## DRAFT

COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF A 50% BODY AND CHASSIS

WEIGHT-REDUCTION GOAL IN LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES

Sujit Das

Energy and Transportation Science Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Prepared for Lightweight Materials Office of Vehicle Technologies U. S. Department of Energy



### May 2010

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831 managed and operated by UT-Battelle, LLC

for the

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

under contract No. DE-AC05-00OR227251 Cost-Effectiveness of a 50% Body and Chassis Weight -Reduction Goal in Light-Duty Vehicles

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

May 2010

1. Background

With the recent higher gasoline prices and new emis sion and fuel economy regulations that require by 2016 a 30% reduction in CO 2 and other emissions and an average fuel economy of at least 35 mpg, the pressure to lightwe ight vehicles is stronger than ever before. Vehicle lightweighting represents one of se veral design approaches automakers are currently evaluating to improve fuel economy. T he next few years will see considerable lightweighting across the automotive i ndustry. Lightweighting is typically accomplished by downsizing, integrating parts and f unctions, substituting materials, or by combining these methods. Lightweight Materials’ (LM’s) component of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Vehicle Technologies program focuses on the development and validation of advanced materials and manufacturing technologies to significantly reduce automotive passenger vehicle body and chassis weigh t without compromising other attributes such as safety, performance, recyclabili ty, and cost. The specific goals of LM are to develop material and manufacturing technolog ies by 2010 that, if implemented in high volume, could cost-effectively reduce the weig ht of passenger-vehicle body and chassis systems by 50% with safety, performance, an d recyclability comparable to 2002 vehicles. In order to achieve this long-term weight -reduction goal, LM has set annual intermediate weight-reduction goals, starting with 10% in FY2007, and finally achieving 50% by FY2010. This paper is a follow-on to earlier studies that focused on the 25% and 40% body and chassis weight-reduction goals of FY20 08 and FY 2009, respectively (Das 2008, Das 2009). The present study emphasizes the a ssessment of cost-effectiveness to achieve the desired goal of 50% body and chassis we ight reduction in FY2010.

To achieve its long-term weight-reduction goal, LM has prioritized its research areas in several lightweighting materials including advanced high-strength steel, aluminum, magnesium, titanium, and composites. Composites inc lude metal-matrix materials and glass- and carbon-fiber reinforced thermosets and t hermoplastics. Over the past several years, the LM R&D portfolio has included assessment s of various lightweight body and front-end structures, such as those constructed of advanced high-strength steel, composite-intensive, and magnesium. These assessmen ts, either completed or underway, include, for example, one in which the goal is to d esign, analyze, and develop the technology for a composite-intensive, body-in-white structure that achieves a minimum of 60% weight savings over steel. Additionally, the latest LM multi-material vehicle (MMV) project aims to synthesize and demonstrate th ese various lightweight material component options in a single vehicle.

Cost remains one of the major obstacles to successf ul market penetration of these various lightweight materials. Complete vehicle system-leve l cost estimation is essential since it captures the cost reduction potential due to both p art integration and mass de-2

compounding effect. Today OEMs remain more focused on the vehicle’s retail price than on vehicle life cycle cost.

This paper provides an assessment of the cost-effec tiveness of a 50% body and chassis weight-reduction goal for FY2010 using the same met hodology as used in the past two studies. The cost-effectiveness of the proposed wei ght-reduction goal is determined based on the vehicle retail and life cycle cost analysis of a potential lightweight material substitution scenario in various body and chassis c omponents to achieve the desired weight-reduction goal. Cost methodology and potenti al data sources for the analysis are

then discussed. Cost data collected for various veh icle components considered for achieving the weight reduction goal are then discus sed, as are the assumptions and methodology used. A discussion of the results of th e cost analysis of the proposed scenario is then presented, followed by conclusions

.

2. Approach

2.1 Scenario Development

Cost-effectiveness of a 50% body and chassis weight -reduction goal was demonstrated based on a scenario analysis by focusing on a speci fic lightweight material type substitution at a major vehicle-component level. A representative mid-size vehicle, i.e. Honda Accord, was considered as the baseline agains t which the cost-effectiveness of the weight reduction goal was determined. Due to a sign ificantly higher weight reduction goal, carbon fiber-reinforced polymer-matrix compos ites (carbon-FRPMCs) and magnesium were primarily considered for body and ch assis applications. These two materials have the potential to achieve the desired weight-reduction goal. Only carbonFRPMCs offer the potential for greater than 50% red uction in the weight of body and chassis components while providing strength five ti mes greater than steel for structural

parts.

Current application of these lightweight materials is limited today. Carbon-FRPMCs have been used primarily in high-end vehicles and race c ars. Magnesium use in today’s lightduty vehicles is limited to less than 10 lbs/vehicl e, mainly in interior applications such as instrument panels and parts of the steering structu re. It can be found in various mainstream models (e.g., Cadillac models CTS, SRX, STS, Seville; Opel Vectra; BMW Mini, 5 and 7 Series; Rolls-Royce Phantom ; Daimler Chrysler’s SL Roadster; the Jaguar X-type; or the Alpha Romeo 156). New automotive mag nesium components gaining interest are front end structures, engine cradles, center consoles, and powertrain applications. The recent analysis by Meridian Light weight Technologies indicates a 200 lbs total vehicle weight savings potential by magne sium use in mid-size vehicles. There is a great need for development of wrought magnesium p roducts and manufacturing processes to provide improved mechanical and physic al properties, crash performance, and corrosion resistance before magnesium’s use in more critical body and chassis applications can be expanded.3

Table 1 shows the 50% body and chassis weight-reduc tion scenario for a mid-size passenger car considered in the cost-effectiveness analysis. The scenario focuses on a plausible specific lightweight material substitutio n option (i.e., mainly carbon-FRPMC and magnesium) at the broad component category leve l based on the materials’ near-term market potential to achieve the desired overall bod y and chassis weight reduction goal. For a few vehicle systems, such as glass, paint, ex terior trim, and body hardware, weight

reduction has been based on either on a material ot her than carbon-FRPMC or magnesium, or as a factor of the vehicle’s overall reduced weight. Figure 1 shows the material composition comparison of two alternative vehicle scenarios by six major material categories. To achieve the 50% weight redu ction goal, the distribution of material types would change significantly. At the e xpense of conventional steel, magnesium and polymer/composites use would increase significantly by 10 and 1.7 times, respectively.

This scenario approach allows determination of cost -effectiveness at a vehicle level, the context important for the actual implementation and commercialization of the lightweighting materials technologies in the market place. Specific components considered under body and chassis vehicle subsystem s are highlighted in Table 1 (in bold type). The potential weight reduction for each part also is given. Since most lightweight component options considered here are yet to be com mercialized, the percentage weight

reduction assumed in each case is based on the best estimated value available in the literature today. The definitions of various vehicl e components are based on the Automotive System Cost Model (ASCM, discussed below ) and are provided in Appendix

A.

