focuses on 

providing similar, if not identical, components across all platform variants to take 

advantage of scaling economies and minimize production and purchasing costs. 

Image F.9-57: Rear Strut Module Assembly Subsystem Current Configuration Example

(Source:http://www.carbodyparts.net/1998_toyota_camry/shock_absorber_and_strut_assembly_front_passenger_si

de-rept280504.html)

System 

Subsystem 

SubSubsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

04 03 00 Shock Absorber Subsystem --

04 03 01 Front Strut / Damper Asm 22.121

04 03 02 Rear Strut / Damper Asm 20.824

Total Subsystem Mass = 42.945

Total System Mass = 266.120

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 16.14%

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 2.51%
Page 494

Image F.9-58: Front Strut Module Assembly Subsystem Current Configuration Example

(Source:http://www.carbodyparts.net/1998_toyota_camry/shock_absorber_and_strut_assembly_front_passenger_si

de-rept280504.html)

F.9.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Basic trends in shock absorber technology include low mass materials where function is 

not deteriorated. Also, high strength steel is used for mass reduction of springs, notably in 

Alfa Romeo and BMW vehicles.

Another trend in shock absorber technology is integrating more and more electronics. 

Electronic dampers allow a large range between maximum and minimum damping levels 

and adjust instantly to ensure ride comfort and firm vehicle control. By integrating 

mechanical and electronic functions within the shock absorber system, automakers can 

improve handling and potentially reduce costs as technologies mature. 

Delphi developed the MagneRide concept (Image F.5-59) in which a MagnetoRheological (MR) fluid passes through an orifice that can be "restricted" by applying an 

electric field. The MagneRide system produces a mechanically simple but very responsive 

and controllable damping action without any valves. A synthetic hydraulic oil contains 

suspended iron particles. When surrounded by a magnetic field, these particles realign, 

changing the viscosity of the fluid.

These MR shocks and struts feature a tube that rides on a stationary internal piston 

containing an electromagnet. When current is fed to the magnet, the surrounding MR 

fluid instantaneously changes viscosity to resist the tube/piston movement in a way that 

best copes with road conditions. According to Delphi, within a millisecond, the fluid 

transforms from the consistency of mineral oil to compensate for low dampening forces to

a thin jelly consistency for high dampening.

Because the viscosity of the MR fluid can be infinitely varied through changes in the 

current, Delphi shocks and struts are designed to provide far greater dampening range 
Page 495

compared with conventional shocks. This translates into a smoother, more responsive 

ride. Because the tube is the only moving part, the shock is more trouble-free and should 

not wear out as quickly as conventional shocks. Among other advantages, Delphi says its 

new technology reduces suspension weight and overall costs.

Image F.9-59: Delphi MagneRide (MR) Strut System

(Source: http://www.search-autoparts.com/searchautoparts/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=68222)

F.9.3.3.1 Strut / Damper Module Assemblies

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Strut/Damper Module Assemblies 

(Image F.9-57 and Image F.9-58, respectively) are multi-piece designs of stamped steel 

fabrications welded into a sub-assembly along with various molded and sub-assembled 

components that are then filled with fluid and charged to pressure. The primary subassemblies and components that were investigated for implemented changes include: 

Shock Tower Sub-Assembly (Image F.9-60) and the attached components of the interior 

Strut Piston Shaft (Image F.9-61) and the Strut Lower Mount (Image F.9-62); the Strut 

Dust Cover and the Strut Lower Mount Fasteners (Image F.9-63); the Bump Stop and the 

Jounce Bumper components (Image F.9-64); the Boot, Tower Cover (Image F.9-65), 

along with the Upper Spring Insulator (Image F.9-66), and the Lower Spring Insulator 

(Image F.9-67); the Coil Spring (Image F.9-68); the Spring Upper Seat (Image F.9-69); 

and the Strut Top Mount (Image F.9-70). These overall strut assemblies have a mass of 

14.386kg and 13.150kg for the Rear and Front Struts, respectively.

Many high-performance and luxury vehicle models, such as BMW, Mercedes, Audi, and 

even some within GM, have began utilizing alternate materials and designs in order to 
Page 496

improve mass and expense across many of these components within these assemblies. 

These individual components are reviewed and shown individually here in greater detail: 

F.9.3.3.1.1 Shock Tower Sub-Assemblies

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Shock Tower SubAssemblies (Image F.9-60) are multi-piece sub-assemblies of stamped steel 

and welded fabrications with various brackets and fasteners added. These 

sub-assemblies have a mass of 3.489kg for the Rear Shocks and 3.364kg for 

the Front Shocks. Some vehicle models and manufacturers are now utilizing 

alternate materials (HSS, Al and Ti) and design changes for these 

components allowing for some mass savings in the assembled units. 

Image F.9-60: Rear & Front Shock Tower Current Sub-assembly Example

(Source:http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.3.3.1.1.1 Strut Piston Shafts

The current OEM Toyota Venza Strut Piston Shafts (Image F.9-61), 

located inside the shock tower sub-assemblies, are single piece 

designs for steel machined components. These components have a 

mass of 1.143kg for the Rear Piston Shafts and 1.085kg for the Front 

Piston Shafts.
Page 497

Image F.9-61: Rear & Front Strut Piston Shaft Current Component Example

(Source: FEV Inc., Photo)

F.9.3.3.1.1.2 Strut Lower Mounts

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Strut Lower 

Mounts (Image F.9-62) are multi-piece designs with two stamped 

steel components, each welded together to the lower shock tower 

outer diameter. These sub-assemblies have a mass of 1.13kg for the 

Rear Lower Mounts and 1.05kg for the Front Lower Mounts.

Image F.9-62: Rear & Front Strut Lower Mount Current Component Example

(Source: http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.3.3.1.2 Strut Lower Mount Fasteners

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Strut Lower Mount 

Fasteners (Image F.9-63) are cold-headed steel components. These parts 

have a mass of 0.39kg for both the rear and front struts, respectively. Some 

vehicle models and manufacturers have begun utilizing alternate materials 
Page 498

for some of these fasteners depending on vehicle loading requirements 

during normal operation. 

Image F.9-63: Rear & Front Mount Fasteners Current Component Examples

(Source:http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.3.3.1.3 Strut Bump Stops and Jounce Bumpers

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Strut Bump Stops and 

Jounce Bumpers (Image F.9-64) are molded plastic components. These 

components have a combined mass of 0.08kg for the Rear Struts and 0.07kg 

for the Front Struts. There are no alternate materials found to use to 

effectively replace these parts. So no significant savings could be 

specifically identified. 

Image F.9-64: Rear & Front Bump Stop / Jounce Bumper Current Component Example

(Source:http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
Page 499

F.9.3.3.1.4 Strut Boots, Tower Cover

The current OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Strut Boot Tower Covers 

(Image F.9-65) are single-piece molded plastic components, with a mass of 

0.06kg for the Rear Boots and 0.04kg for the Front. 

Image F.9-65: Rear & Front Strut Boot, Tower Covers Current Component Example

(Source:http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.3.3.1.5 Strut Upper Spring Isolators

The OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Strut Upper Spring Isolators 

(Image F.9-66) are single-piece molded rubber components. These parts 

have a mass of 0.25kg for the Rear Upper Isolators and 0.17kg for the 

Front.

Image F.9-66: Rear & Front Strut Upper Spring Isolator Current Component Example

(Source:http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
Page 500

F.9.3.3.1.6 Strut Lower Spring Isolators

The current OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Strut Lower Spring 

Isolators (Image F.9-67) are single-piece molded rubber components. 

These parts have a mass of 0.172kg for the Rear Lower Isolators and 

0.082kg for the Front.

Image F.9-67: Rear & Front Strut Lower Spring Isolator Current Component Example

(Source:http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.3.3.1.7 Strut Coil Springs

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Strut Coil Springs (Image 

F.9-68) are single-piece, steel hot-wound coil springs. These components 

have a mass of 3.003kg for the Rear Springs and 3.336kg for the Front 

Springs. Some vehicle models and manufacturers are utilizing alternate 

materials and making design changes for springs to include HSS and other 

steel alloy variations. Other materials, including long fiber polymers, have 

been successfully implemented for leaf spring applications but not for coil 

configurations in automobiles.
Page 501

Image F.9-68: Rear & Front Strut Coil Spring Current Component Example

(Source:http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.3.3.1.8 Strut Spring Upper Seats

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Strut Spring Upper Seats 

(Image F.9-69) are single-piece, stamped steel platforms that are assembled 

to the strut shock tower. These components have a mass of .655kg for the 

Rear Upper Seats and 0.532kg for the Front Upper Seats. Some vehicle 

models and manufacturers have utilized alternate materials for these 

components, including HSS, Al, Ti, Mg and Plastics. 

Image F.9-69: Rear & Front Strut Spring Upper Seat Current Component Example

(Source: March 2010 Lotus Report)
Page 502

F.9.3.3.1.9 Strut Top Mount Sub-Assemblies

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Shock Tower Sub-Assemblies 

(Image F.9-70) are multi-piece assemblies of stamped steel and welded 

fabrications with various brackets and fasteners added. This sub-assembly 

has a mass of 1.25kg. Some vehicle models and manufacturers are utilizing 

alternate materials and design changes for these components that allow for 

some mass savings once the unit is assembled. The materials include HSS, 

Al, and Ti as well as some development work in polymers.

Image F.9-70: Front Strut Top Mount Current Sub-Assembly Example

(Source: March 2010 Lotus Report)

F.9.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

The brainstorming activities generated the ideas shown below in the tables for both of the 

Rear Strut/Shock Absorber sub-subsystem (Table F.9-12) and the Front Strut/Shock 

Absorber/Damper sub-subsystem (Table F.9-13). The majority of these mass-reduction 

ideas are related to technologies in production on other vehicles and alternatives to steel. 

This includes part modifications, material substitutions, and use of parts currently in 

production on other vehicles.
Page 503

Table F.9-12: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Front Strut / 

Shock / Damper Sub-Subsystem
Page 504

Table F.9-12 continued on next page

Component/ Assembly Mass Reduction Idea Estimated Impact

Risk & Trade-offs and/or 

Benefits

Shock Absorber Subsystem

Rear Strut/Damper Assy Sub-Subsystem

Stell - Proprietary technology - 

Active Continuously varible 

shock absorber (2.39kg)

10-20% wt save Not enough inof to evaluate - not 

analyzed.

Substituting monotube for twin 

tube shocks 0-10% wt save Considered decontenting - not analyzed

Replace from 2005 Alfa 

Romeo 147 (mass:10.815-

7.716 & cost:1.00)

20-30% wt save In production - Alfa Romeo.

AL-356-T6 AL-6022-T4 20-30% wt save Not enough info to cost analyze

AM50 (2.8kg) 20-30% wt save Not enough info to cost analyze

Carbon Fiber Damper 

(reduces weight by 50% vs. 

aluminum)

50% wt save Not enough info to cost analyze

Eliminate spring cap and/or 

isolator (must be carbon fiber 

damper)

100% wt save Not enough info to cost analyze

Replace from 2005 Alfa 

Romeo 147 (mass:6.138-

5.760 & cost:0.99)

10-20% wt save In production - Alfa Romeo.

High strength steel 10-20% wt save Low volume production

Bilstein lightweight strut 

system - Hollow Shaft - Rear No change Already Bilstien w/ hollow shafts

Dust Cover Strut

Replace from 2005 Alfa 

Romeo 147 (mass:0.308-

0.052 & cost:0.66)

60-70% wt save Low Cost. In production - Alfa 

Romeo.

Aluminum (sheet) Strut 

Mounts 40-50% wt save Low volume production - motorcycles

Aluminum (cast) Strut Mounts 30-40% wt save Low volume production - 

motorcycles

Titanium (sheet) Strut Mounts 20-30% wt save Low volume production - auto 

racing

HSS Strut Mounts 10-20% wt save In production - auto.

Mg Strut Mounts 50-60% wt save Low volume production - auto 

racing

Bump Stop

Replace from 2005 Alfa 

Romeo 147 (mass:0.093-

0.026 & cost:0.91)

70-80% wt save Lower Cost. In production - Alfa 

Romeo.

Strut Mount

Shock Absorber

Shock Tower

Strut Piston Shaft
Page 505

Table F.9-12 continued on next page

Jounce Bumper

Replace from 2005 Alfa 

Romeo 147 (mass:0.083-

0.044 & cost:0.98)

40-50% wt save In production - Alfa Romeo.

Replace boot material (NR) 

with TPO 0-5% wt save Lower Cost. In production - auto

Replace from 2005 Alfa 

Romeo 147 (mass:0.013-

0.013 & cost:1.00)

Lotus idea - no 

change In production - Alfa Romeo.

Use a single fastener on strut 

to knuckle mounting 50% wt save 2 required for orientation & stabilization - not evaluated

Reduce lower strut mounting 

bolt & nut size 20-30% wt save In production GM

Use 6082T6 Al Alloy Tower 

Bolts 20-30% wt save Low volume production - auto

Replace from 2005 Alfa 

Romeo 147 (mass:0.000-

0.083 & cost:x)

Lotus idea - wt 

increase. In production - Alfa Romeo.

Make upper seat spring 

isolator out of plastic 0-5% wt save In production - Auto

Replace from 2005 Alfa 

Romeo 147 (mass:0.058-

0.105 & cost:1.06)

Lotus idea - wt 

increase. In production - Alfa Romeo.

Make lower seat spring 

isolator out of plastic 0-5% wt save In production - Auto

Boot, Tower Cover

Mounting Fasteners

Upper Spring Insulator

Lower Spring Insulator
Page 506

Table F.9-12 continued on next page

Component/ Assembly Mass Reduction Idea Estimated Impact

Risk & Trade-offs and/or 

Benefits

Shock Absorber Subsystem

Front Strut/Damper Assy Sub-Subsystem

Stell - Proprietary technology - 

Active Continuously varible 

shock absorber (2.39kg)

10-20% wt save Not enough inof to evaluate - not 

analyzed.

Substituting monotube for twin 

tube shocks 0-10% wt save Considered decontenting - not analyzed

Replace from 2005 VW 

Passat (mass:11.56-7.81 & 

cost:1.00)

20-30% wt save In production - VW Passat.

AL-356-T6 AL-6022-T4 20-30% wt save Not enough info to cost analyze

AM50 (2.8kg) 20-30% wt save Not enough info to cost analyze

Carbon Fiber Damper 

(reduces weight by 50% vs. 

aluminum)

50% wt save Not enough info to cost analyze

Eliminate spring cap and/or 

isolator (must be carbon fiber 

damper)

100% wt save Not enough info to cost analyze

Replace from 2005 VW 

Passat (mass:5.88-3.8 & 

cost:0.95)

10-20% wt save Lower Cost. In production - VW 

Passat.

High strength steel 10-20% wt save Low volume production

Bilstein lightweight strut 

system - Hollow Shaft No change Already Bilstien w/ hollow shafts

Dust Cover

Replace from 2005 VW 

Passat (mass:0.21-0.07 & 

cost:0.71)

60-70% wt save Low Cost. In production - VW 

Passat.

Dust Cover

Replace from 2005 VW 

Passat (mass:0.09-0.02 & 

cost:0.85)

70-80% wt save Low Cost. In production - VW 

Passat.

Aluminum (sheet) Strut 

Mounts 40-50% wt save Low volume production - motorcycles

Aluminum (cast) Strut Mounts 30-40% wt save Low volume production - 

motorcycles

Titanium (sheet) Strut Mounts 20-30% wt save Low volume production - auto 

racing

HSS Strut Mounts 10-20% wt save In production - auto.

Mg Strut Mounts 50-60% wt save Low volume production - auto 

racing

Shock Absorber

Shock Tower

Strut Piston Shaft

Strut Mount
Page 507

F.9.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The next two tables show the subsets of the ideas generated from the brainstorming 

activities listed in the previous chart for the Rear Strut/Shock Absorber/Damper subsubsystem (Table F.9-13) and the Front Strut/Shock Absorber/Damper sub-subsystem 

(Table F.9-14). 

Table F.9-13: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Shock Absorber Subsystem (Rear 

Strut / Damper Assembly Sub-Subsystem) Analysis

Jounce Bumper

Replace from 2005 VW 

Passat (mass:.07-.05 & 

cost:0.99)

20-30% wt save In production - VW Passat.

Boot, Tower Cover Replace boot material (NR) 

with TPO 0-5% wt save Lower Cost. In production - auto

Strut Top Mount

Replace from 2005 VW 

Passat - use Al metals 

(mass:1.23-0.33 & cost:1.47)

70-80% wt save High Cost. In production - VW 

Passat.

Reduce lower strut mounting 

bolt & nut size 20-30% wt save In production GM

Use a single fastener on strut 

to knuckle mounting 50% wt save 2 required for orientation & stabilization - not evaluated

Use 6082T6 Al Alloy Tower 

Bolts 20-30% wt save Low volume production - auto

Spring Isolator Make lower seat spring 

isolator out of plastic 0-5% wt save In production - Auto

Upper Spring Seat

Replace from 2005 VW 

Passat - use nylon (mass:0.54-

0.12 & cost:0.31)

60-70% wt save Low Cost. In production - VW 

Passat.

Mounting Fasteners
Page 508

Table F.9-14: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Shock Absorber Subsystem (Front 

Strut / Damper Assembly Sub-Subsystem) Analysis

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

Shock Absorber Subsystem

04 03 01 Rear Strut/Damper Assy Sub-Subsystem

04 03 01 Shock Absorber Replace from 2005 Alfa Romeo 147 (mass:10.815-

7.716 & cost:1.00)

04 03 01 Shock Tower Replace from 2005 Alfa Romeo 147 (mass:6.138-

5.760 & cost:0.99)

04 03 01 Strut Piston Shaft High strength steel

04 03 01 Dust Cover Strut Replace from 2005 Alfa Romeo 147 (mass:0.308-

0.052 & cost:0.66)

04 03 01 Strut Mount HSS Strut Mounts

04 03 01 Bump Stop Replace from 2005 Alfa Romeo 147 (mass:0.093-

0.026 & cost:0.91)

04 03 01 Jounce Bumper Replace from 2005 Alfa Romeo 147 (mass:0.083-

0.044 & cost:0.98)

04 03 01 Boot, Tower Cover Replace boot material (NR) with TPO 

04 03 01 Mounting Fasteners Use 6082T6 Al Alloy Tower Bolts

04 03 01 Upper Spring Insulator Make upper seat spring isolator out of plastic 

04 03 01 Lower Spring Insulator Make lower seat spring isolator out of plastic 

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Page 509

The solution for the mass reduced Rear Strut/Damper (Image F.9-71) and Front 

Strut/Damper (Image F.9-72) sub-systems are shown as represented by the configuration 

utilized in an assembly replacement from the Alfa Romeo 147 and VW Passat, 

respectively. The changes made at the individual component and sub-assembly levels are 

each explained in greater detail.

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

Shock Absorber Subsystem

04 03 02 Front Strut/Damper Assy Sub-Subsystem

04 03 02 Shock Absorber Replace from 2005 VW Passat (mass:11.56-7.81 & 

cost:1.00)

04 03 02 Shock Tower Replace from 2005 VW Passat (mass:5.88-3.8 & 

cost:0.95)

04 03 02 Strut Piston Shaft High strength steel

04 03 02 Dust Cover Replace from 2005 VW Passat (mass:0.21-0.07 & 

cost:0.71)

04 03 02 Dust Cover Replace from 2005 VW Passat (mass:0.09-0.02 & 

cost:0.85)

04 03 02 Strut Mount HSS Strut Mounts

04 03 02 Jounce Bumper Replace from 2005 VW Passat (mass:.07-.05 & 

cost:0.99)

04 03 02 Boot, Tower Cover Replace boot material (NR) with TPO 

04 03 02 Strut Top Mount Replace from 2005 VW Passat - use Al metals 

(mass:1.23-0.33 & cost:1.47)

04 03 02 Mounting Fasteners Use 6082T6 Al Alloy Tower Bolts

04 03 02 Spring Isolator Make lower seat spring isolator out of plastic 

04 03 02 Upper Spring Seat Replace from 2005 VW Passat - use nylon 

(mass:0.54-0.12 & cost:0.31)

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Page 510

Image F.9-71: Rear Strut Module Assembly Subsystem Mass Reduced Configuration Example

(Source:http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

Image F.9-72: Front Strut Module Assembly Subsystem Mass Reduced Configuration Example

(Source:http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.3.5.1 Strut / Damper Module Assemblies

The solutions chosen to implemented on the Rear and Front Strut/Damper Module 

Assemblies (Image F.9-71 and Image F.9-72, respectively) range across several different 

components and sub-assemblies. Although the overall design and function of the strut 

modules remain the same, small changes were instituted across the entire unit. The 

effected designs are detailed in the following for each area of redesign and change. The 

primary sub-assemblies and components that were investigated for implemented changes 

include: Shock Tower Sub-Assembly (Image F.9-73) and the attached components of the 

interior Strut Piston Shaft (Image F.9-74) and the Strut Lower Mount (Image F.9-75); 

the Strut Dust Cover and the Strut Lower Mount Fasteners (Image F.9-76); the Bump 
Page 511

Stop and the Jounce Bumper components (Image F.9-77); the Boot, Tower Cover (Image 

F.9-78) along with the Upper Spring Insulator (Image F.9-79), and the Lower Spring 

Insulator (Image F.9-80). The Coil Spring (Image F.9-81), the Spring Upper Seat (Image 

F.9-82), and the Strut Top Mount (Image F.9-83). These new mass reduced strut 

assemblies now have a mass of 15.628kg for the Rear Struts and 13.205kg for the Front 

Struts. 

F.9.3.5.1.1 Shock Tower Sub-Assemblies

The new redesigned Rear and Front Shock Tower Sub-Assemblies (Image 

F.9-73) are still multi-piece sub-assemblies of stamped steel and welded 

fabrications with various brackets and fasteners. Although alternate 

materials (HSS, Al and Ti) are available, they were not selected in the 

vehicle solution matrix for implementation. Instead, a replacement and size 

normalization was selected by utilizing the shock tower sub-assembly from 

the Alfa Romeo 147. These new scaled sub-assemblies now have a net mass 

of 5.112kg for the Rear Shocks and 3.651kg for the Front Shocks 

Image F.9-73: Rear & Front Shock Tower Mass Reduced Sub-assembly Example

(Source: http://www.ioffer.com/c/Auto-Parts-Accessories-35000/1995%20-?view=0)

F.9.3.5.1.1.1 Strut Piston Shafts

The mass reduction change for Strut Piston Shafts (Image F.9-74), 

located inside the shock tower sub-assemblies, is a replacement of 

the standard low-carbon steel with HSS material. The new, stronger 

shaft allows for a smaller diameter component (approximately 5%), 

creating some mass savings. The new shaft has a mass of 1.019kg for

the Rear Piston Shafts and 0.727kg for the Front Piston Shafts.
Page 512

Image F.9-74: Rear & Front Strut Piston Shaft Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source:http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.3.5.1.1.2 Strut Lower Mounts

The change for the Rear & Front Strut Lower Mounts (Image 

F.9-75) are still multi-piece designs with two stamped steel 

components, each welded together to the lower shock tower outer 

diameter. The standard steel has now been upgraded to HSS, 

allowing for a thinner component (approximately 5%) with equal 

performance strength. These sub-assemblies now have a new mass of 

1.012kg for the Rear Lower Mounts and 0.646kg for the Front 

Lower Mounts.

Image F.9-75: Rear & Front Strut Lower Mount Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source: http://www.ioffer.com/c/Auto-Parts-Accessories-35000/1995%20-?view=0)

F.9.3.5.1.2 Strut Lower Mount Fasteners
Page 513

The solution found for the Rear & Front Strut Lower Mount Fasteners 

(Image F.9-76) is to switch material from steel to Al components. Due to 

the replacement of steel with Al, an additional material volume of 30-40% 

was made. In order to maintain functional integrity, the bolt diameter size 

was increased significantly. Nonetheless, this still resulted in a net mass 

decrease with a mass of 0.170kg for both the rear and front strut fasteners, 

respectively. 

Image F.9-76: Rear & Front Mount Fasteners Mass Reduced Component Examples

(Source:http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.3.5.1.3 Strut Bump Stops and Jounce Bumpers

The change for the Rear & Front Strut Bump Stops and Jounce Bumpers 

(Image F.9-77) are made by replacing and normalizing the same 

components from the VW Passat bumpers. These new scaled components 

have a combined mass of 0.041kg for the Rear Struts and 0.050kg for the 

Front Struts. There are no alternate materials found to effectively replace 

these parts other than the component exchange methodology.
Page 514

Image F.9-77: Rear & Front Bump Stop / Jounce Bumper Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source:http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.3.5.1.4 Strut Boots, Tower Cover

The solution for the Rear & Front Strut Boot Tower Covers (Image F.9-78) 

is implemented by replacing the current material with TPO polymer, singlepiece molded components. There is no reinforcement implemented with this 

material change. These parts have a mass of 0.010kg for the Rear Boots and 

0.041kg for the Front.

Image F.9-78: Rear & Front Strut Boot, Tower Covers Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source:http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.3.5.1.5 Strut Upper Spring Isolators

The mass change implemented for the Rear & Front Strut Upper Spring 

Isolators (Image F.9-79) is by replacing the single-piece molded rubber 
Page 515

component with a polymer material. There is no reinforcement implemented 

with this material change. These parts have a new reduced mass of 0.042kg 

for the Rear Upper Isolators and 0.165kg for the Front.

Image F.9-79: Rear & Front Strut Upper Spring Isolator Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source:http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.3.5.1.6 Strut Lower Spring Isolators

The mass change implemented for the Rear & Front Strut Lower Spring 

Isolators (Image F.9-80) is by replacing the single-piece molded rubber 

component with a polymer material. There is no reinforcement implemented 

with this material change. These parts have a new reduced mass of 0.123kg 

for the Rear Lower Isolators and 0.082kg for the Front.

Image F.9-80: Rear & Front Strut Lower Spring Isolator Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source:http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
Page 516

F.9.3.5.1.7 Strut Coil Springs

The selected solution for the Rear & Front Strut Coil Springs (Image 

F.9-81) is to replace and scale the coil spring from the Alfa Romeo 147 

(rear) and the VW Passat (front). The springs are still both single piece coil 

springs, but are now made from HSS and cold-wound to produce a smaller 

diameter and stronger design. The replacement of steel with HSS allowed a 

size reduction of approximately 5-10% volume reduction due to increase 

strength. These new components have a mass of 1.600kg for the Rear 

Springs and 1.792kg for the Front. 

Image F.9-81: Rear & Front Strut Coil Spring Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source:http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.3.5.1.8 Strut Spring Upper Seats

The solution chosen for the Rear & Front Strut Spring Upper Seats (Image 

F.9-82) is to replace the single-piece, stamped steel piece with a molded 

glass-filled nylon design from the Mazda 5. Due to the replacement of steel 

with GF Nylon, an additional material volume of 30-40% was made. These 

vehicle platforms have approximately the same GVW, so it is a direct 

replacement not requiring scaling. These components have a reduced mass 

of 0.655kg for the Rear Upper Seats and 0.160kg for the Front Upper Seats. 
Page 517

Image F.9-82: Rear & Front Strut Spring Upper Seat Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source: March 2010 Lotus Report)

F.9.3.5.1.9 Strut Top Mount Sub-Assemblies

The selected mass reduction for the Strut Top Mount Sub-Assemblies 

(Image F.9-83) is a multi-piece assembly of stamped steel and welded 

fabrication. The new replacement is from a VW Passat with size 

normalization as well as Al material instead of steel. Due to the replacement 

of steel with Al, an additional material volume of 20-30% was made. These 

redesigned sub-assemblies have a new mass of 0.655kg for the Rear Struts 

and 0.411 64kg for the Front Struts.

Image F.9-83: Front Strut Top Mount Mass Reduced Sub-Assembly Example

(Source:http://performanceshock.com/index/manufacturers_id/19?zenid=c4c5cb77d94ed8395449208159712883)
Page 518

F.9.3.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.9-15 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated for the 

Strut/Shock Absorber/Damper Sub-subsystem. This resulted in a subsystem overall mass 

savings of 14.111 kg and a cost savings differential of $-57.99.

Table F.9-15: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Shock Absorber Subsystem (Rear & Front 

Strut / Damper Assembly Sub-Subsystem)

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Selec

t

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ 

Sub-Subs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

04 03 00 Shock Absorber Subsystem

04 03 01 Front Strut / Damper Assembly A 9.326 $26.10 $2.80 40.56% 0.55%

04 03 02 Rear Strut / Damper Assembly A 4.785 $31.89 $6.66 30.91% 0.28%

04 03 03 Active Dampening 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

A 14.111 $57.99 $4.11 35.88% 0.82%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.9.4 Wheels and Tires Subsystem

F.9.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Figure F.9-1 shows the relative location of the Road Wheel & Tire Sub-Assemblies and 

the Spare Wheel & Tire Sub-Assembly on the vehicle chassis. The current OEM Toyota 

Venza Wheel and Tires subsystem have a total mass of 4.658kg.
Page 519

Figure F.9-1: Road Wheel & Tire Position Diagram

(Source: http://boronextrication.com/files/2010/11/2011_Honda_CR-Z_Chasis_Layout.jpg)

These pictures represent the major sub-assemblies and components in the Wheels and 

Tires subsystem. These include the Road Wheel and Tire Assembly (Image F.9-84) and 

the Spare Wheel and Tire Assembly (Image F.9-86). The current OEM Toyota Venza 

Wheels and Tires subsystem have a total mass of 141.815kg.

In Table F.9-16, the Wheels and Tires subsystem consists of the Road Wheels and Tire 

Assembly sub-subsystem and the Spare Wheel and Tire Assembly sub-subsystem. The 

most significant contributors to the mass of this subsystem are the Road Wheels and Tire 

Assembly sub-subsystem (approximately 86.4%) and the Spare Wheel and Tire Assembly 

sub-subsystem (approximately 13.6%).

Table F.9-16: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Wheels and Tires Subsystem
Page 520

F.9.4.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza’s Wheels and Tires subsystem represents typical industry standards. 

This includes a focus on style, functional performance and durability with least material 

cost. Toyota also concentrates on providing similar, if not identical, components across all 

platform variants to take advantage of scaling economies to minimize production and 

purchasing costs.

F.9.4.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

The March 2010 Lotus report describes several industry examples, including Alcoa 

aluminum forged wheels, carbon fiber composites, two-piece low-mass wheels, Michelin 

Tweel, and Active Wheel designs.

New proprietary magnesium alloys are being developed for racing applications, including 

wheels and lug nuts, with claims of matching the strength of steel with impressive mass 

reduction.

As mentioned in Section F.5.1.3, basalt fiber is a potential low-cost substitute for carbon 

fiber when production capabilities can support automotive quantities.

F.9.4.3.1 Road Wheel & Tire Assemblies

System 

Subsystem 

SubSubsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

04 04 00 Wheels And Tires Subsystem --

04 04 01 Road Wheels and Tire Assembly 122.597

04 04 02 Spare Wheel and Tire Assembly 19.218

Total Subsystem Mass = 141.815

Total System Mass = 266.120

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 53.29%

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 8.29%
Page 521

The Venza uses four standard Road Wheel & Tire Assemblies (Image F.9-84) with radial 

molded tires mounted on an Al cast rims. The current OEM Venza Road Tire Assembly 

sub-subsystem has a total mass of 120.99kg. 

Image F.9-84: Road Wheel & Tire Current Assembly

(Source: March 2010 Lotus Report)

F.9.4.3.1.1 Road Wheels

The Toyota Venza OEM Road Wheels (Image F.9-85) are single-piece cast 

Al design. The size of the OEM wheel used on the Venza is 19" outer 

diameter x 7.5" width. Although alternate materials (Mg, GF Polymers, and 

Carbon Fiber) exist and are used by some aftermarket manufacturers, they 

are uncommon and very ineffective for cost in most applications. The 

current Venza Road Wheels (4pcs) have a total mass of 61.20kg. 
Page 522

Image F.9-85: Road Wheel Current Component

(Source: March 2010 Lotus Report)

F.9.4.3.1.2 Road Tires Sub-Assembly

The Toyota Venza OEM Road Tires (Figure F.9-2) are multi-layer design 

of various materials all over-molded NR. The size of the OEM tire used on 

the Toyota Venza is P225/60R19. Alternate material variations are used for 

the internal layers as well as the final over-molding compound. However, 

manufacturers use these variables to help tune a specific tire design to the 

performance desired for a particular vehicle application. The following 

image shows a common tire design, features, and its associated naming 

nomenclature. No significant material developments exist that allow any 

appreciable weight savings while maintaining a standard design 

configuration. The current Venza Road Tires (4pcs) have a total mass of 

59.52kg. 
Page 523

Figure F.9-2: Road Wheel Current Component Design Example

(Source: http://www.vbattorneys.com/practice_areas/defective-product-lawyer-product-liability-attorney-houstontexas.cfm)

F.9.4.3.2 Spare Wheel & Tire Assembly

The Spare Wheel & Tire Assembly (Image F.9-86) is a typical narrow, short side-walled, 

molded spare tire mounted on a large diameter, stamped steel wheel assembly. The 

current OEM Toyota Venza Spare Tire Assembly sub-subsystem has a mass of 19.176kg. 

Image F.9-86: Spare Wheel & Tire Current Assembly Example

(Source:http://media.photobucket.com/image/toyota%20spare%20tire/)
Page 524

F.9.4.3.2.1 Spare Wheel

The Toyota Venza OEM Spare Wheel (Image F.9-87) is large diameter and 

narrow, stamped steel fabrications. Although alternate materials (Al, Mg, 

GF Polymers, and Carbon Fiber) exist, they are not typically used for spare 

wheels due to lack of mass versus cost reduction. Therefore, they are not 

used by any manufacturer even though they could easily be used if chosen. 

The current OEM Toyota Venza Spare Wheel has a mass of 10.731kg.

Image F.9-87: Spare Wheel Current Component Example

(Source:http://media.photobucket.com/image/toyota%20spare%20tire/)

F.9.4.3.2.2 Spare Tire Sub-Assembly

The Toyota Venza OEM Spare Tire (Image F.9-88) is multiple layers of 

steel and plastic, over-molded by NR. Alternate material variations are used 

for the internal and external layers, but manufacturers use these variables to 

help tune a specific tire design to the desired performance. The current 

OEM Toyota Venza Spare Tire Sub-Assembly has a mass of 8.435kg. 
Page 525

Image F.9-88: Road Wheel Current Component Example

(Source:http://media.photobucket.com/image/toyota%20spare%20tire/)

F.9.4.3.3 Lug Nuts

The Lug Nuts, or Wheel Fastener Nuts, (Image F.9-89) are a typical cold-headed steel 

configuration with a stamped steel, chrome-plated shell pressed over the nut surface. The 

current OEM Toyota Venza Lug Nuts (20pcs) have a mass of 1.406kg. 

Image F.9-89: Lug Nut Current Components

(Source: FEV Inc. Photo)

F.9.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

The brainstorming activities for the Wheels and Tires subsystem generated the ideas 

shown in Table F.9-17. The majority of these mass-reduction ideas are related to 
Page 526

technologies in production on other vehicles and size alternatives. There are also ideas 

that cover part design modifications as well as material substitutions.

Table F.9-17: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Tires and Wheels 

Subsystem
Page 527

Table F.9-17 continued on next page

Component/ Assembly Mass Reduction Idea Estimated Impact

Risk & Trade-offs and/or 

Benefits

Wheels and Tires Subsystem

Low rolling resistance tires 5% Susp Sys wt 

save

Not used due to EPA matrix: 

save 1.5–4.5% of all gasoline 

consumption (-

5%gvw=+3%mpg)

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:14.880-13.200 & 

cost:0.98)

5-10% wt save In production - Toyota.

Ultra-Lt Wt Forged Al Wheels 

(Cross-spoked) 10-15% wt save In production - Mercedes Brabaus SLS AMG

Lt Wt Wheels (hybrid glass & 

carbon fiber composite w/ 

steel)

30-40% wt save Low vol production - military 

applications

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:15.300-8.600 & 

cost:0.93)

40-50% wt save In production - Toyota.

Upsize wheels from 15 x 6 to 

19 x 7.5 10-20% wt save Not analyzed - already implemented on vehicle

Upsize wheels from 15 x 6 to 

19 x 7.5 10-20% wt save Not analyzed - already implemented on vehicle

See 17-in alum (see FEV/EPA 

Fusion HEV) 20-30% wt save Not analyzed - Al wheels already implemented

Make lug nuts out of 

magnesium 50-60% wt save In production - BMW

Make lug nuts out of aluminum 30-40% wt save Development

Use conical lug nuts - 

Eliminate flange on hub 0-5% wt save In production - most auto manufacturers

Combination. Make lug nuts 

out of magnesium using 

conical design.

55-65% wt save Low volume production

Add lightening holes in spare 

tire rim 5-10% wt save In production - most auto manufacturers

Make spare tire rim out of 

aluminum 10-20% wt save Low production - auto

Lt Wt Wheels (hybrid glass & 

carbon fiber composite w/ 

steel: 41% wt red vs Al 

wheels)

30-40% wt save Low vol production - military 

applications

Eliminate spare tire and use 

run-flat tires 100% wt save In production - GM C5 Corvette

Make rim out of Al and make 

like wagon wheel 10-20% wt save

Not analyzed - wagon spoke 

steel wheels normally from steel 

for strength

Downsize - Replace from 2008 

Toyota Prius (mass:10.731-

9.731 & cost:1.00)

10-20% wt save In production - Toyota.

Spare Tire Wheel

All Tires (P225/60R19)

All Wheels (19 x 7.5)

Lug Nuts
Page 528

F.9.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.9-18 shows the mass reduction ideas for the major components of the Wheels 

and Tires subsystem that were chose for detailed evaluation. Included are five 

components that are being redesigned and changed in order to achieve mass reductions.

Table F.9-18: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Wheels and Tires Subsystem Analysis

Make honeycomb spare tire 20-30% wt save Not analyzed - non-pneumatic, 

not legal for road use in US

Smaller/less rubber 5-10% wt save Low volume production

Downsize - Replace from 2008 

Toyota Prius (mass:8.435-

7.435 & cost:0.98)

10-20% wt save In production - Toyota.

Eliminate spare tire & wheel 100% wt save In production - most auto 

manufacturers

Eliminate jacking harware by 

removing spare tire 100% wt save In production - auto

Eliminate spare tire hold down 100% wt save In production - auto

Combinination. Eliminate 

spare tire & wheel, jacking 

hardware and spare hold down

100% wt save In production - auto

Wheels

Optimize for downsized (nonhybrid) powertrain, smaller 

wheels-See Future Steel 

Vehicle

20-30% wt save

Not analyzed - out of scope of 

study due to magnitude of 

design changes & validation rqd

Al Air Suspension system

Al 4-corner air system (idea 

80) utilizes enhanced bonding 

& adhesive eliminating all 

welding

10-20% wt save

Not analyzed - out of scope of 

study due to magnitude of 

design changes & validation rqd

All rotational components 

(tires, wheels, etc)

Weight reduction in "unsprung" mass has multipilying 

of being equivalent to 3-5 

times effect vs "sprung" mass

30-40% wt save No answer from EPA as to 

credit being allowed

All Suspension components

Convert to lt wt Al 4-corner air 

system w/ lt wt dampers, 

mounts & air springs

20-30% wt save

Not analyzed - out of scope of 

study due to magnitude of 

design changes & validation rqd

Spare Tire

Spare Tire/Wheel
Page 529

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

04 04 01 Wheels and Tires Subsystem

04 04 01 All Tires (P225/60R19) Replace from 2008 Toyota Prius (mass:14.880-

13.200 & cost:0.98)

04 04 01 All Wheels (19 x 7.5) Replace from 2008 Toyota Prius (mass:15.300-

8.600 & cost:0.93)

04 04 01 Lug Nuts Combination. Make lug nuts out of magnesium 

using conical design.

04 04 01 Spare Tire Wheel Downsize - Replace from 2008 Toyota Prius 

(mass:10.731-9.731 & cost:1.00)

04 04 01 Spare Tire Downsize - Replace from 2008 Toyota Prius 

(mass:8.435-7.435 & cost:0.98)

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem 

Description

The mass saving solutions selected for the various components within the Wheel and Tire 

Subsystem are primarily by component substitution from the Toyota Prius as 

recommended in the March 2010 Lotus Report. The details of these changes vary greatly 

and are summarized in greater detail below. 

F.9.4.5.1 Road Wheel & Tire Assemblies

The solution selected for the Road Wheel & Tire Assemblies (Image F.9-90) is to 

substitute the current OEM units with those from the Toyota Prius. This would change the 

effective mass without altering the effective design content or visual aspect in relation to 

the vehicle appearance. Both vehicles have Al cast rims and similar tire profiles. The new 

implemented Road Wheel & Tire Assemblies (4 pieces) have a total mass of 92.010kg. 
Page 530

Image F.9-90: Road Wheel & Tire Mass Reduced Assembly

(Source:http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.4.5.1.1 Road Wheels

The chosen mass reduction for the Road Wheels (Image F.9-91) is still 

using an Al cast wheel design but instead substitute the Toyota Prius Road 

Wheel in its place. The size of wheel used on the Prius is a 16.5” outer 

diameter x 7.0” width. This size was normalized up to a 19” OD in order to 

maintain the styling and appearance of the current Venza vehicle. This new 

Road Wheel (4 pieces) has a total mass of 38.00kg. 

Image F.9-91: Road Wheel Mass Reduced Component

(Source:http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.4.5.1.2 Road Tire Assembly
Page 531

The solution selected for the Road Tire Assemblies (Image F.9-92) is a 

substitution of the Toyota Prius tire as a replacement. The size of the tire 

used on the Prius is P185/65R16. This size was normalized up to a 

P225/60R19 in order to maintain the appearance and handling function of 

the current Venza vehicle. The new Road Tire Assemblies (4 pieces) have a 

net mass of 52.80kg. 

Image F.9-92: Road Tire Mass Reduced Assembly

(Source:http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.4.5.2 Spare Wheel & Tire Assembly

The solution implemented for the Spare Wheel & Tire Assembly (Image F.9-93) is 

substituting a Toyota Prius unit in its place. The design configuration and construction are 

the same and will not affect function or performance. Both use an over-molded spare tire 

mounted on a large-diameter, stamped steel wheel assembly. The mass-reduced Prius 

Spare Tire Assembly has a mass of 17.176kg. 
Page 532

Image F.9-93: Spare Wheel & Tire Mass Reduced Assembly

(Source:http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.4.5.2.1 Spare Wheel

The new redesigned Spare Wheel (Image F.9-94) is still a multi-piece subassembly of stamped steel and welded fabrications. This wheel is being 

directly replaced with the Toyota Prius spare wheel. The new mass-reduced 

Spare Wheel has a mass of 9.731kg.

Image F.9-94: Spare Wheel Mass Reduced Assembly

(Source:http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.4.5.2.2 Spare Tire
Page 533

The mass-reduced Spare Tire Assembly (Image F.9-95) is achieved by 

replacing the Venza tire with the Prius tire. This results in a new mass of 

7.435kg. 

Image F.9-95: Road Wheel Mass Reduced Component

(Source:http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)

F.9.4.5.3 Lug Nuts

The Lug Nuts (Image F.9-96) are standard steel configuration, as is true with most 

OEMs. The new solution implemented for these fasteners is to use Mg material with a 

conical interface design. Due to the replacement of steel with Mg, an additional material 

volume of 30-40% was made. This style is commonly used by aftermarket manufacturers 

due to tremendous weight savings and reduction to unsprung rotational mass. The new 

Lug Nuts (20pcs) are calculated to have a net mass of 0.494kg. 
Page 534

Image F.9-96: Lug Nut Mass Reduced Component Examples

(Source: http://www.amazon.com/Drop-Engineering-ALG-RD-152-Aluminum-Thread)

F.9.4.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.9-19shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated for the 

Wheels and Tires subsystem. The implemented solutions resulted in a subsystem overall 

mass savings of 32.833kg and a cost decrease differential of $78.77.

Table F.9-19: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Wheels and Tires Subsystem
Page 535

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Selec

t

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ 

Sub-Subs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

04 04 00 Wheels and Tires Subsystem

04 04 01 Road Wheels and Tires Assy A 30.833 $78.51 $2.55 28.08% 1.80%

04 04 02 Spare Wheel and Tire Assembly A 2.000 $0.26 $0.13 10.41% 0.12%

04 04 04 Tire Pressure Warning & Adjust 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

A 32.833 $78.77 $2.40 25.69% 1.92%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.10 Driveline System

As shown in Table F.10-1, the Driveline system is made up of six subsystems: 

Driveshaft, Rear Drive Housed Axle, Front Drive Housed Axle, Front Drive Half Shafts, 

Rear Drive Half Shafts, and 4WD Driveline Control. The Driveshaft, Rear Drive Half-
Page 536

Shafts, and the 4WD Driveline Control subsystems are not applicable to this study as the 

Toyota Venza is a front-wheel-drive vehicle. The Rear Drive Housed Axle subsystem is 

comprised primarily of the Rear Wheel Bearing and Hub Assemblies. The Front Drive 

Housed Axle subsystem contains the Drive Hubs. The Front Drive Half Shafts 

subsystems contain the right and left half-shafts along with the carrier bearing.

In comparing the three subsystems, the greatest mass is located in the Front Drive HalfShafts subsystem.

Table F.10-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Driveline System

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

System & 

Subsystem 

Mass

"kg"

05 00 00 Driveline System

05 01 00 Driveshaft Subsystem 0.000

05 02 00 Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystem 8.631

05 03 00 Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem 6.354

05 04 00 Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem 18.672

05 05 00 Rear Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem 0.000

05 07 00 4WD Driveline Control Subsystem 0.000

Total System Mass = 33.657

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 1.97%

Description

Table F.10-2 shows the calculated mass-reduction results for the ideas generated related 

to the Driveline system. A mass savings of 1.503kg was realized with a cost increase of 

$0.16, resulting in a cost increase of $0.11 per kg.

Table F.10-2: Calculated Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Driveline System
Page 537

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

Subsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

05 00 00 Driveline System

05 01 00 Driveshaft Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

05 02 00 Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

05 03 00 Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem A 0.733 $1.54 $2.10 11.54% 0.04%

05 04 00 Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem C 0.770 -$1.70 -$2.21 4.12% 0.04%

05 05 00 Rear Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

05 07 00 4WD Driveline Control Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

B 1.503 -$0.16 -$0.11 4.47% 0.09%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

Description

F.10.1 Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem

F.10.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.10-3, the only contributor to the mass of the Front Drive Housed Axle 

subsystem is the Front Drive Unit. The Front Drive Unit contains the left- and right-hand 

drive hub assembly (Image F.10-1) and associated hardware.

Table F.10-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

05 03 00 Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem

05 03 04 Front Drive Unit (Drive Hubs) 6.354

Total Subsystem Mass = 6.354

Total System Mass = 33.657

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 18.88%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.37%

Description
Page 538

Image F.10-1: Front Drive Hub Assembly

(Source: FEV photo)

F.10.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza Front Drive Housed Axle subsystem follows typical industry standards 

in that there is nothing new, eye catching, or unique. The Front Drive Hubs (Image 

F.10-2) are forged and machined to OEM specifications.

F.10.2 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

F.10.2.1 Drive Hubs

Drive hubs (Image F.10-2) for cars will continue to require high-strength parts to provide 

reliable, safe functionality as a driveline part. Steel forgings produce advantageous grain 

flow for superior strength compared to castings and fully machined billets. Compared to 

castings, forgings offer high strength/weight ratios and high impact resistance. Heat 

treatment is usually required to maintain dimensional stability.

Although carbon fiber parts are in use for hubs, they currently appear only in Formula 1 

race cars and some of the very low production volume supercars. Applications of carbon 

fiber hubs in regular production cars will require significant development of low cost 

production methods and much larger material availability. A technology that bears 

watching is bulk compound molding using polymer material that is filled with long 

carbon fiber. The hope is that low-cost, low-mass carbon fiber parts can be made with 

strength equivalent to steel.
Page 539

In the last decade, basalt fiber has emerged as a contender in the fiber reinforcement of 

composites. Proponents of this technology claim their products offer performance similar 

to S-2 glass fibers at a price between S-2 glass and E-glass, and may offer manufacturers 

a less expensive alternative to carbon fiber.

Applications of basalt fiber and bulk-molded carbon fiber will be delayed into the 

indefinite future because of limited production capacity. However, the continental United 

States has very large deposits of basalt. Michigan, in fact, in its upper peninsula, is among 

the continental states that contain basalt deposits. Basalt fiber research, production and 

most marketing efforts are based in countries once aligned with the Soviet bloc. 

Companies currently involved in basalt production and marketing include Kamenny Vek 

(Dubna, Russia), Technobasalt (Kyiv, Ukraine), Hengdian Group Shanghai Russia & 

Gold Basalt Fibre Co. (Shanghai, China), OJSC Research Institute Glassplastics and Fiber

(Bucha, Ukraine), Basaltex, a division of Masureel Holding (Wevelgem, Belgium), 

Sudaglass Fiber Technology Inc. (Houston, Texas), and Allied Composite Technologies 

LLC (Rochester Hills, Michigan).

