1

Memo

To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472

From: Michael Olechiw, U.S. EPA-OTAQ-ASD

Date: 25 March 2010

Re: “Binning” of FEV Costs to GDI, Turbo-charging, and Engine Downsizing

1.0 Introduction

*** This document is meant to be referenced in conjunction with a spreadsheet by the same 

name.***

As a general matter, the best way to derive technology cost estimates is to conduct real-world tear 

down studies. These studies break down each technology into its respective components, evaluate the 

costs of each component, and build up the costs of the entire technology based on the contribution of 

each component. As such, tear down studies require a significant amount of time and are very costly. 

EPA has been conducting tear down studies to assess the costs of vehicle technologies under a 

contract with FEV. The values presented in this memo are direct manufacturing costs developed by 

FEV for the EPA through the case studies noted below. These costs could be termed “intermediate 

values” in that they are used to develop overall costs for conditions where tear downs were not 

performed. While the costs presented here were used to develop those presented in the final rule, they 

are not the final rule costs. For the final rule costs, refer to Chapter 3 of the joint Technical Support 

Document (TSD).

To date, the following three engine technologies have been evaluated: 

1. Stoichiometric gasoline direct injection (SGDI) and turbo charging with engine downsizing for a 

large Dual Overhead Cam DOHC 4 cylinder engine to a small DOHC 4 cylinder engine. 

2. SGDI and turbo charging with engine downsizing for a Single Overhead Cam (SOHC) 3 

valve/cylinder V8 engine to a DOHC V6 engine. 

3. SGDI and turbo charging with engine downsizing for a DOHC V6 engine to a DOHC 4 cylinder 

engine. 

Using the costing methodology described in report (EPA-F-09-020) 1, FEV has developed costs for

each of the above technologies. These studies consist of complete system tear-downs to evaluate 

technologies down to the nuts and bolts to arrive at very detailed estimates of the associated 

manufacturing costs. In addition to the above case studies, FEV and EPA extrapolated the engine 

downsizing costs for the following scenarios that were outside of the noted study cases.

A. Downsizing a SOHC 2 valve/cylinder V8 engine to a DOHC V6.

B. Downsizing a DOHC V8 to a DOHC V6.

C. Downsizing a SOHC V6 engine to a DOHC 4 cylinder engine.

D. Downsizing a DOHC 4 cylinder engine to a DOHC 3 cylinder engine

 

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis,” EPA-F-09-020, Contract 

No. EP-C-07-069, Work Assignment 2-3, December 25, 2009. (Docket #: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-

11551)
 Page 2

E. V8 SGDI incremental to V6 SGDI

This memo to the docket describes how the costs developed by FEV were parsed or “binned” into the 

individual technologies; GDI, turbo-charging, and downsizing and then extrapolated to determine the 

costs associated with the 5 conditions identified above.

2.0 Cost calculation summary

The FEV tear-down studies developed an incremental cost associated with each one of their case 

studies for each of the major subsystems. The case studies are numbers 1, 2, and 3 identified above, 

and the subsystems considered were:

a. Crank Drives

b. Counter balance systems

c. Cylinder block

d. Cylinder heads

e. Valvetrain subsystem

f. Timing drive system

g. Accessory drive subsystem

h. Intake subsystem

i. Fuel subsystem

j. Exhaust subsystem

k. Lubrication subsystem

l. Cooling subsystem

m. Induction air charging subsystem

n. Exhaust gas re-circulation subsystem

o. Breather subsystem

p. Electrical subsystem

q. Accessories subsystem (Starter, Generators, Power Steering, etc.)

These subsystem costs were then assigned to the three major technologies under consideration: 

SGDI, Turbo Charging, and Engine Downsizing. In some cases a portion of the overall cost result was

distributed over several technologies (i.e. Cylinder head costs were distributed between GDI and 

downsizing). The sum of the costs associated with these three major technologies adds up to the 

results of the FEV tear-down studies.

2.1 Universally applied cost results

NHTSA and EPA agreed that some of the results from the FEV studies would be considered universal. 

In other words, the cost of turbo charging an I4 engine, as determined from the FEV study of 

downsizing a 2.4L MPFI engine to a 1.6L Turbo charged engine, would be applied to all I4 engines that 

were turbocharged. The following results from the cost assignment were universally applied:

1. Stoichiometric gasoline direct injection (SGDI) and turbo charging with engine downsizing for a 

large Dual Overhead Cam DOHC 4 cylinder engine to a small DOHC 4 cylinder engine. 

 Turbo charging an I4 Engine

 Conversion of an I4 MPFI to I4 SGDI

2. SGDI and turbo charging with engine downsizing for a Single Overhead Cam (SOHC) 3 

valve/cylinder V8 engine to a DOHC V6 engine. 