Figure 1. Material Composition of the Baseline and Alternative Vehicle Scenarios

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Baseline 50% Body and Chassis Wt.

Redn. ScenarioWeight (kg) OTHER

Polymer/Composite

Magnesium

Aluminum

Low Carbon Steel

Hi/Med Steel4 Table 1. Mid-Size 50% Body& Chassis Weight Reductio n Scenario 1

SYSTEM Baseline 50% Weight Reduction Scenario

Technology Mass

(kg) Technology Mass (kg)

Powertrain

Engine V-6 3.0L DOHC
AL/AL 197 V-6 3.0L DOHC AL/AL 197

Energy Storage Lead-Acid, Standard 19 Lead-Acid, St andard 19
Fuel System Gasoline, 17 gal 83 Gasoline, 17 gal 83

Transmission Automatic (L5) 81 Automatic (L5) 79
P/T Thermal Generic (car) 29 Generic (car) 29

Driveshaft/Axle Generic 77 Generic 77

Differential Generic 25 Generic 25
Exhaust System Generic 48 Generic 48

Oil and Grease Generic 15 Generic 15

Powertrain Electronics Generic 10 Generic 10

Emission Control
Electronics Generic 10 Generic 10
Body

Body-in-White Midsize steel unibody 320 Carbon Fiber Polymer Composites (68% wt redn.) 102

Panels Stamped Steel 60 Carbon Fiber Polymer Composites (68% wt redn.) 19

Front/Rear Bumpers Sheet Steel 10 TP/Carbon Fiber (60% wt reduction) 4

Glass Conventional, 4 mm 40 Polycarbonate (25% reduction) 30

Paint Solventborne, avg
color 12 Solventborne, avg color (25% wt. reduction) 9

Exterior Trim Generic 10 ULSAB (50% wt. reduction) 7

Body Hardware Generic 10 Lightweight (50% wt. reduction) 5 Body Sealers and
Deadners Generic 2 Generic 2

Chassis

Cradle Generic 35 Magnesium (60% wt. reduction) 14
Corner Suspension Generic 47 Magnesium (45% wt. reduction) 26
Braking System ABS 48 Magnesium (7% wt reduction) 45

Wheels and Tires Aluminum 15” 71 Magnesium 15" -- (17% wt. reduction) 59
Steering System Generic 27 Magnesium (7% wt. reduction) 25

Interior

Instrument Panel Generic 26 Generic 26

Trim and Insulation Generic 24 Generic 24

Door Modules Generic 28 Generic 28
Seating and Restraints Generic 66 Generic 66

HVAC Generic 22 Generic 22

Electrical 33 33
Final Assembly 40 40 Total Body & Chassis Weight (% less than baseline) 692 346 (50%)

Total Vehicle Weight 1525 1180

1 All weights in the table denote values achieved by pri mary weight savings only.5

2.1.1 Carbon-FRPMC

Application of carbon-FRPMC in automobiles is quite limited and occurs mostly in lowvolume niche vehicles today such as Formula 1 race cars, Mercedes-Benz McLaren SLR supercar, Mazda’s RX-8, Honda’s Legend sedan, Mitsu bishi’s Pajero SUV, and Nissan’s latest GT-R super sports car. BMW has been using ca rbon fiber composites in its vehicles for a number of years in applications such as the r oof of the M-series car. General Motors is using the Corvette ZR1 to study the feasibility of high-volume carbon-FRPMC parts, whereas Toyota is planning to use a body frame made of this material in its 1/X concept car that will offer the same interior space as the Prius hybrid but only weigh one-third as much. Recently, the new Lexus LFA premium sports ca r has been designed with a carbon fiber cabin that weighs 200 kg less than a comparab le aluminum cabin while maintaining the same rigidity. Most carbon-FRPMC applications t oday include drive shafts, spoilers, A-pillars, underbody structures, and various body p anels for high-performance, lowvolume cars.

Three Japanese companies, i.e., Toray Industries, T eijin, and Mitsubishi Rayon, that control 70% of the global carbon fiber market are a iming to pioneer mass production of this material for widespread use in cars. For examp le, Teijin, which is planning to start supplying carbon-resin composites to automotive par ts makers as early as 2010 via its subsidiary Toho Tenax, is aiming to first make engi ne undercovers for high-end sports

cars and then move towards mass market models. Tora y Industries has invested in a German developer of carbon-FRPMC parts for cars and trucks and is planning to expand its sales for automotive applications to approximat ely $510 million by 2015, including ultimately mass-producing carbon-fiber parts mainly for Toyota. Honda and Nissan have similarly joined with Toray and Mitsubishi Rayon to research new, less-expensive carbon fiber for cars. In 2009, the SGL Group formed a joi nt venture with BMW for the development of the material for use in BMW’s Megaci ty vehicle, where carbon fiber composites will make up as much as 10-15% of the fi nal vehicle weight.

To achieve a significantly higher body and chassis weight reduction goal, this analysis considers carbon-FRPMC for three major body compone nts as shown in Table 1. These three body components, body-in-White (BIW), panels, and front/rear, have been considered as the most suitable components applicat ion of this lightweight material since these components contribute more than 25% of total vehicle weight. Potential percentage weight reduction assumed for these components has b een in the mid range of 55-60%, although expected weight reduction has been reporte d to be 45-80% compared to mild steel depending on the specific automotive part app lication. For example, on the equivalent modulus basis and a minimum 75 vol.% res in requirement to facilitate the sufficient wetting out of carbon fibers, carbon-FRP MC has been shown to have a 64-70% weight reduction potential compared to glass fiber but with the manufacturability limitations for having less than 2.5 mm thickness ( Ibis 2009c). Focal Project 3 of the Automotive Composites Consortium (ACC)—a collaborat ive, pre-competitive R&D partnership of the three big U.S. OEMs and DOE—pred icted a 66% BIW weight reduction with a total number of parts less than 20 by demonstrating the potential on a carbon fiber B-pillar (Iobst et al. 2007). Similarl y, niche vehicles such as X-Power sports vehicles have demonstrated 70% weight reduction pot ential in body panels compared6

with steel (Marsh 2006). On the other hand, the str uctural composite underbody targeted to be a part of the United States Automotive Materi al Partnership (USAMP) MultiMaterial Vehicle (MMV) project has obtained only 29 % weight reduction using carbon fabric for floors. The project’s objective, however , was to capitalize on the material’s strength to optimize the crash performance rather t han to reduce weight (Berger and Jaranson 2009). In fact, carbon-FRPMC is currently not under further consideration in the MMV project and a new project on carbon-FRPMC body structure to optimize the weight savings potential has been under consideration for near-term funding. Use of carbon

fibers in Formula 1 cars such as Mercedes McLaren S LR in monocoque design is 50% lighter than steel components (Marsh 2006), and a 4 0% reduction in BIW mass without doors and the roof has been reported for the Lambor ghini Murcielago using carbon/epoxy body material over its an all-aluminum body predece ssor (Feraboli and Masini 2004). Our 68% weight reduction assumption using carbon-FR PMC for two body components (out of total three body oconsidered here for subst itution) is more of an optimistic case dictated by the overall 50% body and chassis weight reduction goal.

