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-AC05-00OR22725
1

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 emission and fuel economy regulations 

that require by 2016 a 30% reduction in CO2 and other emissions and an average fuel 

economy of at least 35 mpg, the pressure to lightweight vehicles is stronger than ever

before. Vehicle lightweighting represents one of several design approaches automakers 

are currently evaluating to improve fuel economy. The next few years will see 

considerable lightweighting across the automotive industry. Lightweighting is typically 

accomplished by downsizing, integrating parts and functions, 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 weight without compromising other 

attributes such as safety, performance, recyclability, and cost. The specific goals of LM

are to develop material and manufacturing technologies by 2010 that, if implemented in 

high volume, could cost-effectively reduce the weight of passenger-vehicle body and 

chassis systems by 50% with safety, performance, and 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 FY2008 and FY 2009, respectively (Das 

2008, Das 2009). The present study emphasizes the assessment of cost-effectiveness to 

achieve the desired goal of 50% body and chassis weight 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 include metal-matrix materials and 

glass- and carbon-fiber reinforced thermosets and thermoplastics. Over the past several 

years, the LM R&D portfolio has included assessments of various lightweight body and 

front-end structures, such as those constructed of advanced high-strength steel, 

composite-intensive, and magnesium. These assessments, either completed or underway, 

include, for example, one in which the goal is to design, 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 these various lightweight material 

component options in a single vehicle. 

Cost remains one of the major obstacles to successful market penetration of these various 

lightweight materials. Complete vehicle system-level cost estimation is essential since it 

captures the cost reduction potential due to both part 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-effectiveness of a 50% body and chassis 

weight-reduction goal for FY2010 using the same methodology as used in the past two 

studies. The cost-effectiveness of the proposed weight-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 components to achieve the desired 

weight-reduction goal. Cost methodology and potential data sources for the analysis are 

then discussed. Cost data collected for various vehicle components considered for 

achieving the weight reduction goal are then discussed, as are the assumptions and 

methodology used. A discussion of the results of the 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 specific lightweight material type 

substitution at a major vehicle-component level. A representative mid-size vehicle, i.e. 

Honda Accord, was considered as the baseline against which the cost-effectiveness of the 

weight reduction goal was determined. Due to a significantly higher weight reduction 

goal, carbon fiber-reinforced polymer-matrix composites (carbon-FRPMCs) and 

magnesium were primarily considered for body and chassis applications. These two 

materials have the potential to achieve the desired weight-reduction goal. Only carbonFRPMCs offer the potential for greater than 50% reduction in the weight of body and 

chassis components while providing strength five times 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 cars. Magnesium use in today’s lightduty vehicles is limited to less than 10 lbs/vehicle, mainly in interior applications such as 

instrument panels and parts of the steering structure. 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 magnesium components gaining 

interest are front end structures, engine cradles, center consoles, and powertrain 

applications. The recent analysis by Meridian Lightweight Technologies indicates a 200 

lbs total vehicle weight savings potential by magnesium use in mid-size vehicles. There is 

a great need for development of wrought magnesium products and manufacturing 

processes to provide improved mechanical and physical 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-reduction scenario for a mid-size 

passenger car considered in the cost-effectiveness analysis. The scenario focuses on a 

plausible specific lightweight material substitution option (i.e., mainly carbon-FRPMC 

and magnesium) at the broad component category level based on the materials’ near-term 

market potential to achieve the desired overall body and chassis weight reduction goal. 

For a few vehicle systems, such as glass, paint, exterior trim, and body hardware, weight 

reduction has been based on either on a material other 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 reduction goal, the distribution of 

material types would change significantly. At the expense 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 subsystems 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 commercialized, the percentage weight 

reduction assumed in each case is based on the best estimated value available in the 

literature today. The definitions of various vehicle 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. Scenario

Weight (kg)

OTHER

Polymer/Composite

Magnesium

Aluminum

Low Carbon Steel

Hi/Med Steel
4

Table 1. Mid-Size 50% Body& Chassis Weight Reduction Scenario1

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, Standard 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

 

1All weights in the table denote values achieved by primary 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, Mitsubishi’s Pajero SUV, and Nissan’s 

latest GT-R super sports car. BMW has been using carbon fiber composites in its vehicles 

for a number of years in applications such as the roof 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 car has been designed with a carbon 

fiber cabin that weighs 200 kg less than a comparable aluminum cabin while maintaining 

the same rigidity. Most carbon-FRPMC applications today include drive shafts, spoilers, 

A-pillars, underbody structures, and various body panels for high-performance, lowvolume cars.