 Turbo charging a V6 Engine

 Converting a V6 MPFI to V6 SGDI

3. V8 SGDI

2.2 Scaled costs
 Page 3

With each one of the case study costs broken into its constituent technology, and each technology 

broken into the subsystems above, FEV, EPA, and NHTSA could then consider how each subsystem 

would scale from a set of technologies that were part of an actual tear-down, to technologies that were 

not part of an actual tear down. For example, given the cost results for a 3V SOHC V8 to V6 DOHC 

tear-down, we could estimate the incremental cost to create a DOHC V8 from a SOHC V8. Prior to 

describing the details of how this was done for each subsystem and each engine it is important to note 

that FEV and the agencies did not consider Overhead Valve (OHV) configurations, as there were no 

OHV case studies. The actual tear-downs conducted simply were not considered by the agencies to 

be relevant for scaling to OHV configurations. Secondly, note that the costs were scaled as closely as 

possible to a similar technology and case study. For example, the creation of an I3 downsizing cost 

was estimated from the I4 engine downsize to a smaller I4 rather than the V8 to V6 case. Under some 

conditions the scaling was informed across tear down analyses, this was required to determine the 

most accurate estimate possible.

Table 1 summarizes the results of binning the costs:

Engine Incremental 

to

FEV 

Results SGDI TurboCharging Downsizing

3.5L V6 

DOHC 

Turbo 

SGDI

5.4L V8 MPFI 

3-valve SOHC $846 $321 $681 ($155)

I4 DOHC 3.0L V6 MPFI 

V6 DOHC $69 $213 $404 ($547)

1.6L I4 

DOHC 

Turbo 

SGDI

2.4L I4 MPFI 

DOHC $532 $213 $404 ($85)

Table 1: Summary of binning analysis from FEV results

Table 2 below shows the final results for non-tear down conditions. Recognize that the SGDI and 

Turbo-charging costs are carried down from the actual FEV results above.

Engine Incremental 

to

FEV 

Results SGDI TurboCharging Downsizing

V6 

DOHC

V8 SOHC (2-

valve) n/a $321 $681 ($83)

V6 

DOHC V8 DOHC n/a $321 $681 ($274)

I4 DOHC V6 SOHC n/a $213 $404 ($382)

I3 DOHC I4 DOHC n/a $213 $404 ($193)

V8 2V 

SOHC V8 3V SOHC n/a n/a n/a ($72)

V8 

DOHC V8 3V SOHC n/a n/a n/a $119

V8 SGDI V8 MPFI n/a $386 n/a n/a

Table 2: Calculated FEV results for non-tear down conditions.
 Page 4

Because the costs were calculated in increments, Table 3 shows the steps taken to arrive at 

extrapolated costs.

Change Step #1 Step #2 Final result

V8 SOHC 2-valve to V6 

DOHC

Downsizing a V8 SOHC 

3-valve to V6 DOHC is a 

$155 cost savings

V8 SOHC 2-valve is $72 

less costly than a 3-valve 

configuration

($155) – ($72) = ($83)

V8 DOHC to V6 DOHC A V8 DOHC is $119 more 

costly than the 3-valve 

configuration

V6 DOHC is $155 less 

costly than a V8 SOHC 3-

valve configuration

($119) – $155 = ($274)

V6 SOHC to I4 DOHC V6 DOHC is $165 more 

costly than a V6 SOHC

V6 DOHC is $547 more 

costly than an I4 DOHC

($547) – ($165) = ($382)

Table 3: Cost calculations from tear-downs to FRM results

3.0 Cost calculation details

Note: The reader should be able to follow the logical progression of these descriptions by referencing 

the related spreadsheet

3.1 I3 DOHC downsized from an I4 DOHC = ($193)

Downsizing an I4 DOHC to an I3 DOHC engine is relevant to small and compact cars. The cost 

estimates associated with this change are fairly straightforward. Most of the scaling is simply a 

ratio of the number of cylinders.

3.1.1 Crank drive

The crank shaft was scaled by the number of cylinders and the cost of one piston, and one connecting 

rod as determined from the 2.0L study, were subtracted. The one wrist pin cost of $1.14 was missed.

3.1.2 Counter balance systems

No changes due to downsizing.

3.1.3 Cylinder block

The cylinder block cost was scaled down 25% due to the reduced number of cylinders from the 2.0L 

study. 

3.1.4 Cylinder heads

The cylinder head cost was scaled down 25% due to the reduced number of cylinders from the 2.0L 

study. 

3.1.5 Valvetrain subsystem

The valvetrain system cost was scaled down 25% due to the reduced number of cylinders from the 

2.0L study. 

3.1.6 Timing drive system

No changes due to downsizing.