2.1.2 Magnesium

Most use of magnesium today has been as high pressu re die casting (HPDC) components in a broad range of non Class A-surface vehicle app lications such as cross-beam members and dashboard supports where a single cast component can replace various conventional multi-component steel fabrications cos t-effectively. While the growth of magnesium die casting applications seems assured, t here are other applications such as wheels, suspension arms, subframes, etc. where sign ificant weight saving could be achieved but which require higher integrity than th at provided by the HPDC process. For automotive chassis and body applications, magnesium offers a number of benefits. In terms of specific strength and stiffness, and buckl ing resistance, magnesium alloys compare favorably with both steel and aluminum. In the field of chassis applications, Porsche has quite a long experience with magnesium wheels and GM has been offering cast magnesium wheels for the Corvette since 1998. However, magnesium wheels have not been applied beyond these special sport car app lications to the high-volume vehicle market due to their much higher costs and potential corrosion problems. The general experience, however, with material competition in N orth America has been that the magnesium design is displaced when a lower-cost sol ution for a particular weight trimming issue becomes available.

To achieve the 50% body and chassis weight reductio n goal, magnesium substitution was considered in five vehicle chassis components, i.e. , corner suspension, cradle, braking system, steering system, and wheels and tires, as s hown in Table 1. Magnesium use in cradle and corner suspension would provide 60% and 45% weight reduction, respectively. The potential weight reduction in the corner suspension is less than in the cradle because magnesium’s use in the suspension is limited to control arms and steering knuckles, parts that account for about 47% of the t otal corner suspension weight when aluminum is used. Magnesium use would provide a fur ther 30% weight reduction in these two parts compared to aluminum. The magnesium cradl e weight reduction potential has been based on the USAMP Corvette magnesium cradle d esign, which has been estimated to yield a 33% weight reduction compared to aluminu m. Both steering and braking7

systems would experience a 7% weight reduction with magnesium use, since the application is limited to the steering wheel column in the steering system and the brake actuators in the braking system. Magnesium use in s teering wheel columns—which account for 15% of the overall system weight—would provide an additional 25% weight reduction compared to aluminum. For wheels and tire s, the total system weight reduction is estimated to be 17% based on the 40% weight redu ction magnesium provides in the wheels. To achieve the total savings goal of 50% of the primary body and chassis weight, a 50% reduction in body hardware weight has been as sumed. These weight savings are consistent with the target weight for the PNGV-Clas s vehicle which has a target weight of around 1000 kg vehicle curb mass (ULSAB-AVC 1999 ).

2.1.3 Secondary Weight Savings

The objective for the selection of lightweighting m aterial options for various vehicle components (as discussed above) was to achieve the primary 50% body and chassis weight-reduction goal. However, consideration of se condary weight savings in body and chassis components is important because it takes in to account the effect of primary savings on the powertrain, chassis, and body compon ents. The cost-effectiveness of lightweighting options depends considerably on the secondary savings since those savings helps to reduce the overall effect of highe r lightweight material cost. Powertrain resizing in secondary weight savings calculations a llows comparisons of functionally equivalent vehicle designs—a reduced vehicle weight requires a less powerful engine to achieve equivalent performance (i.e., acceleration, range, etc.). Secondary weight savings have been estimated by ASCM, and those savings rela ted to the two scenarios considered here are presented in Table 2 along with other esti mated major parameters in the costeffectiveness analysis. Total secondary weight savi ngs and secondary body and chassis weight savings are estimated to be 54% and 14.5% of primary savings, respectively, and depend on the number of vehicle components consider ed. Most of the secondary weight savings occur in the powertrain system and depend o n the extent of powertrain downsizing assumed. Since the ASCM includes seconda ry weight savings only of major vehicle components (i.e., all chassis components an d a few major powertrain and body components), the total weight savings estimated her e is somewhat lower than other recent estimates (Malen and Reddy 2007; Saad and Malen 200 8). Very significant secondary weight savings were expected for the General Motors 1992 Ultralite carbon body structure that weighed 191 kg (compared to the 102 kg body structure in this analysis based on primary weight savings only) and demonstra ted a super-lean 635 kg curb weight concept car. Our estimated secondary weight savings are quite close to the industry norm of using 5% secondary weight savings for every 10% primary weight savings.

With the consideration of secondary weight savings, total body and chassis weight savings are estimated to be 57% as shown in Table 2 . There will be a decrease in powertrain weight with powertrain resizing, where e ngine power is estimated to decrease by 30%. The resulting vehicle weight reduction has been estimated to be 35%. Fuel economy estimates have been based on a reasonable r ule of thumb that each one percent reduction in weight should give a 0.66 percent impr ovement in fuel economy, after a vehicle has been fully redesigned to account for th e reduced power demands of a lower8

Table 2. Major Parameters Considered in the Cost-E ffectiveness Analysis of the 50% Body and Chassis Weight Reducti on Goal

Parameter Baseline 50% Body and Chassis Weight Reduction Scenario Primary Body & Chassis Weight Savings NA 345 kg (50%)

Secondary Weight Savings

Body & Chassis NA 50 kg (14.5%)*

Powertrain NA 137 kg

Total NA 187 kg Body & Chassis Weight 692 kg 297 kg (57%) Powertrain Weight 594 kg 457 kg (23%) Engine Power 122 kW 85 kW Final Vehicle Weight 1524 kg 993 kg (35%) Combined Fuel Economy 23 mpg 28.3 mpg Fuel Price $3/gallon Vehicle Lifetime Operation 120,000 miles

Note: % values within parenthesis indicate savings with respect to baseline steel; *% savings based on total primary body and chassis weight savings

mass (EEA 2001). Combined vehicle fuel economy woul d increase from the baseline value of 23 mpg to 28.3 mpg with the 50% body and c hassis weight-reduction goal.

