1 

# Memo

T o: 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 s preadsheet 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 bee n 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. Wh ile 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 Technica l 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 chargin g with engine downsizing for a Single Overhead Cam ( SOHC ) 3 valve/cylinder V8 engine to a D OHC V6 engine. 3. SGDI and turbo charging with engine downsizing for a DOHC V6 engine to a DOHC 4 cylinder engin e. Using the costing methodology described in report (EPA
- F
-09
-020) 1 , FEV has developed costs for each of the above technologies. Th ese stud ies consist of complete sy stem tear
-down s to evaluate technologies down to the nuts and bolts to arrive at very detailed estimates of the associated ma nufacturing 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/cyl inder 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, Wo rkAssignm ent 2
- 3, December 25, 2009. (Docket #: EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0472
- 11551) Page 2

E. V8 SGDI incremental to V6 SGDI This me mo to the docket describes how the costs developed by F EV 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 summar y The FEV tear

-down studies developed a n incremental cost associated with each one of their case studies for each of the ma jor subsy stems. Th e case studies are numbers 1 , 2, and 3 identified above, and the subsy

stems considered were:
a. Crank Drives b

. Co unter balance s ystems c
. Cylinder block d

. Cylinder heads e
. Valvetrain subsystem f

. Ti mi ng drive system g
. Accessory

drive subsystem h

. Intake subsy

stem i

. Fuel subsystem j

. Exhaust subsy

stem k

. Lubrication subsystem l

. Cooling subsystem m
. Induction air charging subsystem n
. Exhaust gas re
-circulation subsy stem o
. Breather subsystem p
. Electrical subsystem q
. Accessories subsy stem (Starter, Generators, Power Steering, etc.) These subsy

stem costs were then assigned to the three ma jor technologies under co nsideration: 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 ma jor technologies adds up to the results of the FEV tear

-down stud ies

. 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 appl ied: 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 S GDI 2. SGDI and turbo chargin g 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 S GDI 3. V8 S GDI 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 subsy stem 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

. F or 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

. P rior to describing the details of how this was done for each subsystem a nd 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 sca ling 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 analy ses , 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 Turbo Charging Dow nsizing 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 : Summar

y 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 Turbo Charging Dow nsizing V6 DOHC V8 SOHC (2
-

valve) n/a $321 $681 ($ 83 ) V6 DOHC V8 DOHC n/a $321 $681 ($2 74 ) 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, Ta ble 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 th e 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 mo re costly than a V6 SOHC V6 DOHC is $547 mo re costly than an I4 DOHC ($547)

– ($165) = ($382) Table 3 : Cost calculations from tear-downs to FRM results 3.0 Cost calculation details Note: T he reader should be able to follow the logical progression of these descriptions by referencing the related spreadsheet 3

. 1 I3 DOHC downsized fr om 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 num ber 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 s ystems No cha nges due to downsizing. 3.1.3 Cylinder block The cylinder block cost was scaled down 25% due to the reduced num ber of cylinders from the 2.0L study. 3.1.4 Cylinder heads The cylinder head cost was scaled down 25% due to the reduced num ber of cylind ers from the 2.0L study. 3.1.5 Valvetrain subsystem The valvetrain sy

stem cost was scaled down 25% due to the reduced num ber of cylinders from the 2.0L study. 3.1.6 Ti mi ng drive system No changes due to downsizing. 3.1.7 Accessory drive subsystem Page 5

No changes due to downsizing. 3

. 1 .8 Intake subsy stem No changes due to downsizing. 3

. 1 .9 Fuel subsystem Sy stem cost reduced by

o ne fuel injector. Fuel rail scaled down by 25% due to the reduced number of cylinders. 3

. 1

. 1 0 Exhaust subsy

stem Exh aust ma nifold cost reduced by 2 5%. Rem ainder of the exhaust was determined to remain the sam e 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

. 1 2 Cooling s ubsystem No changes due to downsizing. 3

. 1

. 1 3 In duction air charging subsystem No changes due to downsizing. 3

. 1

. 1 4 Exhaust gas re
-circulation subsy stem No changes due to downsizing. 3

. 1

. 1 5 B reather subsystem No changes due to downsizing. 3

. 1

. 1 6 E l ectrical subs ystem The cost was reduced by one less spark plug, one less coil
-on - plug, and the associated wiring. 3