3.1.7 Accessory drive subsystem
 Page 5

No changes due to downsizing.

3.1.8 Intake subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.1.9 Fuel subsystem

System cost reduced by one fuel injector. Fuel rail scaled down by 25% due to the reduced number of 

cylinders.

3.1.10 Exhaust subsystem

Exhaust manifold cost reduced by 25%. Remainder of the exhaust was determined to remain the 

same under the premise of constant power and flow.

3.1.11 Lubrication subsystem

Oil pan scaled down by 25% due to the reduced number of cylinders.

3.1.12 Cooling subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.1.13 Induction air charging subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.1.14 Exhaust gas re-circulation subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.1.15 Breather subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.1.16 Electrical subsystem

The cost was reduced by one less spark plug, one less coil-on-plug, and the associated wiring.

3.1.17 Accessories subsystem (Starter, Generators, Power Steering, etc.)

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2 I4 DOHC to an I4 SOHC = ($80)

The calculation for changing to a I4 DOHC valvetrain configuration from a I4 SOHC 

configuration is required for 2 reasons. The first is to account for the cost in the baseline fleet, 

and the second is that the mechanical change improves pumping losses.

3.2.1 Crank drive

No changes due to downsizing.
 Page 6

3.2.2 Counter balance systems

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.3 Cylinder block

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.4 Cylinder heads

The cylinder head costs were calculated by taking the 2.0L I4 Turbo GDI head machining costs minus 

the machining costs for Turbo GDI features (based on 3.5L V6 Turbo/GDI to 3.0L V6 naturally 

aspirated MPFI) x 65% (estimate of machining associated with valvetrain) x 50% (reduction in 

valvetrain). All the costs were from FEV cost analyses.

3.2.5 Valvetrain subsystem

Costs for the intake camshaft, the exhaust cam phaser, and cam phaser solenoid were taken directly 

from the 2.0L I4 study. In addition there was a $7.38 credit for a reduction in valvetrain components, 

replacement of direct acting mechanical buckets (DAMB) valvetrain components with roller finger 

followers (RFF) valvetrain and an OEM engine labor assembly difference for RFF versus DAMB.

3.2.6 Timing drive system

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.7 Accessory drive subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.8 Intake subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.9 Fuel subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.10 Exhaust subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.12 Lubrication subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.12 Cooling subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.13 Induction air charging subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.14 Exhaust gas re-circulation subsystem
 Page 7

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.15 Breather subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.16 Electrical subsystem

A penalty for the cam sensor wiring, ~$1.00, should have been calculated but was missed.

3.2.17 Accessories subsystem (Starter, Generators, Power Steering, etc.)

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3 V6 DOHC to a V6 SOHC = ($165) 

The calculation for changing to a V6 DOHC valvetrain configuration from a V6 SOHC 

configuration is required for 2 reasons. The first is to account for the cost in the baseline fleet, 

and the second is that the mechanical change improves pumping losses.

3.3.1 Crank drive

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.2 Counter balance systems

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.3 Cylinder block

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.4 Cylinder heads

The cylinder head costs were calculated by taking the machining cost for 3.0L V6 head, equal to 

$50.60, then taking 65% of that to estimate the machining cost for valvetrain. Finally a 50% reduction

in cost was applied based on the reduced valve count. This value was multiplied by 2 to account for 2 

heads.

3.3.5 Valvetrain subsystem

Costs for the intake camshaft, exhaust cam shaft, the intake cam phaser, and exhaust cam phaser, 

and cam phaser solenoids were taken directly from the 3.0L V6 analysis. In addition there was a $7.54

credit for a reduction in valvetrain components, replacement of DAMB valvetrain components with RFF 

valvetrain, the OEM engine labor assembly difference for RFF versus DAMB. Component costs were 

taken from 3.0L V6 base cost analysis.

3.3.6 Timing drive system

Timing Drive subsystem cost for DOHC 3.0L V6 ($70.71) has been reduced by approximately 25% for 

SOHC.

3.3.7 Accessory drive subsystem
 Page 8

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.8 Intake subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.9 Fuel subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.10 Exhaust subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.12 Lubrication subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.12 Cooling subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.13 Induction air charging subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.14 Exhaust gas re-circulation subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.15 Breather subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.16 Electrical subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.17 Accessories subsystem (Starter, Generators, Power Steering, etc.)

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4 V8 SOHC 3-valve to a V8 SOHC 2-valve = ($72)

While the change from a V8 SOHC 2-valve configuration to a V8 SOHC 3-valve configuration is 

not something that would be anticipated by the GHG rule, this cost was an important stepping 

stone to calculate the cost of a V8 2-valve configuration to a V8 DOHC.