Three Japanese companies, i.e., Toray Industries, Teijin, and Mitsubishi Rayon, that 

control 70% of the global carbon fiber market are aiming to pioneer mass production of 

this material for widespread use in cars. For example, Teijin, which is planning to start 

supplying carbon-resin composites to automotive parts makers as early as 2010 via its 

subsidiary Toho Tenax, is aiming to first make engine undercovers for high-end sports 

cars and then move towards mass market models. Toray 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 approximately $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 joint venture with BMW for the 

development of the material for use in BMW’s Megacity vehicle, where carbon fiber 

composites will make up as much as 10-15% of the final vehicle weight. 

To achieve a significantly higher body and chassis weight reduction goal, this analysis 

considers carbon-FRPMC for three major body components 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 application of this lightweight material since 

these components contribute more than 25% of total vehicle weight. Potential percentage 

weight reduction assumed for these components has been in the mid range of 55-60%,

although expected weight reduction has been reported to be 45-80% compared to mild 

steel depending on the specific automotive part application. For example, on the 

equivalent modulus basis and a minimum 75 vol.% resin requirement to facilitate the 

sufficient wetting out of carbon fibers, carbon-FRPMC 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 collaborative, pre-competitive R&D 

partnership of the three big U.S. OEMs and DOE—predicted 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). Similarly, niche vehicles such as X-Power sports 

vehicles have demonstrated 70% weight reduction potential in body panels compared 
6

with steel (Marsh 2006). On the other hand, the structural composite underbody targeted 

to be a part of the United States Automotive Material 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 than 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 SLR in monocoque design is 50% 

lighter than steel components (Marsh 2006), and a 40% reduction in BIW mass without 

doors and the roof has been reported for the Lamborghini Murcielago using carbon/epoxy

body material over its an all-aluminum body predecessor (Feraboli and Masini 2004). 

Our 68% weight reduction assumption using carbon-FRPMC for two body components 

(out of total three body oconsidered here for substitution) 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 pressure die casting (HPDC) components 

in a broad range of non Class A-surface vehicle applications such as cross-beam 

members and dashboard supports where a single cast component can replace various 

conventional multi-component steel fabrications cost-effectively. While the growth of 

magnesium die casting applications seems assured, there are other applications such as 

wheels, suspension arms, subframes, etc. where significant weight saving could be 

achieved but which require higher integrity than that 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 buckling 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 applications to the high-volume vehicle 

market due to their much higher costs and potential corrosion problems. The general 

experience, however, with material competition in North America has been that the 

magnesium design is displaced when a lower-cost solution for a particular weight 

trimming issue becomes available.

To achieve the 50% body and chassis weight reduction goal, magnesium substitution was 

considered in five vehicle chassis components, i.e., corner suspension, cradle, braking 

system, steering system, and wheels and tires, as shown 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 total corner suspension weight when 

aluminum is used. Magnesium use would provide a further 30% weight reduction in these 

two parts compared to aluminum. The magnesium cradle weight reduction potential has 

been based on the USAMP Corvette magnesium cradle design, which has been estimated 

to yield a 33% weight reduction compared to aluminum. Both steering and braking 
7

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 steering wheel columns—which 

account for 15% of the overall system weight—would provide an additional 25% weight 

reduction compared to aluminum. For wheels and tires, the total system weight reduction 

is estimated to be 17% based on the 40% weight reduction 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 assumed. These weight savings are 

consistent with the target weight for the PNGV-Class 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 material options for various vehicle 

components (as discussed above) was to achieve the primary 50% body and chassis 

weight-reduction goal. However, consideration of secondary weight savings in body and 

chassis components is important because it takes into account the effect of primary

savings on the powertrain, chassis, and body components. The cost-effectiveness of 

lightweighting options depends considerably on the secondary savings since those 

savings helps to reduce the overall effect of higher lightweight material cost. Powertrain 