Simple part modification can also be applied to the front and rear hubs as seen on the 

2011 Toyota Sienna. The Sienna achieved weight reduction by drilling holes between 

each tire stud, scallops and reduced thickness of the wheel mounting flange. In the 

absence of lighter material options, scallops were applied to the front hub flange as seen 

in Image F.10-2.

Image F.10-2: Front Drive Hub

(Source: FEV photo)

F.10.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Image F.10-3 shows the mass reduction ideas considered from the brainstorming activity 

for the Front Axle Hub.
Page 540

Table F.10-4: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Front Drive 

Housed Axle Subsystem

F.10.4 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.10-5 shows the selected mass reduction idea for the Front Drive Housed Axle 

subsystem for detailed evaluation of both mass savings achieved and the cost to 

manufacture. 

Table F.10-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem Analysis

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

05 03 00 Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem

05 03 04 Front Drive Unit Scallop front axle hubs

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

F.10.4.1 Front Drive Unit

The solution chosen to be implemented on the Front Drive Unit (Image F.10-3) was the 

idea that reduced the most mass with the lowest possible cost impact. The assumption is 

the hub is forged in scallop feature without additional scalloping process. Scalloped hubs 

(Image F.10-3) allow for material mass savings with no cost impact since the material is 

removed during the forging process. 
Page 541

Image F.10-3: Front Axle Hub

(Source: FEV)

F.10.5 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.10-6 shows the evaluated mass reduction results for the Front Drive Housed 

Axle subsystem, which totaled an overall subsystem mass savings of 0.733kg and a cost 

savings of $1.54.

The Front Drive Unit sub-subsystem includes the Front Axle Hub, which was changed 

from a solid flange design to a multi-scallop design and accounts for 100% of the 0.733 

kg weight save. The Front Drive Unit sub-subsystem reduces the cost of this subsubsystem by $1.54.

Table F.10-6: Calculated Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Results for Front Drive 

Housed Axle Subsystem
Page 542

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

05 03 00 Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem

05 03 04 Front Drive Unit A 0.733 $1.54 $2.10 11.54% 0.04%

A 0.733 $1.54 $2.10 11.54% 0.04%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.10.6 Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem

F.10.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Image F.10-4 shows the entire Front Right-hand Drive Half Shaft system and how the 

individual parts connect to each other. The bearing shown at the left side of the photo is 

housed inside the Bearing Carrier (Image F.10-5).

Image F.10-4: Half Shafts

(Source: FEV photo)
Page 543

Image F.10-5: Bearing Carrier

(Source: FEV photo)

Table F.10-7 shows the mass breakdown of the Front Drive Half Shafts subsystem. This 

subsystem contains the Front Half-Shaft sub-subsystem, which includes Half Shafts, 

Bearing Carrier, Bearing Carrier Bolt, and Mounting Fasteners.

Table F.10-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

05 04 00 Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem

05 04 01 Front Half Shaft (Half Shafts, Carrier Bearing) 18.672

Total Subsystem Mass = 18.672

Total System Mass = 33.657

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 55.48%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 1.09%

Description
Page 544

F.10.7 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza Front Drive Half-Shafts subsystem follows typical industry standards 

as it has nothing new, out of the ordinary, or unique. The right-hand half-shafts are steel 

and have been weight-reduced for the most part. The bearing carrier housing is cast iron. 

It is machined to accept the carrier bearing and provide a suitable mounting surface. The 

bearing carrier has a steel M10-1.25 bolt fastened to the side – which adds no value or 

benefit.

F.10.8 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

A company called Precision Shaft Technologies has developed a lightweight, one-piece 

driveshaft for racing featuring forged 7075 aluminum tube yoke bonded into pultruded 

carbon fiber tubing. Cost will be a deterrent for some time to come regarding application 

to regular car production. 

F.10.8.1 Right-Hand Half Shaft

The Front RH Drive Shaft (Image F.10-6) was found to offer further weight reduction 

opportunity as it is the only solid shaft in the Front RH Driveshaft system. All other shafts 

in the Driveshaft system have been light weighted by the use of tubing.

Image F.10-6: Front RH Driveshaft

(Source: FEV photo)

F.10.8.2 Bearing Carrier

The Bearing Carrier, Image F.10-7, was found to offer further weight reduction as it is 

cast iron. There are several examples of bearing carriers being manufactured from cast 

aluminum.
Page 545

Image F.10-7: Bearing Carrier

(Source: FEV photo)

F.10.8.3 Bearing Carrier Bolt

The Bearing Carrier Bolt (Image F.10-8) was found to provide further weight reduction 

opportunity as it is not utilized in this Venza model.

Image F.10-8: Bearing Carrier Bolt

(Source: FEV photo)
Page 546

F.10.9 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

The Front Drive Half-Shafts subsystem summary chart Table F.10-8 shows several mass 

reduction ideas that suggest changing components from steel to titanium, magnesium, or 

aluminum components.

Table F.10-8: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Front Drive HalfShafts Subsystem

F.10.10 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.10-9 shows ideas selected for detail evaluation.
Page 547

Table F.10-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem Analysis

F.10.10.1 RH Half Shaft

The solution selected for implementation on the Front RH Driveshaft (Image F.10-9) is 

hollowing out the driveshaft.

Image F.10-9: Front RH Driveshaft

F.10.10.2 Bearing Carrier

The solution selected for implementation on the Bearing Carrier (Image F.10-10) is to 

cast the housing out of aluminum instead of steel.
Page 548

Image F.10-10: Bearing Carrier

(Source: FEV photo)

F.10.10.3 Bearing Carrier Bolt

The solution selected for implementation on the Bearing Carrier Bolt is to replace the bolt 

with a push-in plastic plug (Image F.10-11).

Image F.10-11: Push-in plastic plug

(Source: FEV photo)

F.10.11 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.10-10 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas applied to the Front Drive 

Half-Shafts subsystem as well as the cost impact which totaled an overall subsystem mass 

savings of 0.770kg and a cost hit of $1.70
Page 549

The Front Half Shaft sub-subsystem includes the Front Drive Shaft, which was drilled out 

and accounts for 33% of the 0.770 kg weight save. The remaining 67% of the mass 

reduction was reduced by changing the Bearing Carrier from a cast iron design to a cast 

aluminum design.

Table F.10-10: Calculated Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Results for the Front Drive HalfShafts Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

05 04 00 Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem

05 04 01 Front Half Shaft C 0.770 -$1.70 -$2.21 4.12% 0.04%

C 0.770 -$1.70 -$2.21 4.12% 0.04%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Page 550

F.11 Braking System

As shown in Table F.11-1, the Brake system is composed of six subsystems: Front 

Rotor/Drum and Shield; Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield; Parking Brake & Actuation; Brake 

Actuation; Power Brake; and Brake Controls Subsystems. In comparing the six 

subsystems, the greatest mass is located in the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield subsystem 

with approximately 38.45%.

Table F.11-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for the Braking System

The Final Calculated Results Summary for the entire Toyota Venza Brake system is 

shown in Table F.11-2. This combination of proposed solutions were selected for this 

cost group due to the significant weight savings that were calculated to be obtained 

(approx. 38.708kg) while also allowing for lower overall costs (approximately $169.60).

Table F.11-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Braking System

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

System & 

Subsystem 

Mass

"kg"

06 00 00 Brake System

06 03 00 Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem 32.971

06 04 00 Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem 22.470

06 05 00 Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem 13.405

06 06 00 Brake Actuation Subsystem 5.536

06 07 00 Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic) 2.829

06 09 00 Brake Controls Subsystem 8.527

Total System Mass = 85.740

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 5.01%

Description
Page 551

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

Subsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

06 00 00 Brake System

06 03 00 Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem A 14.839 $35.91 $2.42 45.01% 0.87%

06 04 00 Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem A 10.055 $17.45 $1.74 44.75% 0.59%

06 05 00 Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem A 9.635 $82.98 $8.61 71.88% 0.56%

06 06 00 Brake Actuation Subsystem A 2.984 $31.90 $10.69 53.90% 0.17%

06 07 00 Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic) A 1.196 $1.35 $1.13 42.25% 0.07%

06 09 00 Brake Controls Subsystem 0.000 0.000 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

A 38.708 $169.60 $4.38 51.56% 2.26%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas

F.11.1 Front Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem

F.11.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview

This pictorial diagram, Figure F.11-1 , represents the major brake components in the 

Front Rotor/Drum and Shield subsystem and their relative location and position relevant 

to one another as located on the vehicle front corner.
Page 552

Figure F.11-1: Front Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem Relative Location Diagram

(Source: http://www.motorera.com/dictionary/di.htm)

As seen in Image F.11-1, the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield subsystem consists of the 

major components of the Front Rotor, Front Splash Shield, Front Caliper Assembly, Front 

Caliper Mounting, and miscellaneous Anchor and Attaching components. 

Image F.11-1: Front Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem Current Major Components

(Source: FEV Inc photo)
Page 553

Table F.11-3 indicates the two sub-subsystems that make-up the Front Rotor/Drum and 

Shield subsystem. These are the Front Rotor and Shield sub-subsystem and the Anchor 

and Attaching Components sub-subsystem. The most significant contributor to the mass 

within this subsystem was found to be within the Front Rotor and Shield Sub-subsystem 

(approx 57.6%).

Table F.11-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Front Rotor / Drum and Shield 

Subsystem

F.11.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza’s Front Rotor and Shield subsystem (Image F.11-2) follows typical 

industry standards for design and performance. The Rotors (Image F.11-3) are single 

piece, vented design cast out of grey iron and manufactured to SAE specifications. The 

Splash Shields (Image F.11-4) are typical stamped and vented steel fabrications. The 

Caliper Assembly (Image F.11-5) is composed of several components. These include: 

The Caliper Housings (Image F.11-6) which are high nickel content cast iron with the 

appropriate machining. The Caliper Mountings, (Image F.11-7) are cast iron and 

machined. The Brake Caliper Assembly houses the Brake Pads and Pistons. The Caliper 

Pistons (Image F.11-8) are molded phenolic glass-filled plastic with standard seal 

configurations. The Brake Pads (Image F.11-9) are of standard construction with steel 

backing plates and friction pad materials. The current OEM Toyota Venza Front Brake 

Corner Assembly, example shown below, has a mass of 35.88kg. 

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

06 03 00 Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem --

06 03 01 Front Rotor and Shield 18.922

06 03 02 Front Caliper, Anchor and Attaching Components 13.925

Total Subsystem Mass = 32.847

Total System Mass = 85.740

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 38.31%

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 1.92%
Page 554

Image F.11-2: Front Brake System Current Assembly Example

(Source: http://www.imakenews.com/tituswillford)

F.11.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

F.11.1.3.1 Rotors

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Rotor (Image F.11-3) is a single piece, vented 

design cast out of grey iron and has a mass of 8.92kg. Many high performance and luxury 

vehicle models have began utilizing alternate rotor designs in order to improve both 

performance and economy. Two-piece rotor assemblies are now found in many 

Mercedes’, BMW’s, Audi’s, Corvette’s, and Porsche’s across multiple platforms and 

models. This two-piece configuration was also mentioned in the March 2010 Lotus 

Report. Besides OEM’s, there are aftermarket suppliers that use this design. Brembo and 

Wilwood are two such companies that have used this rotor design in various production 

applications. This two-piece design usually utilizes an Aluminum Center Hub (or Hat) 

along with a disc braking surface (typically cast iron or steel). 
Page 555

Image F.11-3: Front Rotor Current Component

(Source: Lotus – 2010 March EPA Report)

The Rotor Center (Hat) can be made from several material choices including Aluminum 

(Al), Titanium (Ti), Magnesium (Mg), Grey Iron or Steel (Fe) and manufactured from 

cast forms or billet machined from solid.

The Rotor disc surfaces are also able to be made from various materials and processing 

methods. These include Aluminum Metal Matrix Composites (Al/MMC), MMC, Ti and 

Fe. Even Carbon / Ceramic matrices have been used to produce rotors of less mass. 

Processing includes casting vented or solid disc plates and the machining cross-drilled 

plates, slotted plates and scalloped disc diameter (both ID and OD) profiles.

Some race cars and airplanes use brakes with carbon fiber discs and carbon fiber pads to 

reduce weight. For these systems, wear rates tend to be high, and braking may be poor or 

“grabby” until the brake is heated to the proper operating temperature. Again, this 

technology adds substantial costs if considered for regular high volume automotive 

production capacities.

F.11.1.3.2 Splash Shields

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Splash Shield is a multi-piece welded, vented 

design, stamped of common steel and has a mass of 0.435kg. A majority of splash shields 

(or dust shields) (Image F.11-4) are made from stamped, light gage steel. Some are 

vented or slotted for reduced material usage and increased weight savings. Alternative 

materials are now beginning to be examined for use to further reduce weight contribution. 

These include Al, high strength steels and even various reinforced plastics.
Page 556

Image F.11-4: Front Splash Shield Current Component

(Source: FEV Inc photo)

F.11.1.3.3 Caliper Assembly

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Caliper Assembly is a multi-piece assembly with 

the major components being made from cast iron and has a mass of 5.957kg. Traditionally

caliper assemblies, Image F.11-5 , are comprised of several components. These include: 

Housing, Mounting, Mounting Attachment Bolts (2), Inboard Brake Pad & Shim Plate, 

Outboard Brake Pad & Shim Plate, Pistons (2), Piston Seal Ring (2), Piston Seal Boots 

(2), Mounting Slide Pins (2), Mounting Slide Pin Boots (2), Housing Bleeder Valve and 

Housing Bleeder Valve Cap.

Image F.11-5: Front Caliper Current Assembly

(Source: http://cdn0.autopartsnetwork.com/images/catalog/brand/centric/640/14144280.jpg)
Page 557

F.11.1.3.3.1 Housings

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Caliper Housing is a single piece 

cast iron design and has a mass of 3.832kg. Traditionally caliper housings, 

Image F.11-6, have been made from various grades of cast iron. This 

allowed for adequate strength while also acting as a heat sink to assist in the 

brake cooling function. Now with advances in materials and processing 

methods, other choices are available and being utilized in aftermarket and 

high performance applications as well as OEM vehicle markets. Among 

some of these alternate mediums are Al, Ti, Steel, Mg and MMC. Forming 

methods now include sand cast, semi-permanent metal molding, die casting 

and machining from billet.

Image F.11-6: Front Caliper Housing Current Component

(Source: FEV Inc photo)

While these alternatives now are designed with the strength and 

performance required, they do add a significant cost-versus-mass increase. 

However the weight savings achieved is quite substantial and assists with 

reducing vehicle requirements for suspension loads, handling, ride quality, 

engine hp requirements, etc. Other advanced development includes using 

bulk molding compound using long randomly oriented carbon fiber 

continues to be of interest due to the ability to easily mold it into complex 

shapes. However, temperature extremes encountered by brake components 

and the current cost of the material will be serious challenges for some time 

to come.
Page 558

F.11.1.3.3.2 Mountings

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Caliper Mounting (or Bracket) is a 

single piece cast iron design and has a mass of 1.671kg. Caliper mountings 

(Image F.11-7) have normally been made from various grades of cast iron 

for adequate strength and function. Now with advances in materials and 

processing methods other choices are available and being utilized in 

aftermarket and high performance applications as well as OEM vehicle 

markets. Among some of these alternate mediums are Al, Ti, Steel and Mg. 

Forming and fabrication methods include casting and billet machining.

Image F.11-7: Front Caliper Mounting Current Component

(Source: FEV Inc photo)

F.11.1.3.3.3 Pistons

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Caliper Pistons are a single piece 

phenolic glass-filled design and have a mass of 0.127kg. Caliper pistons 

(Image F.11-8) commonly are made from various alloys of steel for 

function and heat resistance. Now advances alternative materials and 

processing methods allow new choices to be available. Rather than 

metallics only (Al, Steel, Ti) being utilized there are Phenolic glass-filled 

plastics that are used in high volume by OEMs. These are molded to near 

net shape with minimal machining required, saving both material and 

processing time while saving significant mass.
Page 559

Image F.11-8: Front Caliper Piston Current Components

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.11.1.3.3.4 Brake Pads

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Caliper Brake Pads are of standard 

construction with steel backing plates and friction pad materials. They have 

a mass of 0.957kg. The brake pads, Image F.11-9, has had little change in 

design, materials or processing in recent years. Most have steel backing 

plates with a molded friction material attached to them. Various size 

braking surfaces and molded shapes are the common variations across 

different vehicle platforms. Most material differences are focused only in 

the friction material going from traditional asbestos now to semi-metallic 

and full metallics as well as various ceramic compounds. While these 

friction materials greatly affect performance and vehicle stopping distances 

under various conditions, little is accomplished in saving mass and reducing 

material weight.

Image F.11-9: Front Caliper Brake Pad Current Components

(Source: FEV Inc. photo)
Page 560

F.11.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.11-4 shows the mass reduction ideas considered from the brainstorming activity 

for the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem and their various components. These 

ideas include part modifications, material substitutions, processing and fabrication 

differences, and use of alternative parts currently in production and used on other vehicles 

and applications.
Page 561

Table F.11-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Front Rotor / 

Drum and Shield Subsystem

Component/ Assembly Mass Reduction Idea Estimated Impact

Risk & Trade-offs and/or 

Benefits

Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem

Vent (slot) front rotors 0-5% wt save Low production - auto

Cross-Drill front rotors 10-20% wt save In Production - Most Auto 

Makers Rotor Downsizing based on 

vehicle mass reduction (34%) 

(9 of 10)

30-40% wt save Lower Cost. In production - auto

Two piece Rotor - Al lightweight center (hat) with 

Iron/Steel/CF outer surface 

(disc) w/ T-nut fasteners

20-30% wt save In Production - Merc, BMW, 

Audi

Change Material for Rotors - 

Al/MMC 40-50% wt save High Cost. In Production - racing / aftermarket

Downsizing based on Rotor 

fins 0-5% wt save Low production - auto

Clearance mill openings (rotor 

ID scalloping) around hat 

perimeter on rotor disc ID

20-30% wt save In Production - Merc, BMW, 

Audi

Clearance mill space (rotor 

OD scalloping) around disc 

OD perimeter

10-20% wt save In Production - Motorcycles

Clearance drill holes in rotor 

top hat surface to reduce wt (5 

- 9/16" dia. X.25DP)

5-10% wt save In Production - Merc, BMW, 

Audi

Increase slots around rotor hat 

perimeter (OD) 50% (10 - 

.625Wide x 1.125Long x .25 

Dp)

0-5% wt save In Production - Most Auto 

Makers

Chg from straight to directional 

vanes btwn rotor disc surfaces 0-5% wt save In Production - Merc, BMW, Audi

Make brake rotors out of 

ceramic 50-60% wt save In Production - racing

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:17.820-12.811 & 

cost:0.96)

30-40% wt save Lower Cost. In Production - 

Toyota

Combine 16, 18, 41, 45, 52, 

51, 60, 62, 64 & 66. Modify 

rotors with slotting, crossdrilling, 2-pc design, Al Hat, 

downsize from Prius, chg mat'l 

to Al/MMC, chg fin design 

(directional), rotor ID & OD 

scalloping, holes in rotor top 

hat surface & side perimeter. 

60-70% wt save

High Cost. Various partial 

combinations in production by 

various high performance sports 

car manufacturers

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:0.893-0.388 & 

cost:0.93)

50-60% wt save Lower cost. In Production - 

Toyota

Make splash shield out of 

plastic 60-70% wt save Low Cost. Low production - auto

Combination. Replace from 

Prius & make out of plastic. 70-80% wt save Lower Cost. Need development

Make splash shield out of HSS 10-20% wt save Higher Cost. Low production - 

auto

Make splash shield out of 

Aluminum 30-40% wt save Higher Cost. Low production - auto

Make splash shield out of 

Titanium 20-30% wt save High Cost. In Production - racing

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:2.004-1.377 & 

cost:0.98)

30-40% wt save In Production - Toyota

Combination. Replace from 

Prius and use thinner pad 

materials

40-50% wt save Lower Cost. Low production - 

auto

Make brake pad wear material 

thinner 5-10% wt save Low production - auto

Caliper Downsizing based on 

vehicle mass reduction 10-20% wt save In Production - Most Auto Makers

Change Material for selectively 

reinforced calipers (Al/MMC) 20-30% wt save High Cost. In Production - racing

Make caliper assembly out of 

cast magnesium 40-50% wt save High Cost. In Production - auto

Splash Shield

Brake Pads

Rotor

Table F.11-4 continued on next page
Page 562

Prius & make out of plastic. 70-80% wt save Lower Cost. Need development

Make splash shield out of HSS 10-20% wt save Higher Cost. Low production - 

auto

Make splash shield out of 

Aluminum 30-40% wt save Higher Cost. Low production - auto

Make splash shield out of 

Titanium 20-30% wt save High Cost. In Production - racing

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:2.004-1.377 & 

cost:0.98)

30-40% wt save In Production - Toyota

Combination. Replace from 

Prius and use thinner pad 

materials

40-50% wt save Lower Cost. Low production - 

auto

Make brake pad wear material 

thinner 5-10% wt save Low production - auto

Caliper Downsizing based on 

vehicle mass reduction 10-20% wt save In Production - Most Auto Makers

Change Material for selectively 

reinforced calipers (Al/MMC) 20-30% wt save High Cost. In Production - racing

Make caliper assembly out of 

cast magnesium 40-50% wt save High Cost. In Production - auto

Make caliper assembly out of 

cast aluminum 20-30% wt save Higher Cost. In production - auto

Make caliper assembly out of 

forged aluminum 30-40% wt save Higher Cost. In production - auto

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:12.071-7.413 & 

cost:0.96)

30-40% wt save Lower cost. In Production - 

Toyota

Combination. Replace from 

Prius, downsize for mass 

reduction & chg mat'l to cast 

Mg

60-70% wt save High Cost. Low production - 

auto

Caliper Downsizing based on 

vehicle mass reduction 10-20% wt save In Production - Most Auto Makers

Change Material for selectively 

reinforced calipers (Al/MMC) 20-30% wt save High Cost. In Production - racing

Make caliper assembly out of 

titanium 40-50% wt save High Cost. In Production - racing

Make caliper assembly out of 

cast magnesium 40-50% wt save High Cost. In Production - auto

Make caliper assembly out of 

cast aluminum 20-30% wt save Higher Cost. In production - auto

Make caliper assembly out of 

forged aluminum 30-40% wt save Higher Cost. In production - auto

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:12.071-7.413 & 

cost:0.96)

30-40% wt save Lower cost. In Production - 

Toyota

Combination. Replace from 

Prius, downsize for mass 

reduction & chg mat'l to cast 

Mg

60-70% wt save High Cost. Low production - 

auto

Splash Shield

Brake Pads

Calipers

Caliper Mounting Bracket

F.11.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.11-5 shows the mass reduction ideas for the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield 

subsystem that were selected for detailed evaluation of both the mass savings achieved 

and the cost to manufacture them. Several ideas suggest plastics and magnesium as 

alternate materials. Also, included are part substitutions from other vehicle designs such 

as those currently in use on the Toyota Prius (as determined in the March 2010 Lotus 

Report).
Page 563

Table F.11-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Front Rotor / Drum and Shield 

Subsystem Analysis

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem 

Description

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

06 03 00 Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem

06 03 00 Rotor

Combination. Modify rotors with slotting, crossdrilling, 2-pc design, Al Hat, downsize from Prius, 

disc mat'l cast iron, chg fin design (directional), 

rotor ID & OD scalloping, holes in rotor top hat 

surface & side perimeter. 

06 03 00 Splash Shield Combination. Replace from Prius & make out of 

plastic.

06 03 00 Brake Pads Combination. Replace from Prius and use thinner 

pad materials

06 03 00 Calipers Combination. Replace from Prius, downsize for 

mass reduction & chg mat'l to cast Al

06 03 00 Caliper Mounting Bracket Combination. Replace from Prius, downsize for 

mass reduction & chg mat'l to cast Al

F.11.1.5.1 Rotors

The solution(s) chose to be implemented on the final Front Rotor Assembly (Image 

F.11-10) was the combination of multiple individual brainstorming ideas. These ideas 
Page 564

included the following modifications to component design, material utilized and 

processing methods required: 

Two-piece Assembled Rotor Design, Image F.11-10

o Hat Fastened to Rotor Disc w/ T-Nuts and Bolts 

(Increased Process Time but Allows Better Hat Material Choices for 

Mass Savings)

o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Chevy, Mercedes, Audi, BMW, 

Wilwood, Brembo

Image F.11-10: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component

(Source: http://www.wilwood.com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdf)

Al Hat (Material Substitution), Image F.11-11

o Die Cast to Near-Net Shape 

(Mass Savings even with increased material volume of 20-30%, 

Decreased Processing Time, Rapid and Increased Heat Dissipation)

o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Chevy, Mercedes, Audi, BMW, 

Wilwood, Brembo, Motorcycles
Page 565

Image F.11-11: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component

(Source: http://www.wilwood.com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdf)

Cast Iron Disc Surfaces (Material Substitution), Image F.11-12

o Sand Cast to Near-Net Shape 

o Manufacturers and OEMs include: GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, 

Honda, Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, 

Lotus, Wilwood, Brembo, Motorcycles

Image F.11-12: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component

(Source: http://www.wilwood.com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdf)

Cast Directional Cooling Fins Between Disc Surfaces, Image F.11-13

o Casting Process Change. Enhanced Disc Cooling.
Page 566

(Acts as Centrifuge Air Pump: Maximum Air Circulation for 

Increased Cooling. This is Required Due to Less Rotor Material 

Mass Available to Absorb Heat.)

o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Porsche, 

Ferrari, Lamborghini, Wilwood, Brembo

Image F.11-13: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component

(Source:http://www.highperformancepontiac.com/tech/hppp_1101_brake_rotor_guide/photo_03.html)

Disc Surface Slotting, Image F.11-14

o Slight Mass Savings and Improved Brake Pad Performance 

(Release Trapped Heat, Gas, and Dust from Disc Surface)

o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Chevy, Pontiac, Cadillac, 

Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Wilwood, 

Brembo, Motorcycles
Page 567

Image F.11-14: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component

(Source: http://www.highperformancepontiac.com/tech/hppp_1101_brake_rotor_guide/photo_13.html)

Disc Surface Cross-Drilling, Image F.11-15

o Improved Disc Cooling and Mass Savings

(Disperse Built-Up Heat and Gases)

o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Chevy, Pontiac, Cadillac, 

Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Wilwood, 

Brembo, Motorcycles

Image F.11-15: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component

(Source: http://www.pap-parts.com/products.asp?dept=2732)

Down-sizing Based on the Scaling Utilizing the 2008 Toyota Prius, Image 

F.11-16

o Ratio Vehicle Net Mass and Rotor Size versus Prius Specs (Lotus) to 

Reduce Rotor Size and Material Usage. 
Page 568

(Mass Savings Due to Less Material Usage)

Image F.11-16: Front Rotor Size Normalization Mass Reduced Component

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Scallop Rotor OD, Image F.11-17

o Improve Braking Performance and Mass Savings 

o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Wilwood, Brembo, Numerous 

Motorcycle Applications

Image F.11-17: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component

(Source: http://www.wilwood.com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdf)

Scallop Rotor ID, Image F.11-18
Page 569

o Improve Braking Performance and Mass Savings

o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Audi, Mercedes, BMW, 

Wilwood, Brembo, Numerous Motorcycle Applications

Image F.11-18: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component

(Source: http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/kirkham-motorsports/)

Cross-Drill Hat OD, Image F.11-19

o Improved Drum Surface Cooling and Mass Savings

Image F.11-19: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component

(Source http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=238563)

Drill Holes in Hat Top Surface, Image F.11-20

o Improved Drum Surface Cooling & Mass Savings

o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Audi, Mercedes, BMW, 

Wilwood, Brembo
Page 570

Image F.11-20: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component

(Source: http://www.pic2fly.com/Wilwood+Rotor+Hats.html)

The final Front Rotor Assembly (Image F.11-21) is the approximate design configuration 

based on the above combined ideas. This redesigned Front Rotor solution has a calculated 

mass of 5.335kg. Although nearly all of these individual mass reduction ideas have been 

implemented by plenty of manufactures and OEMs individually, none have been utilized 

all at once in a single vehicle application. Therefore, the appropriate amount of industry 

testing and validation must be performed by any vehicle manufacturer in order to fit this 

design to a particular vehicle application. Concerns to be addressed would include the 

normal list of topics that are determined with any braking system. These would include 

some of the following requirements: 

Cracking and Deformation Resistance

Degassing, Glazing and Debris Control

Brake Pad Wear

Cooling (Heat Dissipation) Performance

Disc Heat Capacity versus Warping

Quality & Geometric Tolerance:

o Dimensioning, Surface Finish, Lateral Runout, Flatness, 

Perpendicularity & Parallelism

Rotor Braking Surface Wear
Page 571

Rotor Life and Durability vs. Warranty

Braking Performance vs. Component Longevity

NVH Testing vs. Functional Performance

Rotor Assembly (Disc & Hat) Balancing

Image F.11-21: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source: http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/blogs/secongendsm/2176-wilwood-brake-kit.html)

F.11.1.5.2 Splash Shields

The solution(s) chose to be implemented on the Front Splash Shields (Image F.11-22) 

was the combination of two individual brainstorming ideas. This redesigned Toyota 

Venza Splash Shield solution has a calculated mass of 0.075kg. These ideas included the 

following modifications to design, materials and processing: 

Plastic Glass-Filled, Ribbed and Webbed Shield (Material Substitution)

o Injection Molded to Near-Net Shape and Combining Components 

(Mass Savings even with increased material volume of 20-30%, 

Component Simplification and Assembly Reduction)

Down-sizing Based on the Scaling Utilizing the 2008 Toyota Prius

o Ratio Vehicle Net Mass & Rotor Size vs. Prius Specs (Lotus)
Page 572

Image F.11-22: Front Splash Shield Mass-Reduced Component Examples

(Source: http://www.motorcycle-superstore.com)

F.11.1.5.3 Caliper Assembly

The redesigned Toyota Venza Front Caliper Assembly is still a multi-piece 

assembly comprised of the same components and design function. The major 

components are now being made from cast Al and the assembly has a new reduced 

mass calculated to be 2.563kg. The Front Caliper Assembly (Image F.11-23 and

Figure F.11-2) is still comprised of the same components and design function. 

These include: Housing, Mounting, Mounting Attachment Bolts (2), Inboard Brake 

Pad & Shim Plate, Outboard Brake Pad & Shim Plate, Pistons (2), Piston Seal 

Ring (2), Piston Seal Boots (2), Mounting Slide Pins (2), Mounting Slide Pin 

Boots (2), Housing Bleeder Valve, and Housing Bleeder Valve Cap.

Image F.11-23: Front Caliper Mass Reduced Assembly Example
Page 573

Figure F.11-2: Front Caliper Assembly Component Diagram Example

(Source: http://www.brakewarehouse.com/)

F.11.1.5.3.1 Housings

The Front Caliper Housing (Image F.11-24) has been changed from a cast 

iron design to a die cast Al design. Additional material volume of 70-80% 

was added to improve strength and increase mass surface to assist in the 

brake cooling function. This technology is available and being utilized in 

aftermarket and high performance applications as well as a few OEM 

vehicle markets. Some manufacturers and vehicle applications include: 

BMC (Chrylser, Mini-Cooper), AP (Pontiac Grand Am, Ford Lotus, Honda 

NSX, Mk3 Titan, Fulvia, and various motorcycles), Lockheed (Can Am 

race cars, Honda autos, BMW autos, Lotus autos, and many various 

motorcycles), and Brembo (Ducatii and Bimota motorcycles).
Page 574

Image F.11-24: Front Caliper Housing Mass Reduced Component example

(Source:http://www.peterverdone.com/wiki/index.php?title=PVD_Land_Speed_Record_Bike#Caliper)

While these alternatives now are designed with the strength and 

performance required they do add a significant cost while providing a large 

mass decrease. However the weight savings achieved is quite substantial. 

This redesigned Front Caliper Housing solution has a calculated mass of 

1.470kg. This mass decrease assists with reducing vehicle requirements for 

suspension loads, handling, ride quality, engine hp requirements, etc. 

F.11.1.5.3.2 Mountings

The Front Caliper Mounting, Image F.11-25, was changed from cast iron to 

a die cast Al design. While additional material volume of 70-80% was 

added to improve strength, the mass savings achieved was still significant. 

This redesigned Front Caliper Mounting solution has a calculated mass of 

0.640kg. This upgraded material design is used in many aftermarket and 

high performance applications. Some manufacturers and vehicle 

applications include: AP (Pontiac autos, Lotus autos, and various 

motorcycles), Lockheed (Honda autos, BMW autos, and many various 

motorcycles) and Brembo (Ducatii motorcycles).
Page 575

Image F.11-25: Front Caliper Mounting Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source: http://www.gforcebuggies.com/Parts)

F.11.1.5.3.3 Brake Pads

The Brake Pads, Image F.11-26, had had little change in their design and 

the materials and processing remains the same. Still utilizing steel backing 

plates with a molded friction material attached. The variation in mass 

savings achieved was by utilizing slightly smaller and thinner brake pads. 

These redesigned Toyota Venza Front Caliper Brake Pad solutions have a 

calculated mass of 0.60kg. Most material differences are focused only in the 

friction material going from traditional asbestos now to semi-metallic and 

full metallics as well as various ceramic compounds. While these friction 

materials greatly affect performance and vehicle stopping distances under 

various conditions, little is accomplished in saving mass and reducing 

material weight.

Image F.11-26: Front Caliper Brake Pad Mass Reduced Components

(Source: http://cdn0.autopartsnetwork.com/images/catalog/wp/full/W01331833409NPN.JPG)
Page 576

The final Front Brake Corner assembly shown below, Image F.11-27, is the 

approximate design configuration based on the above combined ideas. This 

redesigned Toyota Venza Front Brake Corner Assembly solution has a calculated 

mass of 14.839kg. Again, nearly all of these individual mass reduction ideas have 

been implemented by many manufactures and OEMs individually, but none have 

been utilized at once in a single vehicle application. Therefore, the appropriate 

amount of industry testing and validation must be performed by any vehicle 

manufacturer in order to fit this design to a particular vehicle application.

Image F.11-27: Front Brake System Mass Reduced Assembly Example

(Source: http://www.wilwood.com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdf)

F.11.1.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.11-6 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated for the 

Front Rotor / Drum and Shield subsystem. This resulted in a subsystem overall mass 

savings of 14.839kg and a cost decrease differential of $35.91.
Page 577

Table F.11-6: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Front Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys/ 

SubSubsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

06 03 00 Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem

06 03 01 Front Rotor and Shield D 7.338 $7.33 $1.00 38.78% 0.43%

06 03 02 Front Caliper, Anchor and Attaching Components A 7.500 $28.58 $3.81 53.86% 0.44%

A 14.839 $35.91 $2.42 45.01% 0.87%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

Table F.11-7 shows the ideas for the Front Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem with the 

Brake Rotors achieving the greatest mass reduction, 6.618kg, along with some cost 

decrease of $3.42. The Caliper Housing was the next largest mass savings realized with 

4.724kg and a significant cost reduction of $27.50.

Table F.11-7: Calculated Mass-Reductions and Cost Impact Results for the Front Rotor / Drum 

Components and Shield Subsystem Components
Page 578

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (1)

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

06 03 00 Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem

06 03 01 Rotor 6.618 $3.42 $0.52

06 03 01 Splash Shield 0.720 $3.91 $5.43

06 03 02 Caliper Housing 4.724 $27.50 $5.82

06 03 02 Brake Pads 0.714 -$4.32 -$6.05

06 03 02 Caliper Mounting Bracket 2.063 $5.41 $2.62

(1) "+" = decrease, "-" = increase System Subsystem Sub-Subsystem

Component / Assembly Description

Mass Reduction Results

F.11.2 Rear Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem

F.11.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview

This pictorial diagram, Image F.11-28, represents the major brake components in the 

Rear Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem and their relative location and position relevant 

to one another as located on the vehicle rear corner.
Page 579

Image F.11-28: Rear Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem Relative Location Diagram

(Source: Lotus – 2010 March EPA Report)

As seen in Image F.11-29, the Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield subsystem consists of the 

following major components: Rear Rotor, Rear Splash Shield, Rear Caliper Assembly, 

Rear Caliper Mounting, and Miscellaneous Anchor and Attaching Components. 

Image F.11-29: Rear Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem Current Major Components

(Source: FEV Inc photo)

Table F.11-8 indicates the two (2) sub-subsystems that make-up the Rear Rotor/Drum 

and Shield subsystem. These are the Rear Rotor & Shield sub-subsystem and the Anchor 

and Attaching Components sub-subsystem. The most significant contributor to the mass 

within this subsystem was found to be within the Rear Rotor and Shield sub-subsystem 

(approx 66.3%).

Table F.11-8: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Rear Rotor / Drum and Shield 

Subsystem
Page 580

F.11.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

As with the Front Brake subsystems previously discussed, the Toyota Venza’s Rear Rotor 

and Shield subsystem (Image F.11-30) follows typical industry standards. Rotors (Image 

F.11-31) are single piece design cast out of grey iron and manufactured to SAE 

specifications. The Splash Shields (Image F.11-32) are typical stamped and welded steel 

fabrications. The Caliper Assembly (Image F.11-33) is composed of several components. 

These include: Caliper Housings (Image F.11-34) are high nickel content cast iron with 

the appropriate machining. The Caliper Mountings (Image F.11-35) are cast iron and 

machined. The Brake Caliper houses the Brake Pads and Pistons. The Caliper Piston 

(Image F.11-36) is drawn, machined and coated steel with standard seal configurations. 

The Brake Pads (Image F.11-37) are of standard construction with steel backing plates 

and friction pad materials. The current OEM Toyota Venza Rear Brake Corner Assembly 

has a mass of 11.235kg.

System 

Subsystem Sub- Subsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

06 04 00 Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem --

06 04 01 Rear Rotor and Shield 14.893

06 04 02 Rear Caliper, Anchor and Attaching Components 7.578

Total Subsystem Mass = 22.470

Total System Mass = 85.740

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 26.21%

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 1.31%
Page 581

Image F.11-30: Rear Brake System Assembly Example

(Source: http://www.wheels24.co.za/News/General_News/Scooby-STI-goes-auto-20090225)

F.11.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

F.11.2.3.1 Rotors

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Rotor (Image F.11-31) is a single piece design 

cast out of grey iron and has a mass of 5.742kg. Many high-performance and luxury 

vehicle models have began utilizing alternate rotor designs in order to improve both 

performance and economy. Two-piece rotor assemblies are now able to be found in many 

Mercedes’, BMW’s, Audi’s, Corvette’s, Porches’, etc across many platforms and vehicle 

models. This two-piece configuration was also mentioned in the March 2010 Lotus 

Report. Besides OEM’s, there are aftermarket suppliers that use this design. Brembo and 

Wilwood are two such companies that have used this rotor design in various production 

applications. This two-piece design usually utilizes an Aluminum center hub (or hat) 

along with a disc braking surface (typically cast iron or steel). 
Page 582

Image F.11-31: Rear Rotor Current Component

(Source: http://www.bestvalueautoparts.com/Replacement_Parts/TOYOTA))

The Rotor Center (Hat) can be made from several material choices including Aluminum 

(Al), Titanium (Ti), Magnesium (Mg), Grey Iron or Steel (Fe) and manufactured from 

cast forms or billet machined from solid.

The Rotor disc surfaces are also able to be made from various materials and processing 

methods. These include Aluminum Metal Matrix Composites (Al/MMC), MMC, Ti and 

Fe. Even Carbon/Ceramic matrices have been used to produce rotors of less mass. 

Processing includes casting vented or solid disc plates and the machining cross-drilled 

plates, slotted plates and scalloped disc (both ID and OD) profiles.

Some race cars and airplanes use brakes with carbon fiber discs and carbon fiber pads to 

reduce weight. For these systems, wear rates tend to be high, and braking may be poor or 

“grabby” until the brake is heated to the proper operating temperature. Again, this 

technology adds substantial costs if considered for regular high volume automotive 

production capacities.

F.11.2.3.2 Splash Shields

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Splash Shield is a multi- piece welded design, 

stamped of common steel and has a mass of 1.624kg. A majority of splash shields (or dust 

shields) (Image F.11-32) are made from stamped light gage steel. Some are vented or 

slotted for reduced material and increased weight savings. Alternative materials are now 

beginning to be examined for use to further reduce weight contribution. These include Al, 

high-strength steels, and even various reinforced plastics.
Page 583

Image F.11-32: Rear Splash Shield Current Component

(Source: FEV Inc photo)

F.11.2.3.3 Caliper Assembly

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Caliper Assembly is a multi-piece assembly with 

major components made from cast iron and has a mass of 3.250kg. Traditional caliper 

assemblies (Image F.11-33) are comprised of several components. These include: 

Housing, Mounting, Mounting Attachment Bolts (2), Inboard Brake Pad and Shim Plate, 

Outboard Brake Pad and Shim Plate, Piston, Piston Seal Ring, Piston Seal Boot, 

Mounting Slide Pins (2), Mounting Slide Pin Boots (2), Housing Bleeder Valve, and

Housing Bleeder Valve Cap.
Page 584

Image F.11-33: Rear Caliper Current Assembly

(Source: http://cdn2.autopartsnetwork.com/images/catalog/brand/centric/640/14144640.jpg)

F.11.2.3.3.1 Housings

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Caliper Housing is a single piece 

cast iron design and has a mass of 1.896kg. Traditional caliper housings 

(Image F.11-34) have been made from various grades of cast iron. This 

allowed for adequate strength while also acting as a heat sink to assist in the 

brake cooling function. Now with advances in materials and processing 

methods, other choices are available and being utilized in aftermarket and 

high performance applications as well as OEM vehicle markets. Among 

some of these alternate mediums are Al, Ti, Steel, Mg and MMC. Forming 

methods now include sand cast, semi-permanent metal molding, die casting 

and machining from billet.

Image F.11-34: Rear Caliper Housing current component.

(Source: FEV Inc photo)

While these alternatives now are designed with the strength and 

performance required they do add a significant cost-versus-mass increase. 

However, the weight savings achieved is quite substantial and assists with 

reducing such vehicle requirements for suspension loads, handling, ride 

quality, and engine hp requirements. Other advanced development includes 

using bulk molding compound using long randomly oriented carbon fiber 

continues to be of interest due to the ability to easily mold it into complex 

shapes. However, temperature extremes encountered by brake components 
Page 585

and the current cost of the material will be serious challenges for some time 

to come.

F.11.2.3.3.2 Mountings

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Caliper Mounting is a single piece 

cast iron design and has a mass of 0.934kg. Caliper mountings, Image 

F.11-35, have normally been made from various grades of cast iron for 

adequate strength and function. Now with advances in materials and 

processing methods other choices are available and being utilized in 

aftermarket and high performance applications as well as OEM vehicle 

markets. Among some of these alternate mediums are Al, Ti, Steel and Mg. 

Forming and fabrication methods include casting and billet machining.

Image F.11-35: Rear Caliper Mounting Current Component

(Source: FEV Inc photo)

F.11.2.3.3.3 Piston

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Caliper Pistons are a single piece 

steel drawn design and have a mass of 0.219kg. Caliper piston (Image 

F.11-36) commonly are made from various alloys of steel for function and 

heat resistance. Now advances alternative materials and processing methods 

allow new choices to be available. Rather than utilizing metallics only (Al, 

Steel, Ti), there are phenolic glass-filled plastics that are used in high 

volume by OEMs. These are molded to near net shape with minimal 

machining required, saving both material and processing time while saving 

significant mass.
Page 586

Image F.11-36: Rear Caliper Piston Current Component

(Source: FEV Inc photo)

F.11.2.3.3.4 Brake Pads

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Caliper Brake Pads are of standard

construction with steel backing plates and friction pad materials. They have 

a mass of 0.487kg. The brake pads (Image F.11-37) had had little change in 

design, materials or processing in recent years. Most have steel backing 

plates with a molded friction material attached to them. Various sized 

braking surfaces and molded shapes are common variations across different 

vehicle platforms. Most material differences are focused only in the friction 

material going from traditional asbestos now to semi-metallic and full 

metallic as well as various ceramic compounds. While these friction 

materials greatly affect performance and vehicle stopping distances under 

various conditions, little is accomplished in saving mass and reducing 

material weight.

Image F.11-37: Rear Caliper Brake Pad Current Components

(Source: FEV Inc photo)
Page 587

F.11.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.11-9 shows the mass reduction ideas considered from the brainstorming activity 

for the Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem and their various components. These 

ideas include part modifications, material substitutions, processing and fabrication 

differences, and use of alternative parts currently in production and used on other vehicles 

and applications.

Table F.11-9: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Rear Rotor / 

Drum and Shield Subsystem
Page 588

Component/ Assembly Mass Reduction Idea Estimated Impact

Risk & Trade-offs and/or 

Benefits

Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem

Vent (slot) front rotors 0-5% wt save Low production - auto

Cross-Drill front rotors 10-20% wt save In Production - Most Auto 

Makers

Rotor Downsizing based on 

vehicle mass reduction 30-40% wt save Lower Cost. In production - auto

Two piece Rotor - Al lightweight center (hat) with 

Iron/Steel/CF outer surface 

(disc) w/ T-nut fasteners

20-30% wt save In Production - Merc, BMW, 

Audi

Change Material for Rotors - 

Al/MMC 40-50% wt save High Cost. In Production - racing / aftermarket

Downsizing based on Rotor 

fins 0-5% wt save Low production - auto

Clearance mill openings (rotor 

ID scalloping) around hat 

perimeter on rotor disc ID

20-30% wt save In Production - Merc, BMW, 

Audi

Clearance mill space (rotor 

OD scalloping) around disc 

OD perimeter

10-20% wt save In Production - Motorcycles

Clearance drill holes in rotor 

top hat surface to reduce wt (5 

- 9/16" dia. X.25DP)

5-10% wt save In Production - Merc, BMW, 

Audi

Increase slots around rotor hat 

perimeter (OD) 50% (10 - 

.625Wide x 1.125Long x .25 

Dp)

0-5% wt save In Production - Most Auto 

Makers

Chg from straight to directional 

vanes btwn rotor disc surfaces 0-5% wt save In Production - Merc, BMW, Audi

Make brake rotors out of 

ceramic 50-60% wt save In Production - racing

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:17.820-12.811 & 

cost:0.96)

30-40% wt save Lower Cost. In Production - 

Toyota

Combination. Modify rotors 

with slotting, cross-drilling, 2-

pc design, Al Hat, downsize 

from Prius, chg mat'l to 

Al/MMC, chg fin design 

(directional), rotor ID & OD 

scalloping, holes in rotor top 

hat surface & side perimeter. 

60-70% wt save

High Cost. Various partial 

combinations in production by 

various high performance sports 

car manufacturers

Vent rear splash shield like 

front shield 10-20% wt save Lower cost. In Production - most automakers

Make splash shield out of 

plastic 60-70% wt save Low Cost. Low production - auto

Make splash shield out of High 

Strength Steel 10-20% wt save Higher Cost. Low production - auto

Make splash shield out of 

Aluminum 30-40% wt save Higher Cost. Low production - auto

Make splash shield out of 

Titanium 20-30% wt save High Cost. In Production - racing

Integrate (3) splash shield 

plates into (1) 20-30% wt save Lower cost. In Production

Eliminate thick backing plate. 

Attach directly to axle 10-20% wt save Lower cost. In Production

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:3.189-0.715 & 

cost:0.25)

60-70% wt save Lower cost. In Production - 

Toyota

Combinination. Replace from 

Prius, Vent, Al Mat'l, Combine 

3 plates into 1.

70-80% wt save Moderate Cost

Eliminate shoe brake access 

plug 100% wt save Low production - auto

Rotor

Splash Shield

Access Plug

Table F.11-9 continued next page
Page 589

with slotting, cross-drilling, 2-

pc design, Al Hat, downsize 

from Prius, chg mat'l to 

Al/MMC, chg fin design 

(directional), rotor ID & OD 

scalloping, holes in rotor top 

hat surface & side perimeter. 

60-70% wt save

High Cost. Various partial 

combinations in production by 

various high performance sports 

car manufacturers

Vent rear splash shield like 

front shield 10-20% wt save Lower cost. In Production - most automakers

Make splash shield out of 

plastic 60-70% wt save Low Cost. Low production - auto

Make splash shield out of High 

Strength Steel 10-20% wt save Higher Cost. Low production - auto

Make splash shield out of 

Aluminum 30-40% wt save Higher Cost. Low production - auto

Make splash shield out of 

Titanium 20-30% wt save High Cost. In Production - racing

Integrate (3) splash shield 

plates into (1) 20-30% wt save Lower cost. In Production

Eliminate thick backing plate. 

Attach directly to axle 10-20% wt save Lower cost. In Production

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:3.189-0.715 & 

cost:0.25)

60-70% wt save Lower cost. In Production - 

Toyota

Combinination. Replace from 

Prius, Vent, Al Mat'l, Combine 

3 plates into 1.

