DFCIMBKR 19-2
ASSESSMENT OK DOMESTIC
UTOMOTIVK INDISTRY
PRODIC1ION LEAD TIME
OF I975/76 MODEL YEAH:
VOL I ME II -
TE( HM( AL DISCI SSION
FINAL REPORT
IS. r NVIH(»MI-NTAL I'KOTECTIDN AGENL1
Office of Air and ^ a*t«* Manapemenl
(Iffirp of Mobile >ourre Air Pollution Control
r.mi*«ioQ Control Technoloev Division
Ann Arbor. Michigan 48105
-------
EPA-460/3-74-026-B
ASSESSMENT OF DOMESTIC AUTOMOTIVE
INDUSTRY PRODUCTION LEAD TIME
OF 1975/76 MODEL YEAR:
VOLUME II - TECHNICAL DISCUSSION
FINAL REPORT
Prepared by
D.E. Lapedes, M.G. Hinton, Toru lura, and Joseph Meltzer
Aerospace Corp.
El Segundo, California
Contract No. 68-01-0417
EPA Project Officer: F . Peter Hutchins
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
December L9?,2
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - as supplies permit - from the Air
Pollution Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a fee, from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Aerospace Corp. , El Segundo, California, in fulfillment of Contract
No. 68-01-0417. The contents of this report are reproduced herein as
received from Aerospace Corp. The opinions, findings, and conclusions
expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Mention of company or product names is
not to be considered as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Publication No. EPA-460/3-74-026-b
11
-------
FOREWORD
This report, prepared by The Aerospace Corporation for the
Environmental Protection Agency, Divisioji-of Emis sion Control Technology,
presents an assessment of available information pertaining to the production
lead time requirements of the automotive industry for 1975/76 model year
automobiles.
The status of the production lead time reported herein is that
existing at the time of data acquisition visits made to selected firms in the
period August 1, 1972 through October 5, 1972. The results of this study
are presented in two volumes. Volume 1, the Executive Summary, presents
a brief, concise review of important findings and conclusions in the Highlights
and Executive Summary sections. Volume 2, the Technical Discussion,
provides a comprehensive discussion of each study topic and is of interest
primarily to the technical specialist. In Volume 2 a brief discussion of
basic automotive product development phases is given in Section 2. A summary
of emission control systems currently proposed by domestic automobile
manufacturers for model years 1975/76 is presented in Section 3. The
assessment of the industry's production lead time requirements, with particular
emphasis on the impact of critical emission control system components and
subsystems, is discussed in Section 4. Specific lead time schedules obtained
from automobile manufacturers, catalyst and substrate manufacturers, auto-
mobile component manufacturers, and production equipment manufacturers
are given in Sections 5 through 8. Similar lead time schedules for
nonautomotive industry manufacturers and for a government automotive
procurement agency are presented in Sections 9 and 10, respectively.
Section 11 contains a discussion of platinum-group metal production and usage.
Finally, Appendix A, Section 12, contains a listing of the companies visited
in the data acquisition activity.
111
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Appreciation is acknowledged for the guidance and continued assistance
provided by Mr. F. P. Hutchins of the Environmental Protection Agency,
Division of Emission Control Technology, who served as EPA Project Officer
for this study.
The following technical personnel of The Aerospace Corporation made
valuable contributions to the assessment performed under this contract.
L. Forrest
O. Hamberg
R. B. Laube
W. U. Roessler
W. M. Smalley
K. 13. Swan
Lapede^, Manager
Production Lead Time Study
Approved by:
Merrill G. Hinton, Director
Office of Mobile Source Pollution
fifl
N
lura, Assistant Group^THrector
Environmental Programs
Group Directorate
Josebh^Meltzer, Group Director
Environmental Programs
Gro/up Directorate
IV
-------
HIGHLIGHTS
A summarization and assessment were made of available
information pertaining to the production lead time requirements of the
domestic automotive industry for 1975/76 model year automobiles. Assess-
ment of the status of the industry as of the time of data acquisition visits and
technical discussions (August 1 to October 5, 1972) resulted in the following
findings.
1. General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, and American Motors are currently
proceeding on 1975 model year production schedules which call for the
start of full mass production at the normal new model production start
date of August 1974.
2. All domestic automobile manufacturers have basically similar 1975
production schedules which are consistent with the historically established
guideline for management approval of the new model car development
program at approximately 28 months prior to mass production initiation.
3. These 1975 production schedules include provisions for the incorporation
of an emission control system consisting of an oxidation catalytic con-
verter, exhaust gas recirculation, air injection, improved carburetion
and ignition, and devices or techniques to promote fast warmup of the
induction system and catalytic converter.
4. The catalytic converter is identified by all automobile manufacturers
as the most critical production lead time item in their schedule. It is
schedule-controlling because of the lead time required by suppliers to
develop facilities for mass producing both substrates and finished
catalysts (approximately 2 years).
5. The lack of satisfactory test results from prototype automobile test
programs is having a major impact upon the decisions of automobile
manufacturers pertaining to final catalyst commitments. To date, no
domestic manufacturer has successfully completed mileage accumulation
tests to 50,000 miles, although some prototypes have come close to
meeting the emission standards at extended mileage. The automobile
manufacturers have, therefore, placed orders for long lead time
Production lead time is herein defined as that time period allocated or
required for the refinement of mass manufacturing techniques, construction
of manufacturing facilities, and the procurement and installation of equipment.
-------
equipment and tooling based on their best judgment as to what will
constitute a final design. Some companies still have to choose between
pellet and monolith substrates and between promoted base metal and
platinum-group metal catalysts. Many final commitments to substrate
and catalyst manufacturers are being delayed as long as possible in
order to have more data available before making such high risk
decisions.
6. Partial and staged financial commitments to catalyst and substrate
manufacturers have been made by the various automobile manufacturers
in order to enable the catalyst manufacturers to initiate preliminary
facility design and site selection activities. However, final commitments
to the catalyst suppliers are required before facility construction will
be initiated.
7. Available estimates of capital cost requirements per individual supplier
are in the range of $4 to $5 million for substrate production facilities,
and $4 to $15 million for catalyst production facilities with capacities
ranging between 3 and 10 million units per year. At these cost levels,
the substrate and catalyst manufacturers will not commit venture capital
without a. firm production contract or other form of guarantee. It is this
fact which presently most strongly impacts the projected catalyst lead
time schedules, since the required production facility construction will
not commence until such agreements are successfully concluded.
8. Current production lead time schedules of contending substrate and
catalyst manufacturers require production order commitments, or other
forms of venture capital guarantees, from the automobile manufacturers
by November to December 197Z in order to ensure quantity production
of oxidation catalysts in time for 1975 model year vehicles. In every
case, the critical, or pacing, item in the overall catalyst production
lead time schedule is the time required by the vendor for the design of
the production facilities, site selection, and construction of the facility
or plant.
9. The status of contractual agreements between the automobile manu-
facturers and the catalyst manufacturers is one of uncertainty and
change because serious negotiations were apparently under way during
the period of investigation (August to October 1972). Most commit-
ments to date have been of a preliminary nature and only cover funding
for preliminary engineering design of production facilities and site
selection. These initial commitments have enabled the automobile
companies to defer their final commitments until the November to
December 1972 time period. Of the known agreements, the Ford/
Englehard agreement is the most extensive, with Ford commitments
rising to about $10 million in March 1973 (when product-design-oriented
equipment and facilities are to be purchased) and to $14 million by
April 1974.
VI
-------
10. Substrate manufacturers state, in general, that no appreciable lead
time compression can be made at the present level of schedule
definition. In the finished catalyst area, there is some hope of minor
schedule compressions (from 0 to 3 months for monoliths; 3 to 6 months
for pellet catalysts). Estimates of cost penalties for such schedule
compressions range from negligible to 10 percent product cost increases
for overtime pay and increased capital costs.
11. Mass production of oxidation catalysts of the automotive type has never
been accomplished by any company; however, the catalyst firms believe
that related production and quality control techniques (in the chemical
and petrochemical industries) provide a firm basis for assurance that
their proposed production lead time schedules can be met. The auto-
mobile companies, however, have expressed some reservations about
the capability of the catalyst manufacturers to mass produce the catalysts
in the volume necessary while maintaining quality control.
12. If substrate, finished catalyst, and converter canister elements used
in certification test vehicles are not made with production equipment
(e.g., if batch processing rather than continuous processing, soft
tooling, etc. , are used), it may raise an issue as to whether or not the
catalytic converter tested was the same "in all material respects" as
production units. Items of concern in this regard include catalyst
loading, uniformity of loading, substrate physical properties, and
canister dimensional, physical, and weldment characteristics.
13. The production lead time requirements of conventional automobile
component suppliers (body stampings, frames, transmissions,
carburetors, exhaust systems, wheels, brake parts, etc.) appear
to be adequately met by currently projected automobile manufacturer
design release and/or vendor commitment dates. The key schedule
dates for such component suppliers are those for the delivery of produc-
tion samples to the automobile manufacturer for certification test
vehicles and for car pilot line production.
14. Conventional production equipment items (automatic transfer lines,
cold stamping presses, resistance welders, etc. ) can be procured
as required within the lead time remaining for 1975 model year auto-
mobiles. Electron beam welders, required for edge-welding of the
General Motors pelletized catalytic converter canister, are being
manufactured by Hamilton Standard on a schedule consistent with the
1975 production requirements of General Motors.
VII
-------
15. The current production capacity of platinum-group metals in the world
is not sufficient to satisfy projected requirements of the automotive
industry in the United States in the post-1975 time period. However,
the demand can be met by the opening of new mines in South Africa.
In order to ensure adequate platinum-group metal availability in the
1975 to 1980 time period, final contract agreements between the auto-
mobile manufacturers and the South African platinum-group metal
mining firms must be signed in the near future.
16. The platinum-group metal supply-demand balance is determined by the
platinum-group metal loading requirement, the number of catalysts
required for the various vehicle classes, the catalyst replacement
interval, the mining industry capacity, and the degree of platinum-
group metal recovery from spent catalysts. A thorough study of these
parameters is urgently needed in order to provide all the data required
for a complete and meaningful assessment of the platinum-group metal
availability and demand issues.
17. The automotive industry's stainless steel requirements for the 1975
model year (for exhaust systems, catalytic converter canisters, thermal
reactor liners, etc. ) have not been fully quantified as to type and amount.
Raw material availability is not a problem, but material processing
capacity may be a problem unless the additional equipment required is
ordered in a timely manner.
18. The 50,000-mile durability certification test requires approximately
5 to 6 months to complete. In order to provide for the contingency of
durability test vehicle failure, the first durability test should start no
later than September 1973 if two full durability test periods are
desired (based on an August 1974 vehicle production start date).
19. Emission control systems currently under consideration for use in
1976 model year vehicles incorporate all components of the 1975 sys-
tem plus a reduction (NOX) catalyst(s), more sophisticated air injection
systems, and further modifications to carburetion, ignition, and exhaust
gas recirculation systems. Production lead time schedules for the 1976
model year have not yet been disclosed by the automobile manufacturers
due to the uncertainty attending critical lead time elements of the 1975
model year production schedules and the lack of satisfactory develop-
ment of reduction catalysts for control of oxides of nitrogen.
20. The full-size thermal reactor is not considered a viable option or
alternative to the catalytic converter for 1975 model year vehicles, as
the thermal reactor is not fully developed and the automobile companies
have not ordered the long lead time production equipment required for
its manufacture. Ford states that the time is now past the critical
point for ordering such foundry equipment for 1975 model year production.
The foundry industry (exclusive of automobile company foundries)
indicates that if additional foundry capacity on its part would be required,
it would take 36 months to bring it to full production status.
viii
-------
Zl. Less effective partial thermal reactors, smaller in volume and less
complex than full-size reactors, are currently programmed for use in
1975 emission control systems. These could be used without catalytic
converters but the resulting emission reduction capability is at present
not well defined and could vary among the different automobile
manufacturers, according to individual-design details.
Some statements made herein may make it appear that the 1975
model year automobile production schedules have changed with time since they
were originally presented at the EPA Suspension Request Hearings in April
1972. However, the overall lead time schedules have remained relatively
constant during the intervening period. Adherence to these schedules has been
accomplished by making (a.) timely design decisions as required, (b) minor
compressions in supplier lead time schedules, and (c) partial or staged
commitments in critical long lead time areas.
The risk to the automobile firms in following the original lead
time schedules has been increasing with time. This is due to the fact that
decisions in accordance with schedule milestones have had to be made with
incomplete data regarding the adequacy of proposed emission control systems.
Therefore, it would appear that the current production lead time schedules will
permit 1975 model year production to begin in August 1974, unless the auto-
mobile manufacturers judge that the systems under development are so unsat-
isfactory that further commitments will not be made on the dates required.