resizing in secondary weight savings calculations allows 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 related to the two scenarios considered 

here are presented in Table 2 along with other estimated major parameters in the costeffectiveness analysis. Total secondary weight savings 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 considered. Most of the secondary weight 

savings occur in the powertrain system and depend on the extent of powertrain 

downsizing assumed. Since the ASCM includes secondary weight savings only of major 

vehicle components (i.e., all chassis components and a few major powertrain and body

components), the total weight savings estimated here is somewhat lower than other recent 

estimates (Malen and Reddy 2007; Saad and Malen 2008). 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 demonstrated 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 engine 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 rule of thumb that each one percent 

reduction in weight should give a 0.66 percent improvement in fuel economy, after a 

vehicle has been fully redesigned to account for the reduced power demands of a lower 
8

Table 2. Major Parameters Considered in the Cost-Effectiveness 

Analysis of the 50% Body and Chassis Weight Reduction 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 would increase from the baseline 

value of 23 mpg to 28.3 mpg with the 50% body and chassis 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 jointly by Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory and Ibis Associates, Inc. in collaboration 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, and electrical) consisting of more than 

thirty-five components (some components have been shown in aggregate form in Table 

1) based on the aggregation of several components under the definition of Uniform Parts 

Grouping (UPG) generally used by the automotive industry (as listed and defined in 

Table 1 and Appendix A). Each component represents a specific manufacturing 

technology. Vehicle retail price based on the sum of 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 interrelationships 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 estimate secondary mass savings based 

on first principles of physics, and using semi-empirical 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 Laboratory’s (ANL) hybrid vehicle cost 

model (HEVCOST), where the power and mass projections of various powertrain 
9

components are based on component-specific power and efficiency values, with the 

capability to evaluate alternative hybrid electric vehicle configurations and performance 

strategies (Plotkin et al. 2001). The main objective 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 being considered for vehicles today. 

This cost model has been integrated into the vehicle performance model PSAT 

(Powertrain System Analysis Toolkit) developed by Argonne National Laboratory, 

thereby facilitating instantaneous vehicle cost estimation 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; Rousseau 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 manufacturing cost. Vehicle operation cost 

categories considered in the vehicle life cycle cost estimation include financing, 

insurance, local fees, fuel, battery replacement, maintenance, repair, and disposal. 

Financing, insurance, and local fees costs are dictated by the vehicle retail price, while 

the fuel cost is dictated by the vehicle’s fuel economy (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 such recent study stems from the 

USCAR-ACC composite structure programs that have been involved in the detailed cost 

analysis of carbon-FRPMC body structures. Even detailed 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 analysis 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 model, since our objective in this 

analysis is to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of the plausible lightweight 

scenario to achieve the desired weight reduction goal 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 such as component mass and power, 

based on the detailed cost analyses available in the literature.

Several recent USCAR-ACC composite structure programs have been used in order to 

extrapolate to a full BIW structure and panel system functionally equivalent to the carbon 

fiber scenario considered previously in ASCM. The ACC programs contributing to this 

analysis include the FP2-composite truck box, FP3-carbon fiber structures, the Composite 
10

Underbody program, and a recent fiber, preforming, and molding technology tradeoff 

study (Ibis 2007, 2009b; Berger and Jaranson 2009 and Boeman and Johnson (2002)). 

The truck box study evaluated a high volume composite 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 component and not a full vehicle 

structure. The Underbody program examined a broad range of concepts, including 

random and fabric glass, carbon, and high modulus polypropylene (HMPP) reinforcement 

through sheet molding compound (SMC) compression, long-fiber injection (LFI), and 

direct long-fiber thermoplastic (DLFT) molding processes. The most recent ACC tradeoff 

study compared glass, carbon, and natural fiber composites produced through SMC, 

structural reaction injection molding (SRIM), and resin transfer molding (RTM), and 

evaluated design based on equivalent strength and stiffness. 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 savings 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 based on the recent studies using high 

production-rate P4 preforming and SRIM molding, achieving production rates of 15 parts 

per hour. The carbon material pricing is based on current commercial grade pricing 

estimates of $17.60/kg ($8/lb), rather than the optimistic $11.00/kg ($5/lb) target price 

for the ongoing DOE ALM R&D efforts (considered later as a part of the sensitivity

analysis), and $4.24/kg for polyurethane systems.