70-80% wt save Moderate Cost

Eliminate shoe brake access 

plug 100% wt save Low production - auto

Make shoe access plug out of 

plastic 10-20% wt save Low production - auto

Hose

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:0.313-0.228 & 

cost:0.97)

20-30% wt save In Production - Toyota

Splash Shield

Access Plug

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:2.004-1.377 & 

cost:0.98)

30-40% wt save In Production - Toyota

Combination. Replace from 

Prius and use thinner pad 

materials

40-50% wt save Lower Cost. Low production - 

auto

Make brake pad wear material 

thinner 5-10% wt save Low production - auto

Caliper Downsizing based on 

vehicle mass reduction 10-20% wt save In Production - Most Auto Makers

Change Material for selectively 

reinforced calipers (Al/MMC) 20-30% wt save High Cost. In Production - racing

Make caliper assembly out of 

cast magnesium 40-50% wt save High Cost. In Production - auto

Make caliper assembly out of 

cast aluminum 20-30% wt save Higher Cost. In production - auto

Make caliper assembly out of 

forged aluminum 30-40% wt save Higher Cost. In production - auto

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:12.071-7.413 & 

cost:0.96)

30-40% wt save Lower cost. In Production - 

Toyota

Combination. Replace from 

Prius, downsize for mass 

reduction & chg mat'l to cast 

Mg

60-70% wt save High Cost. Low production - 

auto

Caliper Downsizing based on 

vehicle mass reduction 10-20% wt save In Production - Most Auto Makers

Change Material for selectively 

reinforced calipers (Al/MMC) 20-30% wt save High Cost. In Production - racing

Make caliper assembly out of 

titanium 40-50% wt save High Cost. In Production - racing

Make caliper assembly out of 

cast magnesium 40-50% wt save High Cost. In Production - auto

Make caliper assembly out of 

cast aluminum 20-30% wt save Higher Cost. In production - auto

Make caliper assembly out of 

3040% wt save Higher CostIn production auto

Caliper Mounting Bracket

Calipers

Brake Pads

Table F.11-9 continued next page
Page 590

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:12.071-7.413 & 

cost:0.96)

30-40% wt save Lower cost. In Production - 

Toyota

Combination. Replace from 

Prius, downsize for mass 

reduction & chg mat'l to cast 

Mg

60-70% wt save High Cost. Low production - 

auto

Caliper Downsizing based on 

vehicle mass reduction 10-20% wt save In Production - Most Auto Makers

Change Material for selectively 

reinforced calipers (Al/MMC) 20-30% wt save High Cost. In Production - racing

Make caliper assembly out of 

titanium 40-50% wt save High Cost. In Production - racing

Make caliper assembly out of 

cast magnesium 40-50% wt save High Cost. In Production - auto

Make caliper assembly out of 

cast aluminum 20-30% wt save Higher Cost. In production - auto

Make caliper assembly out of 

forged aluminum 30-40% wt save Higher Cost. In production - auto

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:12.071-7.413 & 

cost:0.96)

30-40% wt save Lower cost. In Production - 

Toyota

Combination. Replace from 

Prius, downsize for mass 

reduction & chg mat'l to cast 

Mg

60-70% wt save High Cost. Low production - 

auto

Make piston body from 

magnesium vs machined steel 50-60% wt save High Cost. Low production

Make piston body from molded 

plastic composite (phenolic) vs 

machined steel

60-70% wt save In Production - Most Auto 

Makers

Make piston body from cast 

aluminum vs machined steel 30-40% wt save Higher Cost. In production - auto

Make piston body from forged 

aluminum vs machined steel 40-50% wt save Higher Cost. In production - auto

Make piston body from HSS 

vs machined steel 10-20% wt save In Production - Auto

Make piston body from forged 

SS vs machined steel 5-10% wt save Higher Cost. In Production - Auto

Make piston body from 

titanium vs machined steel 40-50% wt save Low production - racing / aftermarket

Piston, Caliper

Caliper Mounting Bracket

F.11.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.11-10 shows the mass reduction ideas for the Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield 

subsystem that were selected for detailed evaluation of both the mass savings achieved 

and the cost to manufacture. Several ideas suggest plastics and magnesium as alternate 

materials. Also included are part substitutions from other vehicle designs such as those 

currently in use on the Toyota Prius (as determined in the March 2010 Lotus Report).
Page 591

Table F.11-10: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield 

Subsystem Analysis

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem 

Description

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

06 04 00 Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem

06 04 00 Rotor

Combination. Modify rotors with slotting, crossdrilling, 2-pc design, Al Hat, downsize from Prius, 

disc mat'l cast iron, chg fin design (directional), 

rotor ID & OD scalloping, holes in rotor top hat 

surface & side perimeter. 

06 04 00 Splash Shield Combination. Replace from Prius, Vent, Al Mat'l, 

Combine 3 plates into 1.

06 04 00 Access Plug Make shoe access plug out of plastic

06 04 00 Hose Replace from 2008 Toyota Prius (mass:0.313-

0.228 & cost:0.97)

06 04 00 Brake Pads Combination. Replace from Prius and use thinner 

pad materials

06 04 00 Calipers Combination. Replace from Prius, downsize for 

mass reduction & chg mat'l to cast Al

06 04 00 Caliper Mounting Bracket Combination. Replace from Prius, downsize for 

mass reduction & chg mat'l to cast Al

06 04 00 Piston, Caliper Make piston body from molded plastic composite 

(phenolic) vs machined steel

F.11.2.5.1 Rotors
Page 592

The solution(s) chosen to be implemented on the final Rear Rotor Assembly (Image 

F.11-38) was the combination of multiple individual brainstorming ideas. These ideas 

included the following modifications to component design, material utilized and 

processing methods required:

Two-piece Assembled Rotor Design, Image F.11-38

o Hat Fastened to Rotor Disc w/ T-Nuts and Bolts 

(Increased Process Time but Allows Better Hat Material Choices for 

Mass Savings)

o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Chevy, Mercedes, Audi, BMW, 

Wilwood, Brembo

Image F.11-38: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component

(Source: http://www.hrpworld.com/client_images/ecommerce/client_39/products/5862_1_tn.jpg)

Al Hat (Material Substitution), Image F.11-39

o Die Cast to Near-Net Shape 

(Mass Savings even with increased material volume of 20-30%, 

Decreased Processing Time, Rapid and Increased Heat Dissipation)

o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Chevy, Mercedes, Audi, BMW, 

Wilwood, Brembo, Motorcycles
Page 593

Image F.11-39: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component

(Source: http://www.wilwood.com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdf)

Cast Iron Disc Surfaces (Material Substitution) Image F.11-40

o Sand Cast to Near-Net Shape 

o Manufacturers and OEMs include: GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, 

Honda, Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, 

Wilwood, Brembo, Motorcycles

Image F.11-40: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component

(Source: http://www.wilwood.com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdf)

Disc Surface Slotting, Image F.11-41

o Slight Mass Savings and Improved Brake Pad Performance 

(Release Trapped Heat, Gas and Dust from Disc Surface)
Page 594

o Manufacturers & OEMs include: Chevy, Pontiac, Cadillac, 

Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Wilwood, 

Brembo, Motorcycles

Image F.11-41: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component

(Source: http://www.highperformancepontiac.com/tech/hppp_1101_brake_rotor_guide/photo_13.html)

Disc Surface Cross-Drilling, Image F.11-42

o Improved Disc Cooling and Mass Savings

(Disperse Built-Up Heat & Gases)

o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Chevy, Pontiac, Cadillac, 

Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Wilwood, 

Brembo, Motorcycles

Image F.11-42: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component

(Source: http://www.pap-parts.com/products.asp?dept=2732)
Page 595

Down Sizing Based on the Scaling Utilizing the 2008 Toyota Prius, Image 

F.11-43

o Ratio Vehicle Net Mass and Rotor Size vs. Prius Specs (Lotus) to 

Reduce Rotor Size and Material Usage. 

(Mass Savings Due to Less Material Usage)

Image F.11-43: Rear Rotor Size Normalization Mass Reduced Component

Scallop Rotor OD, Image F.11-44

o Improve Braking Performance and Mass Savings 

o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Wilwood, Brembo, Numerous 

Motorcycle Applications

Image F.11-44: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component

(Source: http://www.wilwood.com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdf)

Scallop Rotor ID, Image F.11-45
Page 596

o Improve Braking Performance and Mass Savings

o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Audi, Mercedes, BMW, 

Wilwood, Brembo, Numerous Motorcycle Applications

Image F.11-45: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component

(Source: http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/kirkham-motorsports/)

Cross-Drill Hat OD, Image F.11-46

o Improved Drum Surface Cooling & Mass Savings

Image F.11-46: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component

(Source http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=238563)

Drill Holes in Hat Top Surface, Image F.11-47

o Improved Drum Surface Cooling & Mass Savings

o Manufacturers & OEMs include: Audi, Mercedes, BMW, Wilwood, 

Brembo
Page 597

Image F.11-47: Rear Rotor Mass 

Reduced Component

(Source: 

http://www.pic2fly.com/Wilwood+Rotor

+Hats.html)

The final Rear Rotor Assembly (Image F.11-48) is the approximate design configuration 

based on the above combined ideas. This redesigned Toyota Venza Rear Rotor Assembly 

solution has a calculated mass of 4.944kg. Although nearly all of these individual mass 

reduction ideas have been implemented by many manufactures and OEMs individually, 

none have been utilized all at once in a single vehicle application. Therefore the 

appropriate amount of industry testing and validation must be performed by any vehicle 

manufacturer in order to fit this design to a particular vehicle application. Concerns to be 

addressed include the normal list of topics determined with any braking system. These 

would include some of the following requirements: 

Cracking and Deformation Resistance

Degassing, Glazing and Debris Control

Brake Pad Wear

Cooling (Heat Dissipation) Performance

Disc Heat Capacity vs. Warping

Quality & Geometric Tolerancing:

o Dimensioning, Surface Finish, Lateral Runout, Flatness, 

Perpendicularity & Parallelism 

Rotor Braking Surface Wear

Rotor Life and Durability vs. Warranty

Braking Performance vs. Component Longevity
Page 598

NVH Testing vs. Functional Performance

Rotor Assembly (Disc and Hat) Balancing

Image F.11-48: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source: http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/blogs/secongendsm/2176-wilwood-brake-kit.html)

F.11.2.5.2 Splash Shields

The solution(s) chosen to be implemented on the Rear Splash Shields (Image F.11-49) 

was the combination of two individual brainstorming ideas. This redesigned Toyota 

Venza Rear Splash Shield solution has a calculated mass of 0.496kg. These ideas 

included the following design, materials and processing modifications: 

Aluminum Fabrication (Material Substitution)

o One piece forging design to Near-Net Shape and Combining 

Components (Mass Savings even with increased material volume of 

120-130%, Component Simplification and Assembly Reduction)

Vented Design (done in forging strikes).

o (Mass Reduction from Less Material)

Down Sizing Based on the Scaling Utilizing the 2008 Toyota Prius

o Ratio Vehicle Net Mass & Rotor Size vs. Prius Specs (Lotus)
Page 599

Image F.11-49: Rear Splash Shield Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source: http://www.rjays.com/Superbell/SB_images/3513.jpg)

F.11.2.5.3 Caliper Assembly

The redesigned Toyota Venza Rear Caliper Assembly is also a multi-piece assembly 

comprised of the same components and design function. The major components are now 

being made from cast Al and the assembly has a new reduced mass calculated to be 

1.406kg. The Rear Caliper Assembly (Image F.11-50 and Image F.11-51) is still 

comprised of the same components and design function: Housing, Mounting, Mounting 

Attachment Bolts (2), Inboard Brake Pad and Shim Plate, Outboard Brake Pad and Shim 

Plate, Piston, Piston Seal Ring, Piston Seal Boot, Mounting Slide Pins (2), Mounting 

Slide Pin Boots (2), Housing Bleeder Valve, and Housing Bleeder Valve Cap.
Page 600

Image F.11-50: Rear Caliper Mass Reduced Assembly Example

(Source: http://www.sillbeer.com/blog/category/brakes)

Image F.11-51: Rear Caliper Assembly Component Diagram Example

(Source: http://www.brakewarehouse.com/remanufactured_brake_calipers.asp)

F.11.2.5.3.1 Housings

The Rear Caliper Housing (Image F.11-52) has been changed from a cast 

iron design to a die cast Al design. Additional material volume of 10-20% 

was added to improve strength and increase mass surface to assist in the 

brake cooling function. This technology is available and being utilized in 

aftermarket and high performance applications as well as a few OEM 

vehicle markets. Some manufacturers and vehicle applications include: 

BMC (Mini-Cooper), AP (Pontiac Grand Am, Ford Lotus, Honda NSX, 

Mk3 Titan, Fulvia, and various motorcycles), Lockheed (Can Am race cars, 

Honda autos, BMW autos, Lotus autos, and many various motorcycles) and 

Brembo (Ducatii and Bimota motorcycles).
Page 601

Image F.11-52: Rear Caliper Housing Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source: http://www.sillbeer.com/blog/category/brakes)

While these alternatives now are designed with the strength and 

performance required they do add a significant cost while providing a large 

mass decrease. However the weight savings achieved is quite substantial. 

This redesigned Toyota Venza Rear Caliper Housing solution has a 

calculated mass of 0.727kg. This mass decrease assists with reducing such 

vehicle requirements as suspension loads, handling, ride quality, and engine 

hp requirements. 

F.11.2.5.3.2 Mountings

The Rear Caliper Mounting, Image F.11-53, was changed from cast iron to 

a die cast Al design. While additional material volume of 20-30% was 

added to improve strength, the mass savings achieved was still significant. 

This redesigned Toyota Venza Rear Caliper Mounting solution has a 

calculated mass of 0.363kg. This upgraded material design is used in many 

aftermarket and high performance applications. Some manufacturers and 

vehicle applications include: AP (Pontiac autos, Lotus autos, and various 

motorcycles), Lockheed (Honda autos, BMW autos, and many various 

motorcycles) and Brembo (Ducatii motorcycles).
Page 602

Image F.11-53: Rear Caliper Mounting Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source: http://www.gforcebuggies.com/Parts)

F.11.2.5.3.3 Piston

The Toyota Venza Rear Caliper Pistons have been changed from a steel 

drawn design to a phenolic glass-filled design and now have a reduced mass 

of 0.114kg. A material volume increase of approximately 110-120% was to 

compensate for the strength of the steel being replaced. This design of 

Caliper Pistons (Image F.11-54) commonly used by many different OEM 

manufacturers in high volume applications, as well as being used by 

multiple aftermarket suppliers. These OEMs include Toyota as well as all 

the other major car manufacturers. These are molded to near net shape with 

minimal machining required, saving both material and processing time 

while saving significant mass.

Image F.11-54: Rear Caliper Piston Mass Reduced Component

(Source: FEV Inc photo)

F.11.2.5.3.4 Brake Pads
Page 603

The Rear Brake Pads (Image F.11-55) had had little change in their design

and the materials and processing remains the same. Still utilizing steel 

backing plates with a molded friction material attached. The variation in 

mass savings achieved was by utilizing slightly smaller and thinner brake 

pads. These redesigned Toyota Venza Rear Caliper Brake Pad solutions 

have a calculated mass of 0.306kg. Most material differences are focused 

only in the friction material going from traditional asbestos now to semimetallic and full metallic as well as various ceramic compounds. While 

these friction materials greatly affect performance and vehicle stopping 

distances under various conditions, little is accomplished in saving mass 

and reducing material weight.

Image F.11-55: Rear Caliper Brake Pad Mass Reduced Components

(Source: http://cdn1.autopartsnetwork.com/images/catalog/wp/full/W01331833410NPN.JPG)

The final Rear Brake Corner Assembly shown below (Image F.11-56) is 

the approximate design configuration based on the above combined ideas. 

This redesigned Toyota Venza Rear Brake Corner Assembly solution has a 

calculated mass of 10.055kg. To reiterate, nearly all of these individual 

mass reduction ideas have been implemented by plenty of manufactures and 

OEMs individually, but none have been utilized all at once in a single 

vehicle application. Therefore the appropriate amount of industry testing 

and validation must be performed by any vehicle manufacturer in order to 

fit this design to a particular vehicle application.
Page 604

Image F.11-56: Rear Brake System Mass Reduced Assembly Example

(Source: http://www.wilwood.com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdf)

F.11.2.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.11-11 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated for the 

Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield subsystem. This resulted in a subsystem overall mass 

savings of 10.055kg and a cost savings differential of $17.45.

Table F.11-11: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Page 605

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys/ 

SubSubsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

06 04 00 Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem

06 04 01 Rear Rotor and Shield D 4.944 -$2.73 -$0.55 22.00% 0.29%

06 04 02 Rear Caliper, Anchor and Attaching Components A 5.110 $20.17 $3.95 22.74% 0.30%

A 10.055 $17.45 $1.74 44.75% 0.59%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.11-12 shows the redesigned components for the Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield 

subsystem. The Rear Brake Rotors achieve the greatest mass reduction, 2.672kg, along 

with some cost expense of $1.68. The Caliper Housing is the next largest mass savings, 

with 2.337kg and a significant cost reduction of $14.54.

Table F.11-12: Calculated Subsystem Mass-Reductions and Cost Impact Results for the Rear 

Rotor / Drum Components and Shield Subsystem Components
Page 606

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (1)

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

06 03 00 Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem

06 04 01 Rear Brake Rotor (Disc) 2.672 -$1.68 -$0.63

06 04 01 Access Plug - Rear Brake Rotor (Disc) 0.016 $0.01 $0.47

06 04 01 Rear Brake Shield 2.256 -$1.06 -$0.47

06 04 02 Hose 0.085 $0.26 $3.02

06 04 02 Caliper Housing (Rear) 2.337 $14.54 $6.22

06 04 02 Pad Kit, Disc Brake, Rear (2 Inner & 2 Outer Pads) 1.336 $0.21 $0.16

06 04 02 Mounting, Caliper (Rear) 1.142 $2.40 $2.10

06 04 02 Piston, Caliper (Rear) 0.210 $2.77 $13.19

(1) "+" = decrease, "-" = increase

Component / Assembly Description

Mass Reduction Results

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

F.11.3 Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem

F.11.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Image F.11-57 represents the major parking brake components in the Parking Brake and 

Actuation subsystem, which includes: the Parking Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-assembly, 

the Parking Brake Shoes and Associated Hardware, and the Actuation Cable Assemblies, 

and Guides and Brackets that are located on the vehicle from the engine firewall (front of 

vehicle) all the way to the rear wheels.
Page 607

Image F.11-57: Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem Current Sub-assemblies

(Source: Lotus – 2010 March EPA Report)

The Parking Brake and Actuation subsystem (Table F.11-13) consists of the Parking 

Brake Controls and the Parking Brake Cables and Attaching Components, including the 

Parking Brake Shoes and Hardware. The most significant contributor to mass is the 

Parking Brake Shoes and Hardware (approximately 56.69%) followed by the Parking 

Brake Controls (approximately 27.52%).

Table F.11-13: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Parking Brake and Actuation 

Subsystem

System 

Subsystem Sub- Subsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

06 05 00 Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem --

06 05 01 Parking Brake Controls 3.689

06 05 02 Parking Brake Cables and Attaching Components 2.117

06 05 03 Parking Brake Shoes and Hardware 7.599

Total Subsystem Mass = 13.405

Total System Mass = 85.740

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 15.63%

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.78%
Page 608

F.11.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza’s Parking Brake subsystem, Figure F.11-3, follows typical industry 

standards. The Venza uses a cable operated “drum-in-hat” rear parking brake system. The 

system consists of a hat-shaped rotor with a small drum on the inside for the parking 

brake shoe interface, and a flange or rotor disc surface on the outside diameter for the 

normal caliper, disc brake action. This entire unit is engaged by a pedal actuator located 

under the instrument panel against the engine firewall. The mass of this entire Parking 

Brake and Actuator sub-subsystem is 13.405kg.

Figure F.11-3: Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem Layout and Configuration

(Source: http://www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP_346.pdf)

F.11.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Alternatives to cable-operated parking brake systems are focused on hydraulic, electrical, 

and electro-mechanical components to actuate the parking brake system at the rear 

wheels. The use of push-button switches and console touch screens can eliminate the need

for hand levers or foot pedals in the cabin interior. Electrical wiring and actuators can 

provide input controls to initiate the clamping force at the rear wheels. This allows the 

reduction (if not the elimination) in the length and number of cable assemblies routed 

under and along the vehicle floor pan and sub-frame structures.

TRW offers a front and rear wheel Electric Park Brake system (Image F.11-58) that 

provides four-wheel park brake capability with associated claims of improved safety. VW 

has utilized an Electro-Hydraulic Park Brake system (Image F.11-59) that is initiated by 

an electric motor that drives a geared actuator providing direct hydraulic pressure 
Page 609

influence by pushing directly on the caliper piston inside the caliper housing. Other 

designs offer a compromise of a hybrid approach, still using electronic actuation and 

motor-driven systems but integrating them into the existing rear cable systems already 

present on most vehicles.

 

Image F.11-58 (Left): TRW Park Brake System

Image F.11-59 (Right): VW Park Brake System

(Image F.11-60 Source : http://www.buzzbox.com/news/2010-09-29/gas:technology/?clusterId=2019488)

(Image F11-61 Source: http://www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP_346.pdf)

F.11.3.3.1 Pedal Frame and Arm Sub-Assembly

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Pedal Frame & Arm Sub-assembly (Image F.11-60) is 

a multi-piece design of stamped steel fabrication welded into a sub-assembly with various 

bushings and reinforcements added. This overall sub-assembly has a mass of 2.112kg. 

Many high-performance and luxury vehicle models have began utilizing alternate 

materials and designs in order to improve mass and expense. Another option being 

implemented by many OEMs is to use electronics and button actuators in order to engage 

the parking brake system. This allows for a complete elimination of pedal and hand lever 

sub-assemblies for vehicle cab interiors, maximizing mass savings. This electronic 

actuation configuration was also mentioned in the March 2010 Lotus Report.
Page 610

Image F.11-60: Pedal Frame Current Sub-assembly

(Source: FEV, Inc photo)

F.11.3.3.2 Cable System Sub-Assembly

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Cable Assemblies (Image F.11-61) are multi-piece 

designs of wound steel and sleeved poly shields into sub-assemblies with brackets and 

fasteners added. This sub-subsystem has a mass of 2.117kg. Many high-performance and 

luxury vehicle models utilize alternate cable configurations with hand lever actuators 

located in the center console between the front seats. This allows for a shorter path to the 

rear parking brakes, therefore requiring less cable length (and weight). 

Image F.11-61: Cable System Current Sub-assemblies

(Source: Lotus – 2010 March EPA Report)

F.11.3.3.3 Brake Shoes and Attachments Sub-Assembly
Page 611

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Parking Brake Shoes and Attachment Hardware 

(located inside the rear rotor hat) is a multi-piece design of stamped steel fabricated 

components, springs, pins, levers and fasteners along with dual, semi-circular friction 

brake shoes, Image F.11-62. All of these various components and the brake shoes are 

housed as an assembly inside the rear rotor hat drum area, Image F.11-63. This subassembly has a mass of 3.80kg.

Image F.11-62: Brake Shoe and Attachment Hardware Current Sub-assembly Example

(Source: http://www.autopartsnetwork.com/catalog/2010/Toyota/Venza/Brake)

Image F.11-63: Brake Shoe and Attachment Hardware Current Sub-assembly Example

(Source: http://1965econolinepickup.blogspot.com/2007/11/rear-brake-assembly.html)

While this design is extremely common, there are some high performance and luxury 

vehicle models that have started utilizing alternate designs. These include single-piece 

brake shoes that span a larger area on one frame piece while still utilizing two friction pad 

surfaces, while others are trying to incorporate the existing brake calipers and caliper 
Page 612

brake pads so as to be able to remove all of the hardware and shoes inside the rotor hat 

drum. This replacement configuration was also mentioned in the March 2010 Lotus 

Report. Besides OEMs, there are aftermarket suppliers that use this design. 

F.11.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.11-14 shows mass reduction ideas from our brainstorming activity for the 

Parking Brake and Actuation subsystem. Ideas include part modifications, material 

substitutions, and use of parts currently in production on other vehicles.

Table F.11-14: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Parking Brake 

and Actuation Subsystem
Page 613

Component/ Assembly Mass Reduction Idea Estimated Impact

Risk & Trade-offs and/or 

Benefits

Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem

Park Brake Actuator

Hand operated parking brake 

instead of foot operated 

(shorten cable No 1 length, 

actuator asm wash)

5-10% wt save In production - most automakers

Park Brake Lever & Frame Make parking brake lever & 

frame out of a stamping 5-10% wt save In production - most automakers

Park Brake Lever & Frame Make parking brake lever & 

frame out of HSS 10-20% wt save Low production - auto

Park Brake Lever & Frame Make parking brake lever & 

frame out of Aluminum 30-40% wt save Low production - auto

Park Brake Lever & Frame Make parking brake lever & 

frame out of Magnesium 50-60% wt save Low production - racing / aftermarket

Park Brake Lever & Frame

Make parking brake lever & 

frame out of Plastic Composite 

(PA6 GF30)

50-60% wt save In Production - Chrysler, Honda

Park Brake Lever & Frame Make parking brake lever & 

frame out of Titanium 40-50% wt save High Cost. Low production - racing / aftermarket

Pivot Pin Mount (on splash 

shield)

Make parking brake pivot pin 

mount out of cast aluminum 

instead of steel

30-40% wt save Higher Cost. Low production.

Shoes

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:2.517-0.000 & 

cost:x)

100% wt save Low cost. In Production - Toyota

Park Brake System Integrate Cadillac CTS park 

brake system 5-10% wt save In Production - GM

Actuation Switch Incorporated into LCD control 

screen

0-5% wt save In production - most automakers

Electronic Park Brake System Add actuation to LCD 

Infotain_Module 5-10% wt save In production - most automakers

Electronic Park Brake System Incorporate park brake-by-wire 2-30% wt save Low production. Consideration 

for system reduncies

Electronic Park Brake System

Combination. Replace from 

2005 VW Passat elect PB act 

& LCD touch screen actuator.

70-80% wt save Low cost. In Production - Toyota

Park Brake System Use one park brake 40-50% wt save not analyzed - validation & perf 

concerns from OEM

Park Brake System Integrate mechanical park 

brake into caliper 30-40% wt save

not analyzed - included in idea 

X2 (need mass of solenoid 

actuator, wiring & switches from 

Lotus to add back in)

F.11.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.11-15shows one mass reduction idea for the Parking Brake and Actuation 

subsystem that we selected for detail evaluation.
Page 614

Table F.11-15: Mass-Reduction Idea Selected for the Detailed Parking Brake and Actuation 

Subsystem Analysis

The chosen solution to implement for this study was the electro-mechanical parking brake 

system utilized on the VW Passat. The use of a push-button switch on the console 

eliminates the need for the foot pedal actuator in the cabin interior. Electrical wiring and a 

control module will provide input controls to initiate the clamping force at the rear 

wheels. This also allows the elimination of the cable assemblies routed under the vehicle 

as well as removal of all of the hardware and brake shoes inside the rotor hat drum 

location. The mass reduced redesign of this entire Parking Brake and Actuator Subsubsystem is now reduced to 3.77kg.

VW has utilized an Electronic Parking Brake (EPB) system (Figure F.11-4) that is 

initiated by an electric motor that drives a geared actuator providing direct hydraulic 

pressure influence by pushing directly on the caliper piston inside the caliper housing. 

This allows the use of the already present rear brake calipers to apply pressure directly on 

the rotor disc surfaces, as occurs already under normal operator use of the vehicle.

Figure F.11-4: VW Electro-Mechanical Park Brake System

(Source: http://www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP_346.pdf)

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

06 05 00 Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem

06 05 00 Electronic Park Brake System Combination. Replace from 2005 VW Passat elect 

PB act & LCD touch screen actuator.
Page 615

F.11.3.5.1 Actuator Button Sub-Assembly

The Pedal Frame and Arm Sub-assembly was changed from a multi-piece design of 

stamped steel welded into a sub-assembly to a push-button actuator (Image F.11-64). 

Even though wiring harnesses and a control module (Image F.11-65) are required, the 

mass savings achieved is still substantial. This redesigned Toyota Venza Parking Brake 

Actuator system assembly has a calculated mass of 1.202kg. This upgraded actuator 

design is used in many aftermarket and high-performance vehicles. It allows not only the 

complete elimination of the pedal and hand lever sub-assemblies for vehicle cab interiors, 

but also significant reduction or even elimination of the cable actuation sub-assemblies.

Image F.11-64 (Left): Actuator Button System

Image F.11-65 (Right): EPB Control Module

(Source: http://www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP_346.pdf)

F.11.3.5.2 Cable System Sub-Assembly

The cable assemblies are now eliminated and no longer required due to the 

implementation of the push-button actuation system described above in Section 

F.11.3.5.1. The elimination of these cable sub-assemblies allows for a mass savings of 

2.117kg. 

F.11.3.5.3 Caliper Motor Actuator Sub-Assembly

The Parking Brake Shoes and Attachment Hardware is now eliminated and replaced with 

the multi-piece design of a geared motor actuator (Figure F.11-5) that attaches to the 

back of the rear of the caliper housing. This new electro-mechanical sub-assembly unit 

has a new net mass of 1.284kg.
Page 616

Figure F.11-5: Caliper Motor Actuator mass reduced sub-assembly

(Source: http://www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP_346.pdf)

A close examination of the EPB unit shows it attaching to the back of the rear caliper 

housing and when engaged (Figure F.11-6) it drives a spindle rod into the back of the 

caliper piston. This engagement utilizes a 50:1 gear drive ratio to apply the amount of 

force necessary to close the caliper brake pads on both sides of the rotor disc surfacelocking the rear wheels.

Figure F.11-6: EPB System Engaging the Caliper and Rotor Components

(Source: http://www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP_346.pdf)

F.11.3.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.11-16 shows the results of the mass-reduction ideas evaluated for the Parking 

Brake and Actuation subsystem. The idea for an Electronic Park Brake system shows 
Page 617

good estimated mass reduction with a significant cost reduction. This resulted in a 

subsystem overall mass savings of 9.635kg and a cost savings differential of $82.98.

Table F.11-16: Mass-Reductions and Cost Impact for the Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys/ 

SubSubsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

06 05 00 Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem

06 05 01 Parking Brake Controls A 2.487 $18.16 $7.30 18.55% 0.15%

06 05 02 Parking Brake Cables and Attaching Components A 2.117 $29.90 $14.12 15.79% 0.12%

06 05 03 Parking Brake Shoes and Hardware A 5.031 $34.92 $6.94 37.53% 0.29%

A 9.635 $82.98 $8.61 71.88% 0.56%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas
Page 618

F.11.4 Brake Actuation Subsystem

F.11.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Image F.11-66 represents the major sub-assemblies components in the Brake Actuation 

subsystem. These include the Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-assembly, the Accelerator Pedal 

Actuator Sub-assembly, Master Cylinder, Master Cylinder Reservoir and various Brake 

Lines, Hoses, and associated Brackets & Fasteners located on the vehicle that run to each 

brake corner assembly at each wheel.

Image F.11-66: Brake Actuation Subsystem Major Components and Sub-assemblies

(Source: FEV Inc photos)

As seen in Table F.11-17, the Brake Actuation Subsystem consists of the Master 

Cylinder and Reservoir, Actuator Assemblies (Brake and Accelerator), and the Brake 

Lines and Hoses. The most significant contributors to the mass are the Actuator 

Assemblies (approximately 42.9%) followed by the Brake Lines and Hoses 

(approximately 42.2%).

Table F.11-17: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Brake Actuation Subsystem
Page 619

F.11.4.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza’s Brake Actuation subsystem follows typical industry standards. The 

Venza uses a typical multi-zone Master Cylinder (Image F.11-67) with conventional 

ABS controls and steel tubing (Image F.11-68) to each of the wheel brake systems. The 

Brake Pedal Actuator sub-assembly (Image F.11-69) is made of conventional stamped 

steel construction with welded assembly. It consists of multiple components that are 

detailed below. The Accelerator Pedal Actuator system (Image F.11-73) is a set of plastic 

injection molded components that are assembled together. The current OEM Toyota 

Venza Brake Actuation subsystem assembly has a mass of 4.658kg. 

F.11.4.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

F.11.4.3.1 Master Cylinder and Reservoir

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Master Cylinder and Reservoir sub-assembly (Image 

F.11-67) is a multi-piece design of cast aluminum and machined fabrication assembled 

with various valving and sealing components. This overall sub-assembly has a mass of 

0.823kg. This system is already highly optimized for design and materials (Al & plastic) 

and therefore no further changes or solutions for mass reductions were identified for 

implementation.

System 

Subsystem Sub- Subsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

06 06 00 Brake Actuation Subsystem --

06 06 01 Master Cylinder and Reservoir 0.823

06 06 02 Actuator Assemblies 2.378

06 06 03 Brake Lines and Hoses 2.335

Total Subsystem Mass = 5.536

Total System Mass = 85.740

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 6.46%

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.32%
Page 620

Image F.11-67: Master Cylinder and Reservoir Current Sub-assembly

(Source: http://www.autopartsnetwork.com/catalog/2010/Toyota/Venza/Brake)

F.11.4.3.2 Brake Lines and Hoses

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Brake Lines and Hoses (Image F.11-68) are 

conventional tubing designs with steel walls and flared ends with threaded line fittings 

and appropriate brackets and fasteners added. This sub-subsystem has a mass of 2.335kg. 

This system is very conventional, but no newer designs or systems were identified for 

replacement or improvement. The best solution choice for these components is to shorten 

the length of the brake lines required by optimizing the routing paths. 

Image F.11-68: Brake Lines and Hoses Current Sub-assemblies

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 621

F.11.4.3.3 Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-assembly (Image F.11-69) is 

a multi-piece design of stamped steel fabricated components welded together as an 

assembly along with springs, pins, levers, and fasteners. These components have a subassembly mass of 2.104kg. This is a standard design configuration by nearly all OEMs 

allowing for adequate function while using a proven design and simple materials and 

processes. It is, however, not mass or cost efficient but instead is industry driven by 

allowing the continued utilization of existing capital equipment, tooling and reusing 

previous process/component designs.

Image F.11-69: Brake Pedal Actuator Current Sub-assembly

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.11.4.3.3.1 Brake Pedal Arm Frame Sub-Assembly

While this steel brake pedal frame design is extremely common, there are 

some high-performance and luxury vehicle models that have begun utilizing 

alternate designs. These include new designs for the Pedal Frame and 

Housing Sub-assembly (Image F.11-70). The new design utilizes a plastic 

framing and housing structure around the brake pedal arm sub-assembly. 

These injection molded frames simplify design by reducing components, 

ease assembly by eliminating welding and provide substantial weight 

savings. Other possible solutions use similar processing but different 

materials including AL, HSS, Mg and even Ti. This current welded subassembly has a net mass of 0.903kg.
Page 622

Image F.11-70: Brake Pedal Arm Frame Current Sub-assembly

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.11.4.3.3.2 Brake Pedal Arm Ratio Lever

While this steel Brake Pedal Arm Ratio Lever (Image F.11-71) design is 

common there are some high performance and luxury vehicle models that 

began to utilize alternate designs. These redesigns make use of lighter 

materials that allow a weight savings. Materials that are considered include: 

Al, Ti, Mg and HSS. These pieces are fabricated and machined to simplify 

design as provide substantial weight savings. This current sub-assembly has 

a net mass of 0.471kg.

Image F.11-71: Brake Pedal Arm Frame Current Sub-assembly

(Source: FEV Inc photo)
Page 623

F.11.4.3.3.3 Brake Pedal Arm Assembly

This steel Brake Pedal Arm (Image F.11-72) design is very common among 

OEMs. There are however, some high-performance and luxury vehicle 

models that have began utilizing alternate designs. These include redesigns 

for material substitutions for the use of Al, Ti, Mg, HSS and reinforced 

plastics. These new arms used simplified designs to reduce components and 

use light materials to provide substantial weight savings. This current 

welded sub-assembly has a net mass of 0.615kg.

Image F.11-72: Brake Pedal Arm Current Sub-assembly

(Source: FEV Inc photo)

F.11.4.3.4 Accelerator Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Accelerator Pedal Actuator Sub-assembly (Image 

F.11-73) is a multi-piece design of injection molded components, springs, pins, levers and 

fasteners that are assembled together. This sub-assembly has a mass of 0.267kg.
Page 624

Image F.11-73: Accelerator Pedal Actuator Current Sub-assembly

(Source: FEV Inc photo)

This configuration is very common in the automotive industry and used by nearly all 

OEMs. After researching for new designs, there were no significant mass reductions 

solutions that were found to be able to replace this unit and achieve any appreciable 

savings. 

F.11.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.11-18 shows mass-reduction ideas that were brainstormed and considered for the 

Brake Actuation subsystem. These ideas include part modifications, material 

substitutions, and use of parts currently in production on other vehicles.

Table F.11-18: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Brake 

Actuation Subsystem
Page 625

Component/ Assembly Mass Reduction Idea Estimated Impact

Risk & Trade-offs and/or 

Benefits

Brake Actuation Subsystem

Master Cylinder

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:0.468-0.985 & 

cost:1.08)

wt increase In Production - Toyota. Not 

implemented due to wt increase

Reservoir

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:0.147-0.336 & 

cost:0.85)

wt increase In Production - Toyota. Not 

implemented due to wt increase

Support

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:0.00-0.296 & 

cost:x)

wt increase In Production - Toyota. Not 

implemented due to wt increase

Cap

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:0.028-0.030 & 

cost:0.99)

wt increase In Production - Toyota. Not 

implemented due to wt increase

Reservoir Asm

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:0.175-0.662 & 

cost:x)

wt increase In Production - Toyota. Not 

implemented due to wt increase

Accelerator Pedal Composite with Mucell® for 

lever, frame & pad 10-20% wt save Low vol production - auto

Brake Pedal Pad Brake Pedal pad composite 

with Mucell® 10-20% wt save Low vol production - auto

Hollow plastic brake pedal and 

plastic arm (PA6-GF33) 30-40% wt save In development - auto

Brake pedal arm from HSS 5-10% wt save Low vol production - auto

Brake pedal arm from forged 

Aluminum 30-40% wt save Higher Cost. Low vol production - auto

Brake pedal arm from 

Magnesium 60-70% wt save High Cost. Low vol production - auto

Brake pedal arm from 

Titanium 40-50% wt save High Cost. Low production - racing / aftermarket

Variable Ratio Mechanism 

either eliminated or simplified. unknown not investigated due to validation requirements

Brake pedal Ratio Lever from 

HSS 5-10% wt save Higher Cost. Low vol production

Brake pedal Ratio Lever from 

forged Aluminum 20-30% wt save Higher Cost. Low vol production

Brake pedal Ratio Lever from 

Magnesium 40-50% wt save Development required

Brake pedal Ratio Lever from 

Titanium 40-50% wt save High Cost. Low production - racing / aftermarket

Brake Pedal Add parking brake functions to 

service brake pedal 5-10% wt save not evaluated due to poor ranking

Aluminum Support Bracket 

(includes 2 sides, top, lower 

spacer & sensor brkt)

30-40% wt save Higher Cost. Low vol production

Magnesium Support Bracket 

(includes 2 sides, top, lower 

spacer & sensor brkt)

40-50% wt save High Cost. Low vol production - 

auto

HSS Support Bracket 

(includes 2 sides, top, lower 

spacer & sensor brkt)

10-20% wt save Higher Cost. Low vol production

Plastic (PA6 GF30) Support 

Bracket (includes 2 sides, top, 

lower spacer & sensor brkt)

50-60% wt save Lower Cost. In production - 

many auto makers

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:0.000-0.400 & 

cost:x)

wt increase In Production - Toyota. Not 

implemented due to wt increase

Brake Line System

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:2.362-0.813 & 

cost:0.34)

50-60% wt save In Production - Toyota

Brake Pedal Arm

Brake Pedal Ratio Lever

Brake Pedal Bracket

Table F.11-18 continued on next page
Page 626

Brake pedal Ratio Lever from 

Magnesium 40-50% wt save Development required

Brake pedal Ratio Lever from 

Titanium 40-50% wt save High Cost. Low production - racing / aftermarket

Brake Pedal Add parking brake functions to 

service brake pedal 5-10% wt save not evaluated due to poor ranking

Aluminum Support Bracket 

(includes 2 sides, top, lower 

spacer & sensor brkt)

30-40% wt save Higher Cost. Low vol production

Magnesium Support Bracket 

(includes 2 sides, top, lower 

spacer & sensor brkt)

40-50% wt save High Cost. Low vol production - 

auto

HSS Support Bracket 

(includes 2 sides, top, lower 

spacer & sensor brkt)

10-20% wt save Higher Cost. Low vol production

Plastic (PA6 GF30) Support 

Bracket (includes 2 sides, top, 

lower spacer & sensor brkt)

50-60% wt save Lower Cost. In production - 

many auto makers

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:0.000-0.400 & 

cost:x)

wt increase In Production - Toyota. Not 

implemented due to wt increase

Brake Line System

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:2.362-0.813 & 

cost:0.34)

50-60% wt save In Production - Toyota

Distribution Block

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:0.000-0.601 & 

cost:x)

wt increase In Production - Toyota. Not 

implemented due to wt increase

Brake Pedal Bracket

F.11.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.11-19 shows the mass-reduction ideas for the major components of the Brake 

Actuation subsystem that were selected for detail evaluation. There are six components or 

sub-assemblies being redesigned and changed in order to achieve mass reductions.

Table F.11-19: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Brake Actuation Subsystem 

Analysis
Page 627

The mass saving solutions selected for the various components within the Brake 

Actuation Sub-subsystem vary greatly and are summarized in greater detail below. 

F.11.4.5.1 Master Cylinder and Reservoir

The baseline Toyota Venza Master Cylinder and Reservoir Sub-assembly is already 

highly optimized for design and materials and therefore no further changes or solutions 

for mass reductions were identified.

F.11.4.5.2 Brake Lines and Hoses

The OEM Toyota Venza Brake Lines and Hoses Sub-assemblies are of conventional 

design. The March 2010 Lotus Report suggests a direct replacement and size 

normalization using the 2008 Toyota Prius Brake Line system as reference. This results in 

a reduction of the amount of brake lines being required and lowers the mass of the new 

routing paths. This redesign sub-subsystem has a reduced mass of 0.794kg. 

F.11.4.5.3 Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly

The baseline Venza Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-assembly is currently a multi-piece steel 

design. The major components within this assembly have been redesigned and now have a

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

06 06 00 Brake Actuation Subsystem

06 06 00 Accelerator Pedal Composite with Mucell® for lever, frame & pad

06 06 00 Brake Pedal Pad Brake Pedal pad composite with Mucell®

06 06 00 Brake Pedal Arm Hollow plastic brake pedal and plastic arm (PA6-

GF33)

06 06 00 Brake Pedal Ratio Lever Brake pedal Ratio Lever from Magnesium

06 06 00 Brake Pedal Bracket Plastic (PA6 GF30) Support Bracket (includes 2 

sides, top, lower spacer & sensor brkt)

06 06 00 Brake Line System Replace from 2008 Toyota Prius (mass:2.362-

0.813 & cost:0.34)
Page 628

new sub-assembly net mass of 0.545kg. The example below, Image F.11-74, is from a 

new design and production method developed by Trelleborg. This brake pedal design 

utilizes advanced water injection technology allowing very strong design function while 

still using light weight glass fiber reinforced plastic materials to achieve significant mass 

reductions. Due to the replacement of steel with an over-molded plastic, an additional 

material volume of 60-80% was made.

Image F.11-74: Brake Pedal Actuator Mass Reduced Sub-assembly Example

(Source: http://www.torquenews.com/auto-sector-stocks?page=27)

Another similar brake actuator system design has also been developed by BMW (Image 

F.11-75) for use in some of their high end luxury and performance vehicles. This unit 

utilizes plastic framing and pedal arms as well in order to reduce mass significantly.

Image F.11-75: Brake Pedal Actuator Mass Reduced Sub-assembly Example

(Source http://www.worldcarfans.com/111040531267/bmw-reveals-lightweight-component-innovations)
Page 629

F.11.4.5.3.1 Brake Pedal Arm Frame Sub-Assembly

The conventional steel Brake Pedal Frame (Image F.11-76) design has 

been replaced with a PA6-GF sub-assembly. Due to the replacement of steel 

with plastic, an additional material volume of 80-90% was made. This 

solution is becoming more common in some OEM base level model 

vehicles as well as many high performance and luxury vehicle models. This 

includes OEMs such as GM, Chrysler, Ford, and Honda. The new design 

utilizes a plastic framing and housing structure around the brake pedal arm 

sub-assembly. These injection-molded frames simplify design by reducing 

components and easing assembly while also providing substantial weight 

savings. The sub-assembly shown here is from the brake pedal frame in a 

2011 Chrysler Minivan. This redesigned plastic sub-assembly has a reduced 

mass of 0.230kg.

Image F.11-76: Brake Pedal Arm Frame Mass Reduced Sub-assembly Example

(Source: FEV Inc photo)

F.11.4.5.3.2 Brake Pedal Arm Ratio Lever

This steel Brake Pedal Arm Ratio Lever (Image F.11-77) has been 

redesigned to make use of Die Cast Mg. Due to the replacement of steel 

with Mg, an additional material volume of 60-70% was made. These new 

designs allow a substantial weight savings for a new reduced mass of 

0.041kg.
Page 630

Image F.11-77: Brake Pedal Arm Frame Reduced Mass Sub-assembly Example

F.11.4.5.3.3 Brake Pedal Arm Assembly

The steel Brake Pedal Arm (Image F.11-78) design is now being changed 

to a redesign allowing the use PA6-GF. Due to the replacement of steel with

an over-molded plastic, an additional material volume of 60-70% was 

made. This design configuration is becoming more common among OEMs 

and provides simple processing by injection molding and enabling a 

simplified design and substantial weight savings. This particular example 

shows a hollow insert being over-molded to further decrease weight and 

improve strength. This new mass reduced sub-assembly has a net mass of 

0.164kg.

Image F.11-78: Brake Pedal Arm Mass Reduced Sub-assembly Example

(Source: http://www.torquenews.com/auto-sector-stocks?page=27)

F.11.4.5.4 Accelerator Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly
Page 631

The current design Accelerator Pedal Actuator Sub-assembly (Image F.11-79) is already 

a good design regarding mass impact. This configuration is now very common in the 

automotive industry and used by nearly all OEMs. After researching for new designs, 

there are no significant mass reductions solutions found that could achieve any 

appreciable savings. However, the use of MuCell®technology during the injection 

molding process of some of the larger plastic components does allow for a small weight 

savings of approximately 10% with almost no cost penalty. This newly processed subassembly results in a reduced net mass of 0.243kg.

Image F.11-79: Accelerator Pedal Actuator Mass Reduced Sub-assembly Example

(Source: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/02)

The net result of all of these changes within the Brake Actuation Sub-subsystem results a 

new total mass of 1.530kg.

F.11.4.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.11-20 shows the results of the mass-reduction ideas that were evaluated for the 

Brake Actuation subsystem. The implemented solutions resulted in a subsystem overall 

mass savings of 2.984kg and a cost savings differential of $31.90.
Page 632

Table F.11-20: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Brake Actuation Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys/ 

SubSubsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

06 06 00 Brake Actuation Subsystem

06 06 01 Master Cylinder and Reservoir A 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

06 06 02 Actuator Assemblies A 1.443 $5.99 $4.15 26.06% 0.08%

06 06 03 Brake Lines and Hoses A 1.541 $25.91 $16.81 27.84% 0.09%

A 2.984 $31.90 $10.69 53.90% 0.17%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.11-21 shows the results for the Brake Actuation subsystem. The Brake Line Subassemblies show the best estimated mass reduction, 1.541kg, with a significant cost 

reduction of $25.91. The Brake Pedal Frame/Bracket accounted for the next largest mass 

savings realized with 0.673kg and a cost reduction of $1.36.
Page 633

Table F.11-21: Calculated Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Results for the Brake 

Actuation Subsystem Components

F.11.5 Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic)

F.11.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.11-22, the Power Brake subsystem consists of the Vacuum Booster 

assembly.

Table F.11-22: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Power Brake (for Hydraulic) 

Subsystem

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (1)

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

06 06 00 Brake Actuation Subsystem

06 06 02 Accelerator Pedal 0.027 $0.08 $2.91

06 06 02 Brake Pedal Arm 0.451 $3.82 $8.48

06 06 02 Brake Pedal Pad 0.006 $0.03 $5.33

06 06 02 Brake Pedal Ratio Lever 0.286 $0.70 $2.43

06 06 02 Brake Pedal Bracket 0.673 $1.36 $2.03

06 06 03 Brake Line System 1.541 $25.91 $16.81

(1) "+" = decrease, "-" = increase System Subsystem Sub-Subsystem

Component / Assembly Description

Mass Reduction Results
Page 634

F.11.5.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza’s Power Brake subsystem (Image F.11-80) follows typical industry 

standards in using a vacuum-actuated booster. The booster is a metal canister that 

contains a valve and diaphragm and uses vacuum from the engine to multiply the force a 

driver’s foot applies to the master cylinder. A rod going through the center of the canister 

connects to the master cylinder's piston on one side and to the pedal linkage on the other. 