2.2 Cost Estimation Methodology

As with the earlier studies (Das 2008 and Das 2009) , this analysis employs the Automotive System Cost Model (ASCM), developed join tly by Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Ibis Associates, Inc. in collaborati on with Argonne National Laboratory, to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the 50% body and chassis weight-reduction goal. ASCM estimates the vehicle-manufacturing cost at a level of five major vehicle subsystems (powertrain, chassis, body, interior, an d electrical) consisting of more than thirty-five components (some components have been s hown in aggregate form in Table 1) based on the aggregation of several components u nder the definition of Uniform Parts Grouping (UPG) generally used by the automotive ind ustry (as listed and defined in Table 1 and Appendix A). Each component represents a specific manufacturing technology. Vehicle retail price based on the sum o f manufacturing cost (i.e., costs of components and assembly), overhead, and selling is added to vehicle operation costs for the vehicle life cycle cost estimation. The interre lationships among vehicle subsystems and their effect on vehicle manufacturing cost are addressed, allowing inclusion of the impacts of secondary mass and cost savings as well. Functional interrelationships have been developed for major chassis components to esti mate secondary mass savings based on first principles of physics, and using semi-empi rical and empirical information available from the literature today. The powertrain sizing routine in this model is based on the algorithm used in the Argonne National Labor atory’s (ANL) hybrid vehicle cost model (HEVCOST), where the power and mass projectio ns of various powertrain9

components are based on component-specific power an d efficiency values, with the capability to evaluate alternative hybrid electric vehicle configurations and performance strategies (Plotkin et al. 2001). The main objectiv e of this model is to facilitate estimation of vehicle-manufacturing and life-cycle costs using a uniform methodology to allow comparison of alternative advanced technologies bei ng considered for vehicles today. This cost model has been integrated into the vehicl e performance model PSAT (Powertrain System Analysis Toolkit) developed by A rgonne National Laboratory, thereby facilitating instantaneous vehicle cost est imation based on the detailed powertrain component sizing estimates by PSAT. Several studies have used this cost model for a comparative cost assessment of different powertrain and body-in-white options for advanced technology vehicles (Das 2004 and 2005; Ro usseau et al. 2005).

Two types of overhead, i.e., OEM and dealer margin are added to the vehicle manufacturing cost to estimate vehicle retail price . The former is assumed to be fixed,

while the latter varies with the vehicle manufactur ing cost. Vehicle operation cost categories considered in the vehicle life cycle cos t estimation include financing, insurance, local fees, fuel, battery replacement, m aintenance, repair, and disposal. Financing, insurance, and local fees costs are dict ated by the vehicle retail price, while the fuel cost is dictated by the vehicle’s fuel eco nomy (estimates are shown in Table 2) and a gasoline price of $3.00/gallon, based on the latest energy outlook (EIA 2010). With the exception of maintenance and repair, all other operation cost categories vary with the two lightweighting scenarios considered here based on estimated vehicle retail price and fuel economy. Total life cycle cost is estimated as the net present value assuming total vehicle lifetime miles are 120,000—based on average 10,000 miles driven annually and a vehicle life of 12 years—and a discount rate of 10%

.

2.3 Component Cost Data

Component technology cost data used in the analysis are mainly based on the latest estimates developed by Ibis Associates, Inc. using results of the recent studies developed for the industry (Ibis 2008 and Ibis 2009a). One su ch recent study stems from the USCAR-ACC composite structure programs that have be en involved in the detailed cost analysis of carbon-FRPMC body structures. Even deta iled cost analyses can have

limitations—in this case the limitation is that the program never developed a complete design or high production-volume-scale cost analysi s for a fully functional BIW structure. Cost data for other components—those for which the technology remained unchanged—were the same as those in the original mo del, since our objective in this analysis is to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of the plausible lightweight scenario to achieve the desired weight reduction go al and not the absolute total vehicle cost. Note that component technology costs in ASCM are based on OEM costs and represented in terms of functional relationships su ch as component mass and power, based on the detailed cost analyses available in th e literature.

Several recent USCAR-ACC composite structure progra ms have been used in order to extrapolate to a full BIW structure and panel syste m functionally equivalent to the carbon fiber scenario considered previously in ASCM. The A CC programs contributing to this analysis include the FP2-composite truck box, FP3-c arbon fiber structures, the Composite10

Underbody program, and a recent fiber, preforming, and molding technology tradeoff study (Ibis 2007, 2009b; Berger and Jaranson 2009 a nd Boeman and Johnson (2002)). The truck box study evaluated a high volume composi te design and process study employing P4 preforming and SRIM molding. Similarly , the carbon fiber structures program demonstrated a 60% mass savings over steel for a molded carbon fiber composite, although this was a large pillar type co mponent and not a full vehicle structure. The Underbody program examined a broad r ange of concepts, including random and fabric glass, carbon, and high modulus p olypropylene (HMPP) reinforcement through sheet molding compound (SMC) compression, l ong-fiber injection (LFI), and direct long-fiber thermoplastic (DLFT) molding proc esses. The most recent ACC tradeoff study compared glass, carbon, and natural fiber com posites produced through SMC, structural reaction injection molding (SRIM), and r esin transfer molding (RTM), and evaluated design based on equivalent strength and s tiffness. Mass savings on individual components relative to steel ranged from 37% to 70% depending on the tensile or modulus equivalency. As noted earlier, a mass savin gs of 68% has been assumed in our case of carbon-FRPMC body structure, i.e., BIW and panels.

The production economics in this assessment are bas ed on the recent studies using high production-rate P4 preforming and SRIM molding, ach ieving production rates of 15 parts per hour. The carbon material pricing is based on c urrent commercial grade pricing estimates of $17.60/kg ($8/lb), rather than the opt imistic $11.00/kg ($5/lb) target price for the ongoing DOE ALM R&D efforts (considered lat er as a part of the sensitivity analysis), and $4.24/kg for polyurethane systems.

The entire body structure and carbon SMC panel syst ems were modeled using IBIS Technical Cost Models and the new regression analys es have been conducted to establish updated cost relationships sensitive to production volume, mass, material price, piece count, and part area. Figure 2 shows the estimated cost sensitivity to annual production volume of carbon-FRPMC body-in-white structures for a mid-size vehicle. Estimated costs are based on the baseline BIW and panel mass of 128 kg and 42 kg, respectively, representing a 49% reduction in mass compared to th e baseline steel body structures. As one would expect, carbon-FRPMC body structure is qu ite insensitive to annual production volume since it is a low-volume process: total part cost varies less than $20/part and is relatively constant at around $2,69 0/part beyond production volume of 50,000 parts/year.

The cost sensitivity to annual production volume fo r body-in-white structures of various materials is shown in Figure 3. The costs represent ed in Figure 3 include the assembly cost. Cost graphs shown here are based on the basel ine weight for a mid-size vehicle considered in the model and not the actual weight u sed in the analysis here. For example, baseline masses of body-in-white structure consider ed for steel, aluminum, and thermoset/glass composites (TS/glass composites) ar e 250 kg, 143 kg, and 202 kg, respectively. Body structure cost in this figure is based on the material pricing as follows: steel $0.77/kg; aluminum sheet $3.31/kg; aluminum c asting $2.86/kg; vinyl ester compound $4.24/kg; glass fiber $1.50/kg; and carbon fiber $17.60/kg. Based on these material prices and masses assumed, the carbon-FRPM C structure is more expensive than all other lightweight material options considered h ere, except at annual production11

volume of less than 25,000 parts, when the aluminum unibody is more expensive than