IX
-------
CONTENTS
VOLUME II
FOREWORD iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v
HIGHLIGHTS vii
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PHASES .... 2-1
2. 1 Introduction 2-1
2. 2 Fundamental Definitions 2-1
2. 3 Product Development Cycle Overview 2-2
2. 4 Product Development Phases 2-3
3. PROPOSED 1975/76 MODEL YEAR AUTOMOBILE
EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS : 3-1
3. 1 Introduction 3-1
3. 2 Projected 1975/76 Emission Control Systems .... 3-1
4. ASSESSMENT OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS' ^
PRODUCTION LEAD TIME 4-1
4. 1 Introductory Remarks 4-1
4. 2 Historical Review 4-2
4. 3 Influence of Emission Control System 4-5
4.4 Influence of Prototype Test Program 4-10
4. 5 Effect of Certification Test Program 4-12
4. 6 Degree of Industry Schedule Consistency 4-12
4. 7 Potential for Industry Schedule Compression 4-14
4. 8 Industry Capacity to Meet High Production
Volume 4-16
4.9 Technological Implications of Alternative Plans ... 4-25
4. 10 Prognosis for 1975/76 Lead Time Requirements . . . 4-27
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
VOLUME II
5. LEAD TIME SCHEDULES FOR AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURERS 5-1
5. 1 General Motors 5-2
5. 2 Ford Motor Company 5-27
5. 3 Chrysler Corporation 5-50
5. 4 American Motors Corporation 5-69
6. LEAD TIME SCHEDULES FOR CATALYST AND
SUBSTRATE MANUFACTURERS 6-1
6. 1 Summary Discussion 6-1
6. 2 American Lava Corporation 6-19
6. 3 Corning Glass Works 6-30
6. 4 Engelhard Minerals and Chemicals Corporation . . . 6-41
6. 5 W. R. Grace and Company 6-48
6. 6 Gulf Oil Company 6-56
6. 7 Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation .... 6-60
6. 8 Matthey Bishop, Inc 6-66
6. 9 Monsanto Company 6-78
6. 10 Oxy-Catalyst, Inc 6-89
6. 11 Reynolds Metals Company 6-99
6. 12 Universal Oil Products Company 6-105
7. LEAD TIME SCHEDULES FOR AUTOMOBILE
COMPONENT MANUFACTURERS 7-1
7. 1 Lead Time Schedules for Body Stampings 7-3
7. 2 Lead Time Schedules for Frames 7-8
7. 3 Lead Time Schedules for Transmissions 7-11
7.4 Lead Time Schedules for Carburetors 7-14
7. 5 Lead Time Schedule for Exhaust Systems 7-18
7. 6 Lead Time Schedules for Wheels and >
Brake Parts 7-18
XI
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
VOLUME II
7. 7 Lead Time for Other Components 7-22
8. LEAH TIME SCHEDULES FOR PRODUCTION
EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS 8-1
8. 1 Lead Time Schedules for Automatic
Transfer Lines 8-1
8. 2 Lead Time Schedules for Cold Stamping
Presses 8-6
8. 3 Lead Time Schedules for Welders 8-13
9. LEAD TIME SCHEDULES FOR NONAUTOMOTIVE
INDUSTRY MANUFACTURERS 9-1
9. 1 Introduction 9-1
9. 2 The Westinghouse Corporation -.
Columbus, Ohio 9-1
9. 3 The General Electric Company -
Louisville, Kentucky 9-6
9. 4 The Outboard Marine Corporation -
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 9-9
9. 5 Automotive Versus Nonautomotive Lead
Time Comparison 9-12
10. LEAD TIME SCHEDULES FOR A GOVERNMENT
AUTOMOTIVE PROCUREMENT AGENCY 10-1
10. 1 Normal Production Schedules for
Government Vehicles 10-1
10. 2 Major Impact Factors for Government
Vehicles 10-6
11. PROJECTED WORLD PRODUCTION AND USAGE OF
NOBLE METALS 11-1
11. 1 Introduction 11-1
11.2 World Production of Noble Metals 11-1
11.3 Usage of Noble Metals 11-11
11.4 Noble Metal Supply-Demand Considerations 11-16
11.5 Conclusions 11-22
xii
-------
CONTENTS (Continued
VOLUME II
APPENDICES
A. Companies Visited A-l
B. Bibliography B-l
. xiii
-------
FIGURES
VOLUME II
2-1 Automotive Product Development Phases 2-4
3-1 Chrysler A-335 Special Emission Car
(System Features) 3-5
3-2 Ford 1975 "Kitchen Sink" Emission Control System 3-7
3-3 General Motors Projected 1975 Under-Floor
Emission Control System 3-9
3-4 General Motors Triple-Mode Emission Control System
(T-MECS) - Catalytic Converter (Startup Oxidizing
Mode) 3-10
4-1 Lead Time Trends 4-4
4-2 Overall Production Lead Time Schedules 4-13
5-1 General Motors Master Timing Schedule for 1975
Emission Components 5-3
5-2 General Motors Production Equipment Development
Schedule for 1975 Model Year Under-Floor Oxidizing
Catalytic Converter (Compressed Schedule) 5-6
5-3 General Motors Production Equipment Development
Schedule for Manifold-Mounted Oxidizing Catalytic
Converter (Compressed Schedule) 5-7
5-4 General Motors New Carburetor Lead Time 5-8
5-5 General Motors Composite Times to Secure Equipment
(Under-Floor Catalytic Converter) 5-11
5-6 General Motors Process Development and Manufacturing
Time Table for Under-Floor Oxidizing Catalytic
Converter ("Normal" Schedule) 5-16
5-7 General Motors Apache Two-Barrel Throttle Body
Integrated Lead Time 5-25
5-8 Ford Overall Schedule: 1975 Vehicle and Emission
Engine Program 5-28
5-9 Ford 1975 Car Line Program 5-35
5-10 Ford 1975 Model Federal Emission Program and
Passenger Car Timing Plan 5-37
xiv
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
VOLUME II
5-11 Engine /Emission Hardware Testing and Scheduling 5-42
5-12 Vendor Timing Requirements 5-46
5-13 Ford Catalytic Converter Program Timing 5-47
5-14 Chrysler Overall Schedule for the 1975 Emission
Control System 5-52
5-15 Chrysler 1975 Production Development Schedule for
Major Frame and Body Components 5-56
5-16 Chrysler 1975 Production Development Schedule for
Electronic Spark Advance plus Electronic EGR
Control 5-58
5-17 Chrysler 1975 Production Development Schedule for
Catalytic Converter System 5-59
5-18 Chrysler 1975 Production Development Schedule for
Carburetors 5-62
5-19 Chrysler 1973 Production Development Schedule for
Major "B" Body. Sheet Metal 5-64
5-20 American Motors 1975 Emission Control Program
Timing Study 5-70
5-21 American Motors 1975 Catalytic Converter and
Associated Body Changes Time Study 5-74
5-22 American Motors Summary Network of Product
Creation 5-78
6-1 Monolithic Catalytic Converters, Typical Flow of
Responsibilities (Examples Only) 6-2
6-2 Pelletized Catalytic Converters, Typical Flow of
Responsibilities (Examples Only) 6-3
6-3 Production Lead Time Schedule for Catalyst
Manufacturers 6-8
6-4 Production Lead Time Schedule for Substrate
Manufacturers 6-9
6-5 American Lava Stacked and Rolled Corrugated
Structures 6-20
xv
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
VOLUME II
6-6 American Lava Corrugated Structure Types 6-21
6-7 American Lava Initially Projected Schedule for
Manufacturing Scale-Up 6-24
6-8 American Lava Revised Production Lead Time
Schedule (Chattanooga Facilities) 6-26
6-9 Corning Substrate Geometries 6-32
6-10 Corning Production Lead Time Schedule 6-35
6-11 Engelhard Production Lead Time Schedule,
Plant No. 1 6-43
6-12 Engelhard Production Lead Time Schedule,
Plant No. 2 6-44
6-13 Kaiser Production Lead Time Schedule 6-62
6-14 Matthey Bishop Production Lead Time Schedule 6-70
6-15 Monsanto Functional Step Chart--Automotive
Exhaust Catalyst Project 6-81
6-16 Monsanto Production Lead Time Schedule
(EGA Oxidation Catalyst Plant) 6-82
6-17 Oxy-Catalyst Production Lead Time Schedule
(Pellet or Monolithic Catalysts) 6-92
6-18 Oxy-Catalyst/Contractor/Supplier Relationships;
Oxidation Catalyst Plant 6-96
6-19 UOP Production Lead Time Schedule 6-108
7-1 Automobile Component Manufacturers' Overall
Production Lead Time 7-2
7-2 Extended Roof Panel for the Ford Econoline Van 7-4
7-3 Body Stamping Lead Time 7-6
7-4 Frame Lead Time 7-9
7-5 Transmission Lead Time . . 7-12
7-6 Carburetor Lead Time 7-16
7-7 Exhaust System Lead Time 7-19
xvi
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
VOLUME II
7-8 Wheels and Brake Parts Lead Time 7-20
7-9 Other Components Lead Time 7-23
7-10 New Engine Valve Facility Lead Time 7-24
8-1 Production Equipment Manufactuers1 Overall
Lead Time 8-2
8-2 Engine Block Machine Transfer Line 8-3
8-3 Automatic Transfer Line Lead Time 8-4
8-4 Transfer Line - Representative Lead Time
(Cylinder Head Machining) 8-7
8-5 Underdrive Press 8-9
8-6 Cold Stamping Press Lead Time 8-12
8-7 Nonvacuum Machine for Electron Beam Welding 8-15
8-8 Electron Beam Welders 8-16
8-9 Production Line Welders Overall Lead Time 8-17
8-10 Electron Beam Welder Compressed Lead Time
Order for Six Welders for General Motors Catalyst
Container 8-20
9-1 Westinghouse Critical Path Network 9-4
9-2 Westinghouse Refrigerator Evaporator Relocation . . . 9-5
9-3 General Electric P-7 Self-cleaning Oven Program . . . 9-8
9-4 Outboard Marine Lead Time Schedule for 1973
Model Year Engine 9-11
9-5 Outboard Marine Lead Time Schedule for 1973 Rotary
Combustion 35-Horsepower Snowmobile Engine
(Wankel) 9-13
10-1 Military Vehicle Procurement Lead Time 10-4
11-1 Projected Platinum Usage 11-15
xvii
-------
TABLES
VOLUME II
2-1 Phase Activities and Schedule Milestones 2-5
4-1 Lend Time T radeoffs - -Automation versus
5-1
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-7
6-8
6-9
6-10
11-1
11-2
11-3
Chrysler Emission Control Modifications for 1970
through 1975 Model Year Production
Catalyst Suppliers and Products
Substrate Suppliers and Products
Current and Pending Contract Agreements --
Oxidation Catalysts and Substrates
Corning W-l Monolithic Substrate Nominal
Properties
Grace Major Schedule Milestones
Matthey Bishop Quality Control Tests
Monsanto Projected Equipment and Material
Lead Time Requirements
Oxy-Catalyst Plant Construction Milestones
Reynolds Proposed Specifications for Experimental
Alumina Supports, 6x8 Mesh; Nominal 0. 100 in.
Diameter
UOP Catalyst Plant Floor Area Requirements
World Production of Noble Metals
Estimated Noble Metal Composition
Estimated Noble Metal Reserves in the World
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
11
11
11
- D
-51
-5
-6
-14
-33
-50
-76
-85
-93
-100
-109
-3
-3
-6
xviii
-------
TABLES (Continued)
VOLUME II
11-4 Estimated 1972 Capacity and Production of South
African Noble Metal Mines 11-7
11-5 Projected Maximum Noble Metal Production Capacity
of South African Mines 11-7
11-6 Rustenburg Platinum Quantities Potentially Available
to the Automotive Industry (excluding Ford) 11-9
11-7 Projected 1975 Model Year Vehicle Distribution 11-11
11-8 Predicted Automotive Noble Metal Requirements
for 1975 Model Year Vehicles 11-12
11-9 Predicted Total Automotive Noble Metal Requirements
.for 1975 11-13
11-10 Projected Automotive Platinum Requirements 11-14
11-11 Projected Noble Metal Supply and Demand 11-17
11-12 Rustenburg Free World Platinum Supply and Demand
Projection 11-19
11-13 Noble Metal and Platinum Supply — Automotive
Demand Balance 11-20
xix .