The booster also includes a check valve that maintains vacuum in the booster when the 

engine is turned off, or if a leak forms in a vacuum hose. The vacuum booster has to be 

able to provide enough volume and pressure within the brake line system for a driver to 

make several stops in the event that the engine stops running.

Image F.11-80: Brake Power Brake Subsystem Major Sub-assembly Example

System 

Subsystem Sub- Subsystem

Description

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

06 07 00 Power Brake (for hydraulic) --

06 07 01 Vacuum Booster System Asm 2.829

Total Subsystem Mass = 2.829

Total System Mass = 85.740

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 3.30%

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.17%
Page 635

(Source:http://www.superchevy.com/technical/chassis/brakes/sucp_0901_power_brake_boosters)

F.11.5.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Some manufacturers have begun to implement a new design of system that utilizes 

solenoids and valves in order to maintain system pressure during various driving 

conditions. This allows for removal of the typical conventional vacuum booster system 

configuration. This smaller, but much more expensive system, usually requires the 

addition of wiring harnesses and control modules to process I/Os and regulate the system 

operation. But this small addition of materials is minor when compared to the overall 

mass saved by removing the booster unit. The result of this system exchange results in a 

significant weight savings. This electro-mechanical system (Image F.11-81) 

configuration is utilized in the 2008 Toyota Prius. Another example of this technology is 

the HyperbrakeTM system (Image F.11-82) by Janel Hydro. It claims to completely 

eliminate the vacuum booster by use of pistons and cylinders to amplify the hydraulic 

pressure of the brake fluid. 

Image F.11-81: Toyota Prius Hydraulic Pressure Booster

(Source: Lotus – 2010 March EPA Report)
Page 636

Image F.11-82: Janel Hyperbrake Hydraulic Pressure Booster

(Source: http://www.janelhydro.com/)

F.11.5.3.1 Vacuum Booster Sub-Assembly

The baseline Venza Power Brake Sub-assembly (Image F.11-83) is a multi-piece steel 

design. The major components within this assembly are made from stamped steel (Front 

Shell – Image F.11-84; Rear Shell – Image F.11-85; Mount Stiffener – Image F.11-86; 

Diaphragm Backing Plate – Image F.11-87), small fabricated steel parts (Clevis Pin and 

Bracket, Center Plunger, Actuator Shaft, Mounting Studs) and a few plastic and rubber 

molded pieces (Plunger Boot, Diaphragm, Piston Housing). These components are then 

assembled with various processing methods and fasteners into the vacuum booster 

system. Together these components have a net sub-assembly mass of 1.725kg.

Image F.11-83: Brake Pedal Actuator Mass Current Sub-assembly
Page 637

(Source: Lotus – 2010 March EPA Report)

F.11.5.3.1.1 Front Shell

This Booster Front Shell (Image F.11-84) is of a standard design 

configuration. It is fabricated from a one-piece sheet metal stamping and 

painted for corrosion resistance. There are a few alternate designs that have 

been tried in other vehicles. These new designs utilize different materials 

including molded reinforced plastics, spun Al, and HSS stampings. These 

alternative materials allow for simple manufacturing while still providing 

substantial weight savings. The current steel Front Shell has a mass of 

0.537kg.

Image F.11-84: Vacuum Booster Front Shell Current Component

(Source: FEV, Inc photo)

F.11.5.3.1.2 Rear Shell

The current Booster Rear Shell (Image F.11-85) is a typical design used by 

many OEM manufacturers. It is a fabricated one piece sheet metal 

stamping, painted for corrosion resistance. There are some alternate designs 

that have been tried in other applications. These other configurations utilize 

different materials including molded reinforced plastics, spun Al and HSS 

stampings. These materials provide weight savings while still allowing for 

simple manufacturing processes. The Venza Rear Shell has a mass of 

0.462kg.
Page 638

Image F.11-85: Vacuum Booster Rear Shell Current Component

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.11.5.3.1.3 Plate Mount Stiffener

The stamped steel Plate Mount Stiffener (Image F.11-86) design is very 

common among OEMs. There are other material alternatives that allow for 

mass savings. These include redesigns for material substitutions for the use 

of - Al, Ti, Mg, HSS and reinforced plastics. The Venza Plate Mount 

Stiffener component has a mass of 0.064kg.

Image F.11-86: Vacuum Booster Plate Mount Stiffener Current Component

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.11.5.3.1.4 Backing Plate, Diaphragm
Page 639

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Diaphragm Backing Plate, Image 

F.11-87, is a single-piece, stamped steel design. The plastic molded sleeve 

is not included in this part’s mass solution. This Venza Backing Plate 

component has a mass of 0.328kg.

Image F.11-87: Vacuum Booster Backing Plate, Diaphragm Current Component

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.11.5.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.11-23 shows mass-reduction ideas that were brainstormed and considered for the 

Power Brake subsystem. Ideas include part modifications and material substitutions for 

eleven different components.

Table F.11-23: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Power Brake 

(for Hydraulic) Subsystem
Page 640

Component/ Assembly Mass Reduction Idea Estimated Impact

Risk & Trade-offs and/or 

Benefits

Power Brake (for hydraulic)

Make booster clevis pin out of 

aluminum 30-40% wt save Higher Cost. In Production - auto.

Make booster clevis pin out of 

HSS 10-20% wt save Higher Cost.

Make booster clevis pin out of 

Titanium 40-50% wt save High Cost. Not done.

Make booster clevis bracket 

(nut) out of aluminum 30-40% wt save Higher Cost. In Production - auto.

Make booster clevis bracket 

(nut) out of HSS 10-20% wt save Higher Cost. Low volume.

Make booster clevis bracket 

(nut) out of Titanium 40-50% wt save High Cost. Low production - auto racing

Make vacuum brake booster 

shell (front) out of spun 

aluminum

30-40% wt save Higher Cost. In production - 

auto.

Make vacuum brake booster 

shell (front) out of HSS 10-20% wt save Higher Cost. Low vol production

Make vacuum brake booster 

shell (front) out of die cast 

Magnesium

50-60% wt save High Cost. Development

Make vacuum brake booster 

shell (front) out of Titanium 40-50% wt save High Cost. Not produced.

Make vacuum brake booster 

shell (front) out of molded & 

ribbed PA6 GF30

60-70% wt save Lower Cost. Development.

Make vacuum brake booster 

shell (rear) out of spun 

aluminum

30-40% wt save Higher Cost. In production - 

auto.

Make vacuum brake booster 

shell (rear) out of HSS 10-20% wt save Higher Cost. Low vol production

Make vacuum brake booster 

shell (rear) out of die cast 

Magnesium

50-60% wt save High Cost. Development

Make vacuum brake booster 

shell (rear) out of Titanium 40-50% wt save High Cost. Not produced.

Make vacuum brake booster 

shell (rear) out of molded & 

ribbed PA6 GF30

60-70% wt save Lower Cost. Development.

Vacuum Fitting Make vacuum fitting out of 

plastic 60-70% wt save Lower Cost. In production - auto

Make booster piston, actuator 

out of forged aluminum 30-40% wt save Higher Cost. In production - auto

Make booster piston, actuator 

out of HSS 10-20% wt save Higher Cost. Development

Make booster piston, actuator 

out of Magnesium 50-60% wt save High Cost. Development

Make booster piston, actuator 

out of Titanium 40-50% wt save High Cost. Not produced.

Make booster plate, mount 

stiffener out of forged 

aluminum

30-40% wt save Higher Cost. Development

Make booster plate, mount 

stiffener out of HSS 10-20% wt save Higher Cost. Low production

Make booster plate, mount 

stiffener out of glass filled 

plastic

60-70% wt save Lower Cost. R&D required.

Make booster plate, mount 

stiffener out of Magnesium 50-60% wt save High Cost. Development

Make booster plate, mount 

stiffener out of Titanium 40-50% wt save High Cost. Not produced.

Make studs - long out of 

forged aluminum 30-40% wt save Higher Cost. Low vol production

Make studs - long out of HSS 10-20% wt save Higher Cost. Not produced

Make studs - long out of 

Titanium 40-50% wt save High Cost. Production - auto racing

Piston, Actuator

Plate, Mount Stiffener

Studs - Long, MC to BM

Booster Clevis Pin

Booster Clevis Bracket

Vacuum Brake Booster Shell - 

Front

Vacuum Brake Booster Shell - 

Rear

Table F.11-23 continued on next page
Page 641

out of forged aluminum 

gp

Make booster piston, actuator 

out of HSS 10-20% wt save Higher Cost. Development

Make booster piston, actuator 

out of Magnesium 50-60% wt save High Cost. Development

Make booster piston, actuator 

out of Titanium 40-50% wt save High Cost. Not produced.

Make booster plate, mount 

stiffener out of forged 

aluminum

30-40% wt save Higher Cost. Development

Make booster plate, mount 

stiffener out of HSS 10-20% wt save Higher Cost. Low production

Make booster plate, mount 

stiffener out of glass filled 

plastic

60-70% wt save Lower Cost. R&D required.

Make booster plate, mount 

stiffener out of Magnesium 50-60% wt save High Cost. Development

Make booster plate, mount 

stiffener out of Titanium 40-50% wt save High Cost. Not produced.

Make studs - long out of 

forged aluminum 30-40% wt save Higher Cost. Low vol production

Make studs - long out of HSS 10-20% wt save Higher Cost. Not produced

Make studs - long out of 

Titanium 40-50% wt save High Cost. Production - auto racing

Make shaft, center plunger out 

of forged aluminum 30-40% wt save Higher Cost. Low vol production

Make shaft, center plunger out 

of HSS 10-20% wt save Higher Cost.

Make shaft, center plunger out 

of Titanium 40-50% wt save High Cost. Not produced

Make backing plate out of 

stamped aluminum 30-40% wt save Higher Cost. Low production

Make backing plate out of 

HSS 10-20% wt save Higher Cost. Development

Make backing plate out of ABS 

plastic 60-70% wt save Lower Cost. R&D required

Make backing plate out of 

magnesium 50-60% wt save High Cost. Not produced

Level Sensor (Reservoir)

Replace from 2008 Toyota 

Prius (mass:0.007-0.009 & 

cost:1.00)

Lotus idea - wt 

increase Not analyzed - wt increase

Backing Plate, Diaphram - 

Vacuum Booster

Piston, Actuator

Plate, Mount Stiffener

Studs - Long, MC to BM

Shaft (threaded), Center 

Plunger - Valve, Metering

F.11.5.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.11-24 shows mass-reduction ideas for the Power Brake subsystem that were 

selected as final solutions for detailed evaluation for both mass and cost.
Page 642

Table F.11-24: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detailed Power Brake (for Hydraulic) 

Subsystem Analysis

F.11.5.5.1 Vacuum Booster Sub-Assembly

The new Brake Vacuum Booster Sub-assembly (Image F.11-88) is still a multi-piece 

design as the original was but now using optimized, mass reduced components where 

applicable. With these 11 new component designs assembled together, this new booster 

sub-assembly now has a reduced mass of 0.528kg.

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

06 07 00 Power Brake (for Hydraulic) Subsystem

06 07 00 Booster Clevis Pin Make booster clevis pin out of aluminum

06 07 00 Booster Clevis Bracket Make booster clevis bracket (nut) out of aluminum

06 07 00 Vacuum Brake Booster Shell - Front Make vacuum brake booster shell (front) out of 

molded & ribbed PA6 GF30

06 07 00 Vacuum Brake Booster Shell - Rear Make vacuum brake booster shell (rear) out of spun 

aluminum

06 07 00 Vacuum Fitting Make vacuum fitting out of plastic

06 07 00 Piston, Actuator Make booster piston, actuator out of Magnesium

06 07 00 Plate, Mount Stiffener Make booster plate, mount stiffener out of glass 

filled plastic

06 07 00 Studs - Long, MC to BM Make studs - long out of forged aluminum

06 07 00 Shaft (threaded), Center Plunger - 

Valve, Metering Make shaft, center plunger out of forged aluminum

06 07 00 Backing Plate, Diaphram - Vacuum 

Booster Make backing plate out of ABS plastic
Page 643

Image F.11-88: Vacuum Booster Mass Reduced Sub-assembly Example

(Source: http://www.autohausaz.com/vw-auto-parts/vw-brake_booster-replacement.html)

F.11.5.5.1.1 Front Shell

The conventional steel Vacuum Booster Front Shell (Image F.11-89) 

design has been replaced with a PA6-GF sub-assembly. The piece is 

webbed and ribbed, as needed, for maximum reinforcement as well as 

having over-molded inserts in key areas. Due to the replacement of steel 

with plastic, an additional material volume of 30-40% was made. This 

design is not currently in any high-production applications, but should 

become more accepted in lighter applications in future model releases. This 

injection-molded shell retains a simplified design and manufacturing 

process while also providing substantial weight savings. This redesigned 

plastic component has a reduced mass of 0.087kg.
Page 644

Image F.11-89: Vacuum Booster Front Shell Mass Reduced Component Example

(Source: Lotus – 2010 March EPA Report)

F.11.5.5.1.2 Rear Shell

The steel Vacuum Booster Rear Shell (Image F.11-90) design has been 

replaced with a single-piece forged Al component. Due to the replacement 

of steel with Al, an additional material volume of 20-30% was made. This 

design is not commonly used by OEMs but can easily be utilized in many 

current applications. This forged shell retains a simplified design and uses a 

common manufacturing process while still allowing for reasonable weight 

savings. This redesigned component has a reduced mass of 0.239kg.

Image F.11-90: Vacuum Booster Rear Shell Reduced Mass Component Example

(Source: http://www.walkertool.com/part17.htm)
Page 645

F.11.5.5.1.3 Mounting Plate

The steel Mounting Plate design is now being replaced with a PA6-GF subassembly. The piece is webbed and ribbed for reinforcement using overmolded inserts in key areas. Due to the replacement of steel with an overmolded plastic, an additional material volume of 30-40% was made. Bendix 

(Image F.11-91) is one such major manufacturer that utilizes plastic 

material for this type of design. Delphi (Image F.11-92) also has a new 

design that utilizes Hytel® material and includes over-molded inserts. This 

configuration provides simple processing through injection molding and 

enables a simplified design with substantial weight savings. This new mass 

reduced part now being utilized has weight of 0.012kg.

 

Image F.11-91 (Left): Bendix Mounting Plate

Image F.11-92 (Right): Delphi Mounting Plate

(Image F.11-93- Source: http://www.hooverautoparts.com/index.php?cruising=products&category=Brake%20Parts)

(Image F.11-94 - Source: http://www2.dupont.com/Automotive/en_US/news_events/article20040126.html)

F.11.5.5.1.4 Diaphragm Plate

The stamped steel Diaphragm Plate (Image F.11-93) is being redesigned to 

allow the use PA6-GF. Due to the replacement of steel with an over-molded 

plastic, an additional material volume of 30-40% was made. This new 

design can be simply processed with injection molding and enables a 

simplified design with substantial weight savings. This new mass-reduced 

component has a resulting mass of 0.057kg.
Page 646

Image F.11-93: Vacuum Booster Diaphragm Backing Plate Mass Reduced Component Example

F.11.5.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.11-25 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated and 

implemented for the Power Brake subsystem. This included redesigns and modifications 

being made to 10 different components. The implemented solutions resulted in a 

subsystem overall mass savings of 1.1964kgs and a cost savings differential of $1.35.

Table F.11-25: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Power Brake (Hydraulic) Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys/ 

SubSubsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

06 07 00 Power Brake (for Hydraulic) Subsystem

06 07 01 Vacuum Booster System Asm A 1.196 $1.35 $1.13 42.25% 0.07%

A 1.196 $1.35 $1.13 42.25% 0.07%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.11-26 shows the results for the various components that were redesigned for 

weight savings. The Front and Rear Booster Shells show the largest calculated mass 
Page 647

reductions (83.8% and 48.3%, respectively) along with a small total cost reduction for 

each.

Table F.11-26: Calculated Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Results for the Power 

Brake (for Hydraulic) Subsystem

F.12 Frame & Mounting System

As shown in Table F.12-1, the Frame & Mounting system is made up of six subsystems: 

Frame, Body Mounting, Engine Transmission Mounting, Towing and Coupling 

Attachments, Spare Tire Mounting (Chassis), and Rolling Chassis Modules. The Frame is 

the only subsystem applicable to this study. The Frame subsystem is comprised primarily 

of the front and rear frames (carriages) and associated brackets. 

Comparing the six sub-systems, it is clear that the mass is located in the Frame subsystem.

Table F.12-1: Baseline subsystem breakdown for Frame & Mounting System

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (1)

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

06 07 00 Power Brake (for Hydraulic) Subsystem

06 07 01 Booster Clevis Pin 0.006 -$0.12 -$22.00

06 07 01 Booster Clevis Bracket 0.033 -$0.05 -$1.44

06 07 01 Vacuum Brake Booster Shell - Front 0.450 $0.66 $1.47

06 07 01 Vacuum Brake Booster Shell - Rear 0.223 $0.01 $0.06

06 07 01 Vacuum Fitting 0.032 $1.02 $31.77

06 07 01 Piston, Actuator 0.021 $0.10 $5.03

06 07 01 Plate, Mount Stiffener 0.052 $0.25 $4.79

06 07 01 Studs - Long, MC to BM 0.078 -$0.54 -$6.89

06 07 01 Shaft, Center Plunger - Valve, Metering 0.030 -$0.22 -$7.48

06 07 01 Backing Plate, Diaphragm - Vacuum Booster 0.271 $0.24 $0.90

(1) "+" = decrease, "-" = increase

Component / Assembly Description

Mass Reduction Results

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem
Page 648

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

System & 

Subsystem 

Mass

"kg"

07 00 00 Frame and Mounting System

07 01 00 Frame Subsystem 43.729

07 02 00 Body Mounting Subsystem 0.000

07 03 00 Engine Transmission Mounting Subsystem 0.000

07 04 00 Towing and Coupling Attachments Subsystem 0.000

07 05 00 Spare Tire Mounting (Chassis) Subsystem 0.000

07 08 00 Rolling Chassis Modules 0.000

Total System Mass = 43.729

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 2.56%

Description

Table F.12-2 shows the calculated mass-reduction results for the ideas generated related 

to the Frame and Mounting system. A mass savings of 16.338kg was realized with a cost 

increase of $3.28, resulting in a cost increase of $0.20/kg.

Table F.12-2: Calculated Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Frame & Mounting System

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

Subsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

07 00 00 Frame and Mounting System

07 01 00 Frame Sub System B 16.338 -$3.28 -$0.20 37.36% 0.96%

07 02 00 Body Mounting Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

07 03 00 Engine Transmission Mounting Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

07 04 00 Towing and Coupling Attachments Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

07 05 00 Spare Tire Mounting (Chassis) Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

07 08 00 Rolling Chassis Modules 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

B 16.338 -$3.28 -$0.20 37.36% 0.96%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

Description
Page 649

F.12.1 Frame Subsystem

F.12.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.12-3, the Frame subsystem is comprised of the Full Frame, Special 

Protective Structures, Body Isolators, Front Strut Frame (Image F.12-1), Rear Strut 

Frame (Image F.12-2), and Miscellaneous Components sub-subsystems. The major 

components within these sub-subsystems are the front and rear cradles, frame brackets, 

cushions, and associated hardware. The most significant contributor to the mass of the 

Frame subsystem is the Front Strut Frame.

Table F.12-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Frame Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

07 01 00 Frame Subsystem

07 01 01 Full Frame 0.000

07 01 02 Special Protective Structures (Engine Under Cover) 0.062

07 01 03 Body Isolators (Front & Rear Stopper, Front Suspension Member Body 

Mntg) 0.774

07 01 04 Front Strut Frame (Frame Asm, Cushions, Brackets) 32.549

07 01 05 Rear Strut Frame (Rear Cradle, Cushions, Brackets) 10.345

07 01 99 Miscellaneous 0.000

Total Subsystem Mass = 43.729

Total System Mass = 43.729

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 100.00%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 2.56%

Description
Page 650

Image F.12-1: Front Frame Assembly

(Source: Lotus Report)

Image F.12-2: Rear Frame Assembly

(Source: Lotus Report)

F.12.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza Frame & Mounting system follows typical industry standards as it has

nothing new, out of the ordinary, or unique. The Frame & Mounting system’s Front 

Cradle (Image F.12-3) and Rear Cradle (Image F.12-4), consists of several formed steel 

components welded together. This is a common design across Toyota platforms. Several 

parts, including the Front Suspension Brackets (Image F.12-5), Front Damper Assembly 

(Image F.8-6), Frame Side Rail Brackets (Image F.8-7), and Rear Suspension Brackets 

(Image F.8-8), are bolted on to attach and/or provide support for other components 

(including the radiator) to the body.
Page 651

F.12.2 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Magnesium is a material that is making interesting inroads into automotive design. It has 

a mass that is two-thirds that of aluminum for equivalent volumes of material. 

Specifically of interest for the Frame & Mounting system is a magnesium engine 

cradle/frame that was manufactured for the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 in a joint 

venture between Hydro Magnesium and Meridian Technologies Inc. 

Aluminum Rheinfelden in Germany developed Magsimal-59®, an aluminum alloy that 

has the chemical composition AlMg5Si2Mn. The casting capabilities of this alloy 

produce parts with less mass than conventional aluminum casting alloys. Used in highpressure die casting, suspension components have been made for Porsche and BMW with 

wall thickness as thin as 2.5 mm.

Another emerging technology is NanoMAG, which will eventually become very attractive 

for many automotive applications. This patent-pending process features isotropic, finegrained strengthening of magnesium sheet stock. A combined effort of NanoMAG LLC 

and the University of Michigan has produced ultra-fine-grain “nanocrystalline” 

magnesium sheet, which has properties superior to those of conventional materials such 

as steel, aluminum, and titanium. Thixomolding® technology produces a sheet bar that is 

put through secondary thermo-mechanical heat processing. Precise control of the 

microstructure increases the yield strength of the original Thixomolded® stock by more 

than 200% to more than 250 MPa along with 10% elongation. The result is an advanced 

magnesium sheet/plate with a superior strength-to-weight ratio. Current uses of Nano

MAG are limited to low-volume applications such as defense. Therefore, automotive 

applications are anticipated in the future.

F.12.2.1 Front Frame

The Front Frame (Image F.8-3) consists of approximately 34 individual steel stampings 

welded together to form a single frame.
Page 652

Image F.12-3: Front Frame

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.12.2.2 Rear Frame

The Rear Frame (Image F.8-4) consists of approximately six individual steel stampings 

welded together to form a single rear frame.

Image F.12-4: Rear Frame

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 653

F.12.2.3 Front Suspension Brackets

The Front Suspension Bracket (Image F.8-5) is made of two different steel stampings 

that are welded together.

Image F.12-5: Front Suspension Bracket

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.12.2.4 Front Damper Assembly

The Front Damper Assembly (Image F.12-6) consists of one steel stamping and one 

forging molded together to form the assembly.
Page 654

Image F.12-6: Front Damper Assembly

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.12.2.5 Frame Side Rail Brackets

The Venza Frame Side Rail Bracket (Image F.12-7) is formed by two different steel 

stampings that are spot-welded together.

Image F.12-7: Frame Side Rail Bracket

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.12.2.6 RearSuspension Stopper Brackets

The Rear Suspension Stopper Bracket (Image F.12-8) is formed by two different steel 

stampings that are spot-welded together.
Page 655

Image F.12-8: Rear Suspension Stopper Bracket

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.12.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.12-4 is the Frame & Mounting system summary chart for mass reduction 

concepts. The ideas suggest substitutions of polymer material, aluminum, high strength 

steel, magnesium, Magsimal-59®, and applications observed on the 2005 VW Passat.

Table F.12-4: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Frame Subsystem.
Page 656

F.12.3.1 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.12-5 shows the selected mass reduction ideas for the Frame subsystem for 

detailed evaluation of both the mass savings achieved and manufacturing cost. Several 

ideas suggest plastics as alternate materials. Also, included are part substitutions from 

other vehicle designs such as those currently in use on the VW Passat (as determined in 

the March 2010 Lotus Report).
Page 657

Table F.12-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem Analysis

F.12.3.2 Front Suspension Brackets

The solution chosen for implementation on the Front Suspension Bracket (Image F.12-9)

is to ratio the Venza vehicle net mass and bracket size versus the VW Passat specs 

(Lotus) to reduce the bracket size and then change the material from steel to Nylon (PA66 

– 60% GF).
Page 658

Image F.12-9: Front Suspension Bracket

(Source: FEV photo)

F.12.3.3 Rear Suspension Stopper Brackets

The solution chosen to be implemented on the Rear Suspension Stopper Bracket (Image 

F.12-10) is to change the material from steel to Nylon (PA66 – 60% GF). This idea has 

been implemented in current production. 2012 Chevy Cruze with the 1.4L turbocharged 

engine and 6 speed automatic transmissions has plastic engine mounts (Image F.12-11).

Image F.12-10: Rear Suspension Stopper Bracket

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 659

Image F.12-11: 2012 Chevy Cruze Plastic Engine Mounts

F.12.3.4 Front Damper Assembly

The solution chosen to be implemented on the Front Damper Assembly (Image F.12-12)

is to ratio the Venza vehicle net mass and damper size versus the VW Passat specs 

(Lotus) to reduce the Damper size.

Image F.12-12: Front Damper Assembly

(Source: FEV photo)

F.12.3.5 Front Damper Assembly

The solution chosen for implementation on the Frame Side Rail Bracket (Image F.12-13)

is to ratio the Venza vehicle net mass and bracket size versus the VW Passat specs 

(Lotus) to reduce the bracket size and then change the material from steel to Nylon (PA66 

– 60% GF).
Page 660

Image F.12-13: Frame Side Rail Bracket

(Source: FEV photo)

F.12.3.6 Front Frame Assembly

The solution chosen to be implemented on the Front Frame Assembly (Image F.12-14) is 

to change the material from a stamped steel construction to a cast magnesium structure.

Image F.12-14: Front Frame Assembly

Source: A2MAC1 -http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp?productid=64&clientid=1&producttype=2
Page 661

F.12.3.7 Rear Frame Assembly

The solution chosen for implementation on the Rear Frame Assembly (Image F.12-15) is 

to ratio the Venza vehicle net mass and Rear Frame size versus the VW Passat specs 

(Lotus) to reduce the Rear Frame size.

Image F.12-15: Rear Frame Assembly

(Source: FEV photo)

F.12.4 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.12-6 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated for the 

Frame subsystem. This resulted in a subsystem overall mass savings of 16.338kgs and a 

cost increase of $3.28.

The Front Strut Frame sub-subsystem includes the Front Frame which was changed to a 

die-casted magnesium part versus a multiple steel stamping construction. This action 

accounts for 90% of the 13.8 kg weight save. The Front Strut Frame sub-subsystem also 

includes (2) Suspension Brackets and (2) Radiator Support Brackets. These brackets are 

made from a steel stamping construction which has been changed to an injection mold 

process. The Suspension Bracket changes account for 2% of the mass savings. The 

Radiator Support Bracket changes account for 8% of the mass savings. The cost of these 

changes increases the cost of the sub-subsystem by $1.04

The Rear Strut Frame sub-subsystem includes the Rear Frame, which was downsized 

based on a Lotus idea to normalize it to a 2005 VW Passat and (2) Stopper Brackets 

which were changed from a steel stamping construction to an inject mold process. The 

cost of these mass reduction ideas raises the cost of this sub-subsystem by $2.23.
Page 662

Table F.12-6: Calculated Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Results for Frame 

Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ 

Sub-Subs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

07 01 00 Frame Subsystem

07 01 04 Front Strut Frame B 13.800 -$1.04 -$0.08 42.40% 0.81%

07 01 05 Rear Strut Frame B 2.538 -$2.23 -$0.88 24.54% 0.15%

B 16.338 -$3.28 -$0.20 37.36% 0.96%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Page 663

F.13 Exhaust System

An exhaust system is tubing used to guide reaction exhaust gases away from a controlled 

combustion inside an engine. The entire system conveys burnt gases from the engine, 

expelling these toxic and/or noxious gases through one or more exhaust pipes. Depending 

on the overall system design, the exhaust gas may flow through one or more of the 

following: cylinder head and exhaust manifold; a turbocharger (to increase engine 

power); a catalytic converter (to reduce air pollution); a muffler (to lessen noise). Image 

F.13-1 shows the Toyota Venza muffler.

Image F.13-1: Toyota Venza Muffler

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

The Exhaust ystem is comprised of the Acoustical Control Components and Exhaust Gas 

Treatment Components Subsystem (see Table F.13-1).

 Table F.13-1: Mass Breakdown by Subsystem for Exhaust System.

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

System & 

Subsystem 

Mass

"kg"

09 00 00 Exhaust System

09 01 00 Acoustical Control Components Subsystem 11.743

09 02 00 Exhaust Gas Treatment Comp. Subsystem 14.874

Total System Mass = 26.617

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 1.56%

Description
Page 664

Table F.13-2 provides the mass and cost impact for the exhaust subsystem.

Table F.13-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Exhaust Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsystem/ 

Subsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

1711

09 00 00 Exhaust System

09 01 00 Acoustical Control Components Subsystem B 2.789 -$0.21 -$0.07 23.75% 0.16%

09 02 00 Exhaust Gas Treatment Comp. Subsystem A 4.729 $2.68 $0.57 31.79% 0.28%

A 7.518 $2.47 $0.33 28.25% 0.44%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

Description

F.13.1 Acoustical Control Components Subsystem

F.13.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.13-3, the Acoustic Control Component sub-subsystem is included in 

the Acoustical Control Components subsystem. This sub-subsystem is the only driver in 

the subsystem.

Table F.13-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Acoustical Control Components Subsystem
Page 665

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

09 01 00 Acoustical Control Components Subsystem

09 01 01 Acoustic Control Components 11.743

Total Subsystem Mass = 11.743

Total System Mass = 26.617

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 44.12%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.69%

Description

F.13.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

For the Acoustic Control Components sub-subsystem, the total 11.74kg weight does not 

include the muffler: It includes only the front and center pipe sections, which include one 

catalytic converter, one baffle, and one resonator made from stainless steel. The 4-

cylinder engine’s pipe lengths and diameter are the same as the 6-cylinder equipped with 

a dual-tipped muffler. This makes the 4-cylinder exhaust systems pipes and muffler larger 

than required for the volume of exhaust expelled. Using the larger system for the 4-

cylinder is a good idea from the carry-over and manufacturing aspect; however, for the 

overall system weight and the resultant effect on gas mileage for the 4-cylinder, this may 

not be an effective trade-off. The Venza’s other technologies include EDPM hangers and 

welded- and bolted-on hollow hanger brackets. Image F.13-2 and Image F.13-3 show a 

section view of the Toyota Venza exhaust and the pipe as a whole.

Image F.13-2 (Left): Toyota Venza Exhaust

Image F.13-3 (Right): Toyota Venza Exhaust Pipe

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.13.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Industry trends vary for exhaust systems, ranging from mild steel, titanium, special grades 

of stainless steel, and magnesium in race cars to low-production vehicles. There are many 

different types of SS that can be considered for exhaust systems. The use of tailor-welded 
Page 666

blanks of different types of stainless steel allows for thicker and thinner areas of SS as 

needed. A common type is austenitic stainless such as 304. It is difficult to fabricate, 

however, owing to the rate of strain hardening. If very severe bending is required, it may 

be necessary to stress-relieve the material by annealing the pipe part of the way through 

the forming process. There are other stainless materials available in the 300 Series 

stainless family, but they are more brittle and have a poorer thermal shock performance 

than 409 Series stainless, which is most often used in today’s OEM stainless systems.

Titanium is widely used for exhausts on motorcycles, the automotive industry has largely 

shunned this material, and for good reason: The bending stresses from forming Titanium 

sheets requires extra supports to prevent cracking at high stress areas. Titanium’s main 

advantage, however, is its low density: approximately 40% lower density than stainless 

steel. Since 2006, the use of titanium alloys for automotive exhaust systems 

manufacturing has increased for the high-end market vehicles. Titanium alloys used for 

exhaust system fabrication use additional alloying elements, as aluminum, copper, 

niobium, silicon, and iron. The addition of these elements significantly increases the 

oxidation resistance and mechanical properties of the alloy. 

Other trends for exhaust systems include the use of different materials for the hangers;

EDPM or Rubber is used by most OEM’s today.

F.13.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Ideas considered for the exhaust weight reduction were a titanium system, welded-on 

exhaust hangers and hollow hangers, and using optional materials for the exhaust rubber 

hanger grommets. The Venza implemented some of these ideas already, so a closer look 

in to the weight reduction was needed (Table F.13-4). 

Table F.13-4: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Acoustical Control 

Components Subsystem
Page 667

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Front and Center Pipes Titanium Alloy 20 to 30% Mass 

Reduction

High cost, slower cycle time in 

manufacturing

Front and Center Pipes 304 Stainless Steel NA High cost, Harder to work with, may 

require added operations

Front and Center Pipes Tailored Welded Blanks 15 to 20% Mass 

Reduction

Higher cost of laser welding and added 

capital cost

Front and Center Pipes Mubea Tailored Rolled 

Tubes TRT®

20 to 25% Mass 

Reduction Small increase for manufacturing

Front and Center Pipes Down size to 2.4L Toyota 

Matrix

20 to 25% Mass 

Reduction

Cost savings due to less material & 

manufacturing

Front and Center Pipes Weld on Hanger Brkts 5 to 10% Mass 

Reduction Already implemented

Front and Center Pipes Hollow Hanger Brkts 1 to 5% Mass 

Reduction Already implemented

Front and Center Pipes 

Rubber Grommets SGFTM Rubber Grommets 30% Mass Reduction

Low cost due to removal of the amount of 

grommets and hangers

F.13.1.5 Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas

Table F.13-5 includes the mass-reduction ideas that were selected for the exhaust system 

center and front pipes. 

Table F.13-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Acoustical Control Components Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas 

Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

09 01 00 Acoustical Control Components Subsystem

09 01 01 Acoustic Control Components Mubea Tailored Rolled 

Tubes TRT®

SGFTM Rubber Grommets

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

Applying the Mubea Tailor Rolled Tubes (TRT®) process of continuous rolling to 

varying thicknesses ranging from 1.1mm to .7mm on the Toyota Venza’s 1.2mm exhaust 

pipes, rather than laser welding flat blanks, also created additional weight savings. The 

Mubea process offers a major weight savings of 28% – or 2.099kg. Savings on the center 

pipe section. In the front pipe section, by also using the Mubea TRT® process, the 

savings is 28% (.476kg). Mubea has a few different process’s such as Tailor Rolled 

Tubes TRT®, Tailor Rolled Products TRP®, Tailor Rolled Blanks TRB® and all are

highly innovative as it can also be applied to a number of different body parts, such as Aand B-pillars, roof members, bumpers, and structure parts. Figure F.13-1 shows in detail

the basic Mubea rolling process.
Page 668

 

Figure F.13-1: Basic Mubea® Process

Below is the Mubea TRB® exhaust pipe manufacturing process (Figure F.13-2).
Page 669

 
Page 670

Figure F.13-2: Mubea TRB® Exhaust Pipe Manufacturing Process

(Presentation material and information provided by Mubea)

SGF® exhaust hangers were also selected as a means of mass reduction. Advantages of 

the SGF® hangers include:

Weight reduction, up to 37% lighter than competitor’s models. 

Very high load capacity in X, Y, and Z directions

Reduce the number of hangers and hanger brackets

Packaging: Due to becoming 40% more narrow, hangers can be positioned tight to 

the exhaust system

Up to 21 times the life cycles of competitors’ models

Extreme durability, including high- and low-temperature performance 

The hangers do not need to be changed over the lifetime of the car

High break load: 10 kN

Use of EPDM instead of expensive silicon rubber

Cord inlay for strength

Using the SGF® hangers reduced the number of hangers and hanger brackets on the car 

side as well as the pipe side. 

A recommendation by SGF® to remove three hangers on the existing exhaust system 

would require the new hangers and brackets to be relocated, as Table F.13-6 shows.

Table F.13-6: SGF Existing Exhaust System Recommendation
Page 671

 Weight, Material, Dimension Durability, Testing Conditions and Results 

 

Figure F.13-3 shows how the SGF® hangers, which are smaller in size with more 

strength, result in an up to 37% lighter product. Note that the hanger strength comes from 

the cord inlay reinforcement.
Page 672

 

 

Figure F.13-3: SGF® Hangers

(All presentation material and information provided by SGF®)

F.13.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

Table F.13-7 shows the weight and cost reductions per sub-subsystem. In the subsubsystem Acoustic Control Components, the Mubea Tailored Rolled Tubes TRT® 

process was used to provide varying thickness in the exhaust front pipe assembly for a 

weight savings of .476kg. This TRT® was also used on the exhaust center pipe assembly 

for a weight savings of 2.099kg and a cost increase of $.56 The TRT® are slightly higher 

in manufacturing costs, but that cost is off set by the material weight savings.

The SGF® exhaust hangers are a lighter product then the typical EDPM hanger the 

hangers by themselves are slightly more in cost to the typical EDPM exhaust hangers, but 

the SGF® hanger’s superior strength and quality allows the system to reduce the amount 

of hangers needed for an over all weight and cost savings. On the Acoustic Control 

Components sub-subsystem, two exhaust hangers were originally used. With the SGF® 
Page 673

system, one hanger in this sub-subsystem can be removed along with the steel hanger 

brackets attached to the pipe and car side. The car side and exhaust hanger being removed 

saves .122kg with a cost savings of $.55 Removing one rubber hanger and replacing the 

other one with the SGF hanger reduces the weight by .091kg but with a cost increase of 

$.19 this still comes out as a total SGF® system savings .213kg and $.36 cost savings. 

Table F.13-7: Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Acoustical Control 

Components Subsystem.

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

Subsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

1711

09 01 00 Acoustical Control Components Subsystem

09 01 01 Acoustic Control Components B 2.789 -$0.21 -$0.07 23.75% 0.16%

B 2.789 -$0.21 -$0.07 7.17% 0.16%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.13.2 Exhaust Gas Treatment Components Subsystem

F.13.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 

As shown in Table F.13-8, within the Exhaust Gas Treatment Components subsystem is 

the Emission Control Components sub-subsystem – the only mass reduction driver in this 

subsystem.

Table F.13-8: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Exhaust Gas Treatment Components

Subsystem
Page 674

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

09 02 00 Exhaust Gas Treatment Comp. Subsystem

09 02 01 Emission Control Components 14.874

Total Subsystem Mass = 14.874

Total System Mass = 26.617

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 55.88%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.87%

Description

F.13.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

Mufflers are installed along the exhaust pipe as part of the exhaust system of an internal 

combustion engine. The muffler reduces exhaust noise by absorption of the exhaust sound 

waves and is routed through a series of passages and chambers lined with woven 

fiberglass wool. The resonating chambers tuned to cause destructive interference wherein 

opposite sound waves cancel each other out, and Catalytic converters also have a 

muffling effect.

The Toyota Venza’s exhaust system muffler is larger than required for the I4 motor 

version due to it being common component for the dual exhaust used in the 6-cylinder 

engine option. Although the Venza does have some innovations, the exhaust is stainless 

steel for reduced weight and corrosion resistance and the hanger tubes are hollow 

allowing for additional weight reductions. The hangers are also welded to the BIW which 

eliminates the need for nuts and bolts.

For Emission Control Components sub-subsystem, the total weight of 14.87kg does not 

include the muffler pipes. This sub-subsystem only includes the muffler.

Image F.13-4: Toyota Venza Muffler

(Source: FEV photo)
Page 675

F.13.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Industry trends for weight reduction vary quite a bit for exhaust systems. The most 

common is to use stainless steel for the weight and corrosion resistance. Other ideas like 

hollow hangers welded to the BIW and lightweight rubber hanger grommets are used on 

the Toyota Venza.

F.13.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Some ideas considered for the exhaust mass reduction were a titanium system, welded 

exhaust hangers, hollow hangers, and using new materials for the exhaust rubber hanger 

grommets. Due to the Venza already having some of these ideas implemented, a closer 

look in to the weight reduction was required (Table F.13-9).

Table F.13-9: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Exhaust Gas 

Treatment Components Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Muffler Titanium Alloy 20 to 30% Mass 

Reduction

High cost, slower cycle time in 

manufacturing

Muffler 304 Stainless Steel NA High cost, Harder to work with, may 

require added operations

Muffler Tailored Welded Blanks 15 to 20% Mass 

Reduction

Higher cost of laser welding and added 

capital cost

Muffler MubeaTM Tailored Rolled 

Blanks

20 to 25% Mass 

Reduction Small increase for manufacturing

Muffler Down size to 2.4L Toyota 

Matrix

20 to 25% Mass 

Reduction

Cost savings due to less material & 

manufacturing

Muffler Weld on Hanger Brkts 5 to 10% Mass 

Reduction Already implemented

Muffler Hollow Hanger Brkts 1 to 5% Mass 

Reduction Already implemented

Muffler Rubber 

Grommets SGFTM Rubber Grommets 30% Mass Reduction

Low cost due to removal of the amount of 

grommets and hangers
Page 676

F.13.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The Toyota Venza system is partially optimized for weight and cost. A look at some of 

the optional technologies used in the industry today (Table F.13-10), however, shows 

there are more mass reduction ideas that can be applied. By downsizing the exhaust 

system to the comparable Toyota Matrix system (which uses a 2.4L engine), a 2.334kg 

weight savings can be realized. In addition, by using the Mubea® tailor rolled blank 

process a 24% (1.3kg) weight savings can be attributed too the muffler. The SGF®

grommet process on the rubber hanger grommets can achieve a 52% (1.092kg) savings by 

removing two original rubber grommets and the four hanger brackets. All Mubea® and 

SGF® processes can be seen in the above Acoustical Control Components subsystem.

Table F.13-10: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Exhaust Gas Treatment Components Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas 

Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

09 02 00 Exhaust Gas Treatment Comp. Subsystem

09 02 01 Emission Control Components MubeaTM Tailored Rolled 

Blanks

Down size to 2.4L Toyota 

Matrix

SGFTM Rubber Grommets

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Page 677

F.13.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

Table F.13-11 shows the weight and cost reductions per sub-subsystem. The reduction 

for the sub-subsystem “Emission Control Components” were to down-size the muffler 

from the Toyota Venza that has a common muffler for the 4 & 6 cylinder models to the 

Toyota Matrix 2.4L engine muffler. This represents a 2.334kg weight save and a $1.24 

cost savings.

Then apply a Mubea TRB® process. The muffler will save 1.303kg with a cost increase 

of $.49

Even though the SGF® exhaust hangers are a lighter product then the typical EDPM 

hanger the hangers by themselves are slightly more in cost to the typical EDPM exhaust 

hangers, but the SGF® hanger’s superior strength and quality allows the system to reduce 

the amount of hangers needed for an over all weight and cost savings. On the Emission 

Control Components, four exhaust hangers were originally used. With the SGF® system, 

two in this sub-subsystem can be removed along with the steel hanger brackets attached 

to the muffler and car side. The car side and exhaust hanger being removed saves .909kg 

with a cost savings of $2.32 Removing 2 rubber hanger and replacing the other one with 

the SGF hanger reduces the weight by .183kg but with a cost increase of $.39 this still 

comes out as a total SGF® system savings 1.092kg and $1.93 cost savings. 

Table F.13-11: Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Exhaust Gas Treatment 

Components Subsystem.

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Sub-Subs./ 

Sub-Subs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

1711

09 02 00 Exhaust Gas Treatment Comp. Subsystem

09 02 01 Emission Control Components A 4.729 $2.68 $0.57 31.79% 0.28%

A 4.729 $2.68 $0.57 17.77% 0.28%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Page 678

F.14 Fuel System

The Fuel Tank and Lines subsystem is comprised primarily of the fuel tank and associated 

fuel lines between the fuel filler neck and the fuel tank. The fuel lines between the fuel 

tank and fuel pump are also included in this subsystem. The Fuel Vapor Management 

subsystem is comprised of a charcoal/vapor canister and the connecting lines between the 

fuel tank and the charcoal canister. In comparing the sub-systems under the fuel system, 

the greatest opportunity for mass reduction falls under the Fuel Tank and Lines subsystem 

(Table F.14-1).

Table F.14-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Fuel System
Page 679

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

System & 

Subsystem 

Mass

"kg"

10 00 00 Fuel System

10 01 00 Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem 21.018

10 02 00 Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem 3.259

Total System Mass = 24.276

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 1.42%

Description

Table F.14-2 shows the calculated mass-reduction results for the ideas generated related 

to the Fuel system. A mass savings of 12.704Kgs was realized with a cost reduction of 

$3.91 which results in a cost savings of $0.31 per kg.

Table F.14-2: Calculated Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Results for Fuel System.
Page 680

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

Subsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

10 00 00 Fuel System

10 01 00 Fuel Tank And Lines Subsystem A 12.207 $2.70 $0.22 58.08% 0.71%

10 02 00 Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem A 0.497 $1.21 $2.44 2.37% 0.03%

A 12.704 $3.91 $0.31 58.99% 0.74%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

Description

F.14.1 Fuel Tank & Lines Subsystem

F.14.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.14-3 shows the three sub-subsystems that make up the Fuel Tank and Lines 

subsystem. These are the Fuel Tank Assembly, Fuel Distribution, and Fuel Filler subsubsystem. The most significant contributor to the mass of the Fuel Tank and Lines 

subsystem is the Fuel Tank Assembly. This includes the tank, baffles, fuel pump, sending 

unit and exterior tank mounting brackets.

Table F.14-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem.
Page 681

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

10 01 00 Fuel Tank And Lines Subsystem

10 01 01 Fuel Tank Assembly (Fuel Tank, Fuel Pump, Sending Unit) 18.783

10 01 03 Fuel Distribution (Fuel Lines) 0.519

10 01 04 Fuel Filler (Refueling) (Filler Pipes & Hoses) 1.716

Total Subsystem Mass = 21.018

Total System Mass = 24.276

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 86.58%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 1.23%

Description

F.14.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza Fuel system follows typical industry standards for steel tanks. There is 

nothing new, out of the ordinary, or unique. The fuel tank (Image F.14-1) is a welded 

sheet metal construction with thinner gauge metal on its upper half versus the bottom. 

The fuel pump (Image F.14-3), is retained by an outer retaining ring, Figure 1-6, and (8) 

M5 x .80 fasteners (Image F.14-3). Due to this being a saddle tank design, fuel from one 

side of the tank must be pumped to the other via the fuel pump. A sending unit (Image 

F.10-4) detects the total fuel level. The sending unit is retained by (6) M5 x .80 fasteners 

(Image F.14-5). The tank is held in place by a steel strap (Image F.14-56), which is 

edge-protected by an extruded rubber edging material (Image F.14-7). Finally, the fuel 

delivery system consists of a steel fuel filler tube assembly (Image F.14-7). Several 

brackets (Image F.14-9 through Image F.14-10) clamp the vapor tube to the fuel filler 

pipe, as well as clamping the entire assembly to the vehicle.

F.14.2 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

F.14.2.1 Fuel Tank

Steel fuel tank construction is a common technology used by Toyota. However, it is no 

longer the norm for the automotive industry. 
Page 682

Image F.14-1: Venza Fuel Tank

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Some industry reports indicate more than 95% of the fuel tanks produced in Europe are 

made from plastics. Plastic tanks have become the primary material of choice in Europe 

and North America for many reasons:

1. A plastic tank system weighs two-thirds less than an average steel tank system.

Advantages of the blow molding process used to make fuel tanks:

a. Sheet polymer material for blow molding is high density polyethylene 

(HDPE), which has a lower density than water and is very chemically 

resistant.

b. HDPE can be treated or laminated with barrier materials such as LLDPE 

which provides very effective emission control, rupture resistance, and 

extended temperature range.

c. Tooling for blow molding is lower cost and is not stressed as heavily as 

tooling for steel parts.

d. The main peripheral welded seam for the steel tank is eliminated with 

blow molding of HDPE. Components like filler necks can be welded to 

the HDPE tank to seal and secure, and it will use much less energy than 

steel welding.

2. Plastics offer design flexibility for complex shapes, which are difficult to attain 

with steel. This includes integral connection features for attaching other fuel system 

components such as the vapor canister.

3. Impact and corrosion resistance is provided without secondary operations. No 

painting or coating is required.
Page 683

Although not priced in our cost reduction estimates, life cycle total energy costs are also 

reduced using plastic: 

Plastic materials can be created and processed at lower temperatures than steel.

Lower energy levels are required to recycle plastic than steel.

Regarding environmental concerns, feedstock for HDPE made from bio materials will be 

produced in at least one manufacturing plant (Braskem).which will help reduce our 

dependence on petroleum. Braskem is a Brazilian petrochemical company headquartered 

in São Paulo. The company is the largest petrochemical in the Americas by production 

capacity and the fifth largest in the world. By revenue it is the fourth largest in the 

Americas and the 17th in the world.

F.14.2.2 Fuel Pump

The Toyota Venza Fuel Pump (Image F.14-2) is inserted into the fuel tank and held in 

place by an outer retaining ring (Image F.14-3) and (8) M5 x .80 fasteners (Image 

F.14-4).