carbon-FRPMC. The crossover between these two mater ials is estimated to occur between production volumes of 25K-50K. The current estimate is consistent with most past studies indicating cost parity of carbon-FRPMC with conventional baseline steel structure at a production volume in the range of 5, 000-35,000 at carbon fiber prices of $11-$17.50/kg (Kang 1998 and Fuchs 2008). Fuchs (20 08) estimate of a cross-over point of 35,000 for the cost-effectiveness of traditional steel and carbon composites represents 45% of car models and 10% of all cars produced in N orth America in 2005. However, another study indicates the cost-effectiveness of a directed carbon fiber preforming closure panel to be between 500-9,000 annual part p roduction volume (Turner et al. 2008). Similarly, the recently completed European s uperlight-car project shows a 36% body-in-white weight reduction potential but at a c ost penalty of $705 at a daily production volume of 1,000 vehicles (VGR 2008). The cost sensitivities of steel and aluminum structures are quite similar to each other in terms of the curve slope, but they are offset by the material price difference and som e increased processing costs. `As also has been observed earlier, the cost sensitivity cur ves for composite body structures (i.e., for both glass-FRPMC and carbon-FRPMC) are relative ly flat compared to other materials. For our analysis, the threshold producti on volume of cost-effectiveness is 240K parts/year for baseline steel and 50K parts/ye ar for the lightweight vehicle.

Figure 2. Carbon-FRPMC Body Structure Cost Sensitiv ity to

Annual Production Volume 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

0 50 100 150 200 250 300Carbon-FRPMC Body Structure Cost ($/part)

Annual Production Volume (K) Structure

Assembly

Panels

Total12 Figure 3. Lightweight Material Body-In-White Cost S ensitivity to

Annual Production Volume

Figure 4. Magnesium Chassis Component Cost Sensitiv ity to Material Price

Figure 4 shows the per-part cost sensitivity to mag nesium casting price for four different magnesium chassis components considered under the c arbon-FRPMC scenario based on

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Annual Production Volume (K)Body-in-White Structure Cost ($/part)

Steel Unibody

Aluminum Unibody

TS/Glass Composite

CF Composite

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Mg Alloy Ingot Price ($/kg)Part Cost ($) Brake System

Steering System

Cradle

Corner Suspension

Base Price $4.44/kg13

part weight used in a mid-size vehicle as shown und er the baseline scenario in Table 1. Note that the part cost estimates for the base pric e of $4.44/kg for magnesium alloy ingot price is also shown. The cost estimates for the mag nesium cradle includes not only casting cost, but also melting, scrap recovery, mac hining, and corrosion protection. Cost estimates of magnesium braking and steering systems were made by adding the estimated cost of replaced magnesium component (e.g., brake a ctuators and steering wheel column for braking and steering systems, respectively) to the unchanged original balance of system cost made of conventional steel. Cost data f or replaced chassis magnesium components are based on the recently developed chas sis cost relationships using the available EEA estimates (Ibis 2008 and EEA 2007). T hese relationships consist of two components, i.e., material and processing, with mat erial cost a function of magnesium alloy ingot price. With the exception of the cradle and steering system, the cost relationships for the remaining magnesium chassis c omponents were not explicitly developed. For these remaining systems, relationshi ps are based on the corresponding aluminum component relationships, which were modifi ed to take into account higher magnesium weight reduction potential and using a mu ltiplicative factor in the material component of the cost relationship to reflect the d ifference in material prices.

As Figure 4 shows, the higher amount of magnesium s ubstitution in the cradle than in the case of the corner suspension causes the former com ponent to be more sensitive than the latter one to magnesium alloy ingot prices. The sen sitivity of steering and braking system costs to magnesium alloy ingot pricing is not signi ficant since the magnesium components contributes less than 10% of total syste m weight in each case. Estimated cost for the steering system is about 1.5 times more tha n the braking system cost, although the mass relationship between them is quite contrary. T he cost of cast magnesium wheels (not shown on this figure) are based on 15” wheels, and new relationships were developed using the same procedure as outlined abov e. It reflects current material pricing and processing technology improvements and also inc ludes tire costs. It has been assumed to have 20% price premium for processing co mpared to cast aluminum wheels (EEA 2007 and Long et al. 2005).

3.0 Results

Figure 4 shows the estimated cost savings resulting from the 50% body and chassis weight savings of the carbon-FRPMC scenario compare d to the baseline, by major vehicle systems, vehicle retail price, and life cyc le cost. Only three major vehicle systems are considered because the cost of other vehicle sy stems—interior, electrical, and final assembly—are assumed to be the same under all scena rios. There would be a $373/vehicle increase in retail price and a $1,212/ vehicle life cycle cost savings assuming a fuel price of $3.00/gallon and carbon fiber price of $8.00/lb. The increase in vehicle14 Figure 4. Estimated Cost Savings of 50% Body and Ch assis

Weight Reduction Scenario

retail price is mainly due to the body system cost increase of about $1,424, the result of the higher cost of carbon unibody structure. The as sumption of significant weight reduction potential of 68% has moderated the body-i n-white price increase. The cost savings due to downsizing the powertrain and chassi s is not sufficient to lower the vehicle retail price. However, the 50% weight reduc tion goal can be achieved with a life cycle cost savings because the fuel economy benefit s more than offset the small vehicle retail price increase. The life cycle saving occurs even though a number of operation cost categories (e.g., financing, insurance, and local f ees) are functions of vehicle retail price. Magnesium use in chassis components does not result in much change in the overall chassis system cost as component sizes are reduced considerably to meet the overall body and chassis weight reduction goal. Since the retail price difference is so small, the fuel price was found to adversely affect life cycle cost effectiveness only if fuel price dropped below $1.50/gallon. It is estimated that if the pri ce of magnesium used in chassis components is reduced from the baseline price of $4 .44/kg to $3.85/kg and carbon fiber price is reduced from the baseline price of $17.60/ kg to DOE’s long-term target value of $11.00/kg, the cost-effectiveness at the vehicle re tail price level could be achieved, while the assumed gasoline price of $3.00/gallon remains. Unless the carbon fiber price drops to about $2.20/kg while the fuel price remains at $ 3/gallon, carbon fiber price alone cannot provide the vehicle retail price equivalence (as shown in Figure 5). For carbonFRPMC to achieve cost-effectiveness at the vehicle retail price level, only less-thansignificant material price decreases in several lig htweight materials in combination would be necessary. 1361

-1424 -133

-373 1552

1212

-2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000

1Cost Savings ($/vehicle) Powertrain

Body

Chassis

Vehicle Retail Price

Operation

Life Cycle Cost15

Figure 5. Carbon Fiber Price Sensitivity to Vehicle Retail Price Difference

An alternative 50% body and chassis weight reductio n scenario was also considered. In this alternative the weight reduction potential in body structures is assumed to be around 60%, achievable based on the current technology tod ay. In order to achieve the overall 50% primary weight savings goal, the analysis inclu des material substitutions in two interior body components, i.e., seat frames and ins trument panel, both components in which magnesium use has been successfully commercia lized. Both of these magnesium components have been successfully implemented by Ja guar, and magnesium seating applications occur in several vehicle models such a s Hyundai Azera, Mercedes Benz SLK 350, Acura RL, and Lexus LS. Meridian Technolog ies, Inc. is currently producing some of these components, such as steering column b rackets and instrument panels, at the rate of 3 and 2.5 million parts per year, respectiv ely. It is estimated that magnesium use would cause a weight reduction of 55% and 33% for s eat frames and instrument panel, respectively, with the corresponding cost premiums of 45% and 56%, respectively (Greer 2010 and EEA 2007).