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This report presents an assessment of available information
pertaining to the production lead time requirements of the domestic automotive
industry for 1975/76 model year automobiles. As used herein, the term
production lead time refers to the time allocated by the automobile manufacturer
to develop or acquire the facilities and equipment needed for the production of a
future model year product line. For purposes of this study, the production
lead time is referenced to the interval of time between the commitment of
major resources to a program and the point at which the first mass produced
automobile comes off the assembly line.
To fulfill the objectives of this study, the work effort was divided
into two basic areas. In one area a compilation was made of all information
available from four sources: (a) the manufacturers' applications for suspension
of the 1975 emission standards, (b) the testimony and supplementary material
presented by witnesses at the April 10-Z8, 1972 EPA Suspension Request
Hearings, (c) an open literature survey, and (d) visits to automotive industry
and related sources for technical discussions of relevant production lead time
factors. In the other area, a review, summarization, and evaluation of all
data acquired were performed.
Included in this study were the lead time requirements of the
major automobile manufacturers, catalyst and substrate manufacturers,
automotive component manufacturers, production equipment manufacturers,
nonautomotive industry manufacturers, and a government automotive procure-
ment agency. Emphasis has been directed toward identifying critical lead time
components and subsystems associated with the introduction of emission control
systems required to meet the 1975/76 emission standards -- in particular,
catalytic converters. In addition, associated lead time requirements were
evaluated for new or expanded facilities, tooling commitments, orders for
1-1
-------
raw or processed materials, system durability testing, prototype test
programs, and certification f.est programs.
The body of the report is based primarily on the most recent
information obtained by visits to automotive and nonautomotive industry
manufacturers for technical discussions of critical production lead time
factors. Also contained in the report is an assessment of platinum-group metal
production and usage. Appendix A contains a complete listing of the companies
visited.
Although the study was principally oriented toward current
conditions in industry efforts to meet government regulations for exhaust
emissions of 1975 and 1976 light-duty vehicles, the information developed in
regard to traditional component and equipment manufacturers is sufficiently
general in presentation as to constitute a basis of reference for any future
studies.
Additional industry efforts to meet other government regulations
(e. g. , safety regulations) were not addressed.
1-2
-------
SECTION 2
AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PHASES
2. 1 INTRODUCTION
The process of developing an automotive product from concept
to mass production can be viewed as proceeding in discrete phases. These
phases, though highly interrelated and in some instances overlapping in time,
may be isolated and characterized in terms of specific activities and opera-
tions. It is the purpose of this section to describe these developmental stages
and in so doing to introduce and define the basic terminology used throughout
this report.
2.2 FUNDAMENTAL DEFINITIONS
It is useful at the outset to underscore the fact that the term
"lead time" is a generic phrase that can be (and is) applied to any one of a
number of different processes in the automotive development cycle. In its
broadest sense, lead time is simply the time allocated or required to
accomplish a given set of operations or functions. Thus, to cite a few
examples, there is a lead time for car body styling, for production process
design, and for the fabrication or procurement of production machinery and
equipment. Furthermore, the terminology is commonly applied at different
levels of the automotive chain of supply. For example, the fabricator of
machine tool equipment for the automobile manufacturer has a scheduled
lead time for procuring mill-forged press components or vendor-supplied
electrical controls, in addition to the lead time required for machine parts
fabrication and assembly within his own shop.
Two specific terms involving lead time may now be advanced
and defined: product development lead time and production lead time. Prod-
uct development lead time is the total time required for the development of
the automotive product, starting from the initial formulation of the design
2-1
-------
concept and ending with Vehicle Job No. 1, the first of the production run of
automobiles of a model year off the assembly line. Production lead time is the
designation for that part of product development lead time which encompasses
activities concerned with the development of mass manufacturing techniques.
Specifically, production lead time is defined as the time reserved by the auto-
mobile manufacturer to (a) detail the product configuration for mass manu-
facture; (b) analyze the manufacturing processes; (c) design or plan the equip-
ment and facilities needed to perform these processes; (d) erect facilities and
construct, install, and check out the production equipment; and (e) escalate
the manufacturing process to full volume output.
As defined above, production lead time activities may con-
sume 95% of the resources spent in a car development program. The follow-
ing overview of the product development cycle will serve to provide a suitable
framework within which these activities may be examined in more detail.
2. 3 PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT CYCLE OVERVIEW
For purposes of this discussion the automotive product develop-
ment cycle should not be viewed in terms of the action required to produce
any given model in any given year. In the aggregate of products offered by
the manufacturer, one or more car lines may undergo substantial changes in
the design of functional systems or body structure. In other lines, which do
not undergo major modifications, a substantial percentage of component parts
may be newly designed. Regardless of the degree of change from the previous
model, however, the car development proceeds according to a planned cycle
of events which is common for all lines being introduced into production.
A representative product development cycle may be considered
to consist of eight different phases:
Research and Advanced Development
Product Conceptualization
Concept Development/Vehicle Preliminary Design
Car Program Approval
2-2
-------
Production Engineering/Car Prototype Testing
Parts Procurement/Tool Construction, Installation, and Tryout
Pilot Assembly
Production Buildup
The timing and typical duration of these phases are illustrated in Figure 2-1.
It is noted that the data shown are broadly representative of practice through-
out the automotive industry; however, specific details in any given manufac-
turer's schedule may differ considerably from these values.
Referring to Figure 2-1, the schedule for Research and
Advanced Development is unbounded because of the broad range of possible
durations associated with new invention activity. This phase, though not
strictly part of a car development program, is regarded by the industry as
an essential prerequisite to the introduction of new functional components or
features in a vehicle. Durations as long as 5 to 10 years appear to be possi-
ble.
Excluding Research and Advanced Development, the overall
product development cycle has a duration of approximately 48 months. The
milestone marker shown in the chart identifies the point selected as the
Production Lead Time reference, representing the start of significant activity
on the development of mass production processes and facilities. The indicated
lead time to Vehicle Job No. 1 is 26 months; historical data from individual
manufacturers indicate a range from 24 to 28 months (Ref. 2-1).
Details of the individual phases of the product development
cycle are presented in the following paragraphs and in Table 2-1, which shows
typical phase activities and significant schedule milestones.
2.4 PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PHASES
2. 4. 1 Research and Advanced Development
Normally, every major automotive innovation undergoes a
period of research, experimental development, and testing before being
introduced to production. As mentioned earlier, the Research and Advanced
Development phase can precede a car development program by as much as
2-3
-------
N)
.PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT,
LEAD TIME
RESEARCH AND ADVANCED
DEVELOPMENT
PRODUCT CONCEPTUAL-
IZATION
CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT/
VEHICLE PRELIMINARY
DESIGN
CAR PROGRAM APPROVAL
PRODUCTION ENGINEERING/
CAR PROTOTYPE TESTING
PARTS PROCUREMENT/TOOL
CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION
AND TRYOUT
PILOT ASSEMBLY
PRODUCTION BUILDUP
'/K/////////77A
U/////////M
.PRODUCTION.
LEAD TIME
PRODUCTION
LEAD TIME REFERENCE-
(/////////////////////////////////I
WJTTX
48
36 24 12
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
Figure 2-1. Automotive Product Development Phases
-------
Table 2-1. Phase Activities and Schedule Milestones
Phases
Typical Activities
Significant Milestones
Research and Advanced
Development
Invention
Proof-of-Principle
Testing
Research Prototype
Testing
Research Hardware Build
Feasibility Demonstration
Product Conceptualiza-
tion
Options Identification
Alternate Design
Evaluation
Tentative Car Line Pro-
posal Definition
Concept Development/
Vehicle Preliminary
Design
Car Line Proposal
Reviews
Cost/Producibility
Studies
Inter face/Inter action
Studies
Car Systems Selection
Mechanical Prototype
Design
Car Plan Selection
Long Lead Time Facili-
ties Commitment
Car Program Approval
Commitment of Pro-
gram Resources
Production Design Pre-
liminary Approval
Production Engineer-
ing/Car Prototype
Testing
Mfg Process Analysis
& Decisions
Tooling Design &
Commitment
Detail Drawings &
Release
Systems/Vehicle
Testing
Tooling & Facilities
Approval
Clay Model Approval
Drawing Release
EPA Certification Tests
Parts Procurement/
Tool Construction,
Installation, and
Tryout
Make/Procure All
Parts
Install & Test Pro-
duction Equipment
Parts/Equipment
Contracts
Complete Tool Tryout
Build/Submit Last
Samples
Pilot Assembly
Volume Test Produc-
tion Process
Start Pilot Part Program
Production Buildup
Accelerate Operations
to Full Rate
Full Component Produc-
tion
Start Vehicle Production
2-5
-------
5 to 10 years. For example, the energy-absorbing, or collapsible,
column underwent a 6-year period of development before being put into
production (Ref. 2-1).
In this phase, the new device or invention is subjected to a
variety of basic proof-of-principle tests, followed by experimental prototype
development and demonstration tests. The experimental prototype incorpo-
rates the functional features of the new invention in a (hand-built) preliminary-
concept version of the production hardware configuration. The platform
adapted for test purposes usually consists of an existing vehicle, modified
as required to accommodate the new device at its interfaces with other vehicle
components. The test program may continue for an indefinite period; several
designs or design modifications may evolve before a suitable configuration is
achieved. At this point, the new device would be turned over to a car
program advanced engineering group for refinement, modification into a
design suitable for mass production, and additional testing.
Frequently, the new device or modification is introduced on a
single model as a limited production, low volume option for a period of eval-
uation in customer use before it is adopted for use throughout a car line or
in several car lines. To cite an example of this practice, disc brakes were
first introduced in the United States on the Chevrolet Corvette; they are now
available as standard or optional equipment on 60% of domestic automobile
production (Ref. 2-2).
It is noted that the current effort by the automotive industry
with respect to the accelerated introduction of catalytic converter emission
control systems on all 1975 model year vehicles is in sharp contrast with the
conventional procedures described above.
2.4.2 Product Conceptualization
The first few months preceding the initiation of a car line
program is spent in styling, engineering, and product planning activities
which explore the alternative approaches to the design and appearance of the
new model. The factors shaping the selection of these alternatives include
the status of research and advanced development projects, manufacturing
costs, competitive pressures, and the projected market for the features and
2-6
-------
options under consideration. Potential modifications and improvements are
delineated, and from the alternatives available tentative proposals for each
car line are selected for presentation to management. This phase may have
a duration of 6 months, as indicated in Figure Z-l.
It should be noted that experimental testing of new car systems
begun earlier may continue throughout this phase and succeeding phases.
The extent of such testing is dependent on the need for continued development
of safety devices or emission control equipment required to meet standards
imposed by statutory regulations targeted to a given model year. Normally
at this juncture, new functional features that are imperfectly developed or
which would involve excessive cost penalties to incorporate are deferred to
subsequent model year production programs, in contrast to vehicle image
features which are seldom if ever deferred because of incomplete development.
2. 4. 3 Concept Development/Vehicle Preliminary Design
In the beginning months of this phase, which for several manu-
facturers begins at about 43 months prior to Vehicle Job No. 1, the available
alternatives and tentative proposals for the individual car lines are reviewed
and an overall package plan for each line is selected. At this point, the broad
objectives for the car development program are established, including such
factors as the number of models to be offered, performance levels sought,
budget to be assigned, equipment to be included, overall size and weight,
styling goals, and seating capacity. Cost tradeoffs, technical feasibility
studies, and producibility investigations are carried out; interface/interaction
studies involving chassis, body, and power train are performed; and facility
requirements are checked against available resources. Changes to the
initial assumptions are made as required for compatibility among all of the
program objectives. Procurement activities related to long lead time
facilities acquisition may be initiated in this period.
Vehicle design studies begin: Body styling, space envelope
definition, and occupant packaging are initiated; full size clay models are
developed. Exterior and interior dimensions of the vehicle are defined.
Driveline, chassis, and engine compartment dimensions are finalized. Body
structure, instrument panels, and front compartment designs are completed.
Emission devices/systems are selected.
2-7
-------
Vehicle testing and modification of new car systems (c. g. ,
emission control systems) will continue throughout this phase if required
(see, for example, Ford Motor Company's 5-vehicle experimental durability
test fleet and Riverside test fleet programs discussed in Section 5. 2).
2. 4. 4 Car Program Approval
The car system selection/preliminary design effort described
earlier undergoes management review and approval on a periodic basis.
Final management review of the entire car program package, now finalized
in terms of performance characteristics, features, equipment, and appear-
ance, occurs at about the 26-month period. This phase may last from 1 to
1-1/2 months.
The program approval phase is a key point in the product
development cycle for two significant reasons. One of these is that, in a
normal development program, it fixes the key parameters and specifications
in the vehicle design which form the basis for much of the technical effort
which follows. The other reason is that it signals the commitment of major
program funds. Up to this point, perhaps 5% of the total program resources
are utilized; the balance is expended in the remaining 26 months before pro-
duction, primarily on facilities, major items of equipment, tooling, and
parts and material procurement.