Image F.14-2: Fuel Pump

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 684

Image F.14-3: Retaining Ring

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.14-4: Fuel Pump Retaining Fastener

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.14.2.3 Sending Unit 

The Toyota Venza Sending Unit (Image F.14-5) is constructed from a heavy gauge 

stamped sheet metal mounting plate which is riveted to a lighter gauge stamped sheet 

metal switch bracket. The switch assembly is attached to the switch bracket via stamped 

locking features. The sending unit is inserted into the fuel tank and held in place by (6) 

M5 x .80 fasteners (Image F.14-6).
Page 685

Image F.14-5: Sending Unit

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.14-6: Sending Unit Retaining Fastener

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.14.2.4 Fuel Tank Mounting Straps

The mounting straps (Image F.14-7), which hold the fuel tank in place, are made of light 

gauge stamped sheet metal with an extruded rubber protective edging, (Image F.14-8). 

The protective edging is required to prevent the edge of the sheet metal straps from 

wearing away the anti-corrosion material applied to the outer surfaces of the fuel tank.
Page 686

Image F.14-7: Fuel Tank Mounting Strap

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.14-8: Protective Edging

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.14.2.5 Fuel Filler Tube Assembly

The Fuel Filler Tube Assembly (Image F.14-9) is an extruded steel tube extending from 

the fuel fill neck to the fuel tank. Also running alongside the fuel fill tube is the vapor 

return line.
Page 687

Image F.14-9: Fuel Filler Tube Assembly

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.14.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

The Fuel Tanks and Lines summary chart, shown in Table F.14-4, demonstrates the clear 

move from steel to plastic. The fuel tank offers the greatest mass reduction opportunity as 

mentioned above. Plastics offer weight reduction benefits for other fuel system 

components. Brainstorming activities generated all of the ideas in the chart below. There 

are several suppliers and websites supporting the use of plastics for the fuel tank and 

other components within the fuel system. 

Table F.14-4: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Fuel Tank & Lines 

Subsystem.
Page 688

F.14.4 Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas

We chose most of the ideas generated from the brainstorming activities for detail 

evaluation as shown in Table F.14-5. In our team approach to idea generation, we 

consider all components regardless of how big or small the opportunity.

Table F.14-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Fuel Tank & Lines Subsystem Analysis
Page 689

F.14.4.1 Cross-Over Tube Assembly

The solution chosen to be implemented for the Cross-Over Tube Assembly is to make it 

out of plastic instead of steel.

Image F.14-10: Cross-over Tube Assembly 

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 690

F.14.4.2 Fuel Tank

The solution chosen to be implemented for the Fuel Tank is to make it out of a blow 

molded HDPE plastic (Image F.14-11) and to reduce the size of the fuel tank 12% taking 

advantage of the overall weight reduction ideas implemented over the entire vehicle.

Image F.14-11: Plastic (HDPE) Fuel Tank

(Source: A2MAC1 - http://a2mac1.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp?productid=222&clientid=1&producttype=2)

F.14.4.3 Fuel Tank Mounting Pins (Eliminated)

The solution chosen to be implemented for the Fuel Tank Mounting Pins is to eliminate 

them in lieu of a new strap configuration utilizing a Tee-slot design (Image F.14-12). 

Instead of pinning the end of the strap, this design locks the strap end without the need of 

a pin.

Image F.14-12: Fuel Tank Mounting Strap Assy

(Source: BTM Corp - http://www.btmcorp.com/tlapps.html)
Page 691

F.14.4.4 Fuel Pump Retaining Ring

The solution(s) chosen to be implemented for the Fuel Pump Retaining Ring (Image 

F.14-13) is to make it a “twist lock” design, thus eliminating the need for fasteners. 

Image F.14-13: Fuel Pump Retaining Bracket “Twist Lock” Design

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.14.4.5 Fuel Sending Unit Retaining Bracket

The solution(s) chosen to be implemented for the Fuel Sending Unit Retaining Bracket 

(Image F.14-14) is make the bracket out of plastic instead of stamped steel and making it 

a “twist lock” design, thus eliminating the need for fasteners.

Image F.14-14: Sending Unit Mounting Bracket

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 692

F.14.4.6 Large Bracket (Eliminated)

The solution chosen to be implemented for the Large Bracket (Image F.14-15) is to 

eliminate the bracket due to the blow molded Fuel Fill Tube Assembly. This bracket will 

no longer be needed because the Fuel Fill Tube and the Vapor Tube will be connected via 

the blow mold process. 

Image F.14-15: Large Shield (Eliminated)

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.14.4.7 Protector Bracket (Eliminated)

The solution chosen to be implemented for the Protector Bracket (Image F.14-16) is to 

eliminate the bracket due to the blow molded Fuel Fill Tube Assembly. This bracket will 

no longer be needed because the Fuel Fill Tube and the Vapor Tube will be connected via 

the blow mold process. 

Image F.14-16: Protector (Eliminated)
Page 693

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.14.4.8 Small Shield Bracket (Eliminated)

The solution(s) chosen to be implemented for the Support Bracket (Image F.14-17) is to 

eliminate the bracket due to the blow molded Fuel Fill Tube Assembly. This bracket will 

no longer be needed because the Fuel Fill Tube and the Vapor Tube will be connected via 

the blow mold process. 

Image F.14-17: Support Bracket (Eliminated)

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.14.4.9 Fuel Filler Tube Assembly

The solution chosen to be implemented for the Fuel Filler Tube Assembly Image F.14-18

is to make the tubes out of HDPE using a blow mold process.
Page 694

Image F.14-18: Fuel Filler Tube Assembly

(Source: Inergy Automotive - http://www.inergyautomotive.com/innovativesystems/pfs/pfp/Pages/pfp.aspx)

F.14.5 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.14-6 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated for the 

Fuel Tank & Lines subsystem. This resulted in a subsystem overall mass savings of 

6.307kgs and a cost savings differential of $2.70.

The Fuel Tank Assembly sub-subsystem ideas account for the entire cost savings which 

was only slightly reduced by the small cost hit created by the Fuel Filler sub-subsystem 

ideas. The Fuel Tank Assembly sub-subsystem includes the Fuel Tank, which was 

changed from a steel construction tank to a HDPE blow-molded tank and accounts for 

4.399kg of the total 12.207 kg weight save. Due to vehicle overall weight reduction and 

fuel economy improvement, Fuel tank can be downsized. The downsizing of the fuel tank 

reduced 1.36kg of the tank weight and 5.9 kg of the fuel weight. 

The Fuel Filler sub-subsystem raises the cost of this sub-subsystem slightly by $0.20, but 

the cost of the entire subsystem is still reduced to $2.70 because of the $2.90 savings 

realized in the Fuel Tank Assembly sub-subsystem.

Table F.14-6: Calculated Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Results for Fuel Tank & 

Lines Subsystem.
Page 695

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ 

Sub-Subs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

10 00 00 Fuel Tank & Lines Subsystem

10 01 01 Fuel Tank Assembly (Fuel Tank, Fuel Pump, 

Sending Unit) A 11.659 $2.90 $0.25 62.07% 0.68%

 Fuel Tank Assy(Steel to Plastic) 4.399 $2.22 $0.50 23.42% 0.26%

 Fuel Tank Assy(Downsizing) 1.360 $0.69 $0.50 7.24% 0.08%

 Fuel Tank Assy(Fuel Credit) 5.900 $0.00 $0.00 31.41% 0.34%

10 01 03 Fuel Distribution (Fuel Lines) 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

10 01 04 Fuel Filler (Refueling) (Filler Pipes & Hoses) B 0.548 -$0.20 -$0.37 31.95% 0.03%

A 12.207 $2.70 $0.22 58.08% 0.71%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.14.6 Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem

F.14.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview

In Table F.14-7, the Fuel Vapor Canister Assembly is identified as the most significant 

contributor to the mass of the total fuel system. The Fuel Vapor Canister Assembly 

includes the canister housing, charcoal, valves, fittings, and hoses.

Table F.14-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem.
Page 696

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

10 02 00 Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem

10 02 01 Fuel Vapor Canister Asm (Vapor Canister, Brackets, Lines) 3.259

Total Subsystem Mass = 3.259

Total System Mass = 24.276

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 13.42%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.19%

Description

F.14.6.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem shows characteristics of the latest 

development of these systems. There is nothing new, out of the ordinary, or unique 

compared to other vehicles. 

The EVAP (evaporative control system) is simple but quite sophisticated. The function of 

the EVAP is to trap, store and dispense evaporative emissions from the gas tank to the 

engine. A canister (Image F.14-19) is used to trap the fuel vapors, which adhere to 

activated charcoal in the canister until the engine is started. This system has to be 

completely sealed including the gas tank filler cap to meet current and future emission 

standards. A purge valve controls the vapor flow into the engine based on commands 

from the ECM (electronic engine control module). While the engine is running, and if a 

predetermined condition is met, the purge valve is opened by the ECM to release stored 

fuel vapors in the canister into the intake manifold. The ECM changes the duty cycle of 

the purge valve to control purge flow volume. The Canister to mounted to the underbody 

between the fuel tank and the exhaust muffler and is protected by a Canister Cover 

(Image F.14-20).

A “key off” monitor checks for system leaks and canister pump module malfunctions. 

The monitor starts five hours after the ignition switch is turned off. At least five hours are 

required for the fuel to cool down to stabilize the EVAP pressure, thus making the EVAP 

system monitor more accurate.

F.14.6.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

No industry trends have been noted for the Fuel Vapor Management subsystem beyond 

what is seen in the Venza system. Advances in engine and vehicle electronic control 
Page 697

continue with significant concern regarding complete control and elimination gasoline 

vapors. The hardware of the Fuel Vapor Management subsystem will continue to be 

developed for functionality with few, if any, major opportunities for size and weight 

reduction short of smaller fuel tank size, which would reduce vapor generation. 

Image F.14-19: Vapor Canister

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.14-20: Vapor Canister Cover

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.14.6.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.14-8 shows the Fuel Vapor Management summary chart and shows a few mass 

reduction ideas dealing primarily with moving from steel bracket to plastic and utilizing 

the MuCell® Microcellular Foaming Technology.
Page 698

Table F.14-8: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Fuel Vapor 

Management Subsystem.

F.14.6.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Most of the ideas generated from the brainstorming activities for the Fuel Vapor 

subsystem were utilized in this report as shown in Table F.14-9. In our team approach to 

idea generation, we consider all components regardless of how big or small the 

opportunity. Further development work needed for validation. 

Table F.14-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem Analysis.
Page 699

F.14.6.6 Canister Housing & Canister Cover

The solution(s) chosen to be implemented on the Vapor Canister Housing (Image 

F.14-21) and the Canister Cover (Image F.14-22) is to use the MuCell® Microcellular 

Foaming Technology during the injection molding process. 

Image F.14-21: Vapor Canister Housing

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 700

Image F.14-22: Vapor Canister Cover

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.14.6.7 Canister Brackets

The solution chosen to be implemented on the Large Canister Bracket (Image F.14-23) 

Medium Canister Bracket (Image F.14-24) and the Small Canister Bracket (Image 

F.14-25) is to redesign the brackets out of plastic instead of stamped steel. 

Image F.14-23: Large Canister Bracket

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Page 701

Image F.14-24: Medium Canister Bracket

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.14-25: Small Canister Bracket

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.14.6.8 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.14-10 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated for the 

Fuel Vapor Management subsystem. This resulted in a subsystem overall mass savings of 

.497 kg and a cost savings differential of $1.21.

The Fuel Vapor Canister sub-subsystem includes the Vapor Canister and its associated 

Brackets. The Vapor Canister Brackets are made from stamped steel construction. 76% of 

the .497 kg mass savings came from changing the brackets from steel to plastic. The 

remaining mass savings was realized by applying the MuCell® Foaming Technology to 

the Vapor Canister Housing and the Vapor Canister Cover.
Page 702

Table F.14-10: Preliminary Ballpark Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for 

Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem.

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

10 02 00 Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem

10 02 01 Fuel Vapor Canister Asm A 0.497 $1.21 $2.44 15.26% 0.03%

A 0.497 $1.21 $2.44 15.26% 0.03%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.15 Steering System

The Toyota Venza uses an electric power steering system. Electric power steering systems 

have an advantage in fuel efficiency: there is no belt-driven hydraulic pump constantly 

running, whether steering assistance is required or not. This is a major reason for electric 
Page 703

power steering systems’ introduction. Another key advantage is the elimination of a beltdriven engine accessory, and several high-pressure hydraulic hoses between the hydraulic 

pump (which is mounted on the engine) and the steering gear (mounted on the chassis). 

This greatly simplifies manufacturing and maintenance.

Included in the Steering system are the Steering Gear, Power Steering, Steering Column, 

Steering Column Switches, and Steering Wheel subsystems. The Steering Gear subsystem 

is the greatest weight contributing subsystem at 8.82kg (see Table F.15-1).

Table F.15-1: Mass Breakdown by Subsystem for Steering System

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

System & 

Subsystem 

Mass

"kg"

11 00 00 Steering System

11 01 00 Steering Gear Subsystem 8.825

11 02 00 Power Steering Subsystem 7.477

11 04 00 Steering Column Subsystem 5.083

11 05 00 Steering Column Switches Subsystem 0.554

11 06 00 Steering Wheel Subsystem 2.288

Total System Mass = 24.227

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 1.42%

Description

The Steering Gear, Steering Column, and Steering Wheel subsystems were used for mass

reduction. The Steering Column subsystem offered the greatest weight savings, as shown 

in

Table F.15-2.

Table F.15-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Steering System
Page 704

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

Subsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

1711

11 00 00 Steering System

11 01 00 Steering Gear Subsystem A 0.123 $0.24 $1.99 1.39% 0.01%

11 02 00 Power Steering Subsystem A 0.210 $0.10 $0.46 2.81% 0.01%

11 04 00 Steering Column Subsystem A 1.148 $10.39 $9.05 22.58% 0.07%

11 05 00 Steering Column Switches Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

11 06 00 Steering Wheel Subsystem A 0.336 $0.32 $0.94 14.69% 0.02%

A 1.817 $11.05 $6.08 7.50% 0.11%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

Description

F.15.1 Steering Gear Subsystem

F.15.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As shown in Table F.15-3, the Steering Gear subsystem includes the Steering Gear subsubsystem.

Table F.15-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Steering Gear Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

11 01 00 Steering Gear Subsystem

11 01 01 Steering Gear 8.825

Total Subsystem Mass = 8.825

Total System Mass = 24.227

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 36.43%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.52%

Description
Page 705

F.15.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza uses a conventional steering gear setup. Image F.15-1 shows the 

Toyota Venza steering gear. Image F.15-2 is a close-up of the tie rod end.

Image F.15-1: Toyota Venza Steering Gear

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Image F.15-2: Toyota Venza Tie Rod End

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.15.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

No mass reduction industry trends stand out on the Toyota Venza. Some weight savings 

have been identified when comparing the Venza to other vehicles of the same class and 

size.

F.15.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.15-4 shows weight deductions taken for the Steering Gear subsystem.

Table F.15-4: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Steering Gear 

Subsystem
Page 706

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Tie Rod

Use Tubing Swedged to 

Inner Ball Joint Rather Than 

Solid Rod for Tie Rod

20% Mass 

Reduction Needs Engineering

Ball Joint & Tie Rod

Shorten Forging for the Ball 

Joint and Lengthen the Tie 

Rod End - Used 2011 

Chrysler Mini Van as Direct 

Comparison

15 to 20% Mass 

Reduction Less over all material

Ball Joint Stamped Ball Joints 20 to 25% Mass 

Reduction Leak and Rust

F.15.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The weight deduction used for the Steering Gear subsystem was to shorten the ball joint

ends and lengthen the threaded part of the tie rod end. The current Chrysler mini van has 

a shorter ball joint end and it was selected and used as a basis for this analysis (Table 

F.15-5). Using this can result in a 1% .123kg savings.

Table F.15-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Steering Gear Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas 

Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

11 01 00 Steering Gear Subsystem

11 01 01 Steering Gear

Shorten Forging for the Ball 

Joint and Lengthen the Tie 

Rod End - Used 2011 

Chrysler Mini Van as Direct 

Comparison

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

F.15.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates

Table F.15-6 shows the weight and cost reductions per Steering Gear sub-subsystem. In 

the change to shorten the forged ball joint end and lengthen the tie rod end, mass was 

reduced from the ball joint forging based on the 2011 Chrysler mini van. This resulted in 

a mass savings of .261kg and $.52 in cost savings. With shortening the ball joint end the 

tie rod end had to be lengthened, this contributed an increase of .138kg and an increase in 

cost of $.28 both these changes netted a mass savings of .123kg and a cost save of $.24.
Page 707

Table F.15-6: Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Steering Gear Sub-Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Sub-Subs./ 

Sub-Subs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

1711

11 01 00 Steering Gear Subsystem

11 01 01 Steering Gear A 0.123 $0.24 $1.99 1.39% 0.01%

A 0.123 $0.24 $1.99 0.51% 0.01%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.15.2 Power Steering Subsystem

F.15.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 

As seen in (Table F.15-7), included in the Power Steering subsystem is the Power 

Steering Electronic Controls sub-subsystem.

Table F.15-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Power Steering Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

11 02 00 Power Steering Subsystem

11 02 01 Power Steering Electronic Controls 7.477

Total Subsystem Mass = 7.477

Total System Mass = 24.227

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 30.86%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.44%

Description

F.15.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza uses an advanced power steering system with power steering assist and 

electronic stability control.
Page 708

F.15.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

The Toyota Venza follows industry norms for the mass reductions trends on the power 

steering system.

F.15.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.15-8 shows the Power Steering subsystem and the ideas reviewed.

Table F.15-8: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Power Steering 

Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Control Module

Build Control Module into 

Assist Motors Aluminum 

Housing for Heat Sink and 

Cut Mass

5 to 10% Mass 

Reduction Needs Engineering

Assist Module Replace Steel Worm Gear 

with Composite

2 to 5% Mass 

Reduction

One gear is composite already and the 

other is metal, This means that the 

engineering has already been done

Assist Module Replace Metal Motor 

Housing with Composite

15 to 20% Mass 

Reduction

Due to EMF Engineering would be 

needed

Assist Module Use Resolver Based 

Sensor NA No Weight Save

EPS Control Unit Change Steel Brkt to 

Composite

20 to 30% Mass 

Reduction Material and Manufacturing savings

F.15.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The weight deduction used for the subsystem power steering was to mold the EPS steel 

mounting brackets out of PA6- GF30-35, using the MuCell® gas foaming process to 

reduce the weight of the plastic by 10% (Table F.15-9). To see more about the 

MuCell®or PolyOne® process’s reference section F.4B.1 Interior Trim and 

Ornamentation Subsystem.

Table F.15-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Power Steering Subsystem
Page 709

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas 

Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

11 02 00 Power Steering Subsystem

11 02 01 Power Steering Electronic Controls

Make EPS Steel Brkt Out of 

Composite and Then 

MuCell® for Added Weight 

Reduction 

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

F.15.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

Table F.15-10 shows the weight and cost reductions for the Power Steering Electronic 

Controls sub-subsystem.

Taking the EPS Brkts from 1010/1008 steel and making them out of PA6 glass filled 30-

35 plastic, then MuCell® the parts provided a mass savings of .21kg and a cost savings of 

$.10

The MuCelling of the parts contributed .021kg of the over all .21kg even though the PA6 

with class filled 30-35 with MuCell is more expensive then 1010/1008 steel, the mass 

reduction from steel to plastic and the reduced cycle time and the parts not needing a 

deburring and washing operation after the stamping ending up as a costs savings. To see 

more about the MuCell®or PolyOne® process’s reference section F.4B.1 Interior Trim 

and Ornamentation Subsystem.
Page 710

Table F.15-10: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Power Steering Electronic Controls 

Sub-Subsystem.

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Sub-Subs./ 

Sub-Subs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

1711

11 02 00 Power Steering Subsystem

11 02 01 Power Steering Electronic Controls A 0.210 $0.10 $0.46 2.81% 0.01%

A 0.210 $0.10 $0.46 0.87% 0.01%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.15.3 Steering Column Subsystem

F.15.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview 

Table F.15-11 shows the Steering Column Assembly sub-subsystem included in the 

Steering Column subsystem, contributing 5.083 kg mass.

Table F.15-11: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Steering Column Subsystem
Page 711

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

11 04 00 Steering Column Subsystem

11 04 01 Steering Column Assembly 5.083

Total Subsystem Mass = 5.083

Total System Mass = 24.227

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 20.98%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.30%

Description

F.15.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

A steering column performs the following secondary functions: Energy dissipation 

management in the event of frontal collision. The column also provides a mounting 

surface for the multi-function switch, column lock, column wiring, column shrouds, 

transmission gear selector, gauges or other instruments as well as the electro motor and 

gear units, height and/or length adjustments.

Steering columns may contain universal joints, which may be part of the collapsible 

steering column design, to allow the column to deviate somewhat from a straight line.

Image F.15-3and Image F.15-4 are the Toyota Venza steering shaft.

Image F.15-3 (Left): Toyota Venza Steering Shaft

Image F.15-4 (Right): Toyota Venza Steering Shaft

(Source: FEV Photo)

F.15.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Mass-reduction industry trends include using aluminum or magnesium casting to replace 

the steel shaft. Another is a grommet “only” design in which the steering column goes 

through the fire wall.
Page 712

F.15.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.15-12 shows the weight deductions taken from the Steering Column Assembly 

sub-subsystem.

Table F.15-12: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Steering Column 

subsystem

F.15.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Weight reductions used for the Steering Column subsystem are listed in Table F.15-13.

Table F.15-13: Mass-reduction ideas selected for the Steering Column subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Lower Cover

Change Firewall Steering

Boot (3 Piece) Design to 1

Piece Grommet Design

5 to 10% Mass

Reduction

Eliminate stamped steel retainer ring, 3

bolts, 3 weld nuts on BIW

Intermediate Shaft Replace Yoke Forgings with

Stamped Weld

15 to 20% Mass

Reduction Engineering needed to verify

Intermediate Shaft Change Forgings to Die

Cast Aluminum

30 to 40% Mass

Reduction Less material and manufacturing cost

Intermediate Shaft

Replace Forged Couplers

with Flexible Stanly

TW241F10 50%-GR PA4/6

20 to 25% Mass

Reduction Engineering needed to verify

Steering Adjustment

Lever MuCell®

5 to 10% Mass

Reduction Part is too small
Page 713

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas 

Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

11 04 00 Steering Column Subsystem

11 04 01 Steering Column Assembly

Change Firewall Steering 

Boot (3 Piece) Design to 1 

Piece Grommet Design

Change Intermediate Shaft 

Steel Forgings to Die Cast 

Aluminum

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

F.15.4 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

Table F.15-14 shows the total weight reduction for the Steering Column Assembly subsubsystem.

Changing the intermediate shaft from a forged steel part to a die cast aluminum shaft 

allowed for fewer operations and no assembly/welding of the yoke to the shaft. Less 

material was also required to move from steel to aluminum, even though aluminum is 

more expensive. The mass reduction for the female intermediate shaft was .442kg and a 

cost save of $4.04 and the male intermediate shaft mass savings was .635 and a cost save 

of $5.69 for a total intermediate shaft mass savings of 1.076kg and a cost save of $9.73.

Changing the fire wall boot design for the intermediate shaft also reduced mass with a 

cost save. The original design was to have a rubber boot on held onto the engine side of 

the fire wall by a metal ring with 3 nuts and 3 bolts. Using a grommet design with .03kg 

of added material to allow it to fit around the fire wall cut out opening allowed us remove 

the steel ring and the 3 nuts and 3 bolts to be eliminated. This resulted in a mass savings 

of .072kg and a cost savings of $.67

The overall subsystem mass savings was 1.148kg and a cost savings of $10.40.

Table F.15-14: Sub-subsystem mass-reduction and cost impact for the Steering Column subsystem
Page 714

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Sub-Subs./ 

Sub-Subs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

1711

11 04 00 Steering Column Subsystem

11 04 01 Steering Column Assembly A 1.148 $10.39 $9.05 22.58% 0.07%

A 1.148 $10.39 $9.05 4.74% 0.07%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.15.5 Steering Column Switches Subsystem

F.15.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview 

As displayed in Table F.15-15, the Steering Column Switches subsystem includes the 

Steering Column and Shroud-Mounted Switches and Clockspring sub-subsystem and the

Steering Column Control Module and Sensors sub-subsystem.

Table F.15-15: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Steering Column Switches Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

11 05 00 Steering Column Switches Subsystem

11 05 01 Steering Col. Shroud/Switches & Clockspring 0.554

11 05 02 Steering Column Control Module and Sensors 0.000

Total Subsystem Mass = 0.554

Total System Mass = 24.227

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 2.29%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.03%

Description
Page 715

F.15.5.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza’s clockspring is a special rotary electrical connector that allows a 

vehicle's steering wheel to turn while still making an electrical connection between the 

steering wheel airbag and/or the vehicle's horn and other devices. The clockspring is 

located between the steering wheel and the steering column.

Clocksprings generally consist of a flat multicore-conductor cable wound in a spiral shape 

similar to a clock spring (hence the name). The name, however, is also given to devices 

fulfilling the same function but use spring-loaded brushes contacting concentric slip 

rings.

F.15.5.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

There are no mass-reduction trends for the clockspring or the multifunction stalk.

F.15.5.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

No weight reduction concepts were able for consideration in the Steering Column 

Switches subsystem (see Table F.15-16).

Table F.15-16: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Steering Column 

Switches subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Angle Transmitter MuCell®

2 to 5% Mass 

Reduction

Not able to do due to transmitter is part of 

clock spring

Ignition Switch Assy MuCell®

2 to 5% Mass 

Reduction

Not able to do due to being part of the 

dash

Ignition Switch Assy Replace with Keyless Go NA Already done

F.15.5.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

No mass-reductions ideas were chosen for the Steering Column Switches subsystem.
Page 716

F.15.6 Steering Wheel Subsystem

F.15.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview 

Table F.15-17 shows that Steering Wheel subsystem includes the Steering Wheel, 

Steering Wheel Mounted Switches, Steering Wheel Air Bag, Steering Wheel Trim subsubsystems.

Table F.15-17: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Steering Wheel Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

11 06 00 Steering Wheel Subsystem

11 06 01 Steering Wheel 2.000

11 06 02 Steering Wheel Mounted Switches 0.182

11 06 03 Steering Wheel Airbag ((Part of Safty System)) 0.000

11 06 04 Steering Wheel Trim 0.106

Total Subsystem Mass = 2.288

Total System Mass = 24.227

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 9.45%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.13%

Description

F.15.6.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Venza steering wheel is a die cast magnesium rim with polyurethane over molding. 

In addition, the steering wheel has the audio system, telephone and voice control included 

as part of the steering wheel. Image F.15-5 and Image F.15-6 show the Toyota Venza 

steering wheel and the trim cover, respectively.
Page 717

Image F.15-5 (Left): Toyota Venza Steering Wheel

Image F.15-6 (Right): Steering Wheel Trim Cover

(Source: FEV Photo)

F.15.6.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Industry trends for steering wheels have been to die cast a lightweight material such as 

magnesium or aluminum and over mold polyurethane for the grip. The steering wheel 

grip can also be made of wood, carbon fiber, leather, or cloth. For high-end vehicles, 

emblems made out of wood, plastic, and aluminum can be added. Steering-mounted 

switches and heated grips are options sometimes added. The automotive system company 

Takata, in conjunction with plastics supplier Sabic, has developed a steering wheel out of 

a Lexan copolymer resin. This steering wheel has passed all OEM testing and will soon 

be added into a production vehicle. The Lexan steering wheel can save over 20% 

depending on the design and application. Image F.15-7 shows options that can be added 

to the steering wheel, such as elements for a heated steering wheel and that material such 

as wood or carbon can be made into steering wheels.

Image F.15-7: Heating elements Wood & Carbon

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Figure F.15-1 shows the cross-section view of a steering wheel.
Page 718

Rim Grip

Decorative Parts Spokes

Switches Heating system

Frame

Figure F.15-1: Steering Wheel Cross-Section View

Image Courtesy of Takata website (http://www.takata.com/en/products/steeringwheel.html)

F.15.6.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.15-18shows the ideas that were considered for weight reductions in the Steering 

Wheel subsystem. 

Table F.15-18: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Steering Wheel 

subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Rear Trim Cover Use Polyone®

10% Mass 

Reduction Manufacturing and Material savings

Steering Wheel Make out of Carbon Fiber 15 to 20% Mass 

Reduction High material and processing cost

Steering Wheel Make out of Die Cast 

Aluminum

10 to 15% Mass 

Reduction

Current steering wheel is made of 

Magnesium and this would add weight

Steering Wheel Make out of Lexan 20 to 25% Mass 

Reduction Material and process save

F.15.6.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.15-19 shows the weight reductions idea used for the Steering Wheel subsystem. 
Page 719

Table F.15-19: Mass-reduction ideas selected for the Steering Wheel subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas 

Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

11 06 00 Steering Wheel Subsystem

11 06 01 Steering Wheel

Replace Steering Wheel 

with Lexan Composite 

Wheel

11 06 04 Steering Wheel PolyOne® Trim Cover

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

F.15.6.6 Reduction & Cost Impact

Table F.15-20 shows the weight and cost reductions per sub-subsystem of the Steering 

Wheel subsystem.

Changing the steering wheel from a typical die cast aluminum over molded with 

Polyurethane Rubber to a new lexan composite steering wheel reduced the mass by 20% 

or .326kg with the lexan plastic as a new blend of plastic the cost to manufacture it is 

high, so the savings that would normally been seen with reducing the amount of process 

and material weight is off set to some degree by the cost of the lexan material. The cost 

reduction is $.27

The steering wheel rear trim covers mass was also reduced by 10% using the PolyOne 

CFA® foaming process for injection molding. The mass savings was.011kg and a cost 

savings of $.04 To see more about the MuCell®or PolyOne® process’s reference section 

F.4B.1 Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem

The combined changes amounted to a total mass save of .336kg and a cost savings of 

$.32.

Table F.15-20: Sub-subsystem mass-reduction and cost impact for Steering Wheel subsystem.
Page 720

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Sub-Subs./ 

Sub-Subs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

1711

11 06 00 Steering Wheel Subsystem

11 06 01 Steering Wheel A 0.326 $0.27 $0.84 14.23% 0.02%

11 06 02 Steering Wheel Mounted Switches 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

11 06 03 Steering Wheel Airbag 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

11 06 04 Steering Wheel Trim A 0.011 $0.04 $4.04 0.46% 0.00%

A 0.336 $0.32 $0.94 1.39% 0.02%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.16 Climate Control System

The breakdown of the Climate Control system into its four subsystems is displayed in

Table F.16-1. As shown, the Air Handling/Body Ventilation subsystem contributes the 

majority of the mass. This is largely due to the Main HVAC Unit, which resides in that 

subsystem. The Main HVAC Unit includes the blower and all passages and door flaps 

that control the speed, temperature, and location of the air as it is distributed throughout 

the vehicle’s cabin. It also houses two aluminum heat exchangers (the Heater Core and 

the Evaporator).

Table F.16-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for the Climate Control System
Page 721

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

System & 

Subsystem 

Mass

"kg"

12 00 00 Climate Control System

12 01 00 Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem 12.813

12 02 00 Heating/Defrosting Subsystem 1.033

12 03 00 Refrigeration/Air Conditioning Subsystem 1.331

12 04 00 Controls Subsystem 0.485

Total System Mass = 15.662

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.92%

Description

Table F.16-2 shows a total of 2.436 kg was reduced from the Climate Control system, 

accompanied by a cost savings of $9.34. The Air Handling/Body Ventilation subsystem 

contributed most significantly from a weight savings perspective. There were no mass 

reduction ideas applied to the Refrigeration/Air Conditioning subsystem.

Lotus Engineering applied MuCell® extensively throughout the Climate Control system 

in their study. This analysis included the use of MuCell®, PolyOne’s Chemical Foaming 

Agents, and Zotefoams’ Azote® foam. FEV and Lotus applied mass-reduction to a lot of 

similar components in the Climate Control system.

Table F.16-2: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Climate Control System

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

Subsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

12 00 00 Climate Control System

12 01 00 Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem A 2.034 $7.27 $3.58 15.88% 0.12%

12 02 00 Heating/Defrosting Subsystem A 0.393 $2.03 $5.16 38.03% 0.02%

12 03 00 Refrigeration/Air Conditioning Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

12 04 00 Controls Subsystem A 0.009 $0.04 $4.21 1.84% 0.00%

A 2.436 $9.34 $3.83 15.55% 0.14%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

Description
Page 722

F.16.1 Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem

F.16.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview

The mass breakdown of the Air Handling/Body Ventilation subsystem is shown in Table 

F.16-3. The largest mass contributor, not only for this subsystem, but for the entire 

Climate Control system, is the HVAC Main Unit. Weighing approximately 10 kg, the 

HVAC Main Unit includes the Heater Core and the Evaporator as well as all flaps and 

motor/gearboxes to control where the air is distributed.

Table F.16-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Air Handling/Body Ventilation 

Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

12 01 00 Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem

12 01 02 Air Distribution Duct Components (Duct Manifolds) 1.855

12 01 03 Body Air Outlets (Dash Vents) 0.906

12 01 04 HVAC Main Unit: Air Distribution Box/ Heater Core & Evaporator 10.052

Total Subsystem Mass = 12.813

Total System Mass = 15.662

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 81.81%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.75%

Description

F.16.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Venza contains high-density polyethylene (HDPE) blow-molded air duct 

components. This is the most common material and manufacturing technique for these 

types of parts. The Venza’s Main Air Duct Manifold is shown in Image F.16-1. Floor air 

ducts that distribute air from the Main HVAC Unit to the rear passenger area are shown in

Image F.16-2. 
Page 723

Image F.16-1: Toyota Venza Main Air Duct Manifold

(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)

Image F.16-2: View of Toyota Venza’s stripped-down interior (Front Passenger Side), showing 

Floor Distribution Ducts

(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)

The HVAC Main Unit was bolted to the Cross-Car Beam under the Instrument Panel in 

the Venza (Image F.16-3). The assembly is shown out of the vehicle in Image F.16-4. 

This module is the heart of the Climate Control system. It is the primary output controlled 

by the user when the HVAC controls are input on the Instrument Panel. The HVAC Main 

Unit connects to the A/C tubes in the engine compartment, which run through the A/C 

compressor and through the condenser heat exchanger (mounted flush with the engine’s 

radiator). The refrigerant then travels through tubing and enters the expansion valve, 

Floor Distribution Ducts
Page 724

which is contained within the HVAC main unit along with the evaporator. Likewise, it 

connects to the radiator system to bring warm fluid into the heater core heat exchanger 

when the heat is being used. The air is forced through the ducts by the blower motor, 

which is housed in the HVAC main unit. A series of ducts and flaps controlled by the 

user’s inputs allow the air to pass to the appropriate compartments. This HVAC main unit 

assembly contains mostly talc-filled polypropylene parts. There are numerous electric 

motors with gear boxes as well in the main unit to control vent flaps and direct air flow. 

The evaporator and the heater core heat exchangers are constructed of aluminum.

Image F.16-3: Toyota Venza Instrument Panel with Interior Trim Removed

(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)

HVAC Main Unit 

assembled to Cross-Car 

Beam
Page 725

 

Image F.16-4: Toyota Venza HVAC Main Unit

(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)

F.16.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Zotefoams, Inc. is a UK-based company that uses a unique manufacturing process to 

reduce the mass of plastics, essentially converting them into a foam-like substance. This 

material has found use in, among other applications, climate control air ducts. Zotefoams’ 

material is extremely lightweight and all their foams are cross-linked. Depending on the 

grade, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) Zotefoam can have a density between 0.03 to 

0.115 g/cm3. The density of regular HDPE is 0.95 g/cm3. If the volume of a component is 

constant and the material is changed from standard HDPE to a Zotefoams’ grade, a 

weight reduction of 88% to 97% is possible based on the densities. In reality, the volume 

of the part increases some, decreasing the actual weight reduction to around 80%, which 

is still quite substantial.

The process starts with an extruded sheet of polyethylene. The extrusion step is shown in 

illustration (a) of Figure F.16-1. Next, in illustration (b), the extruded slabs are put into a 

high-pressure autoclave and impregnated with nitrogen in a high-temperature, highpressure environment. In the final step, the nitrogen is allowed to expand in a lowpressure autoclave, picture (c). When the slabs come out they are a foam-like substance.

(a) Extrusion
Page 726

(b) Nitrogen saturation in high pressure autoclave.

(c) Nitrogen expansion in low pressure autoclave.

Figure F.16-1: Zotefoams Manufacturing Process

(Source: Zotefoams http://zotefoams.com/pages/US/manufacturing-process.asp)

Once the foam slabs are produced, they can be manufactured into useable components. In 

the case of the HVAC ducts, twin sheet molding is used. This process uses heat and air 

pressure to force two separate sheets of foam to either side of a mold thereby forming 

them to the desired shape. The edges of the sheets are then welded together resulting in a 

one-piece duct.

An example of an air duct manifold manufactured from Zotefoams’ Azote® is shown in

Image F.16-5. A side-by-side comparison of the Zotefoams’ duct with the baseline Venza 

duct is shown in Image F.16-6. This illustrated similarity provides a pre-validation of 

feasibly applying such a material to the Air Duct Manifold of the Toyota Venza.
Page 727

(a) Close-up View of Zotefoams Duct

(b) Zotefoams Front Air Duct Manifold

Image F.16-5: Air Duct Manifold manufactured from a Zotefoams’ foam

(Source: Part Courtesy of Zotefoams, Inc.; FEV, Inc. photo)

(a) Zotefoams Duct
Page 728

(b) Toyota Venza Duct

Image F.16-6: Comparison of Air Duct Manifolds

(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Zotefoams currently has products in high-volume production in the automotive industry 

for exterior wing mirror gaskets, but not for HVAC parts. Outside of the automotive 

industry, however, all of the Environmental Control systems ducting on Boeing’s 787 

Dreamliner® are made from Zotefoams’ material.

WEMAC style vents (Image F.16-7) are an option for automotive HVAC vents. 

Currently used in airplanes, WEMAC vents allow for more user control of airflow 

direction and speed while providing simplified design and a reduced number of assembly 

components. Since there are fewer parts, there is a possibility for weight reduction as well 

as a potential cost savings.

 

Image F.16-7: Examples of WEMAC Vent Styles

(Source: Chief Aircraft http://www.chiefaircraft.com/aircraft/windshields-vents/air-vents.html)

General Motors’ Cadillac Ciel concept car integrates the dash vents behind a portion of 

the instrument panel (Image F.16-8). This is not yet in production and it is not clear as to 
Page 729

whether this feature is for aesthetics, mass reduction, or both. It may, however, pose some 

mass savings depending on what parts are needed to control airflow direction and permit 

user control.

Image F.16-8: Cadillac Ciel Concept Car Interior with Air Duct Vents Integrated Behind IP

(Source: Auto Style Corner http://autostylecorner.blogspot.com/2011/10/2011-cadillac-ciel-concept-design.html)

F.16.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.16-4 shows the mass reduction ideas considered for the Air Handling/Body 

Ventilation subsystem. Industry trends mentioned in the previous section were all 

considered. In addition, Trexel’s MuCell® process and PolyOne’s Chemical Foaming 

Agents are listed as they could be applied to many of the plastic components. For more 

information on these processes, reference Section F.5.1.

Table F.16-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Air 

Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem
Page 730

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

HVAC Ducts Zotefoams Azote® Foam 50-80% mass 

reduction

Moderate cost or cost save depending on 

application, currently used on ducting in 

Boeing 787 Dreamliner®

HVAC Main Unit 

Housings & Flaps MuCell® 10% mass reduction Low cost, MuCell® used in high volume production by Ford

Dash Vent Covers PolyOne CFA 10-15% mass 

reduction

Low cost, CFA for PP currently under test 

for use in high volume production 

vehicles

Dash Vents Replace with WEMAC 

vents used in airplanes

0-10% mass 

reduction Low cost, used in production for aircrafts

Dash Vents

Eliminate air vents and 

integrate behind instrument 

panel and gauges

0-20% mass 

reduction

Low cost, on Cadillac Ciel (concept car) 

not currently in production

F.16.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The mass reduction ideas applied to the Climate Control system within the Air 

Handling/Body Ventilation subsystem are shown in Table F.16-5. Sub-subsystems that 

did not have any mass-reduction ideas are denoted by an “n/a” designation. Trexel’s 

MuCell® technology and PolyOne’s CFAs were applied to many plastic components, 

mainly in the HVAC Main Unit. Zotefoams’ Azote® was used for the air distribution 

ducts.

Table F.16-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Air Handling/Body 

Ventilation Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

12 01 00 Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem

12 01 02 Air Distribution Duct Components 

(Duct Manifolds)

Zotefoams Azote® material to replace blow-molded HDPE 

ducts.

12 01 03 Body Air Outlets (Dash Vents) PolyOne CFA on Class A parts, MuCell® on non-Class A 

parts, and Zotefoams Azote® on ducts.

12 01 04 HVAC Main Unit: Air Distribution Box/ 

Heater Core & Evaporator MuCell® applied to applicable housings and flaps.

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Page 731

F.16.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Applying Azote® to the ducts in the Air Distribution Duct Components sub-subsystem 

yielded the greatest mass reduction (1.454 kg), as shown in the first line of Table F.16-6. 

A weight reduction of 80% is applied to these ducts as that is the realistic guideline 

provided by Zotefoams. The cost was significantly decreased, resulting in a savings of 

$6.45 for all of the parts in the sub-subsystem. The baseline HDPE parts were blowmolded, which is an expensive process. The twin sheet molding machinery used for the 

Azote® parts is much less expensive than blow-molding equipment. Even though Azote® 

material is more expensive than standard HDPE, this increase in material cost did not 

compare to the drastic reduction in machine burden. The overall manufacturing cost was 

therefore lower. The reason that Zotefoams is not currently used in production for 

automotive HVAC ducts, even though it is lighter and less expensive, is because it is still 

relatively new to the industry. There is prevailing criteria from the past that is still 

imposed by OEMs on new materials like Zotefoams’. To date, hesitancy on the part of the 

manufacturer’s design centers has limited the opportunity for entry, let alone 

consideration.

There were two smaller ducts in the Body Air Outlets sub-subsystem that are injectionmolded parts. These parts were converted to Azote® for the redesign, however there is a 

cost increase for this sub-subsystem because injection molding, contrary to blow 

molding, is an inexpensive process and was even more inexpensive than the twin sheet 

forming used for the Azote® duct. 

MuCell® and PolyOne’s CFAs account for the rest of the weight savings. These are 

applied to the HVAC Main Unit’s plastic components as well as the Dash Vents, totaling 

a mass reduction of 0.581 kg. For these components, MuCell® and CFAs saved money. 

The cost of MuCell® in this study includes licensing fees. None of the costs include 

tooling. Overall, the Air Handling/Body Ventilation subsystem saved $7.27. 

Table F.16-6: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem
Page 732

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

12 01 00 Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem

12 01 02 Air Distribution Duct Components (Duct 

Manifolds) A 1.454 $6.45 $4.43 78.35% 0.08%

12 01 03 Body Air Outlets (Dash Vents) X 0.103 -$0.62 -$6.02 11.36% 0.01%

12 01 04 HVAC Main Unit: Air Distribution Box/ Heater 

Core & Evaporator A 0.478 $1.45 $3.03 4.75% 0.03%

A 2.034 $7.27 $3.58 15.88% 0.12%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.16.2 Heating/Defrosting Subsystem

F.16.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview

The Heating/Defrosting subsystem includes the Defroster Ducts (Front 

Window/Windshield Defrosting sub-subsystem) and Heater Hoses (Supplementary Heat 

Source sub-subsystem). This subsystem only contributes 6.59% of the Climate Control 

system’s total mass, as seen in Table F.16-7.

Table F.16-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Heating/Defrosting Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

12 02 00 Heating/Defrosting Subsystem

12 02 01 Front Window/Windshield Defrosting 0.510

12 02 07 Supplementary Heat Source 0.523

Total Subsystem Mass = 1.033

Total System Mass = 15.662

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 6.59%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.06%

Description
Page 733

F.16.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Defroster Duct assembly is shown in Image F.16-9. It is made up of four parts. The 

two side ducts are blow-molded HDPE. The two parts that make up the center manifold 

are an injection-molded blend of PP and PE. The assembly is snapped together (no 

fasteners are required).

Image F.16-9: Toyota Venza’s Defroster Duct Assembly Including Two Center Manifolds and Two 

Side Ducts

(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)

F.16.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Zotefoams’ Azote® material, as described in Section F.16.1.3, is also applicable to this 

subsystem, particularly the Defroster Duct Assembly. MuCell® and PolyOne’s CFAs are 

also industry trends that could be applied to reduce the mass of this subsystem, however, 

the baseline HDPE blow-molded part is by far what is most common in the industry 

currently.

F.16.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Mass reduction ideas considered are shown in Table F.16-8. The four-component 

assembly shown in Image F.16-8 could potentially be combined into one piece and made 

out of a twin sheet forming process using Azote®.

Table F.16-8: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the 

Heating/Defrosting Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Defroster Ducts

Merge into one part and 

use Zotefoams Azote® 

Foam

50-80% mass 

reduction

Moderate cost or cost save depending on 

application, currently used on ducting in 

Boeing 787 Dreamliner®
Page 734

F.16.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Zotefoams’ Azote® was chosen for the Heating/Defrosting subsystem (Image F.16-9). It 

was merged into one piece.

Table F.16-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Heating/Defrosting 

Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

12 02 00 Heating/Defrosting Subsystem

12 02 01 Front Window/Windshield Defrosting Four-piece assembly merged into one piece using Zotefoams 

Azote® material.

12 02 07 Supplementary Heat Source n/a

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

F.16.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

The results of the mass reduction for the Heating/Defrosting subsystem are shown in

Table F.16-10. As seen, 0.393 kg was saved at a cost decrease of $2.03. The two side 

ducts were blow-molded, so money was saved going to the twin sheet forming process; 

however, some money was also spent converting the two injection molding pieces to 

Azote® using twin sheet forming. These parts would still be supplied to the OEM and 

while no tooling costs were included in this analysis, the OEM would still provide the 

tooling as is the case with most OEM-supplier relationships.

Table F.16-10: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Heating/Defrosting Subsystem
Page 735

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

12 02 00 Heating/Defrosting Subsystem

12 02 01 Front Window/Windshield Defrosting A 0.393 $2.03 $5.16 76.99% 0.02%

12 02 07 Supplementary Heat Source 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

A 0.393 $2.03 $5.16 38.03% 0.02%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.16.3 Controls Subsystem

F.16.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview

The breakdown of the Controls subsystem is shown in Table F.16-11 . The Mechanical 

Control Head sub-subsystem includes the user controls for the HVAC and is mounted in 

the instrument panel. The Electronic Climate Control Unit sub-subsystem includes a 

circuit board with a harness connector enclosed in a housing. Overall, the Controls 

subsystem only accounts for approximately 3% of the system mass.

Table F.16-11: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Controls Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

12 04 00 Controls Subsystem

12 04 02 Mechanical Control Head 0.326

12 04 03 Electronic Climate Control Unit 0.159

Total Subsystem Mass = 0.485

Total System Mass = 15.662

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 3.09%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.03%

Description
Page 736

F.16.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The climate control operating switches, which is the primary assembly in the Mechanical 

Control Head sub-subsystem is shown in Image F.16-10.

Image F.16-10: Toyota Venza HVAC User Controls

(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)

F.16.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

An industry trend concerning the HVAC user controls is to integrate them into a touch 

screen. Touch screens are currently the main interface in most luxury cars and are making 

their way into non-luxury cars as well. Touch screens can be costly, however, in both 

development and hardware costs.

F.16.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

This Electronic Unit (not pictured) is a circuit board enclosed in a plastic (ABS) housing. 

It is possible to apply MuCell® to this housing, as shown for consideration in Table 

F.16-12. Also, integration of the HVAC user controls into a touch screen was considered.

Table F.16-12: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Controls 

Subsystem
Page 737

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Climate Control Unit 

Housing MuCell® 10% mass reduction Low cost, MuCell® used in high volume production by Ford

HVAC User Controls Integrate into touch screen 10% mass reduction High cost, in production on many luxury 

cars

F.16.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

MuCell® was selected to reduce the weight of the Climate Control Unit’s Housing 

(Table F.16-13). Integrating the HVAC user controls into a touch screen was not applied 

in this analysis as the weight savings was not significant enough to overcome the cost 

increase.

Table F.16-13: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Controls Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

12 04 00 Controls Subsystem

12 04 02 Mechanical Control Head n/a

12 04 03 Electronic Climate Control Unit MuCell® applied to Control Unit Housing.

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

F.16.3.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

The results of lightweighting the Electronic Climate Control Unit Housing are shown in

Table F.16-14. MuCell was the only idea applied and it resulted in a $0.04 cost save.
Page 738

Table F.16-14: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Controls Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

12 04 00 Controls Subsystem

12 04 02 Mechanical Control Head 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

12 04 03 Electronic Climate Control Unit A 0.009 $0.04 $4.21 5.62% 0.00%

A 0.009 $0.04 $4.21 1.84% 0.00%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.17 Info, Gage & Warning Device Systems

The Info, Gage & Warning Device systems typically includes five subsystems: instrument 

cluster, horn, clock/timekeeping, parking or reversing aid, and non-automotive driver 

information subsystems. The Toyota Venza contains mass in two of these subsystems –

the instrument cluster and horn subsystems, as seen in Table F.17-1. The 

clock/timekeeping components were included in the In-Vehicle Entertainment system. 