Table 3 shows the estimated weight savings differen ces between the original 50% weight reduction scenario and this alternative “Mg Interio r” scenario. Vehicle mass decreases as secondary body and chassis mass savings increase fr om 14.5% in the original 50% weight reduction scenario to 16.8% in the “Mg Inter ior” scenario. The increased secondary weight savings results not in the interio r components themselves, but in the affected body and chassis components, particularly the body-in-white. For example, secondary weight savings for body-in-white was foun d to be 14 kg and 19 kg for the original and new 50% body and chassis weight reduct ion scenarios, respectively. Under the “Mg Interior” scenario, the final vehicle weigh t decreases 9 kg and fuel economy improves 0.1 mpg. Due to more extensive use of the relatively high priced magnesium

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

0 5 10 15 20 25

Carbon Fiber Price ($/kg)Vehicle Retail Price Diff. ($)16

($4.44/kg) components, cost equivalence is not achi eved at either the vehicle retail price or life cycle cost level. It is estimated that the vehicle life cycle cost spremium would be $131/vehicle, compared to $1,212/vehicle savings ob tained under the original scenario.

4.0 Conclusions

Cost-effectiveness of ALM’s 2010 goal to reduce bod y and chassis weight in light duty vehicles by 50% was assessed based on the use of li ghtweight material options for various body and chassis components under a plausib le mid-size vehicle scenario. The weight reduction goal here is very similar to the e arlier 1990s Partnerships of a New Generation Vehicle target and the recently expresse d intention of the Japanese government to mass-produce a cost-effective, recycl able carbon fiber vehicle and use it to achieve a 40% reduction in cars’ weight by the midd le of the next decade (Brooke 2009). The lightweight material substitution options consi dered here focused on carbon-FRPMC for body systems and magnesium for chassis componen ts to achieve the weight reduction goal. Among potential lightweighting materials, car bon-FRPMC has the greatest weight savings potential. An alternative scenario to achie ve the desired weight reduction goal included more extensive magnesium use coupled with less weight savings potential for carbon-FRPMC. The analysis also considered the effe ct of the 50% primary weight savings on all vehicle components that can be resiz ed while maintaining the same level of vehicle performance with the reduced vehicle weight . These weight savings are known as secondary weight savings. Due to consideration of s econdary weight savings, total body Table 3. Estimated Major Parameters of the Cost-Ef fectiveness Analysis of the 50% Body and Chassis Weight Reduction Goal Scenarios, including Mg Interior Scenario

Parameter Baseline 50% Body and Chassis Weight Reduction Scenario 50% Body and Chassis Weight Reduction Scenario Mg Interior Primary Body & Chassis Weight Savings NA 345 kg (50%) 345 kg (50%)

Secondary Weight Savings

Body & Chassis NA 50 kg (14.5%) 58 kg (16.8%)

Powertrain NA 137 kg 138 kg

Total NA 187 kg 196 kg Body & Chassis Weight 692 kg 297 kg (57%) 289 kg (5 8%) Powertrain Weight 594 kg 457 kg (23%) 456 kg (23%) Engine Power 122 kW 85 kW 84 kW Final Vehicle Weight 1524 kg 993 kg (34.8%) 984 kg (35.4%) Combined Fuel Economy 23 mpg 28.3 mpg 28.4 mpg

Vehicle Retail Price Savings NA -$373 -$1,200

Vehicle Life Cycle Cost Savings NA $1,212 -$13117

and chassis weight savings are estimated to be 57%, whereas the final vehicle weight savings of 35%.

Cost-effectiveness of the 50% body and chassis weig ht reduction goal is estimated in terms of both vehicle retail price and life cycle c ost using the detailed 35+ component level automotive system cost model developed by ORN L and Ibis Associates, Inc. Cost data of components considered for lightweight mater ial substitution are collected from recent major studies, thereby reflecting the latest technology developments and material prices.

With the consideration of powertrain resizing and s econdary body and chassis mass savings, the carbon-FRPMC lightweight material vehi cle option is cost-effective in meeting the ALM 50% body and chassis weight savings goal from the life cycle cost perspective if current gasoline prices continue. Th e slightly higher vehicle retail price— an increase of $373—results mainly from using the c arbon-FRPMC body system which is $1424 more expensive than the baseline system. T he body system’s higher cost is mostly offset by the powertrain and chassis savings . The higher vehicle retail price does affect some of the operation cost categories such a s financing, insurance, and local fees which are functions of vehicle retail price. The ef fect, however, is outweighed by fuel efficiency and the resulting fuel cost savings at t he life cycle level. The vehicle retail price is estimated to be only $373 higher than base line since the consideration of secondary weight savings significantly reduces the final vehicle body weight to 993 kg.

Because the estimated vehicle retail price premium is relatively small, only small decreases in some combination of various lightweigh t material prices would be required to achieve the cost-effectiveness goal at the level of vehicle retail price—the primary consideration of OEMs for determining the viability of any new vehicle technology. Magnesium and carbon fiber prices need to be at aro und $3.85/kg and $11.10/kg, respectively for the lightweight vehicle to be cost -effective at the retail price level. The material prices assumed in the analysis are $17.60/ kg for carbon-FRPMC and $4.44/kg for magnesium. However, the volatile nature of both material prices and fuel price could affect life cycle cost equivalence. The extent of s econdary mass savings is an important consideration in vehicle price and life cycle cost. This analysis employs a conservative estimate of secondary mass savings compared to some recent estimates in the literature. An alternative scenario that uses more magnesium to account for smaller (60%) weight savings for carbon-FRPMC finds that the relatively higher magnesium price would result in higher vehicle retail price and the reduce life cycle cost savings.