. 1

. 1 7 Accessories subsy stem (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 s ystems 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 mi nus the m achining costs for Turbo GDI features (based on 3.5L V6 T urbo/GDI to 3.0L V6 naturally aspirated M PFI) 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. I n addition there was a $7.38 credit for a reduction in valvetrain components, rep lacement 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 Ti mi ng drive system No changes due to downsizing. 3 .2.7 Accessory drive subsystem No changes due to downsizing. 3 .2.8 Intake subsy stem No changes due to downsizing. 3 .2.9 Fuel subsystem No changes due to downsizing. 3 .2.10 Exhaust subsy

stem No changes due to downsizing. 3 .2.12 Lubrication subsystem No ch anges 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 subsy stem 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 subsy stem (Starter, Generators, Power Steering, etc.) No changes due to downsizing. 3 .3 V6 D OHC to a V6 S OHC = ($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 mechani cal change improves pumping losses. 3 .3.1 Crank drive No changes due to downsizing. 3 .3.2 Counter balance s ystems 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 m achining cost for 3.0L V6 head , equal to $50.60 , then taking 65% of that to estimate the machining cost for valvetrain

. Fi nally a 50% reduction in cost was applied based on the reduced valve count. This value was mu ltiplied by 2 to account for 2 heads. 3 .3.5 Valvetrain subsystem Costs for the intake camshaft, exhaust cam s haft, the intake cam p haser, and exhaust cam p haser, and cam phaser solenoid s 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 d ifference for RFF versus DAMB. Com ponent costs were taken from 3.0L V6 base cost analysis. 3 .3.6 Ti mi ng drive sy stem Ti mi ng 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 subsy stem No changes due to downsizing. 3 .3.9 Fuel subsystem No changes due to downsizing. 3 .3.10 Exhaust subsy

stem 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 subsy stem 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 subsy stem (Starter, G enerators, 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 GH G 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 s ystems 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. Wethen estim ated 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 sy

stem costs were calculated by reducing the 5.4L V8 3
-valve valvetrain component costs by one third

. 3 .4.6 Ti mi ng drive system Ti mi ng 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 subsy stem No changes due to downsizing. 3 .4.9 Fuel subsystem No changes due to downsizing. 3 .4.10 Exhaust subsy

stem 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 chargi ng subsystem No changes due to downsizing. 3 .4.14 Exhaust gas re
-circulation subsy stem 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 subsy stem (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 s ystems 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 2fo r two heads, and subtracting that value from the 5.4L V8 3
-valve head costs. ($324.54) 3 .5.5 Valvetrain subsystem The valvetrain sy

stem 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 Ti mi ng drive system The tim ing drive sy

stem cost was calculated by i ncreasing the tim ing 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 subsy stem No changes due to downsizing. 3 .5.9 Fuel subsystem No changes due to downsizing. Page 11

3 .5.10 Exhaust subsy

stem 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 subsy stem 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 subsy stem (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 increm ental cost to the V6 crank drive sy stem consisted of 2 piston upgrades at a cost of $2 per piston. 3 .6.2 Counter balance s ystems No changes due to GDI. 3 .6.3 Cylinder block The increm ental cost to the V6 cylinder block is the addition of 2 piston squirters at a cost of $2.09 per squirter. 3 .6.4 Cylinde r 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 sy

stem costs were calculated by adding the extra cost to upgrade the intake and exhaust valves for two additional cylinder banks. 3 .6.6 Ti mi ng drive system The tim ing drive sy

stem cost was calculated by i ncreasing the tim ing drive subsystem roll
- u p 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 subsy stem No changes due to GDI. 3 .6.9 Fuel subsystem The fuel subsy

stem costs were calculated by scaling the 3.5L V6 GDI fuel substem costs of $142.00 by 25%. 3 .6.10 Exhaust subsy

stem 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 charg ing subsystem No changes due to downsizing. 3 .6.14 Exhaust gas re
-circulation subsy stem 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 additi onal coil on plugs (COP), and PCM upgrades to support GDI. Page 13

3 .6.17 Accessories subsy stem (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