From the data shown, the instrument cluster subsystem is the biggest weight contributor 

in this system. The Toyota Venza has a light weight horn subsystem for which there is 

currently no better option in the market that can be applied to the vehicle (note: the horn 

subsystem includes the horn mechanism itself and not the components used to activate the 

horn in the steering wheel, which are in the Occupant Restraining Device subsystem of 

the Body system). Therefore, the weight reduction analysis will focus on the instrument 

cluster subsystem.

Table F.17-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Info, Gage & Warning Device System
Page 739

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

System & 

Subsystem 

Mass

"kg"

13 00 00 Info, Gage & Warning Device System

13 01 00 Instrument Cluster Subsystem 1.399

13 06 00 Horn Subsystem 0.500

13 07 00 Clock/Timekeeping Subsystem n/a

13 13 00 Parking or Reversing Aid Subsystem n/a

13 21 00 Non-Automotive Driver Information Subsystem n/a

Total System Mass = 1.899

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.11%

Description

As Table F.17-2 shows, weight reduction ideas were applied to the instrument cluster 

subsystem. The ideas reduced the system weight by 0.076kg which is a 4% system mass 

reduction. 

Table F.17-2: Preliminary Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Info, Gage & Warning Device 

System

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

Subsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

13 00 00 Info, Gage & Warning Device System

13 01 00 Instrument Cluster Subsystem A 0.076 $0.19 $2.45 5.44% 0.004%

13 06 00 Horn Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.000%

13 07 00 Clock/Timekeeping Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.000%

13 13 00 Parking or Reversing Aid Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.000%

13 21 00 Non-Automotive Driver Information Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.000%

A 0.076 $0.19 $2.45 4.01% 0.004%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

Description
Page 740

F.17.1 Instrument Cluster Subsystem

F.17.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview

The two sub-subsystems within the Instrument Cluster subsystem are pictured in Image 

F.17-1 and Image F.17-2. They are the driver information center and the IP cluster.

Image F.17-1 (Left): Driver Information Center

Image F.17-2 (Right): IP Cluster

(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)

As seen in Table F.17-3, the most significant contributor to the mass of the Instrument 

Cluster subsystem is the IP cluster. This includes the cluster lense, cluster mask assembly, 

and the cluster rear housing assembly. 

Table F.17-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Instrument Cluster Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

13 01 00 Instrument Cluster Subsystem

13 01 01 Driver Information Center 0.447

13 01 02 IP Cluster 0.952

Total Subsystem Mass = 1.399

Total System Mass = 1.899

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 73.67%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.08%

Description
Page 741

F.17.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The driver information center (DIC) is approximately 335mm long, 90mm wide, and 

120mm in height. The IP cluster also follows the industry convention. It is approximately 

360mm long, 180 mm wide, and 140mm in height. Both sub-subsystems contain a lense, 

lense mask, rear housing, circuit board and display assembly. The majority of the material 

is PP (polypropylene). The lenses are made of PMMA. 

F.17.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

The industry is beginning to use advanced technology for plastic material weight savings. 

A few pioneers are Trexel and PolyOne. Trexel’s MuCell® process and PolyOne’s 

Chemical Foaming Agents (CFAs) are detailed further in Section F.4B.1.2.

F.17.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Comparing the options in the industry, both MuCell® and PolyOne’s CFAs were 

considered in the mass reduction brainstorming process as Table F.17-4 shows. In the 

Lotus report, they suggested MuCell® as the weight reduction idea for instrument cluster 

subsystem.

Table F.17-4: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Instrument Cluster 

Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Instrument Cluster 

Subsystem MuCell® 10-20% weight save Low cost, MuCell® used in high volume production by Ford

Instrument Cluster 

Subsystem PolyOne CFA 10-15% weight save

Low cost, CFA for PP currently under test 

for use in high volume production 

vehicles

F.17.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

MuCell® was selected for cost analysis because all eligible parts in this subsystem had 

non-Class A surfaces. That is, MuCell® was applied to parts that the customer cannot 

see. Components such as the driver information center screen or info. plate were not 

applicable for MuCell®. There were no eligible Class A surface finish parts for 

PolyOne’s CFAs to be applied. Also, MuCell® is best applied to plastic parts that have a 

thickness of 2mm or above. The ideas were applied to the components shown in Table 

F.17-5. Each of these components is pictured in Image F.17-3 through Image F.17-8.
Page 742

Table F.17-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Info Instrument Cluster Subsystem 

Analysis

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas 

Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

13 00 00 Info, Gage & Warning Device System

13 01 01 Circuit Board Support MuCell® 

13 01 01 DIC Housing MuCell® 

13 01 01 DIC Lense Mask MuCell® 

13 01 02 Cluster Rear Housing MuCell® 

13 01 02 Display Housing MuCell® 

13 01 02 Cluster Mask Assy MuCell® 

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

Image F.17-3 (Left): Circuit Board Support

Image F.17-4 (Right): DIC Housing

(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)

 Image F.17-5 (Left): DIC Lense Mask
Page 743

Image F.17-6 (Right): Cluster Rear Housing

(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)

Image F.17-7 (Left): Display Housing

Image F.17-8 (Right): Cluster Mask Assembly

(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)

F.17.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

Table F.17-6 shows a summary of the overall cost impact driven by the weight reduction 

applied to the instrument cluster subsystem. The 0.076kg saved is 100% a result of the 

MuCell® applied to the six parts listed in Table F.13-5. Applying MuCell® to these 

components resulted in a cost savings of $0.19.

Table F.17-6: Calculated Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Results for Instrument 

Cluster Subsystem
Page 744

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

13 01 00 Instrument Cluster Subsystem

13 01 01 Driver Information Center A 0.027 $0.15 $5.32 6.10% 0.002%

13 01 02 IP Cluster A 0.049 $0.04 $0.84 5.13% 0.003%

A 0.076 $0.19 $2.45 15.21% 0.004%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.18 In-Vehicle Entertainment System

Toyota Venza has a baseline entertainment system with a basic radio, CD, and MP3 input 

connection with a sum mass of 4.586 kg (Table F.18-1).
Page 745

Table F.18-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for In-Vehicle Entertainment System

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

System & 

Subsystem 

Mass

"kg"

15 00 00 In-Vehicle Entertainment System

15 01 00 Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem 3.145

15 02 00 Antenna Subsystem 0.159

15 03 00 Speaker Subsystem 1.281

Total System Mass = 4.586

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.27%

Description

Image F.18-1:Toyota Venza Radio

(Source: FEV photo)

The days of listening to radio, CD players, or even just singing out loud for entertainment 

in the car are long gone. Today’s auto buyers are moving into high-tech entertainment 

with top trends to outfit their vehicles, including satellite radio, DVDs on overhead 

screens, and even video game console hooked up in the backseat. In-vehicle computers 

and entertainment systems are just a few components of the $56 billion market for invehicle entertainment.
Page 746

Portable entertainment systems are quickly becoming a necessity for families of all sizes. 

It is not only luxury cars that are installed with premium entertainment accessories such 

as MP3 jacks, surround-sound audio, and video players with cinematic options: new fleets 

of cars and minivans are already equipped with the latest DVD player and overhead TV 

screens.

Table F.18-2 shows the areas found in which mass weight reduction is available without 

loss of functionality.

Table F.18-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body System Group

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

System/ 

Subsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

1711

15 00 00 In-Vehicle Entertainment System

15 01 00 Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem A 1.024 $1.66 $1.62 32.55% 0.06%

15 02 00 Antenna Subsystem A 0.049 $0.69 $14.17 30.82% 0.00%

15 03 00 Speaker Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

A 1.073 $2.35 $2.19 23.39% 0.06%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

Description

F.18.1 In-Vehicle Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem 

As seen in Table F.18-3, the steel case enclosures of the Radio, CD player, XM receiver, 

and Antenna components are the most significant contributors to the Receiver and Audio 

Media subsystem mass.

Table F.18-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem.
Page 747

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

15 01 00 Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem

15 01 01 Enclosures 1.206

15 01 02 Electronic Boards 1.036

15 01 03 Plastic Enclosure 0.648

15 07 00 Multimedia Interface (USB) 0.256

Total Subsystem Mass = 3.145

Total System Mass = 4.586

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 68.59%

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.18%

Description

F.18.1.1 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

Toyota's quality and interior design over the past 10 years gives other automakers 

something to consider and compete with in the marketplace. Celebrating the 10-year 

anniversary of its Prius clearly shows that the company can certainly lead the industry 

when it wants – just not so much with advanced infotainment and Smartphone 

integration. Toyota previously lagged behind its competitors’ technologies that respond to 

spoken commands, such as Ford’s SYNC and General Motors’ MyLink. Through spoken 

commands, motorists can use these systems without taking their hands off the wheel or 

their eyes off the road. Most automakers are trying to make sure that they display things 

in a safe, secure manner and that these options do not distract motorists.

Image F.18-2:Toyota Venza Radio source

(Source: FEV photo)
Page 748

EntuneTM is Toyota's next-generation infotainment system, integrating aspects of 

navigation with media and other new technology gadgets, too. Like much of its 

competition, Toyota is offering smartphone integration, hitting all the major bases with 

support for BlackBerryTM, AndroidTM, and iPhone. Users will need to download and 

install an application to their phones, which will then provide all the data their car needs. 

The car itself does not have an onboard modem or a separate data plan, so vehicle owners 

will need to pay for one.

A benefit is that the system is said to be easily upgradeable via software update, providing 

some degree of “future-proofing” – that is, trying to anticipate future developments. This 

is something, at this point, fairly rare in the infotainment business, and a rather nice thing

to provide. 

There are a variety of apps that work with EntuneTM, the biggest being BingTM, 

MovieTickets.comTM, OpenTable®, and Pandora® Internet radio. However, the standard 

apps will not be upgraded to include EntuneTM support: separate versions will be required.

This potentially means users will need two copies of Pandora installed on their phones, 

which is a decidedly unfortunate deal if a user is tight on storage.

F.18.1.2 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

In-car entertainment, sometimes referred to as ICE, is a collection of hardware devices 

installed into automobiles and other forms of transportation to provide audio or visual 

(sometimes both) entertainment and satellite navigation systems (SatNav). This includes 

playing media such as CDs, DVDs, Free view/TV, USB and/or other optional surround 

sound, or DSP systems. Also increasingly common are the incorporation of video game 

consoles into the vehicle. In-car entertainment is becoming more widely available due to 

reduced costs of devices such as LCD screen/monitors and the consumer cost of the 

converging media playable technologies: single hardware units are capable of playing 

CD, MP3, WMA, DVD. Mass weight reduction in these components is high on the design 

priority list when combining these options.

F.18.1.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.18-4 compiles the mass reduction ideas considered for the Receiver and Audio 

Media subsystem. Lotus Engineering did not apply any mass reduction ideas to the InVehicle Entertainment system. The plastic case replaces a formed sheet metal case 

assembled with screws and cooled with fans. The new plastic case achieves required EMI 

and RFI shielding by completely enclosing electronics with a mesh Faraday cage that is 

insert molded. (The Faraday cage is named for English scientist Michael Faraday, who 

invented it in 1836.) 
Page 749

For a radio, Faraday cages shield external electromagnetic radiation if the conductor is 

thick enough and the holes that create the mesh are significantly smaller than the 

radiation's wavelength. Electrical charges within the cage's conducting material will 

redistribute so as to cancel the field's effects in the cage's interior. This phenomenon is 

also employed to protect electronic equipment from lightning strikes and other 

electrostatic discharges.

Table F.18-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Receiver and 

Audio Media Subsystem

F.18.1.4 Magnetic Tooling

The cutting, folding, and the eventual insertion of the mesh into the mold requires 

innovative magnetic tooling and the use of robots to transfer the formed mesh into the 

mold.

The new plastic case provides better shielding than the previously used metal cases. There 

are lower emissions over a range of 150 Hz to 430 MHz. OEMs are seeking improved 

electromagnetic interference to avoid any internal cross talk, such as interference with 

electronic engine controls.

The system cost to assemble the radio is reduced by one-third with the new technology. 

Twenty-nine screws are completely eliminated. Use of injection molding allowed 

incorporation of design features not possible with the sheet metal case. For example, 

Delphi designed slide lock and snap lock features that allow fast snap assembly. Other 

mechanical features are also integrated into the design. Mechanical part reduction 

Component/ Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs 

and/or Benefits

Steel case enclosures replace with Aluminum 10% weight save Integrity and strength 

compromised

Steel case enclosures replace with Plastic 50% weight save Extensive engineering 

hurdles to overcome

CD Player Modual replace CD player with 

USB & AUX jack 30% weight save Low risk moderate cost increase 

Aluminum Case AssembleCarbon fiber material replacement 50% weight save Extensive engineering 

hurdles to overcome

Aluminum Case AssembleMagnesium material replacement 30% weight save Low risk moderate 

cost increase 
Page 750

includes ESD grounding clips, fasteners and main board grounding. Assembly parts 

eliminated included a separate assembly fixture and use of torque feedback screwdrivers.

As a result, the case is also more rigid, reducing rattle noises. There is also a significant 

increase in natural frequency. Natural frequency is the frequency at which a system 

naturally vibrates once it has been set into motion. Vibration testing on the new plastic 

case radio showed a 25% increase in natural frequency.

F.18.1.5 Recycled Plastic

Delphi is using reprocessed plastic to make the case. MRC Polymers of Chicago supplies 

16 percent glass-filled PC/ABS for the part, which is produced by Amity Mold of Tipp 

City, OH. The plastic comes from post industrial and post consumer sources. The 

PC/ABS blend had to be optimized to meet environmental requirements and reduce 

warping.

The design of the plastic case lowered the internal temperature. One reason for the 

improved thermal management is insulation of the heat sink from the interior of the radio. 

The cooling fan was eliminated due to the isolative properties of the plastic. As a result, 

electric current used is also reduced, improving vehicle mileage.

Other advantages include:

Weight is reduced in the structural support for the radio

Safety is improved with reduced injuries from metal cuts: protective gloves are 

not required for assembly

Condensation is eliminated during temperature cycling: dew-point temperature 

is not achieved so no moisture drops on the circuit board

Lower dust intrusion during standard testing

The Plastic Case design is ultimately going to be used across the board at Delphi. 

Wherever it is currently using sheet metal, it will instead use this technology. Its 

application is quite broad-based and can be used as a competitive advantage for all of 

their product lines.

Another Delphi innovation is how the cage is placed in a mold cavity and then held in 

position while plastic is injected at high pressures. Many specifics of the manufacturing 

technology are proprietary and covered by 29 U.S. patents pending.
Page 751

F.18.1.6 Widespread Application

Applicable to any automotive interior electronic packaging, the same advantages apply: 

part and weight reductions, integration of mechanical and electrical features, and 

improved air cooling with no loss of shielding. Delphi is also exploring non-automotive 

consumer applications.

The Delphi plastic radio case could replace a wide range of shielding approaches besides 

sheet metal cases. These include die cast metal cases, conductive coatings (paints and 

plating), board-level shielding for individual metal cases, conductive plastics, and 

conductive additives.

F.18.1.7 Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas

The mass reduction idea selected replaces a formed sheet metal case assembled with 

screws and cooled with fans. The new plastic case achieves required EMI and RFI 

shielding by completely enclosing electronics with a mesh Faraday cage that is insert 

molded. Cost benefit and mass reduction benefit a total win.

Eliminating the CD player and replacing it with ether a USB or AUX jack to allow 

interface with phones or MP3 players for prerecorded or streamed music was not selected 

at this time: there is still demand from many customers for the capability to play their 

favorite CDs.

Table F.18-5: Mass-Reduction Idea Selected for Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem Analysis

System 

Subsystem 

SubSubsystem

Description Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

15 1 00 Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem

15 01 01 Infotainment Enclosure

Replace 1018 steel farecation with Premier 

A240-HTHF molded enclosure
Page 752

F.18.1.8 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates

The greatest mass reduction came as a result of replacing steel cases with plastic on the 

Venza Infotainment system as seen in Table F.18-6. 

Image F.18-3: Delphi Ultra Light Radio source

(Source: Google images)

Table F.18-6: Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Receiver and Audio Media 

Subsystem
Page 753

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ 

Sub-Subs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

1711

01 00 Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem

01 01 Enclosures A 1.024 $1.74 $1.70 84.91% 0.06%

01 02 Electronic Boards 0.000 -$0.08 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

01 03 Plastic Enclosure 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

07 00 Multimedia Interface (USB) 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

A 1.024 $1.66 $1.62 32.55% 0.06%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

"+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

"+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.18.2 Antenna Subsystem

The Antenna subsystem is a miniature copy of the radio package, with a small steel 

enclosure, a circuit board, and the required connection to receive a signal from the 

antenna and send it on to the radio.

The Antenna enclosure, like that of the radio, is a steel construction and is another good 

opportunity for the molded plastic configuration. The simplicity of the molded component 

and the easy of assembly makes this a good conversion for this application. Table F.18-7

shows the mass of the Antenna subsystem.

Table F.18-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Antenna Subsystem.
Page 754

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

15 02 00 Antenna Subsystem

15 02 01 Infotainment Antennas and Cables 0.159

Total Subsystem Mass = 0.159

Total System Mass = 4.586

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 3.47%

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.01%

Description

The cost related to the Antenna subsystem is all related to the conversion of the enclosure 

from steel to plastics using the same material and snap fit design as the radio described 

being used by General Motors in their new model vehicles across the board. I am sure that 

we will see more utilization of this kind of material and molded construction in the future. 

Table F.18-8 will show the cost implication of using a RFI molded case in this 

subsystem.

Table F.18-8: Cost Summary by Sub-subsystem for Antenna Subsystem

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

SubSubs./ SubSubs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

1711

02 00 Antenna Subsystem

02 01 Infotainment Antennas and Cables A 0.049 $0.69 $14.17 30.82% 0.00%

A 0.049 $0.69 $14.17 30.82% 0.00%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

"+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

"+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.18.3 Speaker Subsystem

The Speaker subsystem was inspected and evaluated with similar automotive and other 

comparative sound systems in the market today. We found no mass weight or quality of 

sound advantage in trying to replace to present components.
Page 755

F.18.4 Total Mass Reduction and Cost Impact 

In a vehicle that weighs 1711 kg, the Infotainment system is a small percentage of that 

mass. With the use of today’s new, innovative materials and process methodologies that 

change the norm of assembly, however, we can improve the end result.

F.19 Lighting System

The Lighting system, broken down in Table F.19-1, is largely made up of the Venza’s 

exterior light assemblies, which are most notably, the Front Headlamp assemblies and 

Rear Tail Lamp assemblies. Four interior lighting switches are also included, but are not a 

significant mass contributor. There is no mass for the Interior Lighting subsystem as these 

components were kept with their respective interior assemblies (e.g., Instrument Panel or 

Door Trim).
Page 756

Table F.19-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for the Lighting System

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

System & 

Subsystem 

Mass

"kg"

17 00 00 Lighting System

17 01 00 Front Lighting Subsystem 6.090

17 02 00 Interior Lighting Subsystem 0.000

17 03 00 Rear Lighting Subsystem 3.827

17 05 00 Lighting Switches Subsystem 0.127

Total System Mass = 10.044

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.59%

Description

The Front Lighting subsystem was the only subsystem with weight reduction applied as 

seen in Table F.19-2, which resulted in 0.531 kg of mass saved with a cost increase of 

$0.76. The Rear Lighting subsystem did not lend itself to mass reduction ideas due to the 

configuration of the assembly. A foaming agent could not be applied to the Rear Tail 

Lamp Housings because it would reduce the aesthetic quality of the reflective coating. 

The Front Headlamp Housings did not have such a coating on the housings (since the 

Front Headlamps had separate reflector components).

Table F.19-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Lighting System
Page 757

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

Subsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

17 00 00 Lighting System

17 01 00 Front Lighting Subsystem C 0.531 -$0.76 -$1.42 8.73% 0.03%

17 02 00 Interior Lighting Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

17 03 00 Rear Lighting Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

17 05 00 Lighting Switches Subsystem 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

C 0.531 -$0.76 -$1.42 5.29% 0.03%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

Description

Lotus Engineering did not apply any mass reduction ideas to the Lighting system.

F.19.1 Front Lighting Subsystem

F.19.1.1 Subsystems Content Overview

A breakdown of the Front Lighting subsystem is shown in Table F.19-3. This subsystem 

makes up approximately 60% of the Lighting system’s mass and most of that is from the 

Headlamp Cluster Assembly sub-subsystem. This includes the Front Headlamps of the 

vehicle. The Supplemental Front Lamps subsystem includes the front Fog Lamps.

Table F.19-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Front Lighting Subsystem
Page 758

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

17 01 00 Front Lighting Subsystem

17 01 01 Headlamp Cluster Assy 5.563

17 01 04 Supplemental Front Lamps 0.527

17 01 05 Side Repeater / Marker Lamps 0.000

17 01 99 Misc. 0.000

Total Subsystem Mass = 6.090

Total System Mass = 10.044

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 60.63%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 0.36%

Description

F.19.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline System Technology

The Toyota Venza’s headlamps are relatively large since they include halogen 

incandescent lights, projector lights, and the traditional turn signal. A Venza Front 

Headlamp assembly is shown in Image F.19-1. The Front Headlamps have a 

polypropylene housing (Image F.19-2), polycarbonate lens, and reflectors made of a bulk 

molding compound (BMC) pointed out in Image F.19-3. 

Image F.19-1: Toyota Venza Front Headlamp Assembly Example

(Source: ebay http://www.ebay.com/itm/Toyota-Venza-Headlight-Head-Lamp-Halogen-RH-

/390285376072?item=390285376072&vxp=mtr)
Page 759

Image F.19-2: Toyota Venza Front Headlamp Housing

(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)

Image F.19-3: Toyota Venza Front Headlamp Housing with Inner Reflector & Project Magnifier

(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)

The Inner Reflector in Image F.19-3 reflects the light produced by the halogen bulb. 

Behind the Projector Magnifier in Image F.19-3 there is a Projector Reflector which 

reflects the light produced by the projector light. This Projector Reflector is shown by 

itself in two views in Image F.19-4.

Inner Reflector

Projector Magnifier

Headlamp Housing
Page 760

 

Image F.19-4: Toyota Venza Projector Reflector

(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)

The Front Fog Lights have a multi-piece housing made of various types of plastic, one of 

which has a chrome Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) coating for light reflectance.

F.19.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Various types of plastics are used in headlamp assemblies depending on their application 

and purpose. The reflector component helps illuminate the light output of the bulbs and is

a relatively dense plastic because of the high heat requirements it needs to maintain. Often

times, a Bulk Molding Compound (BMC) is used for the reflectors, which is capable of 

enduring the elevated temperatures. BMCs have a relatively high density compared to 

other plastics. SABIC has a product line called Ultem® for this specific application, 

which is a type of polyetherimide (PEI). These plastics are specifically developed and 

used for headlamp reflectors so they possess the necessary thermal requirements plus 

have a lower density compared to BMCs. Typical BMCs have a density of 2 g/cm3and 

Ultem® PEI has a density of approximately 1.3 g/cm3. In addition, Ultem® PEI can be 

molded in thinner wall sections. SABIC’s Ultem® material has been used in production 

and a few examples are shown in Image F.19-5.
Page 761

Image F.19-5: SABIC Ultem® Production Application Examples.

(Photo Courtesy of SABIC)

Although more expensive from a material standpoint, Ultem® saves some cost on 

processing. As shown in Figure F.19-1, when using a PEI such as Ultem®, the part can 

go directly from its injection molding step to metalizing, saving on surface preparation 

costs. The metalizing often takes place through a process called Physical Vapor 

Deposition (PVD) for headlamp reflectors.
Page 762

Figure F.19-1: Processing Comparison between BMC and Ultem® PEI

(Image Courtesy of SABIC)

Other recent industry trends with headlights concern the actual light source and output. 

Transitioning from the traditional halogen bulbs to High Intensity Discharge (HID) and 

LED lights are becoming popular choices both for visibility and for styling. These 

alternative lights, however, do not necessarily offer mass reduction. HID lights require a 

ballast, which adds weight. LEDs, although known for not emitting much heat at the light 

output, do give off considerable heat at the light source and often require additional heat 

sinks or cooling fans to keep from overheating. The addition of these cooling mechanisms 

will ultimately increase the mass of the headlamp as well.

Using LEDs can have a favorable effect on fuel economy in an indirect manner, however. 

Hewlett-Packard performed a study using LEDs for just the turn signal lamps. The study 

indicates that the alternator may be able to be down-sized due to a reduced power 

consumption since LEDs are more efficient than incandescent bulbs. Also, a lighter 

weight wiring harness may be implemented.[1]

Reducing the size of the headlamp is another option; however, doing this will require an 

increase in material elsewhere. That is, if the headlamp volume was reduced, then the 

surrounding sheet metal on the car would have to increase in volume, thus actually 

increasing the overall weight of the car as opposed to decreasing it.
Page 763

F.19.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

The mass reduction ideas considered for the Front Lighting subsystem are compiled in

Table F.19-4. Trexel’s MuCell® process is considered for use on applicable plastic 

housings along with PolyOne’s Chemical Foaming Agents, reference Section F.5.1.1 for 

more information on these technologies. In addition, the Ultem® PEI material was 

considered as discussed in the previous section. For the Rear Tail Lamp Reflectors, PEI 

was not applicable as those components were already made of a lightweight PBT plastic.

 

Table F.19-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Front Lighting 

Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

Front Headlamp 

Housing MuCell® 10% mass reduction Low cost, MuCell® used in high volume production by Ford

Front Headlamp Inner 

Reflector SABIC Ultem®

40-50% mass 

reduction

High Cost, used on Cadillac CTS, Audi 

A1, and Toyota Sienna

Front Headlamp 

Projector Reflector SABIC Ultem®

20-25% mass 

reduction

High Cost, used on Cadillac CTS, Audi 

A1, and Toyota Sienna

Headlamp Cluster 

Assembly

Use LED lights instead of 

halogen bulbs

Potential mass 

increase

Used in high volume production on 

numerous Audi and Mercedes-Benz 

models, may increase mass due to 

required heat sink or fan

F.19.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The mass reduction ideas that were selected for the Front Lighting subsystem are listed in

Table F.19-5. Ultem® PEI was used for the Front Headlamp Inner Reflectors and 

Projector Reflectors. MuCell® was applied to the Front Headlamp Housings. LEDs were 

not selected to replace the halogen bulbs do to the additional required cooling parts.

Table F.19-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Front Lighting Subsystem
Page 764

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

17 01 00 Front Lighting Subsystem

17 01 01 Headlamp Cluster Assy MuCell® applied to Headlamp Housings. SABIC's Ultem® 

replace BMC material on Front Headlamp Reflectors.

17 01 04 Supplemental Front Lamps n/a

17 01 05 Side Repeater / Marker Lamps n/a

17 01 99 Misc. n/a

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

F.19.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

The mass reductions that resulted for the Front Lighting subsystem, and thus the entire 

Lighting system itself since this was the only subsystem that had weight reduction ideas 

applied to it, are shown in Table F.19-6. Of the 0.531 kg of mass reduced from the 

subsystem, 73% is a result of using the Ultem® PEI for the reflectors and the remaining 

27% is caused by applying MuCell® to the Front Headlamp Housings. From a cost 

standpoint, the use of Ultem® PEI increased the cost differential by $1.09, but MuCell® 

decreased the cost by $0.33 resulting in the overall $0.76 cost hit.

Using Ultem® PEI more than doubled the material cost for the inner reflectors. PEI 

reduced, however, the processing cost. With the bulk molding compound, it was 

necessary to wash, base coat, and allow curing time before PVD could occur. With 

Ultem® PEI, however, the reflector can go directly from injection molding to PVD. This 

should be the only change in cost seen by the OEM (i.e., there are already manufacturing 

facilities setup who can handle the volume and there are no special licensing fees or price 

premium for this material).

Table F.19-6: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Front Lighting Subsystem.
Page 765

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost 

Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Subsys./ 

SubSubsys. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"%"

17 01 00 Front Lighting Subsystem

17 01 01 Headlamp Cluster Assy C 0.531 -$0.76 -$1.42 9.55% 0.03%

17 01 04 Supplemental Front Lamps 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

17 01 05 Side Repeater / Marker Lamps 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

17 01 99 Misc. 0.000 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00%

C 0.531 -$0.76 -$1.42 8.73% 0.03%

(Decrease) (Increase) (Increase)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

Works Cited

1. http://chemlinks.beloit.edu/BlueLight/pages/hp/an1155-2.pdf

F.20 Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System

Cable harnesses are usually designed according to geometric and electrical requirements. 

The wires are first cut to the desired length, usually using a special wire-cutting machine. 
Page 766

The wires may also be printed on by a special machine during the cutting process or later 

on a separate machine. After this, the ends of the wires are stripped to expose the metal of 

the wires, which are fitted with any required terminals and/or connector housings. The 

cables are assembled and clamped together on a special workbench or to a pin board

(according to design specification) to form the cable harness. After fitting any protective 

sleeves, conduit, the harness is either fitted directly in the vehicle or shipped. In spite of 

increasing automation, in general, cable harnesses continue to be manufactured by hand, 

and this will likely remain the case for the immediate future. This is due in part to the 

many different processes involved, which are clearly difficult to automate. Nevertheless, 

these processes can be learned relatively quickly, even without professional 

qualifications. Figure F.20-1 shows the process for manufacturing some different types 

of wire, from raw metal compounds to solid and braded wire with or without shielding.

Figure F.20-1: Production Process of Automotive Wire

The Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control system is made up of the Electrical 

Wiring and Circuit Protection subsystem. As shown in Table F.20-1, this makes up the 

total system. 
Page 767

Table F.20-1: Mass Breakdown by Subsystem for Electrical System.

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

System & 

Subsystem 

Mass

"kg"

18 00 00 Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System

18 01 00 Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem 23.944

Total System Mass = 23.944

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 1.40%

Description

F.20.1 Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem

F.20.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.20-2 shows the structure of the subsystem Electrical Wiring and Circuit 

Protection. The included sub-subsystems, Front End and Engine Compartment Wiring, 

Instrument Panel Harness, Body and Rear End Wiring, Battery Cables, Engine and 

Transmission Wiring and Seat Harness. Image F.20-1 shows an instrument panel wiring 

harness.

Image F.20-1: Instrument Panel Wiring Harness

(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
Page 768

The most significant contributor to the mass of the Electrical Wiring and Circuit 

Protection subsystem is the Front End and Engine Compartment Wiring sub-subsystem at 

7.525kg. Table F.20-2 shows the mass contribution of all included sub-subsystems.

Table F.20-2: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Electrical Wring and Circuit Protection 

Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Subsystem 

& Subsubsystem 

Mass

"kg"

18 01 00 Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem

18 01 01 Front End and Engine Compartment Wiring 7.525

18 01 02 Instrument Panel Harness 6.133

18 01 03 Body and Rear End Wiring 6.599

18 01 04 Battery Cables 0.682

18 01 05 Engine and Transmission Wiring 2.671

18 01 06 Seat Harness 0.333

Total Subsystem Mass = 23.944

Total System Mass = 23.944

Total Vehicle Mass = 1711

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System = 100.00%

Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle = 1.40%

Description

F.20.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza’s electrical systems follow an industry norm with copper wire 

contained in PVC insulation. Wire gauge sizes are optimized for current capacities.

F.20.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 

Industry trends for automotive wiring systems allow for a variety for wire and wire 

sheathing options. The wire compositions come in many combinations, annealed bare 

copper, silver tin and nickel-plated copper, copper clad steel, copper clad aluminum, 

copper clad magnesium, stranded, single core and flat cables. Reviewing today’s market 

options, each wire type is found to have its different pros and cons. For this study, cost 

and weight were the most closely examined in order to determine the final selection for 

mass weight reduction.
Page 769

Wire sheathing used since the 1970s has been mostly PVC. With new PPO and PPE 

polymers, however, insulation manufactures are making improvements in wire sheathing

cost, weight, and the recyclability. 

F.20.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

The many aspects and variety of new concepts for automotive wiring can be debated for 

hours to determine the best way forward. For this study, all the previously mentioned

concepts were reviewed and given consideration with three key areas in mind: cost, 

weight, and recycling capability. Companies such as Delphi, Sumitomo, and Leoni 

produce large amounts of automotive wiring and are moving toward providing new 

products such as copper-clad aluminum and aluminum wire. Each wiring has respective 

advantages and disadvantages relating to usage and manufacturing processes, with weight 

a hot-button issue. As this relates directly to increasing mileage, more OEMs and 

suppliers are thinking outside the box. Sumitomo has developed an aluminum wire 

harness being used in the 2011 Toyota Yaris.

Some of the ideas evaluated, but not considered, included: flexible printed circuit, 

extruded flat wire, replacing wiring troughs where applicable with BIW, replacing copper 

conductors with copper-coated aluminum (CCA) conductors, replacing stamped module 

housings with conductive plastics and/or plating for EMI, eliminating or reducing empty 

connector cavities, replacing low current and signal wires with copper magnesium 

(CuMg) alloy conductors, replacing signal leads with Brass FLRMSY conductors, and 

using a fiber optic network. The summary of mass-reduction technologies considered is 

detailed in Table F.20-3.

Table F.20-3: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Electrical Wring 

and Circuit Protection Subsystem

Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits

All Harness's PPO Coating 20 to 30% Mass 

Reduction Lower material and processing cost

All Harness's Copper Clad AluminumCCA Wire

20 to 30% Mass 

Reduction

Lower material cost and processing 

needed for connection issue

All Harness's Aluminum Wire 20 to 30% Mass 

Reduction

Lower material cost and processing 

needed for connection issue

Eng Harness Cable 

Trays

MuCell® gas foaming 

process for non-class "A" 

surfaces

10% Mass 

Reduction

Added capital, lower material usage, 

faster cycle time, smaller press size

Eng Harness Brkts From Steel to Composite 10 to 25% Mass 

Reduction Lower material and processing cost
Page 770

F.20.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Following the review of today’s market innovations and trends, FEV has opted to use

8000 series aluminum wire for the battery ground cables & ground strap, this is not clad 

wire but aluminum-only wire, and use GE PPO sheathing on all wire harnesses. With

these two methods a significant weight and cost savings can be achieved.

Image F.20-2: Aluminum Stranded wire

(Source: Google Images)

There continue to be some issues with using aluminum wiring, of which aluminum 

oxidation, coefficient of expansion, creep, and lack of North American aluminum wire 

production are the most common. With the use of newer aluminum alloys, however, these 

concerns are likely mitigated to the point that the commercial use of aluminum wire for 

automotive applications is under consideration with several OEM’s.

An approximately 60% increase in cross-section for aluminum wire is required to provide 

the equivalent conductivity provided by a copper conductor it would replace, the weight 

reduction is still about a third. 

Engineers at BMW, in conjunction with the University of Munich (TUM), are working to 

find solutions for a number of challenges using aluminum; not just for conventional 

autos, but for electric vehicle (EV) applications where current demands and temperatures

command a robust electrical control system.

The BMW/TUM team is devoting considerable work into connection boundaries and 

developing innovative solutions that it believes will provide reliable wiring 

configurations over a minimum 10-year vehicle life span. The Sumitomo Group 

developed a light-weight wiring harness using thin aluminum wires with twisted wire 

structures to ensure electrical connection reliability. It is probable that automotive wiring 

will become a major driver of aluminum consumption in the years ahead.
Page 771

If aluminum wire was able to be used today for this study and could be applied to all the 

wiring harnesses, an approximate additional weight savings of 5.7kgs and a cost savings 

of approximately $44, or $7.8 per kg, could be achieved.

Wire sheathing is another area in which automotive wire affect cost and weight. Polyvinyl 

chloride (PVC) is a thermoplastic polymer that is the most commonly used wire sheathing 

today. The advantages of using PVC are that it is inexpensive and effective. Heat, 

however, is an issue with PVC. PVC can only be used in 60% of automotive wiring

harness applications. For high heat areas, such as the engine compartment, cross-linked 

polyethylene is used. PVC and cross-linked polyethylene both have environmental 

drawbacks as well, such as toxic halogens that can cause dioxin release and recycling 

issues. New products being developed by polymer manufactures such as GE will be the 

next generation of wire sheathing. GE has developed a PPO product that is thinner, 

lighter, and stronger than PVC – plus, it is recyclable.

The PPO coating is a GE Advanced Material Based on GE’s polyphenylene oxide (PPO) 

and an olefin. This new Flexible Noryl wire coating lacks the halogens and the potential 

for dioxin release – which have given PVC a bad name. PPO coating has an inherent 

weight advantage when the two materials are used equally. 

Based on this advantage, savings come from the ability to use less PPO to match or even 

beat the performance of PVC. For example, on wires up to 1.5 mm2, Delphi would 

typically use a 0.4-mm-thick PVC coating to meet its customers’ requirements. The 

corresponding PPO thickness, by contrast, would be just 0.2 mm. PPO offers 7 to 10 

times more pinch and abrasion resistance than an equal thickness of PVC. Plus, PPO, 

which has a glass transition temperature of 212 C, has already passed the industry’s 110 C 

thermal tests for Class B wire. The confidence is that the material will soon pass 125 C 

tests as well. 

The PPO weight advantage over PVC makes a strong case for its use in reducing the 

weight in wiring harnesses. The greater savings come from the better performance of PPO

versus PVC. PPO, being thinner, reduces the overall size of the wire by 25%. This also 

reduces the harness bundle size.

Other technologies selected for wiring harness cable trays were Trexel’s MuCell® 

Microcellular Foam Process. The MuCell® Microcellular Foam Technology brings 

significant weight reduction, energy reduction, and greenhouse gas emission benefits to a 

wide range of packaging products and applications produced by any of the three major 

manufacturing processes (injection molding, extrusion and extrusion blow molding). 

Microcellular foaming technology was originally conceptualized and invented at the 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The technologies used are listed in Table 

F.20-4.
Page 772

Table F.20-4: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection 

Subsystem

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Mass-Reduction Ideas 

Selected for Detail 

Evaluation

18 01 00 Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem

Aluminum wire for ground 

strap & battery ground 

cables

GETM PPO Sheathing

Steel Brkts to Composite

MuCell® composite brkts

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

F.20.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

Table F.20-5 shows the weight and cost reductions per sub-subsystem.

In the Front End and Engine Compartment Wiring sub-subsystem, the Front End/Engine 

Harness’s PVC sheath was replaced with GETM PPO. The cable tray brackets and the fuse 

box were lightened using MuCell®. The kg breakdown and cost per part for the Front 

End and Engine Compartment Wiring sub-subsystem is as follows: To see more about the 

MuCell®or PolyOne® process’s reference section F.4B.1 Interior Trim and 

Ornamentation Subsystem

mass cost

Front End/Engine Harness 0.099 (0.051)

Cable Tray #1 0.016 0.057

Cable Tray #2 0.006 0.023

Cable Tray #3 0.005 0.017

Cable Tray #4 0.007 0.020

Fuse Box 0.150 0.339

Front End and Engine Compartment Wiring - Sub total> 0.283 0.406

In the Instrument Panel Harness sub-subsystem, the IP Wiring Main Harness, IP Wiring 

Sub Harness B, IP Wiring #1 and IP Wiring #2 PVC sheathing was replaced with GETM 

PPO. The main connector box and connector box harness brackets were lightened using 

MuCell®. The kg breakdown and cost per part for the Instrument Panel Harness subsubsystem is as follows:
Page 773

mass cost

IP Wiring Main Harness 0.064 (0.032)

IP Wiring Sub Harness B 0.021 (0.011)

IP Wiring #1 0.001 (0.000)

IP Wiring #2 0.002 (0.001)

Main connector box, Top, IP Wiring 0.003 0.014

Main connector box, Bottom, IP Wiring 0.007 0.019

Connector Box 1,Harness, IP 0.007 0.035

Connector Box 2,Harness, IP 0.003 0.003

Connector Box 3,Harness, IP 0.002 0.003

Instrument Panel Harness - Sub total> 0.110 0.030

In the Body and Rear End Wiring sub-subsystem, all the harness wiring PVC sheathing 

was replaced with GETM PPO. The kg breakdown and cost per part for the Body and Rear 

End Wiring sub-subsystem is as follows:

mass cost

Harness Asm, Body Interior 0.103 (0.053)

Liftgate Harness #1 0.001 (0.001)

Liftgate Harness #2 0.006 (0.003)

Harness, LF Door 0.003 (0.001)

Harness, RF Door 0.006 (0.002)

Harness, RR Door 0.001 (0.000)

Harness, LR Door 0.002 (0.001)

HVAC Door Motor Harness 0.001 0.000

Body and Rear End Wiring - Sub total> 0.123 (0.062)

In the Battery Cables sub-subsystem, all the harness wiring PVC sheathing was replaced 

with GETM PPO. Also the Battery Ground Cable is made of aluminum. The kg breakdown 

and cost per part for the Battery Cables sub-subsystem is as follows:

mass cost

Harness, Battery Ground Cable 0.100 0.698

Battery to starter 0.120 (0.001)

Battery Cables - Sub total> 0.220 0.697

In the Harness Assembly sub-subsystem, the engine harness wiring PVC sheathing was 

replaced with GETM PPO. The cable tray brackets were lightened using MuCell®. The 

harness brackets were changed from steel to PA66 plastic and then MuCelled. Below 

shows the kg break down and cost per part for the Engine and Transmission Wiring sub-
Page 774

subsystem. To see more about the MuCell® or PolyOne® process’s reference section 

F.4B.1 Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem

mass cost

Harness Asm, Engine 0.043 (0.022)

Cable Tray #1, Engine 0.015 0.048

Cable Tray #2, Engine 0.004 0.017

Cable Support, Harness 0.003 0.012

Bracket #1, Harness, Engine 0.041 0.132

Bracket #2, Harness, Engine 0.027 0.041

Bracket #3, Harness, Engine 0.011 0.001

Engine and Transmission Wiring - Sub total> 0.143 0.229

In the Seat Harness sub-subsystem, the harness wiring PVC sheathing was replaced with

GETM PPO. Also, the Ground Strap is made of aluminum. The kg breakdown and cost per 

part for the Seat Harness sub-subsystem is as follows:

mass cost

Harness Weight Sensing RF Seat 0.001 (0.001)

Ground Strap 0.008 0.053

Seat Harness - Sub total> 0.009 0.052

In total, the Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection subsystem mass savings combining 

all of the sub-subsystems is .889kg with a cost savings of $1.35.

Table F.20-5: Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Wring and Circuit 

Protection Subsystem
Page 775

System 

Subsystem 

Sub-Subsystem

Description

Idea 

Level 

Select

Mass 

Reduction

"kg" (1) 

Cost Impact 

"$" (2)

Average 

Cost/ 

Kilogram

$/kg

Sub-Subs./ 

Sub-Subs. 

Mass 

Reduction 

"% "

Vehicle 

Mass 

Reduction 

"% "

1711

18 01 00 Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protect Subsystem

18 01 01 Front End and Engine Compartment Wiring A 0.283 $0.41 $1.43 3.77% 0.02%

18 01 02 Instrument Panel Harness A 0.110 $0.03 $0.27 1.79% 0.01%

18 01 03 Body and Rear End Wiring B 0.123 -$0.06 -$0.50 1.86% 0.01%

18 01 04 Battery Cables A 0.220 $0.70 $3.17 32.27% 0.01%

18 01 05 Engine and Transmission Wiring A 0.143 $0.23 $1.60 5.37% 0.01%

18 01 06 Seat Harness A 0.009 $0.05 $5.73 2.70% 0.00%

A 0.889 $1.35 $1.52 3.71% 0.05%

(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

F.21 Additional Weight Savings Ideas Not Implemented

The lightweight optimization study of the Toyota Venza utilized most ideas considered. 

There are, however, additional possibilities of weight reduction. FEV developed further 

weight reduction ideas that, for specific reasons, were not implemented, including: 

eliminating the spare tire and instead using run-flat tires, and using aluminum door 

closure. The elimination of the spare tire in lieu of a “run-flat” tire gives an estimated 

5.25 kg weight savings, although at a cost increase of $2.20. If aluminum is used for 

producing vehicle door closures, an estimated 28.48 kg will be reduced at a cost of 

$107.78. In addition to the current weight savings (312.48 kg), the aforementioned ideas 

would increase the total weight savings to a projected 346.2 kg (20.2%) at $0.11/kg.
Page 776

G. Conclusion, Recommendation and Acknowledgements

G.1 Conclusion & Recommendation

The FEV study was an extension of the low development (20% mass reduction) scenario 

presented in the ICCT commissioned study titled, “An Assessment of Mass Reduction 

Opportunities for a 2017-2020 Model Year Vehicle Program.” The Phase 1 study was 

conducted by Lotus Engineering. To reiterate, the FEV primary analysis objectives were 

as follows:

Conduct a detailed CAE analysis of the Lotus proposed BIW mass-reduction 

changes to assess the impact on NVH performance (i.e., static and dynamic torsion 

and bending stiffness) and vehicle crash safety. In the case the proposed Lotus 

BIW changes resulted in performance degradation, propose alternative massreduction BIW alternative to support an overall vehicle mass-reduction of 20%.

Review and expand on the initial Lotus mass-reduction ideas. Through additional 

research and engineering assessment, verify the feasibility of the mass-reduction 

ideas in terms of industry potential acceptance, product function degradation risk, 

product implementation timeframe, manufacturing risk, and the value of massreduction ideas in terms of the amount of mass reduction and the cost/kilogram of 

the mass savings.

Develop detailed cost models to calculate the net incremental direct manufacturing 

cost (NIDMC) impact of the mass-reduced technology configuration over the 

baseline production stock Toyota Venza technology configuration. Both unit 

NIDMCs and incremental tooling cost calculations were required.

As covered in the prior report sections, mainly Section D: Mass Reduction Analysis 

Methodology, Section 0: 
Page 777

Cost Analysis Methodology, and Section F: Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Results, 

all three primary analysis objectives were successfully met. 

The creation of the Toyota Venza baseline CAE model, validated with actual lab data, 

and compared to NHTSA crash test data ensured a solid baseline for all BIW massreduction comparisons. Substituting the Lotus BIW mass-reduction ideas into the baseline 

CAE model, EDAG was able to effectively evaluate the performance of the recommended

mass-reduction ideas. The Lotus BIW mass-reduction ideas were estimated to reduce the 

BIW mass by 6.6%. Determining that the mass-reduction ideas yielded a NVH 

degradation of approximately 20% in bending and torsional stiffness, new BIW massreductions alternative were required. Using advanced CAE tools for BIW mass-reduction 

optimization, EDAG was able to reduce the BIW mass by approximately 14%. The entire 

Body System, Group A (BIW and Closures) yielded a 12.9% system mass-reduction or 

4% vehicle mass-reduction. The BIW mass-reduction ideas were primarily associated 

with steel grade and gauge substitutions. 

The NVH analysis on EDAG’s final optimized BIW structure yielded less than 5% 

difference for each of the NVH test cases (i.e., overall torsional stiffness, overall bending 

stiffness, rear-end match-boxing, overall vertical bending, rear-end breathing mode, 

torsion stiffness, and bending stiffness) compared to the baseline model. The optimized 

mass-reduced vehicle model was validated further for the following five different crash 

load cases: 

FMVSS 208—35 MPH flat frontal crash (US NCAP) 

Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB frontal crash (Euro NCAP/IIHS) 

FMVSS 214—38.5 MDB side impact

FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB rear impact

FMVSS 216a—Roof crush resistance (utilizing the more stringent IIHS roof crush 

resistance requirement). 

Using various crash comparison measurements (e.g., vehicle pulse, time-to-zero velocity, 

deformation modes, sheet-metal intrusion, etc.), the mass-reduced BIW structure was 

compared to the baseline model to ensure that crash performance integrity was maintained

with the implementation of the mass-reduction concepts. The detailed analysis conducted 

by EDAG supports that the BIW and closure mass-reduction is a viable means to reduce

the overall vehicle weigh degrading performance and safety. This is important, since, in 

the case of the Toyota Venza, the BIW and Closure Subsystems contribute 31% (529kg) 

to the overall vehicle mass.

From the cost perspective, the BIW and closure mass-reduction landed near the top of the 
Page 778

list in terms of being most expensive. The average increase of BIW was $2.77/kg, 

compared to $4.96/kg, for closures. The average of BIW and closures combined was 

$3.33/kg.

On the remaining vehicle systems (i.e., those other than BIW and closures), the team 

successfully came up with an additional 14.3% of vehicle mass-reduction ideas. A 

combination of ideas published in the ICCT Phase 1 report and new ideas generated by 

the FEV and Munro team were evaluated to achieve the 14.3% vehicle mass-reduction. 

Many of the new ideas utilized in the analysis came from powertrain systems (i.e., engine, 

transmission, exhaust, fuel), since the ICCT analysis considered replacing the 

conventional powertrain system in the Toyota Venza with a light hybrid powertrain 

system. Conversely, the FEV analysis explored mass-reduction measures on all vehicle 

systems, including the conventional powertrain.