Findings in this analysis are consistent with earli er findings that vehicles with high carbon-FRPMC are more expensive than baseline vehic les. However, with the significantly lower cost of commercial grade carbon fiber available today and the high level of weight reduction offered by carbon-FRPMC, the material is largely competitive. Also carbon-FRPMC technology is suited mainly to lo w annual production volume, and a reduction in carbon fiber price would help to a lar ge extent to improve its viability. Composite monocoque BIW designs considered in the p ast several studies indicate cost to be in the range of 41-73% higher than the steel unibody, depending on the type of tooling used (Mascarin et al. 1995). Vehicle platfo rming considerations which allow low18

annual production volumes would facilitate the comp etitiveness of carbon-FRPMC body structure (Fuchs et al. 2008). Lightweighting also improves the cost-effectiveness of advanced technology vehicles by lowering the expens ive powertrain cost while maintaining the performance, which has been conside red only in a few of the latest

studies and would be critical in the successful com mercialization of the lightweight materials technology (Aluminum Association 2008, Br ooke 2009, and Das 2005). Consideration of powertrain resizing, secondary mas s savings, and life cycle cost perspectives would therefore be important to maximi ze the fuel economy gains from a lightweight structure and eventual successful marke t penetration of lightweight vehicles

in the future. A recent cost assessment of vehicle mass reduction using a synergestic vehicle teardown approach indicates that a total 20 -40% vehicle mass reduction can be achieved without any powertrain weight savings cons ideration (LEI 2010). Similarly, a

recent review article on trends related to automobi le mass reduction technology also indicates that advanced vehicle mass optimization t echniques such as use of a diverse mix of materials could yield vehicle mass reduction s of 30% or greater but would involve some additional costs and manufacturing process mod ifications (Lutsey 2010). Overall vehicle cost impacts have been estimated to be mini mal, only 3% higher even in the 40% mass reduction case, with an extensive use of alumi num and magnesium in body structure components, close to 150 lbs/vehicle. Wit h a higher lightweighting goal,

reduced material cost become more critical because it is such a large share of the total part cost particularly in low production-volume man ufacturing processes. Accordingly, current foci of DOE’s lightweight materials program are the development low cost carbon fibers from alternative inexpensive renewabl e resources and high-volume processing of composites.19 REFERENCES

Aluminum Association (2008). “Aluminum Vehicle Stru cture: Manufacturing and Lifecycle Cost Analysis: Hybrid Drive and Diesel Fu el Vehicles,” Research Report No. 2008-05, written by Ibis Associates, Inc. for t he Aluminum Association.

Berger, L. and Jaranson, J. (2009). “Automotive Com posites Consortium Focal Project 4,” FY 2007 Progress Report for Lightweighting Mate rials, Vehicle Technologies Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/resour ces/vt_lm_fy07.html, accessed

on 5/22.

Boeman, R. G. Johnson, N. L (2002). “Development of a Cost Competitive, Composite Intensive, Body- In-White,” SAE Paper No. 2002-01-1905, the Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.

Brooke, L. (2009). “A Featherweight Future,” Automotive Engineering International

, Vol. 117, No. 5, May, pp. 24-26

Das, S. (2004). “A Comparative Assessment of Altern ative Powertrians and Body-inWhite Materials for Advanced Technology Vehicles,” SAE Paper No. 2004-01-0573, the Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA

.

Das, S. (2005). “Lightweight Opportunities for Fuel Cell Vehicles,” SAE paper no. 2005- 01-0007, the Society of Automotive Engineers, Warre ndale, PA.

Das, S. (2008). “Cost-Effectiveness of a 25% Body a nd Chassis Weight-Reduction Goal in Light-Duty Vehicles,” draft report, Oak Ridge Na tional Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, Aug.

Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. (EEA) (2001 ). “Technology and Cost of Future Fuel Economy Improvements for Light-Duty Vehicles,” draft report for National Academy of Sciences, June 4.

Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. (EEA) (2007 ). “Analysis of Light-Duty Vehicle Weight Reduction Potential,” draft final report sub mitted to the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Policy, Arlington, VA, July.

Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2010). “An nual Energy Outlook 2010 with Projections to 2030: Early Release Overview (Summar y Reference Case Tables), http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html, accesse d on 3/17/10.

Feraboli, P. and A. Masini. (2004). “Development of Carbon/Epoxy Structural Components for a High Performance Vehicle,” Composites: Part B , Vol. 35, pp. 323-

330.20

Fuchs, E. R. H., F.R. Field, R. Roth, and R.E. Kirc hain. (2008). “Strategic Materials Selection in the Automobile Body: Economic Opportun ities for Polymer Composite Design,” Composites Science and Technology , Vol. 68, pp. 1989-2002.

Greer, D. (2010). Meridian Lightweight Technologies , Plymouth, MI. Personal communication with Sujit Das, Oak Ridge National La boratory, Oak Ridge, TN, Apr.

2.

Ibis Associates, Inc. (Ibis) (2007). “Technical Co st Model Development for a Structural Composite Underbody: Supporting USCAR-ACC Composite Structures Program,” Waltham, MA.

Ibis Associates, Inc. (Ibis) (2008). “Data Documen t: ORNL Automotive System Cost Model,” Waltham, MA, July 1.

Ibis Associates, Inc. (Ibis) (2009a). “Data Docume nt: ORNL Automotive System Cost Model,” Waltham, MA, April 9.

Ibis Associates, Inc. (Ibis) (2009b). “Technical C ost Analysis & Model Development: Fiber and Process Preforming Alternatives: Supporti ng USCAR-ACC Composite Structures Program,” Waltham, MA.

Ibis Associates, Inc. (Ibis) (2009c). “Technical Co st Model Development: Fiber and Process Preforming Alternatives,” presentation made to the USCAR – ACC Composite Structures Program, Mar.

Iobst, S. Berger, L. Fernholz, K. Dahl, J. and Smit h G. (2007). “Fabrication of the Automotive Composites Consortium Carbon Fiber B-Pil lar,” International SAMPE Symposium and Exhibition (Proceedings), v 52, SAMPE ’07: M and P – From Coast to Coast and Around the World, Conference Proceedin gs, 2007, 11p.

Long, S. Xu, S. and Cao, H. (2005). “Technical Econ omic Considerations for Production and Application of Mg Castings in China,” Materials Science Forum , Vols. 488-489, pp. 909-914, June.

Lotus Engineering, Inc. (LEI) (2010). “An Assessmen t of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017-2020 Model Year Vehicle Program,” Versio n Rev006A, report prepared for the International Council on Clean Transportati on, Mar. Also available at: http://tinyurl.com/ykp3soz

Lutsey, N. (2010). “Review of Technical Literature and Trends Related to AutomobileMass-Reduction Technology,” report prepar ed for California Air Resources Board, Institute of Transportation Studie s, University of California, Davis, May.21

Malen, D. E. and Reddy, K. (2007). “Preliminary Veh icle Mass Estimation Using Empirical Subsystem Influence Coefficients,” report prepared for the FGPC Mass Compounding Project Team, Auto/Steel Partnership, S outhfield, MI, May 9.

Marsh, G. (2006). “Composites Conquer with Carbon S upercars,” Reinforced Plastics

, Jan., pp. 20-24.

Plotkin, S. et al. (2001). “Hybrid Vehicle Technolo gy Assessment: Methodology, Analytical Issues, and Interim Results,” Argonne Na tional Laboratory Report ANL/ESD/02-2, Argonne, IL.

Rousseau, A. Sharer, P. and Das, S. (2005). “Trade- off between Fuel Economy and Cost for Advanced Vehicle Configurations,” presented and published at EVS21conference, held in Monaco, Apr. 2-5.