The entire body structure and carbon SMC panel systems were modeled using IBIS

Technical Cost Models and the new regression analyses 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 the baseline steel body structures. As 

one would expect, carbon-FRPMC body structure is quite 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 $2,690/part beyond production volume of 

50,000 parts/year.

The cost sensitivity to annual production volume for body-in-white structures of various 

materials is shown in Figure 3. The costs represented in Figure 3 include the assembly 

cost. Cost graphs shown here are based on the baseline weight for a mid-size vehicle 

considered in the model and not the actual weight used in the analysis here. For example, 

baseline masses of body-in-white structure considered for steel, aluminum, and 

thermoset/glass composites (TS/glass composites) are 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 casting $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-FRPMC structure is more expensive than 

all other lightweight material options considered here, except at annual production 
11

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

carbon-FRPMC. The crossover between these two materials 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 (2008) 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 North 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 production volume (Turner et al. 

2008). Similarly, the recently completed European superlight-car project shows a 36% 

body-in-white weight reduction potential but at a cost 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 some increased processing costs. `As also 

has been observed earlier, the cost sensitivity curves for composite body structures (i.e., 

for both glass-FRPMC and carbon-FRPMC) are relatively flat compared to other 

materials. For our analysis, the threshold production volume of cost-effectiveness is 

240K parts/year for baseline steel and 50K parts/year for the lightweight vehicle.

Figure 2. Carbon-FRPMC Body Structure Cost Sensitivity to

Annual Production Volume

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Carb

on-FR

P

M

C

B

o

d

y

Structure C

ost ($/part)

Annual Production Volume (K)

Structure

Assembly

Panels

Total
12

Figure 3. Lightweight Material Body-In-White Cost Sensitivity to

Annual Production Volume

Figure 4. Magnesium Chassis Component Cost Sensitivity to Material Price

Figure 4 shows the per-part cost sensitivity to magnesium casting price for four different 

magnesium chassis components considered under the carbon-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/kg
13

part weight used in a mid-size vehicle as shown under the baseline scenario in Table 1. 

Note that the part cost estimates for the base price of $4.44/kg for magnesium alloy ingot 

price is also shown. The cost estimates for the magnesium cradle includes not only

casting cost, but also melting, scrap recovery, machining, 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 actuators and steering wheel column 

for braking and steering systems, respectively) to the unchanged original balance of 

system cost made of conventional steel. Cost data for replaced chassis magnesium 

components are based on the recently developed chassis cost relationships using the 

available EEA estimates (Ibis 2008 and EEA 2007). These relationships consist of two 

components, i.e., material and processing, with material 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 components were not explicitly

developed. For these remaining systems, relationships are based on the corresponding 

aluminum component relationships, which were modified to take into account higher 

magnesium weight reduction potential and using a multiplicative factor in the material 

component of the cost relationship to reflect the difference in material prices.

As Figure 4 shows, the higher amount of magnesium substitution in the cradle than in the 

case of the corner suspension causes the former component to be more sensitive than the 

latter one to magnesium alloy ingot prices. The sensitivity of steering and braking system 

costs to magnesium alloy ingot pricing is not significant since the magnesium 

components contributes less than 10% of total system weight in each case. Estimated cost 

for the steering system is about 1.5 times more than the braking system cost, although the 

mass relationship between them is quite contrary. The 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 above. It reflects current material pricing 

and processing technology improvements and also includes tire costs. It has been 

assumed to have 20% price premium for processing compared 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 compared to the baseline, by major 

vehicle systems, vehicle retail price, and life cycle cost. Only three major vehicle systems 

are considered because the cost of other vehicle systems—interior, electrical, and final 

assembly—are assumed to be the same under all scenarios. 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 vehicle
14

Figure 4. Estimated Cost Savings of 50% Body and Chassis

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 assumption of significant weight 

reduction potential of 68% has moderated the body-in-white price increase. The cost 

savings due to downsizing the powertrain and chassis is not sufficient to lower the 

vehicle retail price. However, the 50% weight reduction goal can be achieved with a life 

cycle cost savings because the fuel economy benefits 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 fees) 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 price 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 retail 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 lightweight materials in combination would 

be necessary.