3.4.1 Crank drive

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.2 Counter balance systems

No changes due to downsizing.
 Page 9

3.4.3 Cylinder block

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.4 Cylinder heads

The cylinder head costs were calculated by first estimating the machining cost for 5.4L V8 SOHC to be 

equal to $53.80. We then estimated that 50% of that value could be attributed to machining valvetrain

specific items. A on third reduction of machining of valvetrain for 2 valves versus 3 valves was then 

applied.

3.4.5 Valvetrain subsystem

The valvetrain system costs were calculated by reducing the 5.4L V8 3-valve valvetrain component 

costs by one third.

3.4.6 Timing drive system

Timing Drive subsystem cost for DOHC 3.0L V6 ($70.71) has been reduced by approximately 25% for 

SOHC.

3.4.7 Accessory drive subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.8 Intake subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.9 Fuel subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.10 Exhaust subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.12 Lubrication subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.12 Cooling subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.13 Induction air charging subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.14 Exhaust gas re-circulation subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.15 Breather subsystem
 Page 10

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.16 Electrical subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.17 Accessories subsystem (Starter, Generators, Power Steering, etc.)

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5 V8 DOHC from a V8 SOHC 3-valve = $119

Once again, this change from a V8 SOHC 3-valve to a V8 DOHC accounts for initial changes in 

the baseline fleet.

3.5.1 Crank drive

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.2 Counter balance systems

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.3 Cylinder block

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.4 Cylinder heads

The cylinder head costs were calculated by taking the 3.0L V6 cylinder head costs and scaling it 

upward by 4/3 (cylinder ratio), multiplying the result by 2 for two heads, and subtracting that value from 

the 5.4L V8 3-valve head costs. ($324.54)

3.5.5 Valvetrain subsystem

The valvetrain system costs were calculated by taking the engine assembly cost of ($61.32) and 

scaling up by valve count (32/24) to calculate the incremental cost.

3.5.6 Timing drive system

The timing drive system cost was calculated by increasing the timing drive subsystem roll-up for the 

5.4L V8 ($61.50) by 25%, the increase in the number of valves.

3.5.7 Accessory drive subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.8 Intake subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.9 Fuel subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.
 Page 11

3.5.10 Exhaust subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.12 Lubrication subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.12 Cooling subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.13 Induction air charging subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.14 Exhaust gas re-circulation subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.15 Breather subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.16 Electrical subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.17 Accessories subsystem (Starter, Generators, Power Steering, etc.)

No changes due to downsizing.

3.6 V8 GDI incremental to a V6 = $65

This cost calculation provides the basis for all V8 GDI calculations. It is an incremental cost to 

the V6 condition studied by FEV.

3.6.1 Crank drive

The incremental cost to the V6 crank drive system consisted of 2 piston upgrades at a cost of $2 per 

piston.

3.6.2 Counter balance systems

No changes due to GDI.

3.6.3 Cylinder block

The incremental cost to the V6 cylinder block is the addition of 2 piston squirters at a cost of $2.09 per 

squirter.

3.6.4 Cylinder heads
 Page 12

The cylinder head costs were calculated by scaling the cylinder head incremental costs for a 3.5L V6 

Turbo GDI by the cylinder count and adding the engine upgrades also scaled from the 3.5L by cylinder 

count.

3.6.5 Valvetrain subsystem

The valvetrain system costs were calculated by adding the extra cost to upgrade the intake and 

exhaust valves for two additional cylinder banks.

3.6.6 Timing drive system

The timing drive system cost was calculated by increasing the timing drive subsystem roll-up for the 

5.4L V8 ($61.50) by 25%, the increase in the number of valves.

3.6.7 Accessory drive subsystem

No changes due to GDI.

3.6.8 Intake subsystem

No changes due to GDI.

3.6.9 Fuel subsystem

The fuel subsystem costs were calculated by scaling the 3.5L V6 GDI fuel substem costs of $142.00 by 

25%.

3.6.10 Exhaust subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.6.12 Lubrication subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.6.12 Cooling subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.6.13 Induction air charging subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.6.14 Exhaust gas re-circulation subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.6.15 Breather subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.6.16 Electrical subsystem

Two additional spark plugs required, two additional coil on plugs (COP), and PCM upgrades to support 

GDI.
 Page 13

3.6.17 Accessories subsystem (Starter, Generators, Power Steering, etc.)

No changes due to downsizing.

3.0 Contact Information

Questions regarding this analysis and results may be directed to:

Michael Olechiw

EPA – OAR – OTAQ – ASD

2000 Traverwood Drive

Ann Arbor, MI 48165

(734)-214-4297

Olechiw.michael@epa.gov