Saad, A. and Malen, D. (2008). “Mass Influence Coef ficients: Phase 2,” draft report prepared for the FGPC_Mass Compounding Project Team , Auto/Steel Partnership, Southfield, MI, Dec. 26.

Turner, T. A. Harper, L. T. Warrior, N. A. and Rudd , C. D. (2008). “Low-cost Carbon Fiber based Automotive Body Panel Systems: A Perfor mance and Manufacturing Cost Comparison,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers – Part D: Journal of Automobile Engg ., Vol 222, pp. 53-63.

Ultra light Steel Autobody – Advanced Vehicle Conce pts (ULSAB-AVC) (1999). “Description of ULSAB-AVC Benchmarking and Target S etting,” Southfield, MI.

Nov. 18.

Volkswagen Group Research (VRG) (2008). “Multi-mate rial Lightweight Vehicle Structure: EU-Project “Super Light Car”,” Status Fi nal SLC-Body Concept, May.22 

### Appendix A ASCM Vehicle Component Definition

ASCM UPG ASCM Description

Group Name

Powertrain Engine 30A Base Engine In this model, 'engine' refers to c onventional heat engines. In addition to basic powerplant and auxil iary systems and components, engine cooling systems, lubrication, fluid containers and pumps are also in cluded. 30B Other Engine

Components

Fuel Cell n/a Fuel Cell Power System

Generator n/a The APU or power converter for paral lel and series hybrids. Motor n/a The electric motor, including power cabl es.

Controller/

Inverter n/a The power controller/phase inverter system

Energy Storage 36K01 High Voltage Battery The primary electrical energy storage device or pac kage.

Maybe a single battery or module of linked cells. Fuel System 36F Fuel Tank and
Lines Fuel tank, gauge, tank shield, access door, mountin g

straps, fuel pump.

37B Fuel

Transmission 36E G Transmission In this model the transmission r efers to the gearbox only. Note that in some literature, "transmission" refers to the clutch, gearbox, driveshaft, and differential. The se are each treated as separate components/subsystems in t his
model.

36C Clutch and

Controls Supplied as a single assembly, a releasable couplin g that

transmits torque from the engine to gearbox.

Driveshaft/
Axle 31 Final Drive A single assembly that couples wit h the gearbox and
differential

31 Final Drive An assembly of the axle shaft, housi ng, boots, and couplings to the wheels

Differential 31 Final Drive Transmits energy from driveshaft to axles and allows for differential speed of each wheel.

P/T Thermal Cooling module (radiator, fan assembly etc)

Exhaust System 36E

36O Exhaust System

Catalytic
Converter All exhaust equipment after the manifold; pipe: cat alytic

converter, muffler.

Powertrain
Electrical 30C Engine Electrical Engine control wiring, sensor s and processors. The controller for electric motors for HEVs may be cons idered as part of the electric motor, or could be included here, if desired. Low voltage used for accessory power is a lso
included here.

Emission
Control
Electronics 30C10 Engine Emission
Controls The sensors, processors, and engine feedback

equipment that maintain emissions within specified parameters.
Oil and
Grease 37B Oil and Grease Engine oil, transmission oil, mi scellaneous lubricants

Body BIW 11A-11B Body in White and
closures The Body-In-White is the primary vehicle structure,

usually a single-body assembly, consisting of engin e compartment, passenger cabin, and storage. Closure panels (including hinge mechanism) and hang-on pane ls (such as fenders) are included, even if non-structu ral. In this model, doors are included as well.23 ASCM UPG ASCM Description

Group Name

Front/Rear Bumper 36G Fenders

Glass 18 Glass Front and rear windshields, door win dow glazing

Paint 22 Paint and Coating Includes the cost and mass of the total painting operation; e-coat, priming, base coats, color coats, clear coa ts. 37A, C, D Paint

Exterior

Trim 14, 20 Molding and
Ornaments Bumper cover, air deflectors, ground effects, side trim,

mirror assemblies, nameplates

Body
Hardware Door window mechanism, wipe/wash, defog/deice, do or latch mechanism

Body
Sealers &
Deadeners Self-explanatory

Chassis Cradle 32 Frame A front sub frame that bolts to the BIW an d supports the mounting of the engine

Corner Suspension 33 Suspension Upper and lower control arms, ball jo ints, spring, shock absorber, steering knuckle, stabilizer shaft Braking System 35 35D Brakes Hub, disc, bearings, splash shield, a nd calipers.

Wheels and
Tires 36A 36C Wheels, Tires, and
Tools Self explanatory. Tools determinant by type of tir es

featured. Steering System 34 Steering A complex system from the steering whee l, column, joints, linkages, bushes, housings and potentially hydraulic or electric assist equipment.

Interior Instrument

Panel 21 Trim and
Insulation The instrument panel module consists of an underlyi ng

panel structure, knee bolsters and brackets, the instrument cluster, exterior surface, wiring, conso le storage, glove box panels, glove box assembly and exterior, and a top cover.

Trim and
Insulation 15,17,21 Headliner Headliner is actually the overhe ad system containing acoustical sound absorption, assist handles, coat h ooks, modular headliner assemblies, overhead console assemblies, small item overhead storage, pillar tri m, sun visors and retainer. Center Console Emergency brake cover, switch panel s, ash trays, arm rest, cup holders, sometimes grouped with seating.

Package Tray A molded or formed panel behind the r ear seat, sometimes contains accessory brake light.

Carpeting/Flooring Acoustical sound absorption; padding and carpet, insulation and accessory mats sometimes flooring ma y be sold as part of a combined acoustic package, also involving other sound abatement components, such as
wheel well liners and under hood insulation

Door
Modules 19 Convenience
Items A door panel system containing door insulation, doo r trim

assemblies/panels, map pocket trim, cup holders, as h trays, seatbelt retractor covers, speaker grills, a rmrests, switch panels and handles

Seatbelt &

Restraints 16 Seats The seating system contains seat tracks, s eat frames, foam, trim, map pockets, restraint anchors, head restraint,
and armrests. 81 Safety Equipment Seat belts, tensioners, clips, air bags and sensors
assemblies

HVAC 80A, B Air Conditioning System Condenser, heater, ducting, and controls, compresso r

and A/C hardware.24 ASCM UPG ASCM Description

Group Name

80H, J Heating System

80K, M, C Other Climate

Control

Electrical Interior

Electrical 12F-13, 79 Electrical Components Wiring and controls for interior lighting, instrume ntation,

and power accessories, entertainment system.

85 Accessories

Equipment

Chassis
Electrical 36K Chassis Electrical ABS electrical system (wirin g, sensors, processors),
traction control

Exterior
Electrical 14,20 Molding and
Ornaments Head lamps, fog lamps, turn signals, side markers, tail

light assemblies

Final Assembly Interior

Chassis

Powertrain

Electronics

Other Systems Final assembly of vehicle components is represented at the level of five major vehicle subsystems under wh ich components are grouped