1361

-1424

-133

-373

1552

1212

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1

C

ost Savings ($/vehicle)

Powertrain

Body

Chassis

Vehicle Retail Price

Operation

Life Cycle Cost
15

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

An alternative 50% body and chassis weight reduction 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 today. In order to achieve the overall 

50% primary weight savings goal, the analysis includes material substitutions in two 

interior body components, i.e., seat frames and instrument panel, both components in 

which magnesium use has been successfully commercialized. Both of these magnesium 

components have been successfully implemented by Jaguar, and magnesium seating 

applications occur in several vehicle models such as Hyundai Azera, Mercedes Benz 

SLK 350, Acura RL, and Lexus LS. Meridian Technologies, Inc. is currently producing 

some of these components, such as steering column brackets and instrument panels, at the 

rate of 3 and 2.5 million parts per year, respectively. It is estimated that magnesium use 

would cause a weight reduction of 55% and 33% for seat 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 differences between the original 50% weight 

reduction scenario and this alternative “Mg Interior” scenario. Vehicle mass decreases as 

secondary body and chassis mass savings increase from 14.5% in the original 50% 

weight reduction scenario to 16.8% in the “Mg Interior” scenario. The increased 

secondary weight savings results not in the interior 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 found to be 14 kg and 19 kg for the 

original and new 50% body and chassis weight reduction scenarios, respectively. Under 

the “Mg Interior” scenario, the final vehicle weight 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 achieved 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 obtained under the original scenario.

4.0 Conclusions

Cost-effectiveness of ALM’s 2010 goal to reduce body and chassis weight in light duty

vehicles by 50% was assessed based on the use of lightweight material options for 

various body and chassis components under a plausible mid-size vehicle scenario. The 

weight reduction goal here is very similar to the earlier 1990s Partnerships of a New 

Generation Vehicle target and the recently expressed intention of the Japanese 

government to mass-produce a cost-effective, recyclable carbon fiber vehicle and use it to 

achieve a 40% reduction in cars’ weight by the middle of the next decade (Brooke 2009). 

The lightweight material substitution options considered here focused on carbon-FRPMC 

for body systems and magnesium for chassis components to achieve the weight reduction

goal. Among potential lightweighting materials, carbon-FRPMC has the greatest weight 

savings potential. An alternative scenario to achieve the desired weight reduction goal 

included more extensive magnesium use coupled with less weight savings potential for 

carbon-FRPMC. The analysis also considered the effect of the 50% primary weight 

savings on all vehicle components that can be resized 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 secondary weight savings, total body

Table 3. Estimated Major Parameters of the Cost-Effectiveness 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 (58%)

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 -$131
17

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 weight reduction goal is estimated in 

terms of both vehicle retail price and life cycle cost using the detailed 35+ component 

level automotive system cost model developed by ORNL and Ibis Associates, Inc. Cost 

data of components considered for lightweight material substitution are collected from 

recent major studies, thereby reflecting the latest technology developments and material 

prices.

With the consideration of powertrain resizing and secondary body and chassis mass 

savings, the carbon-FRPMC lightweight material vehicle 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. The slightly higher vehicle retail price—

an increase of $373—results mainly from using the carbon-FRPMC body system which 

is $1424 more expensive than the baseline system. The 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 as financing, insurance, and local fees 

which are functions of vehicle retail price. The effect, however, is outweighed by fuel 

efficiency and the resulting fuel cost savings at the life cycle level. The vehicle retail 

price is estimated to be only $373 higher than baseline 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 lightweight 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 around $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 secondary 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 earlier findings that vehicles with high 

carbon-FRPMC are more expensive than baseline vehicles. 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 low annual production volume, and a 

reduction in carbon fiber price would help to a large extent to improve its viability.

Composite monocoque BIW designs considered in the past 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 platforming considerations which allow low 
18

annual production volumes would facilitate the competitiveness of carbon-FRPMC body

structure (Fuchs et al. 2008). Lightweighting also improves the cost-effectiveness of 

advanced technology vehicles by lowering the expensive powertrain cost while 

maintaining the performance, which has been considered only in a few of the latest 

studies and would be critical in the successful commercialization of the lightweight 

materials technology (Aluminum Association 2008, Brooke 2009, and Das 2005). 