The ICCT mass-reduced vehicle analysis (minus powertrain) yielded a 19% massreduction. Based on a similar vehicle system comparison (i.e., excluded engine, 

transmission, exhaust, and the fuel systems from the calculation), the FEV analysis 

yielded a mass-reduction of 17.4%. Adding the mass-reduction assumed for the hybrid 

powertrain system back into the ICCT analysis, a 17.6% vehicle mass-reduction was 

recorded in comparison to the 18.3% in the FEV analysis. Overall, the final vehicle level 

mass-reduction calculations were reasonably compatible, even though the actual system 

level contributions were moderately different.

In addition to reviewing and building upon the mass-reduction ideas captured in the ICCT 

report, the FEV team also focused a great deal of their effort on ensuring the massreduction ideas were feasible from a product, manufacturing, and timeframe standpoint. 

To ensure this was the case, the ideas selected for the analysis generally met one of the 

primary criteria outlined below:

Mass-reduction ideas existing in current high-volume automotive production

Mass-reduction ideas existing in current low-volume automotive production

Mass-reduction ideas from nonconventional, non-production, mass-production 

automotive market (e.g., racing, after-market)

Mass-reduction ideas currently under development by suppliers (e.g., material 

suppliers, Tier 1 suppliers), with a high potential for success

Mass-reduction ideas employed in non-automotive industries 

Detailed design and CAE work was not performed: the team conducted basic engineering 

assessments, primarily in the form of reverse engineering, to determine the feasible 

amount of mass-reduction. A combination of automotive supplier support, surrogate 

benchmark data (i.e., purchased hardware and various benchmark databases), and 
Page 779

published literature facilitated the transfer of mass-reduction materials, designs, and 

manufacturing methods to the Toyota Venza production stock components. Details on 

where the mass-reduction ideas came from, how they were applied, and what engineering 

assessments were made in incorporating the ideas can be found in the various vehicle 

systems throughout Section F.

Determining and assessing feasible mass-reduction component alternatives was an 

important aspect of the analysis; evaluating the incremental cost impact of the massreduction alternatives was equally as important. When selecting new technologies, in 

particular the selection of greenhouse gas (GHG)-reducing technologies, the “Value” of 

the technology (i.e., technology ability to reduce GHG emissions/cost of the technology) 

was used as a comparative means of evaluation relative to other competing GHGreducing technologies (i.e., turbocharging, direct inject, variable valve timing and lift, 8-

speed automatic transmissions, hybrid electric vehicles).

To evaluate the cost impact of the mass-reduction technologies identified in this analysis, 

the same robust and reliable methodology and tools used in prior EPA light-duty vehicle 

technology cost analyses was employed. For new manufacturing technologies (i.e., 

manufacturing technologies not preexisting in FEV’s cost model databases), new custom 

models were developed. The same methodology of developing and validating the models, 

as with the previous models, was employed. 

The net incremental direct manufacturing cost (NIDMC) analysis is an incremental 

analysis based on exclusion costing. That is, costing out only the differences between the 

two (2) technologies under comparison (i.e., the production stock Toyota Venza 

components versus the proposed mass-reduced Toyota Venza components). The cost 

analysis is based on a set of predefined boundary conditions (reference Section C.2), 

some of which are listed here:

2017-2020 model year production timeframe 

Manufacturing cost structure (i.e., material costs, labor costs, manufacturing 

overhead costs) based on 2011/2012 dollars (no forecasting included as part of 

analysis)

200-450K production units per year

All components manufactured in the United States

Components and technologies have been in high-volume production for several 

years

Established marketplace competition.

The boundary conditions for the calculated NIDMC established a known reference point 

for the costs. For example, if the estimated volume of the engine new technologies were 
Page 780

reduced to 10%, an adjustment could be made knowing the original costs were based on 

450K units and within mature market conditions (i.e., mature mark-up assumptions). 

Outside the scope of the FEV analysis, EPA applies learning factors to the NIDMCs to 

account for the differences in boundary conditions.

One additional cost factor applied by the EPA to the NIDMCs was the Indirect Cost 

Multiplier (ICM). As discussed in Section E.4, the ICM factors address the additional 

indirect manufacturing costs incurred by the OEM. Similar to the learning factors, these 

are also applied outside the scope of the analysis.

The long-term cost impact of innovative mass-reduction can result in an overall vehicle 

cost savings. The mass-reduced Venza resulted in a $148 per-vehicle-unit cost savings. 

Based on the associated vehicle mass-reduction (312 kg, or 18.3%), this resulted in an 

average $0.47/kilogram savings. Compared to the Lotus analysis, which calculated an 

average vehicle reduction cost of 1% (19% vehicle mass-reduction without powertrain), 

FEV’s comparable cost reduction (without powertrain systems) was 1.3%. With all 

vehicle systems included in the FEV analysis, the NIDMC cost reduction was 

approximately 0.9%.

When the tooling impact was considered (incremental increase in tooling of $23M over 

the production stock Venza), the cost/kilogram decreased by approximately $0.04/kg, 

resulting in a net savings of $0.43/kilogram. 

Clearly the adaptation of new mass-reduced vehicle components, subsystems and/or 

systems, to each unique vehicle platform will require a comprehensive product/production 

development vehicle plan. As more components are changed within a vehicle, to 

accomplish a higher percent vehicle mass-reduction, one can foresee product 

development costs exponentially growing in near term (i.e., engineering, design and 

testing costs). However over the long-run, the cost impact of these new technologies, 

based on the analysis findings, is expected to result in an overall, vehicle direct 

manufacturing cost reduction.

The FEV, Munro, and EDAG team view mass-reduction as a viable and cost competetive

methodology for improving fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 

in addition to the other potential vehicle technologies. This advanced preliminary 

engineering assessment, indicates mass-reduction can be implemented without 

diminishing the function and performance of a stock production vehicle; in this case a 

2010 Toyota Venza. As such, the team would recommend the continued, industry wide, 

engineering efforts and corresponding investments into mass-reduction research and 

development in an effort to meet the fuel economy and GHG emission requirements of 

tomorrow.
Page 781

G.2 Acknowledgements

The EPA, in order to create a thorough, transparent, and robust study, invited various 

government entities to participate and/or provide feedback during the study duration. 

Customers that participated and partnered financially in this study with EPA are:

International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)

Environment Canada

Additional input was provided during periodic project reviews by: 

National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA)

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board (CARB)

SRA was subcontracted by the EPA to conduct the peer review for this project. 

Constructive comments were included in this final report and many compliments were 

received from the peer reviewers. The peer review team selected by SRA included:

William Joost (U.S. Department of Energy)

Douglas Richman (Kaiser Aluminum)

Srdjan Simunovic (Oak Ridge National Laboratory)

Glenn Daehn, David Emerling, Kristina Kennedy, and Tony Luscher (The Ohio 

State University)

The Peer review report and FEV responses to the peer review comments are available at 

www.regulations.gov in EPA docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799.
Page 782

H. Appendix

This appendix contains the selected supporting figures and tables used in the cost 

analyses. The section is structured in the following manner:

Appendix H.1: Executive Summary for the Lotus Phase 1 report “An Assessment 

of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017-2020 Model Year Program” 

submitted to the Internal Council on Clean Transportation, by Lotus Engineering 

(March 2010)

Appendix H.2: List of light-duty vehicle mass-reduction published articles, papers, 

and journals referenced as information sources in the analysis

Appendix H.3: Photos of disassembled BIW parts used by EDAG to develop CAE 

models

Appendix H.4: BIW scan data from white light scanning (WLS)

Appendix H.5: BIW material testing

Appendix H.6: BIW material engineering properties

Appendix H.7: EDAG load path analysis

Appendix H.8: System level Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMATs)

Appendix H.9: Suppliers who contributed in the analysis
Page 783

H.1 Executive Summary for Lotus Engineering Phase 1 Report

Following is the Executive Summary for the Phase 1 Lotus report, “An Assessment of

Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017-2020 Model Year Program,” submitted to the 

Internal Council on Clean Transportation, by Lotus Engineering (March 2010).
Page 784
Page 785
Page 786

H.2 Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction Published Articles, Papers, and 

Journals Referenced as Information Sources in the Analysis

Table H.2-1: Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction Published Articles, Papers, and Journals 

Referenced as Information Sources in the Analysis

Applicable Model Document Name Publisher Synopsis Report Number Publication Date Hyperlink to Document

All Materials Crosscutting Research and Development

Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory

Cost analysis study on using Magneisum 

and Carbon-Fiber Composite to reduce 

vehicle weight

August 2008 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/lm_08/12_materials_crosscutting_rd.pdf

All Study finds aluminum can reduce vehicle 

body structure weight safely by up to 40%

Aluminum 

Association’s 

Transportation Group 

(ATG)

Proposes that aluminum is the future for 

BIW components and will reduce weight 

up to 40%

May 2010 http://www.ongreen.com/news/study-finds-aluminum-can-reduce-vehicle-body-structure- weight-safely-40

Compact Car Honda Insight Wikipedia

Gives generic breakdown of Honda 

Insight and notes the contributors to its 

outstanding fuel economy

April 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Insight

Luxury 

Truck/Sedan

Optimizing Designs of Aluminum Suspension Components Using an Integrated Approach SAE

Alcoa details aluminum alloys used in 

suspension components and their weight 

savings

SAE Paper 05M-2 http://www.alcoa.com/car_truck/en/pdf/SAE_paper.pdf

Mazda Miata Flyin' Miata: Chassis: Suspension Components: Lightweight Lug Nut Flyin' Miata Site to buy aluminum conical lug nuts http://www.flyinmiata.com/index.php?deptid=4537&parentid=0&stocknumber=16-10000

All U.S. Brake Drag Race Brake Kits JEGS

U.S. Brake sells drilled/slotted rotors and 

calipers made out of forged and billet 

aluminum

http://www.jegs.com/p/AFCO/US-Brake-Drag-Race-Brake-Kits/753026/10002/-1

All Trelleborg Advances Light-Weight Brake 

Pedal using Water Injection Technology Torque News

New process called Water Injection 

Technology allows brake pedal to be made out of hollow plasticMarch 2011 http://www.torquenews.com/119/trelleborg-advances-light-weight-brake-pedal-using-waterinjection-technology

BMW 5 

series Gran 

Turismo 

550i and 

750i

Lightweight Components from ContiTech Win Innovation Prize Continental ContiTech Fiber-glass reinforced polyamide 

Transmission Beam October 2010 http://www.contitech.de/pages/presse/pressemeldungen/2010/101027_spe/presse_en.html

Micro Cars ZF carbon fiber damper concept for micro 

cars

World Car Fans

ZF developed a carbon fiber dampener 

(suspension) that reduces weight by 

50% compared to aluminum

April 2010 http://www.worldcarfans.com/110041225610/zf-carbon-fiber-damper-concept-for-micro-cars

All AMS/Wilwood EVO IV-IX Lightweight Brake 

Kit, Rear AMS Performance Two-part rear rotors/hats made out of aluminum

http://amsperformance.com/cart/AMS/Wilwood-Mitsubishi-Lancer-Evolution-Evo-4-5-6-7-8-9-

Lightweight-Brake-Kit-(Rear).html

Ford Focus 

and Cadillac CTSSpare Tire is History Zimbio

Overviews the trend in the auto industry 

to not offer spare tires standard, but 

rather as an option

September 

2007 http://www.zimbio.com/Safe+Driving/articles/14/Spare+Tire+Is+History

Luxury & 

Performanc

e Cars

Wheel Lug Nuts Information DriveWire Aftermarket parts supplier that sells Mg & 

Al lug nuts http://www.drivewire.com/part/wheels-and-tires/wheel-lug-nuts/

All

Review of technical literature and trends

related to automobile mass-reduction 

technology

California Air Resources BoardNic Lutsey wrote this extended summary 

of mass reduction trends UCD-ITS-RR-10-10 May 2010

Interior Faurecia Light Attitude

at the L.A. Auto Show Faurecia Press Kit that Faurecia released on their innovative Light Attitude line-up November 2008

All InCar: The Innovative Solution Kit for the 

Automotive Industry ThyssenKrupp Literature from ThyseenKrupp with weight reduction ideas October 2009

Glazing Reduce Vehicle Weight without Compromising Passenger Comfort Solutia Illustration and data on Safelx laminated 

glass 2010
Page 787

Applicable Model Document Name Publisher Synopsis Report Number Publication Date Hyperlink to Document

All How do you reduce a vehicle's weight by 

35%? The answer may be in the steel! Auto123.com

Provides outlook in automotive industry 

that AHSS can provide weight reduction 

of up to 35% and that AHSS produces 

less greenhouse gases in manufacturing 

than aluminum.

August 2008 http://www.auto123.com/en/news/car-news/how-do-you-reduce-a-vehicles-weight-by-35-theanswer-may-be-in-the-steel?artid=100271

All In bubble-filled plastic, Ford sees vehicle weight reduction SmartPlanet

Describes Mucell, an overview of how the 

process works, who developed it, and what company owns it.April 2011 http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/in-bubble-filled-plastic-ford-sees-vehicle-weightreduction/15303

All Dynamic Vehicle Weight Reduction and Safety Enhancement SAE International

Describes Ultra Brake Rotors which are 

a steel/aluminum composite that can 

reduce 40% of the rotor weight 

compared to traditional cast iron rotors.

April 2009 http://saepcmech.saejournals.org/content/1/1/1202.short

All Mass Decompounding and Vehicle 

Lightweighting

Materials Science 

Forum

Provides description of ideas concerning 

reducing the mass of vehicles. Discusses the strategic use of lightweight materials and sheds light on the topic 

from a societal and industrial 

perspective.

Vols. 618-619 April 2009 http://www.scientific.net/MSF.618-619.411

All

EPA Optimization Model for Reducing Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from Automobiles (OMEGA)

EPA

EPA’s OMEGA model is a free desktop 

computer application which estimates the 

technology cost for automobile manufacturers to achieve variable fleet- wide levels of vehicle greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions.

EPA-420-B-10-042 October 2010 http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/models/420b10042.pdf

VW Golf V Stiffness Relevance and Strength Relevance 

in Crash of Car Body Components

Aachen University & European Aluminium Association - ika

Higher material strength increases the 

specific energy absorption capability and 

the allowable strength. Hence, the application of materials with higher strength 

allows the reduction of the wall thickness 

of parts or components without 

decreasing the crash performance or the 

safety against plastic failure.

83440 May 2010 http://aluminumintransportation.org/downloads/Ika-Stiffness&CrashRelevance2010.pdf

All Vehicle weight reduction U.S. Congress

A series of letters written to Senators by 

professors and technical professionals 

regarding the affect that reducing vehicle weight has on driver safety.

June 2000

http://books.google.com/books?id=cT1BOgQ2Ys8C&pg=PA10944&lpg=PA10944&dq=vehicle

+weight+reductions+studies&source=bl&ots=GM8UnpXcOl&sig=bZH2FhvdxrlGE1CV1CCl2fJbDc&hl=en&ei=eE_BTf3pIcj40gHYgqW3Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=resul

t&resnum=8&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBzgy#v=o

All

An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017 – 2020 Model Year Vehicle Program

Lotus Engineering Inc.

This study was divided into two 

categories, allowing two distinct vehicle 

architectures to be analyzed. The first 

vehicle architecture, titled the “Low Development” vehicle, targeted a 20% 

vehicle mass reduction (less powertrain), 

utilizing technologies feasible for a 2014 

program start and 2017 production, was 

based on competitive benchmarking 

applying industry leading mass reducing 

technologies, improved materials, 

component integration and assembled 

using existing facilities.

Rev 006A March 2010 http://www.theicct.org/pubs/Mass_reduction_final_2010.pdf

All Energy Materials Coordinating Committee 

(EMaCC)

U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Office of Basic Energy Sciences Division of Materials Sciences 

and Engineering 

Summary of DOE projects Annual Technical Report October 2004 http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/dms/publications/EMaCC/EMACC_Annual_Technical_Report_FY20

03.pdf

All Energy Materials Coordinating Committee 

(EMaCC)

U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Office of Basic Energy Sciences Division of Materials Sciences 

and Engineering 

Summary of DOE projects Annual Technical Report

September 

2006

http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/dms/publications/EMaCC/EMACC_Annual_Technical_Report_FY20

05.pdf

All 2010 Annual Merit Review U.S. Department of Energy Peer Review of DOE technological ideas Annual Technical Report

September 

2010 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/merit_review_2010/2010_amr.pdf

All High Strength Weight Reduction Materials

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office of FreedomCAR 

and Vehicle 

Technologies Advanced Materials 

Technologies

Work has been focused on developing 

advanced materials and materials 

processing technologies that can be 

applied to a wide array of heavy vehicle 

body, chassis, and suspension 

components to achieve weight reduction.

FY2006 March 2006 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/2006_hswr_report.pdf

All

The Invisible DifferenceTM: Saflex Advanced Acoustic Glazing Technology Reduces Vehicle Weight

Solutia Acoustic Glazing Technology Reduces Vehicle Weight US Glass Magazine 2010 http://www.saflex.com/en/AutoReduceVehicleWeight.aspx

Mid-size 

cars

Can Aluminum Be an Economical Alternative 

to Steel? JOM Cost compareisions between Al and steel 53 (8) 2001 http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0108/Kelkar-0108.html

All Alternative Materials Reinvent Car Manufacturing Megan Dobransky

EcoPaXX, a bio-based, heat-resistant, 

high-performance engineering plastic 

that is both carbon-neutral and made 

from 70 percent renewable resources, was introduced by DSM, a Dutch 

chemical company, and will be on the market early next year. The hope is to 

use this plastic in the engine 

compartment, which is too hot for most 

bio-based plastics.

Article December 

2010 http://earth911.com/news/2010/12/08/alternative-materials-reinvent-car-manufacturing/

All Economic Opportunities for Polymer Composite Design

Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology

study finds steel to no longer 

overwhelmingly dominate as the most 

cost-effective body material when 

considering potential advances in the 

polymer composite body-in-white design 

against the mild-grade steel body 

currently on the road.

MIT 2006 http://msl.mit.edu/pubs/working_papers/StratMatlsSelect.pdf

All 3M Weight Reduction ideas 3M Weight reduction ideas in the headliner, BIW & Bumpers

http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_EU/EU- Auto/Home/ExploreOur/Solutions/WeightReduction/

All Specialized polyurethane foams Energy Efficiency - 

issue of the Bridge

Reviews the use of polyurethane foam 

for filling the pillars Vol. 39 Number 2 2009 http://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/EnergyEfficiency14874/ImprovingEnergyEfficiencyintheChemicalIndustry.aspx

All UltraLight Steel Auto Body Programme Worldautosteel

An UltraLight Steel Auto Body (ULSAB) 

structure has been assembled, weighed 

and tested validating results from the 

concept phase of a global steel industry 

study. ULSAB has proven to be 

lightweight, structurally sound, safe, 

executable and affordable.

ULSAB http://www.worldautosteel.org/Projects/ULSAB/Programme-engineering-report.aspx
Page 788

Applicable Model Document Name Publisher Synopsis Report Number Publication Date Hyperlink to Document

All

CHAPTER V--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

This site has pdf files of safety standards 

for various systems. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx/49cfr571.html

All Web Sites for Information and Suppliers Lear

Lears web site for Enhanced seating 

comfort using optimal foam chemistry They could be a supplier source for 

information

http://lear.com/en/seating/foam.aspx

All Web Sites for Information and Suppliers Lauren Manufacturing This is just a reference for Seals and 

sealing technology, Supplier contact http://www.lauren.com/Markets/VehicleTransportation

All

Quiet Steel® Body Panel Design with DAMPÒ - A Custom

Preprocessor Utilizing MSC- PATRAN/NASTRAN

Material Sciences Corporation, 

Laminates and Composites

This site has an interesting material that would allow the removal of some of the 

sound insulation, just an interesting metal 

laminate that looks like it is being used. 

http://www.mscsoftware.com/support/library/conf/auto00/p03700.pdf

All Reinventing the (Forged) Wheel Motor Trend

This site has some good numbers on weight reduction with Al Wheels by ALCOA

http://blogs.motortrend.com/reinventing-the-forged-wheel-2287.html

All Web Sites for Information and Suppliers Trexel

This is the home web site for the inventor 

of the Mucell Process and it is worth 

looking at the entire site. 

http://www.trexel.com/injection-molding-solutions/evaluating-mucell.php

All EPS Electric Power Steering Vishay

Same as comments Potential source for 

information the PDF lists the electronic 

components used in the Electronic Power Steering (EPS) system.

http://www.vishay.com/applications/automotive/eps_electricpowersteering/

All Web Sites for Information and Suppliers Automotive Composites Alliance

This is a good source for information and 

technical documents on Automotive Composites. http://www.autocomposites.org/resources/downloads.cfm

All Web Sites for Information and Suppliers BASF

This is a News Release from BASFdevelops innovative structural technology 

for automotive seating this was 

referenced in the Lotus report

http://www2.basf.us/corporate/news_2009/news_release_2009_00506.shtml

All Web Sites for Information and Suppliers Faurecia Faurecia was referenced in the Lotus 

report for seating technology http://www.faurecia.com/expertise-innovation/Pages/Default.aspx

All

Johnson licenses LEAP to bring Steelcase 

chair technology to Johnson automotive 

seating products

Staff -- Interior Design

This is an older bit of information but it 

shows the progression of technolgy in 

seating if you look at this compaired to Faurecia today.

January 2003

http://www.interiordesign.net/article/475506-

Johnson_licenses_LEAP_to_bring_Steelcase_chair_technology_to_Johnson_automotive_seati

ng_products.php

All Web Sites for Information and Suppliers JCI This is a good look at JCI's latest and 

new seat technology

http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/publish/us/en/products/automotive_experience/interiors/compl

ete-seats.html

All

With Genus Concept Seat, Johnson Controls Team Delivers an Evolutionary Vision of the Future in Automotive Seating Advanced design from global seating leader 

sets new benchmarks for comfort, styling, 

functionality

Automotive Intelligence More on JCI's composite seats http://www.autointell.com/supplier/supplier_news/johnson-controls/johnson-controls_news-12-

01-05.htm

Upper Class Johnson Controls re3 Concept Car MSN

This article talks about seating and some 

of the new dashboard technology needed 

to lower mass weight

January 2009 http://autoshow.autos.msn.com/autoshow/detroit2009/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=15947917

All BASF Develops Innovative Structural Technology for Automotive Seating ThomasNET

More on thermoplastic seats and some 

additional link to other seat companies 

and users. It has a contact name for BASF

October 2010 http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/BASF-Develops-Innovative-Structural-Technologyfor-Automotive-Seating-837829

All Web Sites for Information and Suppliers Autronic Plastics

Interesting site this company uses nanoresin plastics, could be a resource for 

information on advanced plastics

http://www.apisolution.com/plastic-injection-molding-capabilities.html

All Electric Hydraulic Combi Brake Continental

Site has a combination hyd-elect. 

braking system plus other products of 

interest. 

http://www.contionline.com/generator/www/de/en/continental/automotive/themes/passenger_cars/chassis_safet

y/ebs/ehc_brake/ehc_bremse_en.html

All Web Sites for Information and Suppliers DuPont

Very interesting metal/plastic claded material, I have made contact with the 

development manager and I hope to have 

him come and visit. 

http://www2.dupont.com/Plastics/en_US/Uses_Applications/advanced_metal_replacement/Meta Fuse.html

All Ford Developing Nano Coatings to Reduce Vehicle Weight Next Energy News Article about Fords work on nano 

coatings for weight reduction April 2008 http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news4.18.08a.html

All Survey of vehicle mass-reduction

technology trends and prospects

Nic Lutsey El Monte, California Great over all info on weight reduction May 2010 http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/leviii/meetings/051810/lutsey_its_may18_final.pdf

All Magnesium, Aluminum Will Play Big Role in Auto Weight Reduction Design News

A good article with numbers on the weight savings of aluminum and magnesium

April 2008 http://www.designnews.com/article/13344- Magnesium_Aluminum_Will_Play_Big_Role_in_Auto_Weight_Reduction.php

All Making Joints with Structural Adhesives Welding Design & Fabrication

An older but good article on making joints with structural adhesives October 2006 http://weldingdesign.com/processes/news/wdf_38771/

All Technology developments in automotive 

composites Reinforced Plastics A very good read on Composites November 2010 http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/view/13154/technology-developments-in-automotivecomposites/

All Web Sites for Information and Suppliers KellySearch Contact information on Woodbridge http://automotive.kellysearch.com/profile/the+woodbridge+group/us/mi/troy/48084/900371790

All

Climate and Transportation Solutions: Findings from the 2009 Asilomar Conference on Transportation and Energy PolicyInstitute of Transportation Studies University of California, Davis

Has a section on reducing vehicle weight 

by using alum. and composite materials 

on body and alternative tire tread design

2010 http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/events/2009book/Chapter11.pdf

All

Modeling Costs and Fuel Economy Benefits 

of Lightweighting Vehicle Closure PanelsMIT & GM

In-depth report on weight savings and 

cost analysis of BIW components and 

compares various solutions

SAE 2008-01-0370 October 2007 http://msl1.mit.edu/msl/pubs/docs/MontalboCostFEofLWSAE2008.pdf

All Steel and Iron Technologies

for Automotive Lightweighting

John M. DeCicco Environmental Defense

Provides info. on weight reducing materials mainly in the steel and iron 

industry

March 2005 http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsacd/cd30/steel.pdf

All

On the Road in 2035: Reducing Transportation’s Petroleum Consumption and GHG Emissions

MIT

A generic report on the future of 

automotive technology. Ch. 3 has weight 

reduction information

July 2008 http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/documents/fuelingtransportation/OTRin2035_MIT_July%202008.pdf

Pick-up TrucksIMPACT Phase II - Study to Remove 25% of 

the Weight from a Pick-up Truck SAE Pick-up truck's weight succesfully reduced by 25% SAE 2007-01-1727 April 2007 http://papers.sae.org/2007-01-1727

All

Benefit Analysis: Use of Aluminum Structures in Conjunction with Alternative Powertrain Technologies in Automobiles

The Aluminum Association

Study on aluminum vs. steel in 

automobiles. Mass and cost analysis 

including BIW and powertrain 

components

2008 http://aluminumintransportation.org/downloads/IBIS-Powertrain-Study.pdf

All

Multi-Path Transportation Futures Study: Vehicle Characterization and Scenario Analyses

Argonne National 

Laboratory

Large-scale breakdown of future vehicle 

technologies and costs ANL/ESD/09-5 July 2009 http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/613.PDF
Page 789

H.3 Photos of disassembled BIW parts used by EDAG to develop CAE models

Image H.3-1: Front Shock Tower Assembly

Image H.3-2: Front Dash Panel Assembly
Page 790

H.3-3: Side Panel Image Assembly

Image H.3-4: Front Floor Panel Assembly
Page 791

Image H.3-5: Rear Floor Panel Assembly

Image H.3-6: Front and Rear Rail Assembly
Page 792

H.4 Scan Data from White Light Scanning

Figure H.4-1: STL Data Samples of Sub-Assemblies, Small and Larger Parts

Figure H.4-2: Weld Points Data from Scanning Process
Page 793

H.5 BIW Material Testing

Image H.5-1: Material Coupon Samples
Page 794

H.6 Material Engineering Properties

Table H.6-1: Table of Common Engineering Properties [26]

Steel Grade Density(t/m

m

3

)

Poisson’s 

ratio

Modulus of

Elasticity (MPa)

Lower YS 

(MPa)

Ultimate 

Tensile 

Strength 

(MPa)

Tot EL 

(%)

Mild 140/270 7.850e-09 0.3 21.0 x 104140 270 42-48

Mild BH 

210/340 7.850e-09 0.3 21.0 x 104

210 340 35-41

Mild BH 

260/370 7.850e-09 0.3 21.0 x 104

260 370 32-36

DP 300/500 7.850e-09 0.3 21.0 x 104300 500 30-34

HSLA 350/450 7.850e-09 0.3 21.0 x 104350 450 23-27

DP 350/600 7.850e-09 0.3 21.0 x 104350 600 24-30

DP 500/800 7.850e-09 0.3 21.0 x 104500 800 14-20

DP 700/1000 7.850e-09 0.3 21.0 x 104700 1000 12-17

CP 800/1000 7.850e-09 0.3 21.0 x 104800 1000 8-13

MS 950/1200 7.850e-09 0.3 21.0 x 104950 1250 5-7

CP 1050/1470 7.850e-09 0.3 21.0 x 1041050 1470 7-9

HF 1050/1500 7.850e-09 0.3 21.0 x 1041050 1500 5-7
Page 795

Table H.6-2: Material Curves of Stress vs. Stain (1 of 2)

 

 

Table H.6-2 (Con’t): Material Curves of Stress vs. Strain (2 of 2)
Page 796

 
Page 797

H.7 EDAG Load Path Analysis

In order to determine which components are the main contributors to the crash load path, 

45 major section forces were measured in the 5 crash load cases.

Figure H.7-1 through Figure H.7-5 show the sectional force magnitude in the 5 crash 

load cases of the baseline model. The section force of each member cross section was 

specified at numbers in the figure with kN unit. The force level was shown as bar chart to 

see the significance of each load case in Figure H.7-5.

Higher section force means the components are important in load path transfer in each 

crash events. Since optimization process requires one single CAE model to iterate all load 

cases simultaneously. So section force should be combined into as one load cases and the 

magnitude of each section force should be normalized as combined section divided with 5 

maximum section force of each load case.

Figure H.7-1: Section Force of Baseline Model in Front Crash
Page 798

Figure H.7-2: Force of Baseline Model in Front Offset Crash

Figure H.7-3: Section Force of Baseline Model in Side Crash
Page 799

Figure H.7-4: Section Force of Baseline Model in Rear Crash

Figure H.7-5: Section Force of Baseline Model in Roof Crush
Page 800

Figure H.7-6: Section Force Bar Chart

As shown in Figure H.7-7, the corresponding components of highlighted area in the 

normalized section force chart was considered as primary target parts.

Figure H.7-7: Normalized Combined Sectional Force Bar Chart
Page 801

H.8 System Level Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMATs)

Table H.8-1: Engine System CMATs

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

01 Engine

01 System downsize (2.7L I4 to 2.4L I4) 480.00 - - 480.00 - - - - - - 480.00 - - -

1 02 Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem 2.76 0.86 1.91 5.52 0.12 0.58 0.39 0.05 1.15 0 6.67 - 1,058.60 -

2 03 Crank Drive Subsystem 7.00 5.38 18.70 31.07 0.21 2.88 2.58 0.82 6.49 0 37.57 - 622.80 -

3 04 Counter Balance Subsystem (NA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4 05 Cylinder Block Subsystem 76.16 6.96 32.58 115.70 1.48 6.87 4.90 1.07 14.32 0 130.02 - 17,824.00 -

5 06 Cylinder Head Subsystem 9.57 1.65 4.92 16.15 0.58 1.60 1.36 0.35 3.89 0 20.04 - 2,500.60 -

6 07 Valvetrain Subsystem 18.53 7.44 24.00 49.97 1.13 4.59 4.90 1.98 12.60 0 62.57 - 1,234.20 -

7 08 Timing Drive Subsystem 7.39 2.55 7.08 17.02 0.83 2.09 1.69 0.60 5.22 0 22.24 - 5,141.60 -

8 09 Accessory Drive Subsystem (NA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

9 10 Air Intake Subsystem 9.04 1.60 2.06 12.70 0.16 1.16 0.95 0.18 2.45 0 15.15 - 2,166.40 -

10 11 Fuel Induction Subsystem 0.88 0.49 1.01 2.39 0.10 0.27 0.21 0.04 0.62 0 3.01 - 1,803.90 -

11 12 Exhaust Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

12 13 Lubrication Subsystem 0.74 0.24 0.22 1.21 0.01 0.13 0.11 0.03 0.28 0 1.48 - 311.00 -

13 14 Cooling Subsystem 36.97 12.90 23.38 73.25 0.70 5.14 4.37 1.41 11.62 0 84.87 - 6,640.90 -

14 15 Induction Air Charging Subsystem (NA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

15 16 Exhaust Gas Re-circulation Subsystem (NA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

16 17 Breather Subsystem 1.56 0.87 2.51 4.94 0.18 0.59 0.62 0.23 1.62 0 6.56 - 2,079.90 -

17 60 Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Electrical Subsystem 1.26 0.74 0.29 2.29 0.02 0.26 0.24 0.08 0.61 0 2.90 - 415.00 -

18 70 Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.) 1.66 0.07 0.89 2.62 0.10 0.30 0.28 0.10 0.78 0 3.40 - 630.60 -

 653.53 41.76 119.55 814.84 5.61 26.47 22.62 6.94 61.65 0 876.49 - 42,429.50 -

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP Item System Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling 

(x1000)

Investment

(X1000)

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

01 Engine

01 System downsize (2.7L I4 to 2.4L I4) 441.58 - - 441.58 - - - - - - 441.58 - -

1 02 Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem 2.57 0.70 2.20 5.47 0.19 0.57 0.44 0.09 1.29 0 6.76 - 3,837.20 -

2 03 Crank Drive Subsystem 5.35 3.90 16.28 25.53 0.17 2.24 2.06 0.69 5.16 0 30.69 - 320.00 -

3 04 Counter Balance Subsystem (NA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4 05 Cylinder Block Subsystem 88.72 9.40 45.08 143.20 4.10 8.01 5.73 1.31 19.15 0 162.34 - 20,742.00 -

5 06 Cylinder Head Subsystem 3.42 0.54 1.09 5.05 0.03 0.44 0.39 0.10 0.95 0 6.00 - 301.00 -

6 07 Valvetrain Subsystem 15.50 12.72 33.25 61.47 0.54 4.49 4.94 2.25 12.23 0 73.70 - 3,405.20 -

7 08 Timing Drive Subsystem 12.43 0.87 0.99 14.29 0.12 1.49 1.26 0.30 3.16 0 17.45 - 1,619.20 -

8 09 Accessory Drive Subsystem (NA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

9 10 Air Intake Subsystem 8.59 0.75 0.84 10.18 0.06 0.97 0.78 0.15 1.96 0 12.14 - 241.70 -

10 11 Fuel Induction Subsystem 0.66 0.05 0.04 0.74 0.00 0.08 0.05 0.01 0.14 0 0.89 - 270.50 -

11 12 Exhaust Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

12 13 Lubrication Subsystem 1.01 0.19 0.14 1.33 0.01 0.15 0.14 0.04 0.35 0 1.69 - 284.50 -

13 14 Cooling Subsystem 35.12 12.06 22.46 69.64 0.52 4.76 4.02 1.31 10.62 0 80.25 - 3,663.30 -

14 15 Induction Air Charging Subsystem (NA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

15 16 Exhaust Gas Re-circulation Subsystem (NA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

16 17 Breather Subsystem 0.95 0.17 0.14 1.27 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.06 0.36 0 1.62 - 359.80 -

17 60 Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Electrical Subsystem 1.15 0.21 0.16 1.51 0.01 0.16 0.15 0.05 0.39 0 1.90 - 74.00 -

18 70 Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.) 1.25 0.38 1.18 2.81 0.10 0.29 0.31 0.12 0.82 0 3.63 - 1,418.90 -

 618.29 41.94 123.85 784.08 5.88 23.78 20.43 6.48 56.57 0 840.65 - 36,537.30 -

Investment

(X1000)

Markup

Tooling 

(x1000)

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly) Item System

NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION: Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)
Page 802

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

01 Engine

01 System downsize (2.7L I4 to 2.4L I4) 38.42 - - 38.42 - - - - - - 38.42 - - -

1 02 Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem 0.19 0.16 (0.30) 0.05 (0.07) 0.01 (0.05) (0.03) (0.14) 0 (0.09) - (2,778.60) -

2 03 Crank Drive Subsystem 1.64 1.48 2.42 5.54 0.04 0.64 0.52 0.13 1.34 0 6.88 - 302.80 -

3 04 Counter Balance Subsystem (NA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4 05 Cylinder Block Subsystem (12.55) (2.44) (12.50) (27.50) (2.62) (1.13) (0.83) (0.24) (4.83) 0 (32.33) - (2,918.00) -

5 06 Cylinder Head Subsystem 6.16 1.11 3.83 11.10 0.54 1.17 0.98 0.25 2.94 0 14.04 - 2,199.60 -

6 07 Valvetrain Subsystem 3.03 (5.28) (9.25) (11.50) 0.58 0.09 (0.04) (0.27) 0.37 0 (11.13) - (2,171.00) -

7 08 Timing Drive Subsystem (5.04) 1.68 6.09 2.73 0.72 0.61 0.43 0.30 2.06 0 4.79 - 3,522.40 -

8 09 Accessory Drive Subsystem (NA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

9 10 Air Intake Subsystem 0.45 0.85 1.22 2.52 0.10 0.19 0.17 0.03 0.49 0 3.01 - 1,924.70 -

10 11 Fuel Induction Subsystem 0.22 0.44 0.98 1.64 0.10 0.19 0.16 0.04 0.48 0 2.13 - 1,533.40 -

11 12 Exhaust Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

12 13 Lubrication Subsystem (0.26) 0.06 0.08 (0.13) (0.00) (0.02) (0.03) (0.02) (0.07) 0 (0.20) - 26.50 -

13 14 Cooling Subsystem 1.85 0.84 0.92 3.62 0.18 0.38 0.35 0.09 1.00 0 4.62 - 2,977.60 -

14 15 Induction Air Charging Subsystem (NA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

15 16 Exhaust Gas Re-circulation Subsystem (NA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

16 17 Breather Subsystem 0.61 0.69 2.37 3.67 0.17 0.45 0.47 0.17 1.26 0 4.93 - 1,720.10 -

17 60 Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Electrical Subsystem 0.11 0.53 0.13 0.78 0.01 0.10 0.09 0.03 0.22 0 1.00 - 341.00 -

18 70 Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.) 0.41 (0.31) (0.30) (0.19) (0.00) 0.01 (0.02) (0.02) (0.04) 0 (0.23) - (788.30) -

 35.24 (0.18) (4.30) 30.76 (0.26) 2.69 2.19 0.47 5.08 0 35.84 - 5,892.20 -

INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Investment 

(X1000)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP Item System Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling 

(x1000)

Manufacturing 

Table H.8-2: Transmission System CMATs
Page 803

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

02 Transmission

1 01 External Components - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2 02 Case Sbsystem 59.80 - - 59.80 0.15 3.00 2.00 0.50 5.66 0 65.45 - 0.00 -

3 03 Gear Train Subsystem 42.78 4.02 10.03 56.83 0.22 3.98 2.81 0.59 7.59 0 64.42 - 0.00 -

4 05 Launch Clutch Subsystem 38.10 12.70 12.70 63.50 0.33 6.66 4.44 0.58 12.01 0 75.51 - 3,836.70 -

5 06 OilPump and Filter Subsystem 3.05 - - 3.05 0.14 0.36 0.32 0.08 0.90 0 3.95 - 0.00 -

6 07 Mechanical Controls Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

7 08 Electriacl Controls Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

8 09 Parking Mechanism Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

9 20 Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem 22.80 7.60 7.60 38.00 0.20 3.98 2.66 0.35 7.18 0 45.18 - 0.00 -

 166.53 24.32 30.33 221.17 1.03 17.98 12.23 2.09 33.34 0 254.51 - 3,836.70 - Item Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description System

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP

BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling (x1000) Investment

(X1000)

Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD 02 Transmission

1 01 External Components - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2 02 Case Sbsystem 69.87 - - 69.87 0.18 3.51 2.34 0.59 6.61 0 76.48 - 0.00 -

3 03 Gear Train Subsystem 140.22 4.66 10.27 155.16 0.81 15.85 10.76 1.52 28.95 0 184.10 - 0.00 -

4 05 Launch Clutch Subsystem 11.14 2.25 10.49 23.87 0.77 2.76 2.39 0.56 6.48 0 30.35 - 11,487.50 -

5 06 OilPump and Filter Subsystem 2.35 - - 2.35 0.11 0.28 0.25 0.06 0.70 0 3.05 - 0.00 -

6 07 Mechanical Controls Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

7 08 Electriacl Controls Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

8 09 Parking Mechanism Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

9 20 Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem 37.68 12.56 12.56 62.80 0.33 6.58 4.39 0.57 11.87 0 74.67 - 0.00 -

 261.26 19.48 33.32 314.05 2.20 28.98 20.12 3.30 54.61 0 368.66 - 11,487.50 -

Investment Item

(X1000) Subsystem

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Sub-Subsystem Description System

Tooling (x1000)

Markup

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

02 Transmission

1 01 External Components - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2 02 Case Sbsystem (10.08) - - (10.08) (0.03) (0.51) (0.34) (0.08) (0.95) 0 (11.03) - - -

3 03 Gear Train Subsystem (97.44) (0.65) (0.24) (98.33) (0.60) (11.88) (7.95) (0.93) (21.35) 0 (119.68) - - -

4 05 Launch Clutch Subsystem 26.96 10.45 2.21 39.63 (0.44) 3.90 2.05 0.02 5.53 0 45.16 - (7,650.80) -

5 06 OilPump and Filter Subsystem 0.69 - - 0.69 0.03 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.21 0 0.90 - - -

6 07 Mechanical Controls Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

7 08 Electriacl Controls Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

8 09 Parking Mechanism Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

9 20 Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem (14.88) (4.96) (4.96) (24.80) (0.13) (2.60) (1.73) (0.23) (4.69) 0 (29.49) - - -

 (94.73) 4.84 (2.99) (92.88) (1.16) (11.00) (7.89) (1.21) (21.26) 0 (114.15) - (7,650.80) -

INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Investment Item

(X1000) Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description System

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP

Tooling (x1000)

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Table H.8-3: Body System, Group A, BIW and Closures CMATs
Page 804

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

03 Body Subsystem

3 01 Body Structure Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4 01 Front Floor 26.21 1.50 12.42 40.13 - - - - - - 40.13 - - -

6 02 Body Dash and Cowl - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 -

6 03 Roof and Cross-Member 45.07 3.89 17.28 66.24 - - - - - - 66.24 - 4,000.00 -

7 04 Body Side 227.08 30.45 150.80 408.33 - - - - - - 408.33 - 1,200.00 -

8 05 Parcel Shelf and Cross-Vehicle Framing Parts - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

9 06 Cab Back & Ring Frame - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

10 07 Rear Wheel Arch Liners 2.37 0.13 0.82 3.32 0.02 0.37 0.29 0.06 0.74 - 4.06 - - -

11 08 One Piece Body Structure - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

12 10 Rear Floor 25.33 2.84 16.50 44.68 - - - - - - 44.68 - 300.00 -

13 11 Fuel Filler and Flap - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

14 99 Misc. Under Ladder Assembly 145.15 26.50 123.74 295.38 - - - - - - 295.38 - 4,600.00 -

15 02 Front End Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

16 01 Front Structure 44.93 10.57 56.72 112.22 - - - - - - 112.22 - - -

18 03 Front Fenders 9.91 0.44 5.35 15.70 - - - - - - 15.70 - - -

19 05 Hood BIW Panel 25.49 1.61 12.46 39.57 - - - - - - 39.57 - - -

20 10 Under Engine Closures/Air Dams 4.92 0.20 0.37 5.50 0.04 0.61 0.48 0.10 1.23 - 6.72 - - -

21 08 Front End Module Carrier 8.89 3.06 15.75 27.71 - - - - - - 27.71 - - -

22 99 Misc. - Compartment Extras (Al) 6.35 2.68 12.67 21.70 - - - - - - 21.70 - - -

23 03 Body Closures Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

24 03 Rear Closure BIW Panel 19.76 2.83 17.11 39.70 - - - - - - 39.70 - - -

25 19 Bumpers Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

26 01 Front Bumper Skin and Foams 9.00 0.63 4.35 13.98 - - - - - - 13.98 - - -

600.48 87.33 446.34 1,134.15 0.02 0.37 0.29 0.06 0.74 - 1,136.11 - 10,100.00 -

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION Item Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling 

(x1000)

Investment

(X1000)

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly) Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

03 Body Subsystem

3 01 Body Structure Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4 01 Front Floor 29.90 1.65 13.59 45.13 - - - - - - 45.13 - - -

6 02 Body Dash and Cowl - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

6 03 Roof and Cross-Member 39.57 4.07 17.77 61.42 - - - - - - 61.42 - 3,000.00 -

7 04 Body Side 291.65 35.67 181.46 508.78 - - - - - - 508.78 - 15,000.00 -

8 05 Parcel Shelf and Cross-Vehicle Framing Parts - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

9 06 Cab Back & Ring Frame - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

10 07 Rear Wheel Arch Liners 2.32 0.11 0.72 3.15 0.02 0.35 0.28 0.06 0.70 - 3.85 - - -

11 08 One Piece Body Structure - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

12 10 Rear Floor 24.96 3.00 18.45 46.41 - - - - - - 46.41 - 6,000.00 -

13 11 Fuel Filler and Flap - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

14 99 Misc. Under Ladder Assembly 141.01 27.45 130.67 299.13 - - - - - - 299.13 - 9,000.00 -

15 02 Front End Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

16 01 Front Structure 45.98 11.08 59.42 116.48 - - - - - - 116.48 - - -

18 03 Front Fenders 31.76 0.44 5.34 37.55 - - - - - - 37.55 - - -

19 05 Hood BIW Panel 64.84 1.58 12.25 78.68 - - - - - - 78.68 - - -

20 10 Under Engine Closures/Air Dams 4.76 0.18 0.34 5.28 0.04 0.58 0.46 0.09 1.18 - 6.46 - - -

21 08 Front End Module Carrier 10.28 3.31 17.03 30.62 - - - - - - 30.62 - - -

22 99 Misc. - Compartment Extras (Al) 19.98 2.55 12.17 34.70 - - - - - - 34.70 - - -

23 03 Body Closures Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

24 03 Rear Closure BIW Panel 49.73 2.83 17.10 69.66 - - - - - - 69.66 - - -

25 19 Bumpers Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

26 01 Front Bumper Skin and Foams 19.71 0.63 4.36 24.69 - - - - - - 24.69 - - -

776.46 94.56 490.66 1,361.68 0.02 0.35 0.28 0.06 0.70 - 1,363.56 - 33,000.00 -

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION Item Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling 

(x1000)

Investment

(X1000)

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
Page 805

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

03 Body Subsystem

3 01 Body Structure Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4 01 Front Floor (3.69) (0.15) (1.16) (5.00) - - - - - - (5.00) - - -

6 02 Body Dash and Cowl - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

6 03 Roof and Cross-Member 5.51 (0.18) (0.49) 4.83 - - - - - - 4.83 - 1,000.00 -

7 04 Body Side (64.57) (5.22) (30.66) (100.45) - - - - - - (100.45) - (13,800.00) -

8 05 Parcel Shelf and Cross-Vehicle Framing Parts - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

9 06 Cab Back & Ring Frame - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

10 07 Rear Wheel Arch Liners 0.05 0.02 0.11 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.04 - 0.21 - - -

11 08 One Piece Body Structure - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

12 10 Rear Floor 0.37 (0.16) (1.94) (1.73) - - - - - - (1.73) - (5,700.00) -

13 11 Fuel Filler and Flap - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

14 99 Misc. Under Ladder Assembly 4.13 (0.95) (6.93) (3.76) - - - - - - (3.76) - (4,400.00) -

15 02 Front End Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

16 01 Front Structure (1.05) (0.51) (2.70) (4.26) - - - - - - (4.26) - - -

18 03 Front Fenders (21.85) - 0.00 (21.85) - - - - - - (21.85) - - -

19 05 Hood BIW Panel (39.35) 0.02 0.21 (39.11) - - - - - - (39.11) - - -

20 10 Under Engine Closures/Air Dams 0.16 0.02 0.03 0.21 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.05 - 0.26 - - -

21 08 Front End Module Carrier (1.39) (0.25) (1.27) (2.91) - - - - - - (2.91) - - -

22 99 Misc. - Compartment Extras (Al) (13.64) 0.13 0.50 (13.01) - - - - - - (13.01) - - -

23 03 Body Closures Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

24 03 Rear Closure BIW Panel (29.97) - 0.01 (29.96) - - - - - - (29.96) - - -

25 19 Bumpers Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

26 01 Front Bumper Skin and Foams (10.70) - (0.01) (10.71) - - - - - - (10.71) - - -

(175.99) (7.23) (44.32) (227.54) 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.04 - (227.45) - (22,900.00) -

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE Item Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description Investment 

(X1000)

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP

Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling 

(x1000)

Table H.8-4: Body System, Group B, Interior CMATs
Page 806

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

03 Body System B

1 05 Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem 106.39 17.02 36.21 159.62 0.44 7.88 5.73 1.72 15.78 0 175.40 - - -

2 06 Sound and Heat Control Subsystem 4.03 0.28 0.26 4.57 0.01 0.23 0.15 0.04 0.43 0 5.01 - - -

3 07 Sealing Subsystem 47.09 15.70 15.70 78.49 - - - - - - 78.49 - - -

4 10 Seating Subsystem 119.32 57.61 75.85 252.79 1.57 22.39 19.26 6.51 49.73 0 302.51 - 21,532.45 -