Because of the surge of activity and resource expenditures on
production-oriented funct:ons which begin at or immediately after this point,
the program approval milestone will be used at various times in this report
as a convenient reference point for the identification of the production lead
time requirement, most frequently in reference to the major automobile
manufacturer (the lead time for the supplier of parts or equipment generally
is referenced to a contractual commitment from the automobile manufacturer).
It should be recognized, however, that the various phases of the product
development cycle overlap. Accordingly, some initial capital commitments
and some manufacturing operations may begin as soon as a probable design
has been identified.
2-8
-------
2.4.5 Production Engineering/Car Prototype Testing
After Program Approval, the next major phase of activity that
may be delineated is the Production Engineering/Car Prototype Testing phase
which has a duration of 2 1 months (Figure 2-1). Within the interval indicated,
sustained peak-level production engineering activity may have a duration of
about 12 months. Car testing activities may start prior to the initial release
of detailed production drawings and may continue some months after final
engineering drawing release.
Production engineering involves all of the process engineering
and parts design operations required to convert the complete car program
package plan into mass produced and assembled components and subsystems.
Manufacturing processes and techniques are investigated and the details of the
manufacturing and assembly operations and material and parts flow are
delineated. Part and assembly drawings are detailed; facilities, plant layout,
equipment, and tooling requirements are defined. These are submitted for
management approval and subsequent release to manufacturing development
or to purchasing for procurement. In this period, the full scale clay
of the vehicle is approved and die patterns for the body panels are constructed.
Testing operations in this phase fall into three categories:
mechanical prototype tests, engineering prototype tests, and EPA certifica-
tion tests. The mechanical prototype is a vehicle test bed that utilizes an
existing body structure to test the frame, underbody, power train, suspen-
sion, brake, and other systems planned for the production vehicle. Design
of these parts and functional systems may start several months before Car
Program Approval. Mechanical prototype testing may include hot weather,
altitude, performance, economy, and other road tests as well as laboratory
tests. Several mechanical prototype series vehicles may be built, incorpo-
rating successive refinements in subsystem design until production level
versions are evolved.
Engineering prototype vehicles are totally representative of
the final car product. The engineering prototype is used to test sheet metal
and structural features of the final design, as well as to continue the test and
2-9
-------
development of mechanical features. The test program is comprehensive,
encompassing all of the conditions expected to be met in customer operation,
including rough road, city traffic, high altitude, etc.
The EPA certification tests involve two groups of vehicles:
emission data (4000-mile) vehicles, involving as many as four cars per
engine family, and durability data (50,000-mile) vehicles, one per engine
family. The durability test fleet (which is assembled and tested first) and the
emission data vehicles are constructed from hardware similar in all material
respects to production vehicles. The certification test procedure involves road
mileage accumulation on a prescribed (modified AMA) duty cycle with dyna-
mometer tests of emissions at 4000 miles (emission data vehicles) and at
successive 4000-mile intervals up to 50, 000 miles (durability data vehicles).
Durability testing for 1975 vehicles is scheduled by the various
manufacturers to start in the September/October period of 1973 (11/10 months
before Vehicle Job No. 1), and to continue for about 6 months. Testing of
emission data vehicles is scheduled to start in the period from November
1973 to March 1974 and may involve durations of from Z to 4 months,
depending upon the extent of required modification and retesting encountered.
2. 4. 6 Parts Procurement/Tool Construction, Installation, and
Tryout
The activities accomplished in the Parts Procurement/Tool
Construction and Installation phase may encompass the detailing of process
or parts specifications; the preparation of requests for vendor quotes; the
selection of suppliers and fabricators; and the operations of design, con-
struction, and installation of process machinery, equipment, and tools
fabricated in house or by selected vendors. Some automobile manufacturers
have a substantial in-house tooling capability; others do not. As indicated in
Figure 2-1, this phase may overlap considerably the Production Engineering/
Car Prototype Testing phase discussed in the previous subsection. A dura-
tion of 12 to 16 months is possible; the longer duration has been selected for
illustration in Figure 2-1.
2-10
-------
Decisions to buy, as opposed to making, a part are generally
accomplished in the Production Engineering phase on the basis of the com-
bined judgment of engineering, purchasing, cost estimating, manufacturing,
and, in some instances, outside vendor consultations. Those parts having
the longest procurement or longest tooling construction lead times are detailed
first for release. Sufficient lead time must be provided for vendor capital
equipment procurement and facilities construction requirements, as typified
by the needs associated with catalytic converter production for 1975 auto-
mobiles (see Section 6).
With regard to production equipment, the long lead time items,
typically, are the large,, assembly-line process equipment pieces such as
transfer lines for automatic sequential machining operations and high-capacity,
multiple-action presses for cold metal working operations (forming, blanking,
piercing, etc. ). Lead time for these machines from receipt of order to
installation and checkout may range from 14 to 16 months in the case of transfer
lines, and from 7 to 11 months in the case of presses. Other specialized
devices, such as the General Motors Corporation electron beam welding
equipment, may involve considerably longer lead times.
Checkout of specialized machinery such as discussed above is
first accomplished at the vendor facility. A number of pieces are produced
and examined for compliance with parts specifications. Then, the equipment
is disassembled and shipped and re-erected and rechecked at the automotive
assembly plant. Installation times for these large pieces of equipment may
range from 3 to 6 weeks; initial tryout after installation may involve another
3 to 6 weeks. To these specialized equipment items must be mated jigs,
fixtures, conveyor equipment, and other assembly apparatus.
2. 4. 7 Pilot Assembly
The objectives of Pilot Assembly are to identify and correct
basic problems in the fabrication and assembly processes. This phase may
have a duration of from 2 to 4 months; a 3-month interval is selected for
display in Figure 2-1,
2-11
-------
Typically, machinery and tooling set up and tryout opera Lions
at supplier facilities and at the automotive plants are completed about 4
months prior to Vehicle Job No. 1. First piece or sample parts made from
production tooling are checked against detailed part drawings, templates, and
specifications and then approved. These production samples are made avail-
able to the automotive assembly plant for check of functional fit and perform-
ance in a vehicle sample assembly. Necessary modifications to tooling and
equipment are made in this period.
Following this, one or more pilot assembly runs are made to
check out the volume fabrication and assembly processes. Several run
attempts may be necessary, depending on the. modification requirements
exposed as sustained production trials are attempted.
2.4.8 Production Buildup
A 1-1/2-month interval is assigned to the Production Buildup
phase. By the beginning of this interval, vendors and part suppliers have
completed their initial production runs and parts are made available in the
automotive assembly plants to start stocking the production line. In this
period, component production at the automotive plant facilities is accelerated
toward full volume output rates. For example, engine production and other
subassembly production will be started in advance with a target date for first
production output 1-month earlier than Vehicle Job No. 1, the first vehicle
produced on the mass production assembly facility. All of this stockpiling for
inventory will precede the production buildup of the vehicle assembly line
which will generally commence in the last few weeks of this period.
2-12
-------
REFERENCES
2.-1 Automotive Industrial Engineering Study, Arthur Young & Company
(January, 1968).
2-2 Automotive Industries (March 15, 1972).
2-13
-------
SECTION 3
PROPOSED 1975/76 MODEL YEAR AUTOMOBILE
EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
3. 1 INTRODUCTION
In this section of the report, a brief discussion is presented of
the emission control systems and system components proposed by the major
domestic automobile manufacturers for use in their 1975/76 light-duty vehicles.
More detailed information regarding automotive emission control system
technology and characteristics can be found in Refs. 3-1 to 3-3.
3.2 PROJECTED 1975/76 EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
3.2.1 Summary Discussion
The 1975 emission control system is exemplified by the follow-
ing package of components and engine modifications:
Oxidation catalytic converter
Air injection
Partial thermal reactor
Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)
Carburetor modifications
Ignition system modifications
All first-choice systems selected by the domestic automobile manufacturers
incorporate an oxidation catalyst with air injection to promote the oxidation
of the unburned hydrocarbon (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) species con-
tained in the engine exhaust. The catalyst type which appears most frequently
among the selected first-choice systems is the platinum-group metal/
monolithic converter. Base metal/pelletized and promoted base metal/
pelletized catalyst designs also are being evaluated by some manufacturers,
Promoted base metal catalyst formulations contain small amounts of
platinum-group metals.
3-1
-------
including the General Motors Corporation and the American Motors
Corporation. Some automobile manufacturers are considering the utilization
of a catalyst overtemperature protection device in their projected 1975 sys-
tems to prevent catalyst damage under extreme/abnormal i-ngine operating
conditions (spark plug misfire, etc. )
Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) systems will be employed in
nearly all ol the 1975 model year automobiles. These systems will be
improved versions of the EGR systems used in most of the 1973 model year
vehicles.
The emission control systems of a number of manufacturers,
including those of the Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and
General Motors, utilize a partial thermal reactor in place of the conventional
exhaust manifold primarily to provide more rapid warmup of the catalyst
under cold start conditions. However, full size thermal reactors are not
completely developed and are not being considered for 1975 systems.
Carburetion/intake system modifications that have been identi-
fied for first-choice systems range from complete redesigns, utilizing new
concepts, to minor improvements to the current conventional systems.
These modifications are generally directed toward improving the precision
and stability of the air-fuel ratio and also include such features as altitude
compensation, quick-release choke devices, and intake manifold heating.
All domestic manufacturers propose, or have in development,
electronic (breakerless) ignition systems which are targeted for inclusion in
their first-choice emission control system. These systems generally provide
an improvement in spark-timing precision, consistency, and reliability.
Alternate systems under investigation by the automobile manu-
facturers for potential use in 1975 model year vehicles incorporate different
types or designs of catalytic converters but are otherwise similar to the
emission control packages selected as first-choice systems. Typical
examples are the second- and third-choice systems of General Motors which
substitute platinum-group metal pellet and platinum-group metal monolithic
converter designs for the first-choice promoted base metal/pellet converter
design.
3-2
-------
At least two manufacturers, Ford and General Motors, are
experimenting with full size thermal reactors for potential use in emission
control systems. For instance, Ford utilizes full-size thermal reactors in
conjunction with dual (in series) platinum-group metal/monolithic catalysts
and EGR in some of its durability experimental test vehicles. Development
work on these systems is still incomplete and lags behind the effort directed
at catalytic converter systems.
Emission control systems currently under consideration by the
automobile manufacturers for use in 1976 model year vehicles will incorporate
all components in the 1975 system plus:
Reduction catalyst(s) installed upstream of the oxidation catalyst(s)
More sophisticated air injection systems
Modified carburetion, ignition, and EGR systems
A number of automobile manufacturers are experimenting
with unconventional engine configurations, including the rotary (Wankel),
stratified charge, gas turbine, Rankine, and Stirling engines. With the
exception of the rotary engine, which might be utilized in some of the
domestic 1975/76 vehicle models, it appears that these unconventional
engines will be neither developed nor be manufacturable in large quantities
in time for the 1975/76 model year. Therefore, these engines are not
considered in this study.
3.2.2 Selected Emission Control Systems — By Manufacturer
3.2.2.1 American Motors
American Motors first-choice 1975 system includes an oxida-
tion catalytic converter, EGR, secondary air injection, and extensive engine
modifications. A final decision has not been made as to whether the catalytic
converter will be a platinum-group metal monolithic type or a base metal or
promoted base metal pelletized type. Designs which appear to be prime
candidates are the Engelhard Minerals and Chemicals Corporation platinum-
group metal system and the General Motors base metal (or promoted base
metal) system. The projected engine modifications include changes in the
3-3
-------
carburetion and induction systems, valve timing, cylinder head design,
ignition system, and combustion chamber configuration.
American Motors does not have an alternate 1975 system. It
believes the first-choice system is the only approach which has any chance
for success and that exploring alternative or second-choice systems would
dilute its primary effort.
To date, American Motors has provided no information on its
projected emission control system for 1976.
3. 2. 2. 2 Chrysler
Chrysler's first-choice 1975 emission control system, shown
schematically in Figure 3-1, incorporates a platinum-group metal monolithic
oxidation catalytic converter, EGR, exhaust port air injection, a catalyst
bypass protection system, a partial exhaust thermal reactor, and improved
carburetion and ignition systems.
The selection of the monolithic catalytic converter was based
on the success achieved with this device in meeting the 1975 standards under
zero-mileage laboratory conditions. The monolithic platinum-group metal
converter design was preferentially selected over pelletized systems on the
basis of Chrysler's experience that the platinum-group metal monolith had
higher activity at the lower engine temperatures. Also, Chrysler's early
development work with pebble-bed catalysts showed pronounced deterioration
problems. A double-wall exhaust pipe may be included in the Chrysler sys-
tem to minimize the heat loss between the thermal reactor and the catalytic
converter.