Consideration of powertrain resizing, secondary mass savings, and life cycle cost 

perspectives would therefore be important to maximize the fuel economy gains from a 

lightweight structure and eventual successful market 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 consideration (LEI 2010). Similarly, a 

recent review article on trends related to automobile mass reduction technology also 

indicates that advanced vehicle mass optimization techniques such as use of a diverse 

mix of materials could yield vehicle mass reductions of 30% or greater but would involve 

some additional costs and manufacturing process modifications (Lutsey 2010). Overall 

vehicle cost impacts have been estimated to be minimal, only 3% higher even in the 40% 

mass reduction case, with an extensive use of aluminum and magnesium in body

structure components, close to 150 lbs/vehicle. With 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 manufacturing processes. Accordingly, 

current foci of DOE’s lightweight materials program are the development low cost 

carbon fibers from alternative inexpensive renewable resources and high-volume 

processing of composites.
19

REFERENCES

Aluminum Association (2008). “Aluminum Vehicle Structure: Manufacturing and 

Lifecycle Cost Analysis: Hybrid Drive and Diesel Fuel Vehicles,” Research Report 

No. 2008-05, written by Ibis Associates, Inc. for the Aluminum Association.

Berger, L. and Jaranson, J. (2009). “Automotive Composites Consortium Focal Project 

4,” FY 2007 Progress Report for Lightweighting Materials, Vehicle Technologies 

Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, Available at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/resources/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 Alternative 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, Warrendale, PA.

Das, S. (2008). “Cost-Effectiveness of a 25% Body and Chassis Weight-Reduction Goal 

in Light-Duty Vehicles,” draft report, Oak Ridge National 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 submitted to the U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Policy, Arlington, VA, July.

Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2010). “Annual Energy Outlook 2010 with 

Projections to 2030: Early Release Overview (Summary Reference Case Tables),

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html, accessed 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. Kirchain. (2008). “Strategic Materials 

Selection in the Automobile Body: Economic Opportunities 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 Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, Apr. 

2.

Ibis Associates, Inc. (Ibis) (2007). “Technical Cost Model Development for a Structural 

Composite Underbody: Supporting USCAR-ACC Composite Structures Program,” 

Waltham, MA.

Ibis Associates, Inc. (Ibis) (2008). “Data Document: ORNL Automotive System Cost 

Model,” Waltham, MA, July 1.

Ibis Associates, Inc. (Ibis) (2009a). “Data Document: ORNL Automotive System Cost 

Model,” Waltham, MA, April 9.

Ibis Associates, Inc. (Ibis) (2009b). “Technical Cost Analysis & Model Development: 

Fiber and Process Preforming Alternatives: Supporting USCAR-ACC Composite 

Structures Program,” Waltham, MA.

Ibis Associates, Inc. (Ibis) (2009c). “Technical Cost 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 Smith G. (2007). “Fabrication of the 

Automotive Composites Consortium Carbon Fiber B-Pillar,” International SAMPE 

Symposium and Exhibition (Proceedings), v 52, SAMPE’07: M and P – From Coast 

to Coast and Around the World, Conference Proceedings, 2007, 11p.

Long, S. Xu, S. and Cao, H. (2005). “Technical Economic 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 Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities 

for a 2017-2020 Model Year Vehicle Program,” Version Rev006A, report prepared 

for the International Council on Clean Transportation, Mar. Also available at: 

http://tinyurl.com/ykp3soz

Lutsey, N. (2010). “Review of Technical Literature and Trends Related to

AutomobileMass-Reduction Technology,” report prepared for California Air 

Resources Board, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, 

May.
21

Malen, D. E. and Reddy, K. (2007). “Preliminary Vehicle Mass Estimation Using 

Empirical Subsystem Influence Coefficients,” report prepared for the FGPC Mass 

Compounding Project Team, Auto/Steel Partnership, Southfield, MI, May 9.

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

Jan., pp. 20-24.