5 12 Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem 64.30 3.98 13.68 81.95 0.21 4.12 2.75 0.69 7.76 0 89.71 - 3,042.10 -

6 20 Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem 14.87 4.45 4.75 24.07 0.06 1.21 0.81 0.20 2.28 0 26.35 - 1,573.00 -

 356.01 99.03 146.46 601.50 2.30 35.83 28.69 9.15 75.97 0 677.47 - 26,147.55 -

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Investment

(X1000)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP Item Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description System

BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling (x1000)

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

03 Body System B

1 05 Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem 86.72 11.47 27.90 126.09 0.31 6.16 4.10 1.03 11.59 0 137.68 - - -

2 06 Sound and Heat Control Subsystem 3.63 0.27 0.33 4.23 0.01 0.21 0.14 0.04 0.40 0 4.63 - - -

3 07 Sealing Subsystem 43.95 9.42 9.42 62.79 - - - - - - 62.79 - - -

4 10 Seating Subsystem 111.06 18.40 51.55 181.01 1.15 17.46 14.28 4.06 36.95 0 217.96 - 7,025.40 -

5 12 Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem 73.61 4.18 15.58 93.36 0.23 4.69 3.13 0.78 8.84 0 102.20 - 8,360.00 -

6 20 Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem 16.31 4.07 6.33 26.70 0.07 1.34 0.89 0.22 2.53 0 29.23 - 796.00 -

 335.28 47.79 111.10 494.18 1.77 29.86 22.55 6.13 60.31 0 554.49 - 16,181.40 -

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly) Item Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description System

Investment

(X1000)

Markup Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Tooling (x1000)

NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000) Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

03 Body System B

1 05 Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem 19.68 5.55 8.31 33.54 0.14 1.73 1.63 0.69 4.18 0 37.72 - - -

2 06 Sound and Heat Control Subsystem 0.40 0.01 (0.07) 0.34 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.03 0 0.38 - - -

3 07 Sealing Subsystem 3.14 6.28 6.28 15.70 - - - - - - 15.70 - - -

4 10 Seating Subsystem 8.26 39.22 24.30 71.78 0.42 4.93 4.97 2.45 12.78 0 84.56 - 14,507.05 -

5 12 Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem (9.32) (0.20) (1.90) (11.41) (0.03) (0.57) (0.38) (0.10) (1.08) 0 (12.49) - (5,317.90) -

6 20 Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem (1.44) 0.38 (1.57) (2.63) (0.01) (0.13) (0.09) (0.02) (0.25) 0 (2.88) - 777.00 -

 20.73 51.24 35.35 107.32 0.53 5.97 6.14 3.02 15.66 0 122.98 - 9,966.15 -

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP Item Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description System

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Investment 

(X1000)

INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling (x1000)

Table H.8-5: Body System, Group C, Exterior CMATs
Page 807

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

03 Body System C

3 08 Exterior Trim & Ornamentation Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4 Radiator Grill 3.63 0.06 0.24 3.93 0.03 0.41 0.33 0.07 0.83 - 4.76 - - -

5 Lower Exterior Finishers 11.43 0.61 1.19 13.22 0.02 1.46 1.16 0.23 2.87 - 16.09 - - -

6 Upper Exterior & Roof Finish 2.02 0.08 0.38 2.48 0.02 0.27 0.22 0.04 0.55 - 3.03 - - -

7 Rear Closure Finishers 3.44 0.05 0.43 3.92 0.03 0.43 0.34 0.07 0.87 - 4.79 - - -

8 Rear Spoiler Assembly 4.56 0.12 0.84 5.52 0.04 0.61 0.48 0.10 1.23 - 6.75 - - -

9 Grill - Cowl Vent 2.12 0.16 1.13 3.40 0.02 0.38 0.30 0.06 0.76 - 4.16 - - -

10 09 Rear View Mirrors Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

11 Exterior Mirror - Driver Side 2.54 0.26 0.20 3.00 0.02 0.33 0.26 0.05 0.67 - 3.67 - - -

12 Exterior Mirror - Passenger Side 2.54 0.26 0.20 3.00 0.02 0.33 0.26 0.05 0.67 - 3.67 - - -

13 23 Front End Module - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

14 Module - Front Bumper & Fascia 12.04 0.32 2.35 14.71 0.10 1.63 1.29 0.26 3.28 - 17.99 - - -

15 24 Rear End Module Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

16 Module - Rear Bumper and Fascia 12.72 0.35 2.35 15.42 0.11 1.71 1.35 0.27 3.44 - 18.86 - - -

 57.02 2.27 9.30 68.59 0.40 7.56 6.00 1.21 15.18 - 83.77 - - -

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling 

(x1000)

Investment

(X1000)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP Item Subsystem

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION

Sub-Subsystem Description

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

03 Body System C

3 08 Exterior Trim & Ornamentation Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4 Radiator Grill 3.47 0.05 0.21 3.74 0.03 0.41 0.33 0.07 0.83 - 4.57 - - -

5 Lower Exterior Finishers 10.96 0.53 1.05 12.54 0.09 1.39 1.10 0.22 2.80 - 15.33 - - -

6 Upper Exterior & Roof Finish 1.82 0.07 0.33 2.22 0.02 0.19 0.25 0.04 0.50 - 2.72 - - -

7 Rear Closure Finishers 3.29 0.04 0.39 3.72 0.03 0.41 0.33 0.07 0.83 - 4.55 - - -

8 Rear Spoiler Assembly 4.37 0.10 0.71 5.18 0.04 0.57 0.45 0.09 1.15 - 6.33 - - -

9 Grill - Cowl Vent 2.07 0.14 0.96 3.17 0.02 0.35 0.28 0.06 0.71 - 3.88 - - -

10 09 Rear View Mirrors Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

11 Exterior Mirror - Driver Side 2.25 0.25 0.19 2.69 0.02 0.30 0.24 0.05 0.60 - 3.30 - - -

12 Exterior Mirror - Passenger Side 2.25 0.25 0.19 2.69 0.02 0.30 0.24 0.05 0.60 - 3.30 - - -

13 23 Front End Module - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

14 Module - Front Bumper & Fascia 10.49 0.29 2.10 12.88 0.09 1.42 1.13 0.23 2.87 - 15.75 - - -

15 24 Rear End Module Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

16 Module - Rear Bumper and Fascia 11.10 0.31 2.11 13.52 0.09 1.50 1.19 0.24 3.02 - 16.54 - - -

 52.07 2.04 8.24 62.35 0.44 6.84 5.52 1.11 13.90 - 76.25 - - -

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP

NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Tooling Item

(x1000) Subsystem

Markup Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Sub-Subsystem Description Investment

(X1000)
Page 808

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

03 Body System C

3 08 Exterior Trim & Ornamentation Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4 Radiator Grill 0.16 0.01 0.03 0.20 - - - - - - 0.20 - - -

5 Lower Exterior Finishers 0.47 0.07 0.14 0.68 (0.07) 0.08 0.06 0.01 0.08 - 0.76 - - -

6 Upper Exterior & Roof Finish 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.26 0.00 0.08 (0.03) 0.00 0.06 - 0.32 - - -

7 Rear Closure Finishers 0.15 0.01 0.05 0.20 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.04 - 0.25 - - -

8 Rear Spoiler Assembly 0.19 0.02 0.13 0.34 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.08 - 0.42 - - -

9 Grill - Cowl Vent 0.04 0.02 0.17 0.23 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.05 - 0.28 - - -

10 09 Rear View Mirrors Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

11 Exterior Mirror - Driver Side 0.28 0.01 0.01 0.30 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.07 - 0.37 - - -

12 Exterior Mirror - Passenger Side 0.28 0.01 0.01 0.30 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.07 - 0.37 - - -

13 23 Front End Module - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

14 Module - Front Bumper & Fascia 1.55 0.03 0.24 1.83 0.01 0.20 0.16 0.03 0.41 - 2.24 - - -

15 24 Rear End Module Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

16 Module - Rear Bumper and Fascia 1.62 0.04 0.24 1.90 0.01 0.21 0.17 0.03 0.42 - 2.32 - - -

 4.95 0.23 1.06 6.24 (0.03) 0.72 0.48 0.11 1.27 - 7.52 - - -

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling 

(x1000)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP Item Subsystem

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Investment 

(X1000) Sub-Subsystem Description

INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)
Page 809

Table H.8-6: Body System, Group D, Glazing & Body Mechatronics CMATs

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

03 Body System D

11 Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem

1 01 Windshield and Front Quarter Window (Fixed) 4.02 1.43 14.83 20.28 0.05 1.02 0.68 0.17 1.92 - 22.20 - - -

2 03 First Row Door Window Lift Assy 5.70 0.40 1.32 7.42 0.02 0.37 0.25 0.06 0.70 - 8.13 - - -

3 04 Rear Quarter Window Assembly (Moveable) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4 05 Back and Rear Quarter Windows (Fixed) 1.09 0.36 7.43 8.89 0.02 0.45 0.30 0.07 0.84 - 9.73 - - -

5 09 Power Window Electronics - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

6 11 Second Row Door, Qtr & Rear Closure Window Lift Assy 5.70 0.40 1.32 7.42 0.02 0.37 0.25 0.06 0.70 - 8.13 - - -

7 12 Back Window Assy 4.02 1.91 39.32 45.24 0.11 2.27 1.52 0.38 4.28 - 49.53 - - -

8 13 Front Side Door Glass - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

9 14 Rear Side Door Glass 2.91 1.85 37.97 42.73 0.11 2.15 1.43 0.36 4.04 - 46.78 - - -

15 99 Solvent Bottle 2.31 0.09 0.12 2.51 0.02 0.28 0.22 0.04 0.56 - 3.07 - - -

 25.76 6.44 102.31 134.50 0.35 6.91 4.64 1.15 13.05 - 147.56 - - -

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling (x1000) Investment

(X1000)

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP Item Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description System

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

03 Body System D

11 Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem

1 01 Windshield and Front Quarter Window (Fixed) 3.33 1.19 17.30 21.82 0.05 1.10 0.73 0.18 2.06 - 23.88 - - -

2 03 First Row Door Window Lift Assy 7.87 0.40 1.32 9.59 0.02 0.48 0.32 0.08 0.91 - 10.49 - - -

3 04 Rear Quarter Window Assembly (Moveable) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4 05 Back and Rear Quarter Windows (Fixed) 0.99 0.33 8.32 9.63 0.02 0.48 0.32 0.08 0.91 - 10.54 - - -

5 09 Power Window Electronics - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

6 11 Second Row Door, Qtr & Rear Closure Window Lift Assy 7.87 0.40 1.32 9.59 0.02 0.48 0.32 0.08 0.91 - 10.49 - - -

7 12 Back Window Assy 3.47 1.72 43.97 49.17 0.12 2.47 1.65 0.41 4.65 - 53.82 - - -

8 13 Front Side Door Glass - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

9 14 Rear Side Door Glass 2.39 1.66 42.47 46.52 0.12 2.34 1.56 0.39 4.40 - 50.93 - - -

15 99 Solvent Bottle 1.99 0.08 0.10 2.17 0.02 0.24 0.19 0.04 0.48 - 2.66 - - -

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP 27.90 5.78 114.79 148.48 0.38 7.59 5.09 1.26 14.33 - 162.81 - - -

NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Tooling (x1000)

Markup Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly) Item Subsystem

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Sub-Subsystem Description System

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Investment

(X1000)

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

03 Body System D

11 Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem

1 01 Windshield and Front Quarter Window (Fixed) 0.69 0.24 (2.47) (1.54) (0.00) (0.08) (0.05) (0.01) (0.15) - (1.68) - - -

2 03 First Row Door Window Lift Assy (2.16) - - (2.16) (0.01) (0.11) (0.07) (0.02) (0.20) - (2.37) - - -

3 04 Rear Quarter Window Assembly (Moveable) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4 05 Back and Rear Quarter Windows (Fixed) 0.10 0.04 (0.88) (0.74) (0.00) (0.04) (0.02) (0.01) (0.07) - (0.81) - - -

5 09 Power Window Electronics - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

6 11 Second Row Door, Qtr & Rear Closure Window Lift Assy (2.16) - - (2.16) (0.01) (0.11) (0.07) (0.02) (0.20) - (2.37) - - -

7 12 Back Window Assy 0.54 0.19 (4.65) (3.92) (0.01) (0.20) (0.13) (0.03) (0.37) - (4.29) - - -

8 13 Front Side Door Glass - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

9 14 Rear Side Door Glass 0.52 0.18 (4.49) (3.79) (0.01) (0.19) (0.13) (0.03) (0.36) - (4.15) - - -

15 99 Solvent Bottle 0.32 0.01 0.01 0.34 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.08 - 0.42 - - -

 (2.15) 0.66 (12.48) (13.97) (0.03) (0.68) (0.45) (0.11) (1.28) - (15.25) - - -

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling (x1000)

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP Item Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description System

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Investment 

(X1000)

Table H.8-7: Suspension System CMATs
Page 810

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

04 Suspension System

1 01 Front Suspension Subsystem 60.25 13.87 32.15 106.27 2.12 10.92 9.41 2.74 25.19 - 131.46 - 3,511.70 -

2 02 Rear Suspension Subsystem 58.85 16.49 32.97 108.30 2.07 11.32 9.68 2.77 25.84 - 134.14 - 2,172.83 -

3 03 Shock Absorber Subsystem 86.57 26.40 25.96 138.94 0.98 15.18 12.23 3.16 31.55 - 170.48 - 2,642.34 -

4 04 Wheels and Tires Subsystem 223.42 46.85 46.85 317.12 0.80 15.93 10.62 2.66 30.01 - 347.13 - - -

5 05 Suspension Load Leveling Control Subsystem (NA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

6 06 Rear suspension Modules Subsystem (NA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

7 07 Front Suspension Modules Subsystem (NA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 429.10 103.60 137.94 670.63 5.96 53.36 41.94 11.32 112.58 - 783.22 - 8,326.87 -

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling 

(x1000)

Investment

(X1000)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

SYSTEM ROLL-UP Item System

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION

Subsystem Description

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

04 Suspension System

1 01 Front Suspension Subsystem 62.17 13.94 28.51 104.62 1.81 10.44 8.94 2.62 23.81 - 128.42 - 8,684.08 -

2 02 Rear Suspension Subsystem 62.26 14.67 28.34 105.26 1.73 10.59 9.03 2.62 23.97 - 129.23 - 4,631.88 -

3 03 Shock Absorber Subsystem 56.71 17.17 17.81 91.69 0.65 10.01 8.06 2.08 20.81 - 112.50 - 2,555.28 -

4 04 Wheels and Tires Subsystem 173.83 35.66 35.66 245.16 0.62 12.32 8.21 2.05 23.20 - 268.36 - - -

5 05 Suspension Load Leveling Control Subsystem (NA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

6 06 Rear suspension Modules Subsystem (NA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

7 07 Front Suspension Modules Subsystem (NA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 354.97 81.45 110.32 546.73 4.80 43.36 34.25 9.37 91.78 - 638.51 - 15,871.24 -

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SYSTEM ROLL-UP

NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Tooling Item

(x1000) System

Markup Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Subsystem Description Investment

(X1000)

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

04 Suspension System

1 01 Front Suspension Subsystem (1.92) (0.07) 3.65 1.66 0.31 0.49 0.47 0.12 1.38 - 3.04 - (5,172.38) -

2 02 Rear Suspension Subsystem (3.41) 1.82 4.64 3.04 0.33 0.73 0.65 0.15 1.87 - 4.91 - (2,459.05) -

3 03 Shock Absorber Subsystem 29.87 9.23 8.16 47.25 0.33 5.17 4.16 1.07 10.74 - 57.99 - 87.06 -

4 04 Wheels and Tires Subsystem 49.59 11.18 11.18 71.96 0.18 3.62 2.41 0.60 6.81 - 78.77 - - -

5 05 Suspension Load Leveling Control Subsystem (NA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

6 06 Rear suspension Modules Subsystem (NA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

7 07 Front Suspension Modules Subsystem (NA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 74.13 22.15 27.62 123.91 1.16 10.00 7.69 1.95 20.80 - 144.71 - (7,544.37) -

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling 

(x1000)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SYSTEM ROLL-UP Item System

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Investment 

(X1000) Subsystem Description

INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Table H.8-8: Driveline System CMATs 
Page 811

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

05 Driveline System

1 03 Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem 6.94 0.00 0.00 6.95 0.04 0.41 0.47 0.23 1.15 0 8.09 - 74.30 -

2 04 Front Drive Half Shaft Subsystem 9.84 2.52 5.95 18.31 0.25 2.13 2.08 0.74 5.20 0 23.51 - 41.50 -

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP 16.79 2.52 5.96 25.26 0.29 2.54 2.55 0.97 6.34 0 31.60 - 115.80 -

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM Item System Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling 

(x1000)

Investment

(X1000)

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

05 Driveline System

1 03 Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem 5.62 0.00 0.00 5.63 0.03 0.33 0.38 0.19 0.93 0 6.55 - 80.80 -

2 04 Front Drive Half Shaft Subsystem 10.97 2.84 5.87 19.67 0.31 2.28 2.19 0.77 5.54 0 25.22 - 720.86 -

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP 16.59 2.84 5.87 25.30 0.34 2.61 2.57 0.95 6.47 0 31.77 - 801.66 -

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly) Item System Subsystem

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Sub-Subsystem Description

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Tooling 

(x1000)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Investment

(X1000)

NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

05 Driveline System

1 03 Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem 1.32 - - 1.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.22 0 1.54 - (6.50) -

2 04 Front Drive Half Shaft Subsystem (1.13) (0.32) 0.09 (1.36) (0.06) (0.15) (0.11) (0.03) (0.35) 0 (1.70) - (679.36) -

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP 0.19 (0.32) 0.09 (0.04) (0.05) (0.07) (0.02) 0.01 (0.13) 0 (0.16) - (685.86) - Item System

Investment 

(X1000) Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description

Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

Tooling 

(x1000)

Manufacturing 

Table H.8-9: Brake System CMATs
Page 812

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

06 Brake System

3 03 Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem 49.19 10.39 49.94 109.53 0.65 7.16 7.54 3.39 18.74 - 128.26 - 2,805.50 -

4 04 Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem 33.71 12.26 56.46 102.43 0.35 6.49 4.53 1.00 12.37 - 114.79 - 3,067.40 -

5 05 Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem 45.88 19.62 22.20 87.69 0.43 7.67 5.52 1.03 14.65 - 102.34 - 1,896.98 -

6 06 Brake Actuation Subsystem 26.04 8.26 11.91 46.21 0.31 5.01 3.87 0.75 9.93 - 56.13 - 1,812.85 -

7 07 Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic) 2.99 1.56 2.86 7.42 0.04 0.78 0.52 0.07 1.40 - 8.82 - 1,849.91 -

8 08 N / A - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

9 09 Brake Controls Subsystem (N/a) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

10 10 Auxiliary Brake Subsystem (N/A) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 157.80 52.09 143.38 353.27 1.77 27.10 21.98 6.23 57.08 - 410.35 - 11,432.64 -

Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling 

(x1000)

Investment

(X1000)

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly) Item System

Subsystem Description

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SYSTEM ROLL-UP

BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION

Markup

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

06 Brake System

3 03 Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem 38.49 10.16 29.81 78.46 0.48 5.39 5.61 2.41 13.89 - 92.35 - 4,988.16 -

4 04 Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem 44.63 11.32 30.51 86.46 0.31 5.71 4.01 0.86 10.89 - 97.35 - 4,964.91 -

5 05 Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem 7.34 3.21 5.47 16.02 0.10 1.66 1.31 0.27 3.34 - 19.36 - 370.70 -

6 06 Brake Actuation Subsystem 11.19 3.53 5.29 20.00 0.14 2.08 1.68 0.37 4.26 - 24.26 - 559.70 -

7 07 Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic) 2.94 1.05 2.22 6.21 0.04 0.66 0.48 0.08 1.26 - 7.47 - 1,975.30 -

8 08 N / A - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

9 09 Brake Controls Subsystem (N/a) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

10 10 Auxiliary Brake Subsystem (N/A) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 104.58 29.27 73.30 207.15 1.06 15.50 13.08 3.99 33.64 - 240.79 - 12,858.77 -

Markup Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Investment Item

(X1000) System

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Subsystem Description

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SYSTEM ROLL-UP

NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Tooling 

(x1000)

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

06 Brake System

3 03 Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem 10.70 0.23 20.13 31.06 0.17 1.77 1.94 0.97 4.85 - 35.91 - (2,182.66) -

4 04 Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem (10.92) 0.94 25.95 15.96 0.04 0.78 0.52 0.14 1.48 - 17.44 - (1,897.51) -

5 05 Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem 38.54 16.40 16.73 71.67 0.32 6.01 4.22 0.76 11.31 - 82.98 - 1,526.28 -

6 06 Brake Actuation Subsystem 14.85 4.73 6.63 26.21 0.17 2.93 2.18 0.38 5.66 - 31.87 - 1,253.15 -

7 07 Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic) 0.05 0.51 0.65 1.21 0.00 0.12 0.04 (0.02) 0.14 - 1.35 - (125.39) -

8 08 N / A - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

9 09 Brake Controls Subsystem (N/a) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

10 10 Auxiliary Brake Subsystem (N/A) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 53.22 22.81 70.08 146.12 0.70 11.60 8.90 2.24 23.44 - 169.56 - (1,426.12) -

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling Item

(x1000) System

Subsystem Description

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SYSTEM ROLL-UP

INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Investment 

(X1000)

Table H.8-10: Frame and Mounting System CMATs
Page 813

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

07 Frame and Mounting System

1 01 Frame Subsystem 73.90 21.22 17.43 112.55 0.97 12.32 11.61 4.07 28.97 0 141.52 - 7,710.61 -

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP 73.90 21.22 17.43 112.55 0.97 12.32 11.61 4.07 28.97 0 141.52 - 7,710.61 -

Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM System Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION ItemBASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling 

(x1000)

Investment

(X1000)

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

07 Frame and Mounting System

1 01 Frame Subsystem 70.04 10.19 41.52 121.75 0.82 8.54 9.40 4.30 23.05 0 144.80 - 11,411.00 -

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP 70.04 10.19 41.52 121.75 0.82 8.54 9.40 4.30 23.05 0 144.80 - 11,411.00 -

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly) System Subsystem

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Sub-Subsystem Description

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Tooling 

(x1000)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly) Item

Investment

(X1000)

NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

07 Frame and Mounting System

1 01 Frame Subsystem 3.86 11.03 (24.09) (9.20) 0.16 3.79 2.21 (0.23) 5.92 0 (3.28) - (3,700.39) -

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP 3.86 11.03 (24.09) (9.20) 0.16 3.79 2.21 (0.23) 5.92 0 (3.28) - (3,700.39) - System

Investment 

(X1000) Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description

Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION Item

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

Tooling 

(x1000)

Manufacturing 

Table H.8-11: Exhaust System CMATs
Page 814

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD 09 Exhaust System

1 01 Acoustical Control Components Subsystem 17.55 0.28 0.35 18.18 0.08 0.99 0.91 0.38 2.36 0 20.54 - - -

2 02 Exhaust Gas Treatment Components Subsystem 21.47 0.56 0.70 22.73 0.06 0.76 0.70 0.29 1.82 0 24.55 - - -

 39.02 0.84 1.05 40.90 0.13 1.75 1.62 0.67 4.18 0 45.08 - - -

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Investment

(X1000)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP Item Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description System

BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling (x1000)

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD 09 Exhaust System

1 01 Acoustical Control Components Subsystem 17.82 0.32 0.32 18.46 0.07 0.96 0.88 0.37 2.28 0 20.74 - - -

2 02 Exhaust Gas Treatment Components Subsystem 19.14 0.63 0.64 20.42 0.05 0.61 0.56 0.23 1.45 0 21.87 - - -

 36.97 0.95 0.97 38.88 0.12 1.57 1.45 0.60 3.74 0 42.62 - - -

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly) Item Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description System

Investment

(X1000)

Markup Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Tooling (x1000)

NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000) Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD 09 Exhaust System

1 01 Acoustical Control Components Subsystem (0.28) (0.04) 0.03 (0.28) 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.08 0 (0.21) - - -

2 02 Exhaust Gas Treatment Components Subsystem 2.33 (0.07) 0.05 2.31 0.01 0.15 0.14 0.06 0.37 0 2.68 - - -

 2.05 (0.11) 0.08 2.02 0.01 0.19 0.17 0.07 0.44 0 2.47 - - -

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP Item Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description System

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Investment 

(X1000)

INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling (x1000)

Table H.8-12: Fuel System CMATs
Page 815

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

10 Fuel System

1 01 Fuel Tank and Lines SubSystem 24.51 11.35 31.38 67.24 0.46 5.11 5.34 2.32 13.22 0 80.45 - 4,745.00 -

2 02 Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem 4.15 1.00 1.15 6.30 0.06 0.72 0.68 0.23 1.69 0 7.99 - 446.00 -

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP 28.66 12.35 32.53 73.54 0.51 5.83 6.01 2.55 14.91 0 88.45 - 5,191.00 -

BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling 

(x1000)

Investment

(X1000)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION Item System Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

10 Fuel System

1 01 Fuel Tank and Lines SubSystem 42.87 5.37 17.09 65.34 0.44 4.67 5.04 2.28 12.42 0 77.76 - 3,252.20 -

2 02 Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem 4.10 0.60 0.65 5.36 0.05 0.61 0.57 0.19 1.42 0 6.78 - 313.50 -

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP 46.98 5.97 17.74 70.69 0.48 5.28 5.61 2.47 13.84 0 84.54 - 3,565.70 -

Investment

(X1000)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Tooling 

(x1000)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly) Item System Subsystem

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Sub-Subsystem Description

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

10 Fuel System

1 01 Fuel Tank and Lines SubSystem (18.37) 5.98 14.29 1.90 0.02 0.44 0.29 0.04 0.79 0 2.70 - 1,492.80 -

2 02 Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem 0.05 0.40 0.50 0.95 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.04 0.27 0 1.21 - 132.50 -

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP (18.32) 6.38 14.79 2.85 0.03 0.55 0.40 0.08 1.06 0 3.91 - 1,625.30 -

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

Tooling 

(x1000)

Manufacturing Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION Item System

Investment 

(X1000) Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description

Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup

Table H.8-13: Steering System CMATs
Page 816

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

11 Steering System

01 Steering Gear Subsystem 5.01 - - 5.01 0.02 0.27 0.25 0.10 0.65 0 5.66 - - -

02 Power Steering Subsystem 0.55 0.06 0.07 0.67 0.00 0.03 0.02 - 0.06 0 0.73 - 276.00 -

04 Steering Column Subsystem 5.42 6.28 7.06 18.76 0.14 1.84 1.64 0.47 4.08 0 22.84 - 622.90 -

05 Steering Column Switches Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

06 Steering Wheel Subsystem 7.51 1.50 1.73 10.73 0.23 0.54 0.37 0.01 1.15 0 11.88 - 3,469.20 -

 18.48 7.84 8.86 35.18 0.38 2.69 2.28 0.59 5.94 0 41.11 - 4,368.10 -

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Investment

(X1000)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP Item Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description System

BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling (x1000)

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

11 Steering System

01 Steering Gear Subsystem 4.79 - - 4.79 0.02 0.26 0.24 0.10 0.62 0 5.41 - - -

02 Power Steering Subsystem 0.39 0.13 0.07 0.59 0.00 0.03 0.02 - 0.05 0 0.64 - 89.20 -

04 Steering Column Subsystem 3.57 2.80 3.75 10.12 0.18 1.04 0.88 0.23 2.34 0 12.45 - 2,532.90 -

05 Steering Column Switches Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

06 Steering Wheel Subsystem 8.07 1.72 1.75 11.54 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.03 0 11.56 - 393.30 -

 16.81 4.64 5.57 27.03 0.20 1.35 1.15 0.34 3.04 0 30.07 - 3,015.40 -

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly) Item Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description System

Investment

(X1000)

Markup Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Tooling (x1000)

NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000) Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

11 Steering System

01 Steering Gear Subsystem 0.22 - - 0.22 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0 0.24 - - -

02 Power Steering Subsystem 0.16 (0.07) (0.00) 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.01 0 0.10 - 186.80 -

04 Steering Column Subsystem 1.85 3.48 3.31 8.64 (0.04) 0.80 0.75 0.24 1.75 0 10.39 - (1,910.00) -

05 Steering Column Switches Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

06 Steering Wheel Subsystem (0.56) (0.22) (0.02) (0.80) 0.23 0.53 0.36 0.01 1.12 0 0.32 - 3,075.90 -

 1.67 3.19 3.28 8.15 0.18 1.34 1.13 0.25 2.90 0 11.05 - 1,352.70 -

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP Item Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description System

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Investment 

(X1000)

INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling (x1000)

Table H.8-14: Climate Control System CMATs
Page 817

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

12 Climate Control

1 01 Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem 16.65 3.66 10.87 31.18 0.08 1.57 1.04 0.26 2.95 0 34.13 - 670.00 -

2 02 Heating/Defrosting Subsystem 1.22 0.65 2.29 4.16 0.01 0.21 0.14 0.03 0.39 0 4.55 - 400.00 -

3 03 Refrigeration/Air Conditioning Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4 04 Controls Subsystem 0.25 0.06 0.05 0.36 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.07 0 0.43 - - -

 18.12 4.37 13.20 35.70 0.09 1.81 1.21 0.30 3.42 0 39.11 - 1,070.00 -

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION Item System

Sub-Subsystem Description Subsystem

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling 

(x1000)

Investment

(X1000)

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

12 Climate Control

1 01 Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem 16.17 4.74 3.63 24.54 0.06 1.23 0.82 0.21 2.32 0 26.86 - 524.00 -

2 02 Heating/Defrosting Subsystem 1.43 0.59 0.29 2.31 0.01 0.12 0.08 0.02 0.22 0 2.52 - 160.00 -

3 03 Refrigeration/Air Conditioning Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4 04 Controls Subsystem 0.22 0.06 0.05 0.33 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.07 0 0.39 - - -

 17.82 5.39 3.97 27.17 0.07 1.38 0.92 0.23 2.61 0 29.78 - 684.00 -

Investment

(X1000)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION Item System

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Sub-Subsystem Description Subsystem

Tooling 

(x1000)

Markup Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

12 Climate Control

1 01 Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem 0.49 (1.08) 7.24 6.65 0.02 0.33 0.22 0.06 0.63 0 7.27 - 146.00 -

2 02 Heating/Defrosting Subsystem (0.21) 0.06 2.00 1.85 0.00 0.09 0.06 0.02 0.18 0 2.03 - 240.00 -

3 03 Refrigeration/Air Conditioning Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4 04 Controls Subsystem 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0 0.04 - - -

 0.30 (1.01) 9.24 8.53 0.02 0.43 0.29 0.07 0.81 0 9.34 - 386.00 -

INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Investment Item

(X1000) System

Sub-Subsystem Description Subsystem

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling 

(x1000)

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP

Table H.8-15: Info, Gage and Warning System CMATs
Page 818

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

13 Info, Gage and Warning System

1 01 Instrument Cluster Subsystem 1.95 0.06 0.22 2.23 0.01 0.13 0.15 0.07 0.37 0 2.60 - - -

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP 1.95 0.06 0.22 2.23 0.01 0.13 0.15 0.07 0.37 0 2.60 - - -

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM Item System Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling 

(x1000)

Investment

(X1000)

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

13 Info, Gage and Warning System

1 01 Instrument Cluster Subsystem 1.70 0.05 0.31 2.07 0.01 0.12 0.14 0.07 0.34 0 2.41 - - -

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP 1.70 0.05 0.31 2.07 0.01 0.12 0.14 0.07 0.34 0 2.41 - - -

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly) Item System Subsystem

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Sub-Subsystem Description

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Tooling 

(x1000)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Investment

(X1000)

NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

13 Info, Gage and Warning System

1 01 Instrument Cluster Subsystem 0.25 0.01 (0.09) 0.16 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0 0.19 - - -

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP 0.25 0.01 (0.09) 0.16 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0 0.19 - - - Item System

Investment 

(X1000) Subsystem

Sub-Subsystem Description

Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

Tooling 

(x1000)

Manufacturing 

Table H.8-16: In-Vehicle Entertainment System CMATs
Page 819

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

15 In-Vehicle Entertainment

1 01 Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem 1.39 1.31 1.26 3.96 0.04 0.41 0.28 0.04 0.77 0 4.73 - 1,392.30 -

2 02 Antenna Subsystem 0.07 0.24 0.36 0.66 0.00 0.07 0.05 0.01 0.13 0 0.79 - - -

3 03 Speaker Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 1.46 1.55 1.62 4.62 0.04 0.48 0.32 0.04 0.89 0 5.52 - 1,392.30 -

BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling (x1000) Investment

(X1000)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP Item System

Sub-Subsystem Description Subsystem

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

15 In-Vehicle Entertainment

1 01 Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem 1.22 0.61 0.76 2.59 0.01 0.26 0.18 0.02 0.48 0 3.07 - 216.70 -

2 02 Antenna Subsystem 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0 0.09 - - -

3 03 Speaker Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 1.26 0.64 0.78 2.67 0.01 0.27 0.18 0.02 0.49 0 3.16 - 216.70 -

NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION

Tooling (x1000)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly) Item System

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Sub-Subsystem Description Subsystem

Investment

(X1000)

Markup Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

15 In-Vehicle Entertainment

1 01 Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem 0.16 0.70 0.50 1.37 0.03 0.15 0.10 0.01 0.29 0 1.66 - 1,175.60 -

2 02 Antenna Subsystem 0.04 0.21 0.34 0.58 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.11 0 0.69 - - -

3 03 Speaker Subsystem - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 0.20 0.91 0.84 1.95 0.03 0.21 0.14 0.02 0.40 0 2.35 - 1,175.60 -

INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Tooling (x1000)

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP Item System

Investment 

(X1000) Sub-Subsystem Description Subsystem

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Table H.8-17: Lighting System CMATs
Page 820

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

17 Lighting

1 01 Front Lighting 7.91 2.26 4.55 14.72 0.04 0.74 0.49 0.12 1.39 0 16.11 - 400.00 -

 7.91 2.26 4.55 14.72 0.04 0.74 0.49 0.12 1.39 0 16.11 - 400.00 -

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION Item

Investment

(X1000)

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Tooling 

(x1000)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP System

Sub-Subsystem Description Subsystem

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000) Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

17 Lighting

1 01 Front Lighting 10.87 1.23 3.31 15.41 0.04 0.77 0.52 0.13 1.46 0 16.87 - - -

 10.87 1.23 3.31 15.41 0.04 0.77 0.52 0.13 1.46 0 16.87 - - -

NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION ItemSYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Tooling 

(x1000)

Markup Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly) System

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Sub-Subsystem Description Subsystem

Investment

(X1000)

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

17 Lighting

1 01 Front Lighting (2.95) 1.03 1.24 (0.69) (0.00) (0.03) (0.02) (0.01) (0.07) 0 (0.76) - 400.00 -

 (2.95) 1.03 1.24 (0.69) (0.00) (0.03) (0.02) (0.01) (0.07) 0 (0.76) - 400.00 -

Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

Markup Item

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP

INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

Investment 

(X1000) System

Sub-Subsystem Description Subsystem

Manufacturing 

Tooling 

(x1000)

Table H.8-18: Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System CMATs
Page 821

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

18 Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System

1 01 Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem 8.92 0.59 0.63 10.14 0.03 0.51 0.34 0.03 0.90 - 11.04 - 313.50 -

 8.92 0.59 0.63 10.14 0.03 0.51 0.34 0.03 0.90 - 11.04 - 313.50 -

Sub-Subsystem Description System

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM

BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP Item Subsystem

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling (x1000) Investment

(X1000)

Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

18 Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System

1 01 Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem 7.61 0.62 0.58 8.82 0.03 0.45 0.34 0.05 0.87 - 9.69 - 210.00 -

 7.61 0.62 0.58 8.82 0.03 0.45 0.34 0.05 0.87 - 9.69 - 210.00 -

Sub-Subsystem Description System

Investment

(X1000)

Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP

NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Tooling (x1000) Item Subsystem

Markup Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM Material Labor Burden End Item Scrap SG&A Profit ED&T-R&D

USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD USD

18 Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System

1 01 Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem 1.31 (0.03) 0.04 1.32 (0.00) 0.06 0.00 (0.03) 0.03 - 1.35 - 103.50 -

 1.31 (0.03) 0.04 1.32 (0.00) 0.06 0.00 (0.03) 0.03 - 1.35 - 103.50 -

Sub-Subsystem Description System

INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE

Manufacturing Total Manufacturing Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Markup

Investment 

(X1000)

Total Markup Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

Total Packaging Cost 

(Component/ Assembly)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP Item Subsystem

System ED&T/R&D

(x1000)

Tooling (x1000)

Net Component/ Assembly Cost 

Impact to OEM
Page 822

H.9 Suppliers who Contributed in the Analysis System Subsystem Sub-Subsystem

Major Supplier Contributed in Ideas Logos

01 00 00 Engine System Mubea, Mahle, DSM

02 00 00 Transmission System DuPont

Alcast Company Aluminum Foundry

03 00 00 Body System( Group -A-) BIW & Closures PolyOne

03 00 00 Body System( Group -B-) Interior Trexel, Polyone, SABIC

03 00 00 Body System( Group -C-) Exterior PolyOne

03 00 00 Body System( Group -D-) Glazing & Body Mechatronics Pikington, Exatec, Intermac

04 00 00 Suspension System Mubea, Delphi

05 00 00 Driveline System

06 00 00 Brake System Delphi

07 00 00 Frame and Mounting System

09 00 00 Exhaust System Mubea, SGF

10 00 00 Fuel System Delphi

11 00 00 Steering System

12 00 00 Climate Control System Zotefoams, DSM

13 00 00 Info, Gage and Warning System Trexel

14 00 00 Electrical Power Supply System

15 00 00 In-Vehicle Entertainment System Parker

17 00 00 Lighting System SABIC, Trexel

18 00 00 Electrical Dis. And Electronic Control System

19 00 00 Electronic Features System

Description
Page 823

I. Glossary of Terms

Assembly: a group of interdependent components joined together to perform a defined 

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

fuel injector assembly).

Automatic Transmission (AT): is one type of motor vehicle transmission that can 

automatically change gear ratios as the vehicle moves, freeing the driver from having to 

shift gears manually.

BAS (Belt Alternator Starter): is a system design to start/re-start an engine using a nontraditional internal combustion engine (ICE) starter motor. In a standard internal ICE the 

crankshaft drives an alternator, through a belt pulley arrangement, producing electrical 

power for the vehicle. In the BAS system, the alternator is replaced with a starter 

motor/generator assembly so that it can perform opposing duties. When the ICE is 

running, the starter motor/generator functions as a generator producing electricity for the 

vehicle. When the ICE is off, the starter motor/generator can function as a starter motor, 

turning the crankshaft to start the engine. In addition to starting the ICE, the starter motor 

can also provide vehicle launch assist and regenerative braking capabilities.

Buy: the components or assemblies a manufacturer would purchase versus manufacture. 

All designated “buy” parts, within the analysis, only have a net component cost presented. 

These types of parts are typically considered commodity purchase parts having industry 

established pricing.

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

subsystems, assemblies, and components associated with the technology configurations 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

perform a function within a sub-subsystem or subsystem (e.g., exhaust manifold within 

the exhaust subsystem).

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

used to calculate operation and process parameters for primary manufacturing processes 

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

from the costing estimating tools (e.g., cycle times, raw material usage, equipment size) is 
Page 824

inputted into the Lean Design® process maps supporting the cost analysis. The Excel 

base cost estimating models are developed and validated by Munro & Associates. 

Costing Databases: the five (5) core databases that contain all the cost rates for the 

analysis. (1) The material database lists all the materials used throughout the analysis 

along with the estimated price/pound for each. (2) The labor database captures various 

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

associated mean hourly labor rates. (3) The manufacturing overhead rate database

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

analysis. (4) A mark-up database assigns a percentage of mark-up for each of the four 

(4) main mark-up categories (i.e., end-item scrap, SG&A, profit, and ED&T), based on 

the industry, supplier size, and complexity classification. (5) The packaging database

contains packaging options and costs for each case.

Cross Functional Team (CFT): is a group of people with different functional expertise 

working toward a common goal.

Direct Labor (DIR): is the mean manufacturing labor wage directly associated with 

fabricating, finishing, and/or assembling a physical component or assembly.

Dual Clutch Transmission (DCT): is a differing type of semi-automatic or automated 

manual automotive transmission. It utilizes two separate clutches for odd and even gear 

sets. It can fundamentally be described as two separate manual transmissions (with their 

respective clutches) contained within one housing, and working as one unit. They are 

usually operated in a fully automatic mode, and many also have the ability to allow the 

driver to manually shift gears, albeit still carried out by the transmission's electrohydraulics.

ED&T (engineering, design, and testing): is an acronym used in accounting to refer to 

engineering, design, and testing expenses.

Fringe (FR): all the additional expenses a company must pay for an employee above and 

beyond base wage.

Fully Variable Valve Actuation (FVVA): is a generalized term used to describe any 

mechanism or method that can alter the shape or timing of a valve lift event within an 

internal combustion engine.

Gasoline Direct Inject (GDI): is a variant of fuel injection employed in modern twostroke and four-stroke gasoline engines. The gasoline is highly pressurized, and injected 

via a common rail fuel line directly into the combustion chamber of each cylinder, as 

opposed to conventional multi-point fuel injection that happens in the intake tract, or 

cylinder port.
Page 825

Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV): is a type of hybrid vehicle and electric vehicle which 

combines a conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) propulsion system with an 

electric propulsion system.

Internal Combustion Engine (ICE): is an engine in which the combustion of a fuel

occurs with an oxidizer in a combustion chamber.

Indirect Cost Multipliers (ICM): is developed by EPA to address the OEM indirect 

costs associated with manufacturing new components and assemblies. The indirect costs, 

costs associated with OEM research and development, corporate operations, dealership 

support, sales and marketing material, legal, and OEM owned tooling, are calculated by 

applying an ICM factor to the direct manufacturing cost. 

Indirect Labor (IND): is the manufacturing labor indirectly associated with making a 

physical component or assembly.

Intellectual property (IP): is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations 

of the mind for which a set of exclusive rights are recognized under the corresponding 

fields of law.

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

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

symbols, with each base symbol representing a group of similar manufacturing 

procedures (e.g., fastening, material modifications, inspection). For each group, a Lean 

Design® library/database exists containing standardized operations along with the 

associated manufacturing information and specifications for each operation. The 

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

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

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

Maintenance Repair (MRO): aall actions which have the objective of retaining or 

restoring an item in or to a state in which it can perform its required function. The actions 

include the combination of all technical and corresponding administrative, managerial, 

and supervision actions

Make: terminology used to identify those components or assemblies a manufacturer 

would produce internally versus purchase. All parts designated as a “make” part, within 

the analysis, are costed in full detail.

MAQS (Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary) worksheet: standardized 

template used in the analysis to calculate the mass production manufacturing cost, 

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

analysis. Every component and assembly costed in the analysis will have a MAQS 
Page 826

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

quote sheet modified for improved costing transparency and flexibility in sensitivity 

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

costing databases.

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

design and/or manufacturing optimization ideas with the hardware under evaluation. 

These savings could potentially reduce or increase the differential costs between the new 

and base technology configurations, depending on whether an MCR idea is for the new or 

the base technology.

Metal injection molding (MIM): is a metalworking process where finely-powdered 

metal is mixed with a measured amount of binder material to comprise a 'feedstock' 

capable of being handled by plastic processing equipment through a process known as 

injection mold forming

MSRP: Manufacturing Suggested Retail Price

Naturally Aspirated (NA): is one common type of reciprocating piston internal 

combustion that depends solely on atmospheric pressure to counter the partial vacuum in 

the induction tract to draw in combustion air.

Net Component/Assembly Cost Impact to OEM: the net manufacturing cost impact per 

unit to the OEM for a defined component, assembly, subsystem, or system. For 

components produced by the supplier base, the net manufacturing cost impact to the OEM 

includes total manufacturing costs (material, labor, and manufacturing overhead), markup (end-item scrap costs, selling, general and administrative costs, profit, and engineering 

design and testing costs) and packaging costs. For OEM internally manufactured 

components, the net manufacturing cost impact to the OEM includes total manufacturing 

costs and packaging costs; mark-up costs are addressed through the application of an 

indirect cost multiplier.

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

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

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

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

technology configuration.

Port Fuel Injected (PFI): is a method for admitting fuel into an internal combustion 

engine by fuel injector sprays into the port of the intake manifold. 
Page 827

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

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

base configuration. 

Power-Split HEV: In a power-split hybrid electric drive train there are two motors: an 

electric motor and an internal combustion engine. The power from these two motors can 

be shared to drive the wheels via a power splitter, which is a simple planetary gear set.

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

and associated key manufacturing variables involved in manufacturing products at any 

level (e.g., vehicle, system, subsystem, assembly, and component).

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

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

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

and baseline configurations in each vehicle class to be costed.

Quote: the analytical process of establishing a cost for a component or assembly.

RPE: Retail Price Equivalent

SG&A (selling general and administrative): is an acronym used in accounting to refer 

to Selling, General and Administrative Expenses, which is a major non-production costs 

presented in an Income statement.

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

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

several sub-subsystems including turbocharging, heat exchangers, pipes, hoses, and 

ducting.

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

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

several subsystems including crank drive subsystem, cylinder block subsystem, cylinder 

head subsystem, fuel induction subsystem, and air induction subsystem.

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

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

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

Comparison Bill of Material (CBOM).

Surrogate part: a part similar in fit, form, and function as another part that is required 

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

parts are unavailable. The surrogate part’s cost is considered equivalent to the actual 

part’s cost.
Page 828

System: a group of interdependent subsystems, sub-subsystems, assemblies, and/or 

components working together to create a vehicle primary function (e.g., engine system, 

transmission system, brake system, fuel system, suspension system).

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

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

transmission, steering) as defined by the CBOMs.
Page 829

J. References

1. Toyota Venza Body Panel Replacement Service Manual

2. EDAG CAE Crash and Safety Modeling Guidelines Revision 2.0 Nov 2010

3. EDAG CAE NVH Modeling Guidelines Revision 2.0 Nov 2010

4. Lotus Engineering Report Reference for Lotus Errata -EPA docket: EPA-HQOAR-2010-0799-0710

5. MSC-NASTRAN Users Manual 2007

6. LS-DYNA v971 Users Manual 2010

7. HEEDS Users Manual 2010

8. "Ultra Light Steel Auto Body report by Porsche Engineering Service, Inc. for Phase 

I and Phase II Findings,” March 1998 published by ULSAB Consortium.

9. Hannes Fuchs-Multimatic Engineering Services Group-paper published in "Design 

and Structural Performance Assessment of A Composite Intensive Passenger 

Vehicle.”

10. Future Steel Vehicle (FSV)- Report Referenced With WorldAutoSteel Council and 

EDAG Inc. link available at 

http://www.autosteel.org/Programs/Future%20Steel%20Vehicle.aspx

11. Advance, Lightweight Materials Development and Technology for Increasing 

Vehicle Efficiency by KVA Inc. -Dec, 2008

12. A. Bandivadekar, K. Bodek, L. Cheah, C. Evans, T. Groode, J. Heywood, E. 

Kasseris, M. Kromer, M. Weiss, "On the Road in 2035: Reducing Transportation’s 

Petroleum Consumption and GHG Emissions Laboratory for Energy and the 

Environment", Report No. LFEE 2008-05 RP, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology, July, 2008

13. ThyssenKrupp Stahl Report on NewSteelBody dated 2003.

14. Dr. Marc Stehlin, SuperLight-Car, Volkswagen Group Research, under Sustainable 

Production Technologies of Emission Reduced Light Weight Car Concepts, April 

2008.

15. Aluminum Transportation Group Reports In SAE International.

16. Tailor Rolled Blank Technology (TRB's) By Mubea GmBH.
Page 830

17. U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: Office of 

Vehicle Technologies, FY2006 Progress Report for Automotive Lightweighting 

Materials, October 2007, available at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/resources/vt_alm_fy06.html.

18. Pavel Brabec, Miroslav Maly, and Robert Vozenilek, "Experimental Determination 

of a Powertrain's Inertia Ellipsoid."

19. NHTSA Test No. C95111, for 2009 Toyota Venza 35MPH flat frontal crash.

20. NHTSA Test No. MB5128 for 2009 Toyota Venza 38.5MPH MDB side impact.

21. Jurgen Leohold, Pathways for a sustainable automotive future, Volkswagen 

Conference Proceedings, May 2009.

22. Gundolf Kopp, Strategies and methods for multi-material structure and concept 

developments, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Volkswagen Conference 

Proceedings, May 2009.

23. Lars Fredrik Berg, Polymer technologies for innovative light weight vehicle 

structures, Volkswagen Conference Proceedings, May 2009.

24. Future Steel Vehicle Report—Phase 2, WorldAutoSteel Proceedings, April 2011

25. ANSA Users Manual 2010

26. WorldAutoSteel, the automotive group of the World Steel Association; 

http://worldautosteel.org/

27. EDAG GmbH http://www.edag.de/en/company.html

28. Red Cedar Tech http://www.redcedartech.com/products/heeds_mdo