Second-choice systems being pursued by Chrysler include the
use of a pellet-type converter such as the Universal Oil Products Company
(UOP) stabilized spherical platinum catalyst. Other possible modifications
to the first-choice system include (a) deletion of the 30% thermal reactor and of
3-4
-------
ELECTRIC
CHOKE
MODIFIED
FRAME RAIL
ALTITUDE
COMPENSATING
CARBURETOR
MONOLITHIC CATALYST
CONVERTER
CATALYST
BYPASS VALVE
EXHAUST MANIFOLD
REACTORS
AIR PUMP
EXHAUST
GAS RECIRCULATION
ELECTRONIC
ENGINE
CONTROL
BY-PASS PIPE STANDARD MUFFLER
Figure 3-1. Chrysler A-335 Special Emission Car (System Features)
-------
the double-wall exhaust pipe (provided that cold start emissions can be brought
within manageable limits), and (b) elimination of the catalyst bypass system
(provided that better exhaust gas temperature control is achieved or more
tolerant catalysts are found).
The major efforts to meet the 1976 emission standards are
directed at the development of a dual-bed catalyst system consisting of a
thermal manifold reactor with air injection during warmup, followed by a
reduction catalyst, air injection, and an oxidation catalyst. EGR may be
required also to meet the low 1976 nitrogen oxides (NO ) standard.
X
3. 2. 2. 3 Ford
Based upon currently available data, it is Ford's judgment that
its first-choice system for 1975 will consist of an oxidation catalytic converter
in conjunction with EGR, secondary air injection, and engine modifications.
This system is undergoing durability testing at Riverside, California. Also,
two other systems are being tested there by Ford. These systems include dual
catalysts with thermal reactor, and dual catalysts without thermal reactor.
Currently, the single catalyst system seems best, considering
that it has minimum impact on the design of the vehicle front end, requires
less platinum than the dual catalyst systems, and is equally effective in terms
of emission control as the two other systems tested. Ford feels that the
prospects are good for further improvements of this system.
A single Engelhard PTX-type catalytic converter will be used
on Ford's 4-cylinder and 6-cylinder passenger cars and the V-8, F-100 pickup
truck. Two catalysts, one on either side, will be used on the V-8 engine pas-
senger cars. This "kitchen sink" system is illustrated in Figure 3-2.
For 1976, the Ford kitchen sink system continues to be the
principal candidate. In this system, reduced NO levels are sought by means
of higher EGR flow rates and incorporation of a reduction catalyst. Ford is
also working on a dual-bed (reduction-oxidation) catalyst system and on two
advanced engine concepts (PROCO and lean-burn engines).
3-6
-------
LEAD FREE FUEL
EXHAUST
GAS
RECJRCULATION
INSULATED
EXHAUST
SYSTEM
Oo
i
-0
MECHANICAL
AUTOMATIC
TRANSMISSION
CONTROLS
CATALYTIC
CONVERTER
REACTOR MANIFOLD
IMPROVED CARBURETOR
RECALIBRATED
DISTRIBUTOR
SECONDARY
AIR PUMP
INDUCTION HARDENED
VALVE SEATS
NOTE: THE 1976 (76-1) EMISSION SYSTEM WILL USE
1975 SYSTEM COMPONENTS BUT WILL BE
TOTALLY RECALIBRATED FOR NOx REDUCTIONS.
Figure 3-2. Ford 1975 "Kitchen Sink" Emission Control System
-------
3.2.2.4 General Motors
Two first-choice emission control systems are currently being
considered by General Motors for potential application in their 1975/76 model
year vehicles. These systems are illustrated in Figures 3-3 and 3-4.
The under-floor system, shown in Figure 3-3, currently is
General Motors preferred system for 1975. It consists of a pellet-type,
promoted base metal oxidation catalytic converter, secondary air supply, EGR,
and engine modifications. This system is similar to the system described by
General Motors at the April 1972 EPA Suspension Request Hearings, except
that it no longer includes all-base-metal catalysts. The projected promoted
base metal catalyst formulations contain small amounts of platinum and/or
palladium. The engine modifications used in this system include an improved
carburetor with altitude compensation and fast-acting choke, a redesigned
intake system with quick-heat manifold to produce early fuel evaporation (EFE),
an exhaust system acting as a partial thermal reactor, an electronic ignition
system, and a modified spark timing schedule.
For 1976, General Motors is considering the addition of a
reduction (NO ) catalyst to their under-floor system. During the engine cold
X-
start period, secondary air will be added upstream of the reduction catalyst in
order to accelerate catalyst warmup.
The triple-mode system, shown in Figure 3-4, is another first-
choice system. This system, recently announced by General Motors, is
basically a 1976 system. It incorporates the system components and engine
modifications used on the under-floor system and a cylindrical monolithic
catalytic converter which is cast into the engine exhaust manifold. The center
part of the monolith provides the reduction catalyst and the outer part the oxi-
dation catalyst. The system operates in three separate modes. In the startup
mode, illustrated in Figure 3-4, exhaust gas from the quick-heat manifold
enters the reduction catalyst which is initially operated as an oxidation catalyst
to provide rapid catalyst warmup. During normal vehicle operation, the cat-
alyst is used in the reduction-oxidation mode and secondary air is injected at
the exit of the reduction catalyst. During high-speed and high-load conditions,
3-8
-------
-AIR INJECTION
PUMP
IMPROVED CARBURETION AND CHOKE
ALTITUDE AND TEMPERATURE
COMPENSATION
QUICK HEAT
MANIFOLD (EFE)
EXHAUST GAS
RECIRCULATION
MODIFIED SPARK
TIMING
CATALYTIC
CONVERTER
PCV VALVE
DOMED TANK
VAPOR SEPARATOR
-CARBON
CANISTER
ELECTRONIC
IGNITION
Figure 3-3. General Motors Projected 1975 Under-Floor Emission Control System
-------
PORT AIR (ON)
OJ
h-»>
o
EXHAUST
MANIFOLD
HEAT VALVE
CONVERTER
VALVE
REACTOR
VALVE
EXHAUST GAS FROM
QUICK HEAT MANIFOLD
NOX CATALYST IN CENTER SECTION
HC/CO OXIDIZING CATALYST IN
PERIPHERAL SECTION
4 CONVERTER AIR (OFF)
Figure 3-4. General Motors Triple-Mode Emission Control System (T-MECS) - Catalytic
Converter (Startup Oxidizing Mode)
-------
the catalysts are bypassed (for protection) and the system operates then in the
thermal reactor mode. This system can be converted very easily to a 1975
system by deleting the reduction catalyst.
Alternate emission control systems being evaluated by General
Motors include platinum-group metal/pellet and platinum-group metal/
monolithic catalytic converters. Another alternate system utilizes a thermal
reactor for some vehicles like the Vega (4-cylinder engine). Air-fuel condi-
tions required for reactor operation offer the advantage of less initial release
of NO , thereby lessening the aftertreatment requirement by the reduction
X
catalyst systems planned for 1976.
Based on current General Motors experience, it appears that
the only promising approach for 1976 is the addition of a reduction catalyst to
the 1975 systems.
3-11
-------
REFERENCES
5-1. Final Report - "Status of Industry Progress Towards Achievement
of the 1975 Federal Emission Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles,"
Aerospace Corporation Report No. ATR - 73(7322)-1 , 28 July 1972
^-2. ''Automobile Emission Control - A Technology Assessment as of
December 1971," Environmental Protection Agency, January I, 1972
3-5. Final Report - "An Assessment of the Effects of Lead Additives in
Gasoline on Emission Control Systems which Might be Used to
Meet the 1975-76 Moto r Vehicle Emission Standards," Aerospace
Corporation Report No. TOR-0172(2787)-2, November 15, 1971
3-12
-------
SECTION 4
ASSESSMENT OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS'
PRODUCTION LEAD TIME
4. 1 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
In preparing an assessment of production lead time require-
ments for the automobile manufacturers, it is appropriate to review briefly
the evolutionary changes in lead time over the last few decades and examine
the various factors that impose new risks on the manufacturer of a mass
produced product. These discussions have been prepared as an objective
means of assessing the current state of conditions in the industry as auto-
mobile manufacturers attempt to meet the 1975/76 emission standards.
Lead time is quite fluid in many instances and is influenced by
numerous factors such as tolerable risk, rate of expenditures, degree of
automation, percent of product line conversion, product complexity, degree
of design change, previous experience with product, and rate of production.
Historically, lead time schedules were predicated on design changes (whether
minor or major) to a limited portion of the manufacturer's product line. In
this way the manufacturer's risk in terms of capital commitment or sales
volume was limited. In contrast, the design changes instituted by the auto-
mobile manufacturers to meet the Federal 1975/76 exhaust emission standards
have required significant modifications to the entire product line. This in
turn has required the introduction of new manufacturing processes and pro-
cedures as well as new fabrication, assembly, and test equipment. In addition
to the implementation of a broad series of test fleets, new sources of supply
had to be established for the procurement of manufacturing operations and raw
materials necessary for the production of catalytic converters - a piece of
hardware based on new technology and constituting a major element in the
emission control system.
4-1
-------
When all car lines are affected, as in this case, the manu-
facturer's risk is markedly increased. This is due to the fact that emission
control systems planned for 1975/76 model year automobiles are based
largely on new technology and have not been produced previously. The
industry impact is evident when consideration is given to the effect of poten-
tial recall or of warranty provisions on every unit. And, in addition, every
production unit is affected by the ability of new suppliers and vendors to meet
both quality and quantity specifications, not just for one company, but for the
entire automotive industry.
Even for sources of proven capability, the means of supplying
(he entire industry poses a problem. For example, General Motors Corpora-
tion may be called upon to supply air pumps (required for the emission con-
trol system) for the entire industry unless it can license alternate sources.
Additional risk is inherent in the requirement that the manu-
facturer commit financial resources to the acquisition of capital equipment
and tooling before completion of proof-of-design tests. These research
prototype tests are still in process and the results are necessary to provide
final proof that the designs being implemented have the ability to meet 1975
emission standards and can function adequately for the 50, 000 miles of
vehicle operation required by the Clean Air Act. Not only is basic engine
operation affected by the introduction of emission control systems, but the
overall automobile design must be modified to provide packaging space,
handle additional suspended weight, and protect against localized heat loads.
Hence, additional road tests are needed to verify all aspects of vehicle
operation with a new design.
4.2 HISTORICAL REVIEW
Over the last two decades, the production lead time for
automobiles has increased. This increase is attributable to a greater use
of automated and computerized equipment as exemplified by the General
4-2
-------
Motors Vega assembly plant at Lordstown, Ohio. This increased use of
sophisticated equipment is regarded as necessary to simultaneously meet
higher production volumes, maintain quality control, and offset increased
labor costs. Improvements in inventory control (a major cost factor) may
also be accomplished.
The increased lead time appears to be brought about through
two major steps in the manufacturing development phase. First, there is an
increase in equipment procurement lead time due to a greater design effort
associated with complex production machinery required to perform a multi-
plicity of tasks. Second, the equipment checkout time and the period of cor-
rective action is increased as the number of automated operations is
increased. Reduction in lead time through the use of overtime labor is diffi-
cult since both automobile manufacturers and suppliers may normally work
50- to 58-hour weeks on a one or two shift basis, depending on the type of
work and time of year. Furthermore, excessive use of overtime has led
to reductions in worker productivity and increases in on-the-job errors.
To limit the amount of overtime, in a number of cases, production engineering
design was initiated and equipment or tooling orders were placed in advance
of management commitment of capital funds. At times these orders can be
placed on a tentative contract basis with cancellation clauses having no cost
or limited cost provisions.