Plotkin, S. et al. (2001). “Hybrid Vehicle Technology Assessment: Methodology, 

Analytical Issues, and Interim Results,” Argonne National 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 Coefficients: 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 Performance 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 Concepts (ULSAB-AVC) (1999). 

“Description of ULSAB-AVC Benchmarking and Target Setting,” Southfield, MI. 

Nov. 18.

Volkswagen Group Research (VRG) (2008). “Multi-material Lightweight Vehicle 

Structure: EU-Project “Super Light Car”,” Status Final 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 conventional heat 

engines. In addition to basic powerplant and auxiliary 

systems and components, engine cooling systems, 

lubrication, fluid containers and pumps are also included.

30B Other Engine 

Components

Fuel Cell n/a Fuel Cell Power System

Generator n/a The APU or power converter for parallel and series

hybrids.

Motor n/a The electric motor, including power cables.

Controller/

Inverter

n/a The power controller/phase inverter system

Energy 

Storage

36K01 High Voltage 

Battery

The primary electrical energy storage device or package. 

Maybe a single battery or module of linked cells.

Fuel System 36F Fuel Tank and 

Lines

Fuel tank, gauge, tank shield, access door, mounting 

straps, fuel pump.

37B Fuel 

Transmission 36E G Transmission In this model the transmission refers to the gearbox only. 

Note that in some literature, "transmission" refers to the 

clutch, gearbox, driveshaft, and differential. These are 

each treated as separate components/subsystems in this 

model.

36C Clutch and 

Controls

Supplied as a single assembly, a releasable coupling that 

transmits torque from the engine to gearbox.

Driveshaft/

Axle

31 Final Drive A single assembly that couples with the gearbox and 

differential

31 Final Drive An assembly of the axle shaft, housing, 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: catalytic 

converter, muffler.

Powertrain 

Electrical

30C Engine Electrical Engine control wiring, sensors and processors. The 

controller for electric motors for HEVs may be considered 

as part of the electric motor, or could be included here, if 

desired. Low voltage used for accessory power is also 

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, miscellaneous 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 engine 

compartment, passenger cabin, and storage. Closure 

panels (including hinge mechanism) and hang-on panels 

(such as fenders) are included, even if non-structural. 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 window glazing

Paint

22 Paint and Coating Includes the cost and mass of the total painting operation; 

e-coat, priming, base coats, color coats, clear coats.

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, door 

latch mechanism

Body 

Sealers & 

Deadeners

Self-explanatory

Chassis Cradle 32 Frame A front sub frame that bolts to the BIW and supports the 

mounting of the engine

Corner 

Suspension

33 Suspension Upper and lower control arms, ball joints, spring, shock 

absorber, steering knuckle, stabilizer shaft

Braking 

System

35 35D Brakes Hub, disc, bearings, splash shield, and calipers.

Wheels and 

Tires

36A 36C Wheels, Tires, and 

Tools

Self explanatory. Tools determinant by type of tires 

featured.

Steering 

System

34 Steering A complex system from the steering wheel, 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 underlying 

panel structure, knee bolsters and brackets, the 

instrument cluster, exterior surface, wiring, console 

storage, glove box panels, glove box assembly and 

exterior, and a top cover.

Trim and 

Insulation

15,17,21 Headliner Headliner is actually the overhead system containing 

acoustical sound absorption, assist handles, coat hooks, 

modular headliner assemblies, overhead console 

assemblies, small item overhead storage, pillar trim, sun 

visors and retainer.

Center Console Emergency brake cover, switch panels, ash trays, arm 

rest, cup holders, sometimes grouped with seating.

Package Tray A molded or formed panel behind the rear seat, 

sometimes contains accessory brake light.

Carpeting/Flooring Acoustical sound absorption; padding and carpet, 

insulation and accessory mats sometimes flooring may 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, door trim 

assemblies/panels, map pocket trim, cup holders, ash 

trays, seatbelt retractor covers, speaker grills, armrests, 

switch panels and handles

Seatbelt & 

Restraints

16 Seats The seating system contains seat tracks, seat 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, compressor 

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, instrumentation, 

and power accessories, entertainment system.

85 Accessories 

Equipment

Chassis 

Electrical

36K Chassis Electrical ABS electrical system (wiring, 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 which 

components are grouped