Considering the large capital investment for automated equip-
ment, the planning efforts prior to financial commitments must be thorough
and complete. To provide this background information for management, the
conceptual development phase of automobile development has been greatly
lengthened. This is shown by the bar chart in Figure 4-1 which depicts the
evolutionary changes in lead time over the last 20 years. Although the
manufacturing development time has increased somewhat, the greatest
change is in the time required for conceptual development.-
4-3
-------
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
50 40 30 20 10 0
• CONTEMPORARY-HIGHLY AUTOMATED*
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT
DETAILED ENGINEERING INCLUDING
TESTING
TOOLING FABRICATION 8 PROCUREMENT
PILOT ASSEMBLY 8 CHANGE OVER
• CIRCA 1959 -TRANSITION PERIOD**
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT
DETAILED ENGINEERING INCLUDING
TESTING
TOOLING FABRICATING 8 PROCUREMENT
PILOT ASSEMBLY 8 CHANGE OVER
• CIRCA 1951 -COMPARATIVELY MANUAL***
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT
DETAILED ENGINEERING INCLUDING
TESTING
TOOLING FABRICATION 8 PROCUREMENT
PILOT ASSEMBLY 8 CHANGE OVER
I
24
1
f
t_
1
£J
12
1
16
16
1
t l4
T
i
\
A 10
T
c
i
d
i
13
1
d
D
10
i
C
* D.O.T. AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING STUDY, 1968
** CADILLAC, GM ENGR JNL, JULY-SEPT 1959'
***"PRODUCTION OF MOTOR VEHICLES" CUMMINGHAM,
McGRAW HILL, 1951
A PROGRAM APPROVAL
Figure 4-1. Lead Time Trends
-------
Before a given task is transferred from manual to automated
operation, a number of factors must be considered, not the least of which is
the loss in flexibility for introducing design changes necessary to correct a
product design deficiency. Other factors to be carefully considered in an
assessment of switching to automated operation are given in Table 4-1.
Lead time has also been markedly affected in the past by the
order backlog for different segments of the industry. In the tool and die
market, for example, considerable fluctuations in order backlog have
occurred -- varying from a large degree of nonutilized capacity in some
years (when the automobile manufacturers sought to minimize design changes)
to a large backlog in other years (when numerous design changes were called
for and labor was in short supply). Problems in the ability of vendors to meet
rapid changes in market requirements have led automobile manufacturers to
establish many of the vendor capabilities in-house. Hence, automobile manu-
facturers have tended to become even more integrated in production capa-
bilities over the last decade.
4. 3 INFLUENCE OF EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM
As discussed in Section 3, the exhaust emission control sys-
tems planned for 1975/76 model year automobiles are a complex integration
of hardware based on new technology. The complexity evolves from a need
for these components to function together over a wide operating range (with-
out unduly compromising vehicle performance, driveability, and safety),
while meeting the required emission standards. In addition, the designs
must be carefully selected to minimize consumer purchase and operating
costs. These considerations require an extensive engineering design and
test development effort to qualify units individually and then as part of an
overall system. Furthermore, each component must be precisely controlled
in order to achieve expected performance levels. Current planning of the
automobile manufacturers considers that exhaust emission levels on prototype
cars must be less than government standards by an estimated margin in order
to ensure that emissions from every production car will meet these standards.
4-5
-------
Table- 4-1. Lead Time Tradeoffs - -.\ utorna f inn Y.-.M--HS Manna! Assi-mbly
CHARACTERISTIC
TOOLING DESIGN TIME
TOOLING FABRICATION PROCUREMENT TIME
FACILITY DESIGN TIME
ASSEMBLY LINE DESIGN TIME
TOTAL LEAD TIME
CAPITAL INVESTMENT
PRODUCTION RATE
FLEXIBILITY FOR QUICK DESIGN CHANGE
QUALITY MAINTENANCE
COST/UNIT ITEM
POTENTIAL FOR WORK SLIPPAGES
PRODUCTION RATE FLEXIBILITY
AUTOMATION
MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM
NOMINAL
NOMINAL
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOWER
HIGH
MANUAL
ASSEMBLY
MINIMUM
MINIMUM
NOMINAL
HIGH
MINIMUM
LOW
LOWER
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
-------
Design problems are not limited to the emission control sys-
tem. The inclusion of this system requires changes to the entire automobile
design because of the need to compensate for the volume displaced, the added
weight, the requirement for monitoring system performance, etc. Major
elements in the car that could be affected are:
a. Body, including floor pan and firewall
b. Fuel tank
c. Engine
d. Transmission
e. Braking system
f. Suspension system
g. Frame
h. Electrical system
i. Instrumentation and dash board
j. Climate control system
Of course, every effort is made to minimize these interactions and, where a
design impact is noted, additional design work may be incorporated to improve
component performance, strengthen the structure, or modify styling. In this
way, cost increases can be lessened by making multiple design revisions at
one time.
Another factor introduced by the emission control system is the
increased level of heat generated in the engine compartment and throughout
the exhaust system. The heat increase requires evaluation of its effect on
passenger comfort and safety and on component performance such as the
evaporative emission control system. Therefore, heat shielding is likely
to be a requirement.
The same problems are present for the 1976 as for the 1975
system. Substantial research and development efforts are still required to
incorporate the reduction catalyst and the greater exhaust gas recirculation
(EGR) rates.
4-7
-------
While a number of components, such as EGR and electronic
ignition, are planned for limited production phase-in prior to the 1975 model
year, the catalytic converter is still undergoing development. To date there
has been a lack of success with respect to catalyst durability and maintenance
of exhaust emission levels below the Federal standards for 50, 000 miles.
In fact, the catalyst was cited by all automobile manufacturers as the most
critical lead time item. Still under design evaluation is canister fabrication
and the packaging of the catalyst substrate in the canister, both of which
must endure a severe environment of combined thermal and mechanical loads
for 50, 000 miles.
At the time of the April 1972 EPA suspension request hearings,
the information that was provided showed that producers of oxidation catalysts
required about 24 to 28 months lead time. This meant that commitments to
vendors and suppliers of catalysts had to be made by the automobile manu-
facturers from April to August 1972 in order to mass produce 1975 model
year automobiles by August 1, 1974. (However, the catalyst manufacturers
indicated at that time that they could possibly tolerate a slippage of 3 to 6
months with a possible per unit cost increase.)
Ford had already made a commitment to Engelhard Minerals
and Chemical Corporation for operation of a catalyst pilot plant and was about
to expand the commitment to include the operation of a second full size pro-
duction plant which would supply a major portion of its production require-
ments. Since that time, Ford has increased its commitment to Engelhard,
General Motors has granted a contract to W. R. Grace and Company for
catalyst facility design work only, Chrysler Corporation has contracted with
Universal Oil Products Company for facility design work only, and American
Motors Corporation has signed a contract (but has not revealed the name of
the catalyst company). In addition, General Motors and Chrysler have very
recently been in the process of considering commitments to companies con-
trolling the production and distribution of platinum-group metals. In other
areas, indications are that orders have been placed for certain long lead time
items such as automatic machine transfer lines, particularly where the appli-
cation of this equipment is to hardware designs that are not expected to change
significantly.
4-8
-------
Hence, the initial production lead time decision milestone has
passed and the automobile firms are proceeding on a risk basis for the
manufacture of 1975 cars. However, certain critical phases of the lead
time schedule for catalyst manufacturers have not been passed (e. g. , facil-
ity construction). What this situation implies is that, as long as the proto-
type tests on cars equipped with catalytic converters are not offering proof
of meeting the emission standards over a range of 50, 000 miles, the auto-
mobile manufacturers are making only staged commitments in order to
minimize financial risk in a program that uses what they consider an unproven
product.
In the interim, numerous discussions were held between the
automobile manufacturers and catalyst manufacturers in regard to design
alternatives, production capabilities, and required financial commitments
for the future. Preliminary facility design activities were also conducted by
the catalyst manufacturers without firm commitments in order to remain in
a competitive position.
The next commitments to be made by the automobile firms
should occur by December 1972. These would be major commitments call-
ing for construction of catalyst and substrate manufacturing facilities and
possibly the ordering of long lead time equipment for these plants. In cer-
tain parts of the country concrete foundation pouring mu.st be accomplished
before the full winter frost; structural steel and sheet metal walls can then
be erected throughout the winter. Facility leasing might also be considered
by some in lieu of new facility construction to permit some added schedule
compression.
Another decision pending in the period November to December
1972 is the commitment required to steel firms for a significant shift in the
production levels of low nickel content stainless steel. (Currently, very little
stainless steel is used in the average car. ) The degree of use of this material
throughout the automobile exhaust system had not been decided upon by the
automobile manufacturers at the time of this report. (Additional details are
discussed in Section 4. 8. )
4-9
-------
Evidently a major overlap between engineering development
phases and manufacturing development phases has been and is occurring.
This state of the industry is far from the normal situation and. in fact, is
far from normal operation for any mass production industry. While some
overlap between engineering development and manufacturing development is
necessary to some degree in a competitive industry, the current events may
pose greater than acceptable financial risks to the automobile manufacturers.
It is expected, then, that the manufacturers will continue to submit requests
for suspension of the 1975 emission standards unless some substantial
improvement is noted in the performance characteristics of the emission
control systems being evaluated in vehicle prototype test programs.
4. 4 INFLUENCE OF PROTOTYPE TEST PROGRAM
All of the automobile manufacturers are currently conducting
a series of research prototype test programs on their projected 1975 emis-
sion control systems. The latest series of prototype tests have been under
way for several months. Earlier, laboratory bench tests and dynamometer
tests were conducted to develop conceptual designs, and these tests provided
data on the most promising systems. The prototype tests now incorporate
the best emission control system designs into a test vehicle fleet to evaluate
acceptability of each engine/chassis combination from a performance and
safety standpoint. These tests are directed mainly at acquiring performance
data on catalytic converters operating in an automobile environment with a
complete emission control system.
From documentation provided by the automobile firms in
support of the April 1972 EPA hearings on requests for suspension of the
1975 emission standards for light-duty vehicles, and from documentation
they submitted to EPA in May 1971, it can be inferred that their minimum
requirement for initial demonstration of designs in these road tests are:
a. American Motors Corporation. Meet 1975 emission standards
and demonstrate emission control system durability for 50, 000
miles with five vehicles for each vehicle/engine class (about
60 to 75 vehicles total).
4-10
-------
b. Chrysler Corporation. Meet 1975 emission standards and
demonstrate durability with four to five cars at 50, 000 miles
each per model.
c. Ford Motor Company. Meet 1975 emission standards and
demonstrate durability with four experimental vehicles at
50, 000 miles each.
d. General Motors Corporation. Meet 1975 emission standards
with a large fleet of test vehicles at 50,000 miles each.
To date, no domestic manufacturer has been able to demon-
strate a successful system design to his satisfaction although some designs
have shown marked improvement over earlier versions and have come close
to meeting the emission standards at extended mileage on the test vehicles.
All indications are that these tests will be continued into 1973 in an effort to
further improve operation of the emission control systems.
These research test programs are having a major impact on
the introduction of emission control systems into 1975 model year automo-
biles. The original lead time milestone cited in the April 1972 Suspension
Request Hearings for making major catalyst commitments has been passed
(April to August, 1972) without a proven design available. Hence, the auto-
mobile manufacturers intending to mass produce 1975 model year automobiles
by August 1, 1974 have been required to place orders for long lead time
equipment and tooling (e. g. , automatic machine transfer lines) based on
their best judgment as to what will constitute a final design. In addition,
subsequent test programs involving the emission control system mounted in
cars with representative 1975 designs throughout may be rendered invalid by
operating with emission control system hardware that may not be the final
design. Furthermore, without a successful design, commitments to manu-
facturers of substrates and catalysts have been delayed in order to have more
data available before making unilateral decisions having high risk. All firms
have made some initial commitments in the August to September 1972 period
to manufacturers of substrates and/or catalysts. These dates represent a
2 to 5 month slip beyond the commitment dates expressed by the catalyst
firms at the hearings in April of this year. From information given in
4-11
-------
support of these hearings, it would appear that this delay may cause some
increase in the unit cost of the catalytic converter components.
4. 5 EFFECT OF CERTIFICATION TEST PROGRAM
Certification of 1975 model year automobiles requires that
each manufacturer establish baseline emissions at 0 and 4000 miles for
each engine family (emission data vehicles) in accordance with the 1975
Federal test procedure. In addition, 50,000-mile tests of a fleet of
durability vehicles is required to demonstrate the ability of these vehicles
to maintain emissions below the Federal standards. Along with the time
required to prepare and submit supporting documentation, the entire pro-
gram may stretch out over many months.
The durability test alone takes about 5 to 6 months to accumu-
late 50, 000 miles. Unless these tests are initiated as early as possible,
there will be little time for recovery from failure of a given engine-chassis
combination to pass the test. Accordingly, the first durability test should
start no later than September 1973 if two full durability test periods are
desired and vehicle production is to start in August 1974.
Where it is necessary to use catalysts not produced with pro-
duction manufacturing equipment and processes in certification test vehicles,
the issue as to whether or not these catalysts are the same "in all material
respects" as production units will arise. Due to the basic nature of the sub-
strates and deposited catalytic materials, it may be difficult to verify that
catalyst loading, uniformity of loading, and substrate physical characteristics
are indeed representative of quantity production units.
4.6 DEGREE OF INDUSTRY SCHEDULE CONSISTENCY
The overall production lead time schedules are summarized
for the major domestic automobile manufacturers in Figure 4-2. As can be
seen, all company schedules are in reasonable agreement with one another
and with the historical model year lead time requirement for major changes
of 24 to 28 months. Such consistency is not surprising since all manufacturers
are faced with the same critical lead time component, the catalytic converter,
4-12
-------
u>
1971 1972
J F N/
CM .
FORD
CHRYSLER
AMERICAN
MOTORS
ENGELHARD
PLANT No. 1
ENGELHARD
PLANT No. 2
AMERICAN
LAVA
UOP
W. R. GRACE
AMJJASONDJFMAMJJASO
A
A
1
A
1
A
C
1
C
C
C
C
C
in
N D
^
\ x^
\,\N
\v
s M
^S
\\N
\\N
\N>
x x
\ *
N\
^N
'"<;
NX
NXN
^
S"\N
^
^
L\V
^v
<^S
N\\
1 973 1 974
JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJ
B
1
B
B
1
D FULL COMMITMENT NEEDED FRC
I AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURER TC
.. -J —CATALYST/SUBSTRATE SUPPLIER
•*-"""'^ D
1
D
1
D
1
D
1
40
35
I
30 25 20 15
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
10
A PRODUCTION DESIGN OR PRODUCTION PROGRAM APPROVAL
B VEHICLE JOB No. 1
C PARTIAL COMMITMENT FROM AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURER TO
CATALYST/SUBSTRATE SUPPLIER
D FULL PRODUCTION
Figure 4-2. Overall Production Lead Time Schedules
-------
and were dealing with the same types of suppliers for catalysts and substrates.
Production lead time precedent for major changes (24 to 28 months) was
undoubtedly the chief reason that the Production Approval Milestone occurs
on the dates shown. Of course, all companies stress that present schedules
are optimistic and may not be met because they were required to commit
resources to a given design in order to be able to mass produce 1975 model
year automobiles by August 1974.
Also shown in the figure are similar current production lead
time schedules for representative substrate and catalyst manufacturers.
Except for Engelhard, which had the benefit of early commitments by Ford,
their schedules are also consistent with one another. Again, this con-
sistency is really related to the time required to design and construct a
production facility, and the same factors are influencing each individual
schedule.
Finally, the catalyst, substrate, and automobile manufacturers'
overall lead time schedules are consistent when compared to each other. This
consistency prevails for the reason that the automobile manufacturers' sched-
ules are in turn based o.n the catalyst manufacturers' schedules as shown.
4. 7 POTENTIAL FOR INDUSTRY SCHEDULE COMPRESSION
A reduction in the normal scheduled time for a complete auto-
mobile development cycle is possible through three approaches: (a) increase
the degree of overlap between various phases in engineering and manufacturing
development, (b) extend the use of overtime on a given work shift, or
(c) increase the number of work shifts to a maximum of three per day. How-
ever, the greater the amount of scheduled phase overlap, the greater the
chance for making costly errors through premature decisions. The use of
overtime can lead to some shortening of development and production design
engineering efforts, but in many cases the equipment and tooling procurement
lead time remains essentially unaltered. This is because the major effort on
hardware lead time is the industry backlog. If little demand is present, the
4-14
-------
equipment manufacturer can then concentrate more of his staff for a longer
period of time on a given job. Conversely, if there is heavy industry demand,
overtime is already being used to a great degree and there is little schedule
compression afforded with any added overtime; productivity decreases with
excessive use of overtime.
The potential for schedule compression is generally quite
small. A 10% to 15% compression is considered to be the maximum feasible
with acceptable increase in unit cost. Any additional compression is bought
at excessively large cost increases, and at some point no further compres-
sion is possible even with costs discounted as a judgment factor. The skilled
labor market cannot suddenly be increased to meet a multitude of orders.
Schedule compression is primarily in evidence for only one
area: the production of oxidation catalysts. The pacing item is the construc-
tion of new facilities. The equipment requirements for these facilities are
generally of a standardized design not requiring long lead times. This is
where the 10% to 15% schedule compression could be obtained.
With regard to the remaining elements of the emission control
system and the vehicle as a whole, the automobile manufacturers are pro-
ceeding on what is generally considered as a normal schedule or a partially
compressed schedule. This approach is necessary in order to avoid increased
costs when using overtime labor and to leave some time available to correct
design deficiencies which may appear as the program progresses. A fully
compressed schedule leaves no room for correction of mistakes and this
approach would have serious impact on the manufacturer through provisions
of recall and warranty. Also, any slippage on the part of vendors or suppliers
cannot be accommodated. Similarly, labor strikes would alter the entire
timetable if the lost work effort cannot be made up.
Lastly, when all car lines of a given manufacturer are affected,
uniform, company-wide schedule compression is difficult to accomplish. New
production processes are necessary for all lines and phasing difficulties (due
to problems in procurement, inventory, and speed in implementing corrective
4-15
-------
action) may occur between lines having commonality in hardware. The simul-
taneous introduction of various designs requires increased coordination with
vendors. Also, a greater number of new machines stretches out the equip-
ment delivery schedule because the equipment manufacturer generally cannot
produce multiple units simultaneously. Likewise, delivery and checkout
must be staggered over a period of time.
A maximum possible compressed lead time was not cited by
the automobile manufacturers. Presumably this was because such a schedule
would be predicated on numerous assumptions inconsistent with reasonable
business practice and, perhaps, inconsistent with reality. Among these
assumptions would be:
a. Full use of premium time for both automobile manufacturer
and vendors.
b. No problems in installation and checkout of equipment or
tooling.
c. No labor strikes or building construction delays.
d. No vendor slippage or limit on vendor capacity to supply
components, equipment, or tooling.
e. Maximum overlap between production engineering drawing
release and procurement of equipment and tooling.
f. Elimination of prototype equipment and tooling; production
samples to be made first from production equipment and
tooling.
4. 8 INDUSTRY CAPACITY TO MEET HIGH PRODUCTION
VOLUME
In an industry that produces on the order of 10, 000, 000 light-
duty vehicles per year, a heavy demand is placed on both material and labor
resources to meet the daily production rates and the consistent introduction
of new vehicles in August of each year. This demand has been met histori-
cally with only sporadic interruptions caused by labor strikes. However,
with the introduction of emission control systems for every automobile pro-
duced, the industry capacity to meet the high production volume is not clearly
established and the critical factors must be examined.
4-16
-------
Excluding financial considerations, there are four broad areas
to consider in assessing the industry capacity to meet demand:
a. Labor force availability
b. Raw material reserves and production capability
c. Processed materials production capability
d. Fabricated products production capability
The succeeding sections will discuss each of these topics in turn.
4. 8. 1 Labor Force Availability
In regard to the labor force, skilled workers are always in
demand, but normal requirements have usually been met. Sudden surges of
activity have been accommodated to some degree by the use of overtime labor.
However, critical periods have been noted in the tool and die industry, and
the lack of success in meeting demand at times has led the automobile firms
to assume much of the work load formerly accomplished by independent
companies. As far as the introduction of emission control systems is con-
cerned, no labor problems were identified.
4. 8. 2 Raw Material Reserves and Production Capability
The impact of raw material reserves and production capability
is noted in the manufacture of catalytic converters. Alumina (A1?O,) for the
substrate and wash coat is in plentiful supply, but the supply of noble metals
for the catalyst is an issue that is not completely settled at this time.
Currently, the Soviet Union is the largest producer of
platinum-group metals, followed by the Republic of South Africa and Canada.
Because future platinum-group metal sales by the Soviet Union cannot be
accurately predicted, it is likely that South African platinum-group metals
will be the primary supply since it appears that the production capacity of the
South African mining companies can be sufficiently increased. However, this
is contingent on contracts being signed in the near future between the automo-
bile manufacturers and the mining companies. For without such commitments,
it is unlikely that the mining companies would proceed with their projected
expansion programs because of the large capital investment required.
4-17
-------
The platinum-group metal supply-demand balance if
determined by the platinum-group metal loading requirement of the automo-
tive catalysts, the number of catalysts required on the various vehicle classes,
the catalyst replacement interval, the mining industry capacity, and the degree
of platinum-group metal recovery from spent catalysts. A comprehensive
analysis of tlir-sc parameters is urgently needed in order to provide all the
data required for a complete and meaningful assessment of the platinum-
group metal availability and demand issues.
4. 8. 3 Processed Materials Production Capability
There are three forms of processed materials that pose a
problem for industry capability. First, there is the production capacity
needed to form alumina and other compounds into a consolidated form in the
shape of pellets or monolith structure for the catalyst substrate. Second,
there is the production capability for rolled stainless steel for use in catalytic
converter canisters, exhaust systems, and possibly in full-size thermal
reactors. Third, there is the capability of foundries to produce sufficient
numbers of castings for full-size thermal reactors, if they were to be even-
tually used. These material resources will be discussed in turn.
4. 8. 3. 1 Production Capability for Catalysts and Catalyst Substrates
The production of catalytic converters (oxidation or reduction)
for use in automotive emission control systems requires a high degree of
interactive planning and coordination between the substrate, catalyst, and
automobile manufacturers. For example, a different company might be
involved in each phase of the catalytic converter fabrication and installation
for a given automobile manufacturer, or a single company may be engaged
in two or more of the catalyst manufacturing phases. On the other hand, an
automobile manufacturer might procure basic raw materials and perform all
catalyst manufacturing and installation phases in-house.
As of the time of data acquisition (August to October 1972),
there was a noted variability in schedule status for the different catalyst and
substrate manufacturers. This variability was a result of both the status of
4-18
-------
financial commitments made by the automobile companies and the amount
of funds expended by catalyst and substrate manufacturers themselves in
order to be able to compete for potential 1975/76 catalyst requirements.
In all cases, there was reasonable confidence on the part of substrate and
catalyst manufacturers that if contract negotiations pending with automobile
manufacturers resulted in firm production orders in the November to
December 1972 period, the currently projected schedules for quantity pro-
duction of oxidation catalysts could be met. Their judgment was based on
long experience in mass producing catalyst-related products for the chemical
and petro-chemical industries and in meeting increased demands for products
by constructing new facilities or expanding existing facilities. The equipment
needs for producing substrates or catalysts are generally quite conventional,
are readily available, and, therefore, should pose no problem.
In contrast, the automobile manufacturers have expressed
some doubt concerning the ability of the substrate and catalyst manufacturers
to meet production demands while maintaining the required quality control.
Much of this doubt centers on the fact that catalysts of the automotive type
have never been mass produced in the quantities required by the automobile
manufacturers.
4. 8. 3. 2 Production Capability for Stainless Steel
Generally, carbon steel has been used for the com-
plete automobile exhaust system. Some automobile manufacturers require
the application of aluminum and galvanized coatings to the steel. A chromium-
type stainless steel (ASTM TP409) has only been used on mufflers for some
customers who have special requirements for the durability of the exhaust
system. However, because of the operating characteristics of emission con-
trol systems, higher temperatures within the automobile exhaust system may
require extensive use of "muffler grade" stainless steel a-s well as some use
of a nickel-bearing chromium-type stainless steel (ASTM TP304), mainly
for the catalytic converter canister or for the thermal reactor shell. (It is
of interest to note that the price of the raw material for TP409 stainless
steel is 25 cents per pound as compared with 8 to 9 cents per pound for
carbon steel.)
4-19
-------
It is estimated that for a total of about 10 million light-duty
vehicles produced annually by the domestic industry, an additional stainless
steel production capacity of up to 375, 000 tons per year may be required,
depending on the extent of use in the exhaust system. The obvious question,
therefore, is whether sufficient alloy material will be available to produce
stainless steel exhaust systems for 1975/76 model year cars. With respect
to chromium, sufficient amounts would be available, mainly from Rhodesia
and South Africa. The nickel supply would also be adequate since the new
demands by the automotive industry (from 40 to 50 million pounds per year)
could be met by the present free world production rate of about 1 billion
pounds per year, which represents only 56% of its total capacity. (Inter--
national Nickel, it might be noted, has a stockpile of 300 million pounds
which alone could satisfy the automotive industry's requirements for sev-
eral years.)
In discussions with the automobile manufacturers, General
Motors stated that it will make the canister from a proprietary stainless
steel containing no nickel, Chrysler and Ford stated that they would use
stainless steel, and American Motors implied it will use the General Motors
canister. However, at this time none of the manufacturers have committed
themselves to a particular type of stainless steel. It is believed that the
reason is they are not fully certain of the operating conditions to which the
exhaust system will be exposed.
Because of the uncertainty, none of the automobile manufac-
turers have committed themselves to any production rates of stainless steel.
However, if design studies and tests show that a material like ASTM TP409
is needed, the manufacturers would have to place orders now with the large
carbon steel producers, such as U.S. Steel, since the conventional stainless
steel producers do not have the approximately 400, 000-ton added annual
capacity that may be required.
4-20
-------
The placement of large orders would require that the carbon
steel producers modify some of their normal production operations. The
modifications relate mainly to ensuring the purity of the steel by preventing
(.he inclusion of scale. This requires that scale be removed from the stain-
less steel billets prior to rolling, and tha'-t scale be removed from the sheet
melal during and after rolling. Necessary equipment consists mainly of
grinding equipment for the removal of scale from billets and pickling equip-
ment to remove scale from the sheets. Additionally, some special sheet
rolling equipment is required to provide the desired gauge, width, and
surface condition. Estimates on lead time range from 18 months to 2 years
to modify and procure this new capital equipment.
In summary, raw material availability is not a problem.
However, material processing capacity is a problem, but it can be resolved
by tlie timely ordering of additional equipment needed. Critical lead times
are mainly related to the capital equipment modifications and new capital
equipment required by steel firms to produce whatever type of steel the auto-
mobile manufacturers finally decide upon. The fact that the manufacturers
have not as yet made a definite decision is a problem that recently has
become more significant. Commitments must be made in the November to
December 1972 period if 1975 model year requirements for stainless steel
are to be met.
4. 8. 3. 3 Production Capability for New Castings
Current first-choice emission control systems incorporate a
cast partial thermal reactor for emission reduction during the cold start and
for rapid warmup of the catalytic converter. Some of these reactors resemble
a slightly oversize standard exhaust manifold while others resemble the full-
size thermal reactor in outward appearance but have, a volume considerably
smaller than the full-size reactor (e. g. , 1/3 volume of full-size reactor).
The casting capacity to accommodate these types of units is presently
accounted for in 1975 model year production schedules.
4-21
-------
No domestic automobile manufacturer is presently considering
the use of a full-six.e thermal reactor in its 1975 or 1 97f> emission control
system. However, were such a reactor to be employed, its current develop-
ment status and casting production lead time requirements make it a nonviable
option for the 1975 model year. Ford states that the time is now past the
critical |j»inl for it to order arc and holding furnaces for foundry operations to
manufacture full-sis-.e manifold thermal reactors for the 1975 model year.
The foundry industry (exclusive of automobile company foundries) indicates
that if additional foundry capacity on its part is required, 36 months would be
required to achieve full production volume. A definitive assessment of full-
.^r/,e thermal reactor casting capacity and foundry equipment lead time
requirements for model years beyond 1975 cannot be made at this time. Such
an assessment would require that the automobile companies complete their
development programs, delineate their individual requirements, and
assess their in-house capacity along with the need for any additional capacity
from the outside foundry industry.
4. 8. 4 Fabricated Products Production Capability
Fabricated products have posed some problems, but it appears
that these will be resolved. Under fabricated products can be listed the
following:
a. Catalytic converter
b. Traditional components
c. Equipment and tooling
4. 8. 4. 1 Fabrication of Catalytic Converters
If the necessary contractual commitments are culminated by the
end of 1972, fabrication of the catalytic converter container and assembly
of the unit will be handled adequately by division of work between the auto-
mobile manufacturers, the catalyst manufacturers, and independent firms
such as Arvin Industries, Walker Manufacturing Company and Canadian Fram,
Ltd.
4-22
-------
4. 8. 4. 2 Fabrication of Traditional Components
No evidence of problems in the capacity for producing tradi-
tional components has appeared, although new fabrication and assembly pro-
cesses may be required if double-wall exhaust pipes are to be required.
4. 8. 4. 3 Fabrication of Equipment and Tooling
The following discussion pertains to examples of automotive:
component equipment which is emission control-related, with emphasis on
equipment that is unconventional relative to previous automobile production
practices.
4. 8. 4. 3. 1 Electron Beam Welding Equipment
In order to produce a pebble-type catalytic converter canister,
Genera] Motors has decided that electron beam welding of the' canister edges
is required in the assembly operation. The normal automotive product is
resistance welded; resistance welding can be used to spot weld, seam weld,
or lap weld light-gauge materials. General Motors claims, however, that
resistance welding would be too slow and, therefore, uneconomical and would
not seal the container well enough for the contemplated design. Furthermore,
this particular canister design requires welding of four thicknesses of rnciie--
rial which does not lend itself to resistance welding.
Electron beam welders were initially designed to weld
only equipment that was enclosed in a high vacuum en vi ronmenl. The high
vacuum unit requires expensive pumping equipment and is a slow production
unit because of the delays incurred for the required chamber evacuation.
This environmental requirement was considered undesirable by General
Motors and canister welding in a nonvacuum environment is being planned.
The broader weld given by the nonvacuum unit should aid in providing a
reliable seal for the canister.
A prototype, manually operated machine was delivered to Gen-
eral Motors by the Hamilton Standard Division of United Aircraft Corporation
in September 1972 to develop techniques for producing canisters. This
machine did not incorporate automatic- handling equipment and operated ai
4 - LM
-------
a slow production rate. The six production machines contemplated will
incorporate automatic transfer and handling equipment and will product;
parts at much higher rates than the prototype machine. Hamilton Standard
has the capacity to meet General Motors requirements and can meet sched-
ules if given an order early in November 1972.
4.8.4."^.? Valve Seat Hardening Equipment
The low lead content of the gasoline required fur automobiles
incorporating catalytic converter systems has an adverse effect on the life of
conventional valve seats. For this reason, the automobile companies arc
induction hardening the valve seats to compensate for the protective quality
..I the -liiad.
This modification of the cylinder head affects the machining
and transfer equipment which now has to incorporate a valve seat induction-
hardening station. This feature has been incorporated on all known cylinder
head production equipment. The device is made by the: Tocco Division of
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. , which is the only company known to supply it.
No evidence of criticality of availability was found; therefore, it can be
assumed that: this equipment presents no lead time problems.
4.8.4.3.3 Cylinder Head Machining and Transfer Equipment
American Motors has had problems with exhaust valve life due
to excessive heat. High temperatures have caused erosion with resultant
unacceptable leakages. For this reason, it is redesigning the cylinder heads
to improve cooling capacity by replacing the present one-piece core casting
with a two-piece core casting. This change will require new cylinder head
machining and transfer equipment to fabricate the new heads. At this time,
American Motors efforts are in the development stage; it has made about 50
prototype cylinder heads using soft tooling. As explained in Section 8. 1, the
procurement of cylinder head machining and transfer equipment has a lead
time of approximately 20 months prior to vehicle production. This implies
that American Motors must place an order for production equipment before
the- end of 1972. No problem in supplying this equipment is envisioned.
4-24
-------
4.9 TECHNOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE
PLANS
Were Federal regulations to be relaxed, a number of alter-
native plans could be considered by the automobile manufacturers in lieu of
meeting the Federal emission standards with 1975 model year automobiles in
full production by August 1, 1974. Consideration of these plans depends on
judgments leading to decisions that would have to be made by the Federal
government.
If the Federal government were to grant a 1-year extension
to automobile manufacturers for meeting the 1975 emission standards, the
risk of introducing unproven designs for the emission control system would
be reduced. Prototype testing could be continued for a longer period to allow
for development of higher performance and more reliable designs, and the
overlap between these tests and the manufacturing design phases could be
lessened to reduce the risk of making design decisions based on preliminary
information. The impact on the rest of the industry could be a deferment in
purchase of equipment, tooling, components and raw materials. Most
affected would be the catalyst industry which is just starting to implement
facilities for mass production of substrates, catalysts, and container fabrica-
tion and packaging. Some decisions regarding the purchase of raw materials
(e. g. , platinum-group metals) may not be deferrable once a commitment has
been made; the procurer of these materials may then have to carry a costly
inventory until production finally gets under way.
Furthermore, were a one-year suspension to be granted, the
Federal government must issue a set of interim standards for exhaust emis-
sions. If these standards could be met by the catalytic converter systems
presently developed or under development (either by virtue of raising the
emission standards levels or by revising the replacement intervals for con-
verters, etc. ), then the impact on the industry noted above could be averted.
Alternatively, the use of full-size thermal reactors is not
considered a viable option for 1975 model year automobiles, even if interim
emission standards could be met by them. This is because the automobile
4-25
-------
companies have not been developing the thermal reactor as a first-choice
system and have not therefore proceeded to order the necessary long lead
time production equipment, as they have been doing for ciitalytic converter
systems.
Less effective partial thermal reactors, smaller in volume
and less complex than full-size thermal reactors, are currently programmed
for use in 1975 emission control systems. These could be used without
catalytic converters but the resulting emission reduction capability is at
present not well defined and could vary among the different automobile manu-
facturers, according to individual design details. Some partial thermal reac-
tors resemble a slightly oversize standard exhaust manifold while others
resemble the full-size reactor in outward appearance, while having a volume
approximately 2/3 less. At present such partial reactors are designed pri-
marily to oxidize HC and CO during the cold start period and to aid in warm-
ing up the catalytic converter.
If the interim standards would simply permit the continued
production and sale of 1974 model year type automobiles for another produc-
tion year, the manufacturers would have to be apprised of this situation prior
to January 1, 1974. There still would be a lead time consideration
with the extended production of the 1974 model year, since orders must be
placed in advance of August 1974 production in order to continue supplies of
raw materials and components and to replace worn out tooling.
Without a 1-year suspension of the emission standards, the
automobile manufacturers might consider continuing production of 1974 model
year cars throughout calendar year 1974, subject to approval by the Federal
government. This would provide more development and certification test time
for the 1975 emission control system. From a competitive marketing stand-
point, of course, such an action might create a reduction in sales for those
manufacturers requiring the longest delay in the eventual introduction of
1975 model year cars.
4-26
-------
4. 10 PROGNOSIS FOR 1975/76 LEAD TIME REQUIREMENTS
At the present time, a]] major domestic automobile manufac-
turers are proceeding on a high risk basis with the necessary steps to ensure
that 1975 model year cars will be in full rrrass production by August 1974.
Orders have been placed for long lead time equipment for all well-defined
car systems; component orders will follow shortly.
Design efforts are still in progress on components and sys-
tems not fully defined. These relate to the catalytic converter and its
impact on other areas of the vehicle such as the floor pan and dashboard.
Decisions have been delayed in order to take full advantage of data from the
research prototype test car programs. These tests are expected to continue
into 1973 since the automobile manufacturers maintain they have not been able
to find a case of an emission control system that meets government regula-
tions. With regard to catalytic converters, some automobile manufacturers
must still decide on pellet versus monolithic substrates and promoted base
metal versus platinum-group metal catalysts.
The delays in final design decisions have also led to delays in
commitments to critical suppliers. Some limited commitments have been
made to catalyst firms. These commitments cover only engineering and
design for new or expanded facilities. Except for the Ford contract with
Engelhard, no full commitments have been made that would entail actual
construction and ordering of equipment.
Current schedules have been compressed slightly from those
previously cited by the automobile manufacturers. Additional compression
is unlikely except for a few isolated cases and, in general, would represent
cost increases to the end product. In general, all the automobile manufac-
turers show good schedule consistency when compared with each other and
when compared with their suppliers, particularly those companies supplying
catalysts and catalyst substrates.
While staged commitments have proven successful in provid-
ing for initial work efforts, the time is at hand for making full commitments
to all critical suppliers. These include catalyst and catalyst substrate
4-27
-------
manufacturers, stainless steel manufacturers, and producer / refine r.s ;>!'
pla I i mini -g roup mel.ils. Sometime in (.he- period of November lo December
1972 the automobile manufacturers will bave to conclude sucb arrangements
in order to meet tbe lead time requirements for 1975 model year cars that
incorporate the latest emission control system designs which offer the best
chance for meeting government regulations.
4-28
-------
SECTION 5
LEAD TIME SCHEDULES FOR
AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS
This section of the report discusses manufacturing development
schedules and lead time requirements pertaining to 1975 model year emission
control system production for the four major manufacturers of domestic
passenger automobiles. These manufacturers are the General Motors
Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Chrysler Corporation and American
Motors Corporation. It will be observed that the emphasis in the material
presented for the individual manufacturers differs somewhat from one to
another. This variation in emphasis directly reflects the nature of the infor-
mation released by each manufacturer for publication in the open literature.
The critical, or pacing, element of lead time among all the
automobile manufacturers concerns the catalytic converter emission control
device. The controlling schedule factor is the development of vendor and/or
in-house facilities for mass producing catalytic converter components. With
regard to monolithic type converter systems, the critical aspect of converter
production appears to be the development of a new mass production technology
covering the design, fabrication, and checkout of equipment required for the
substrate coating operations , particularly the application of the platinum-group met:al
catalyst. For the pellet-type systems, the critical lead time aspect relates
to the development of specialized production line equipment required to fabricate
and assemble elements of the converter canister.
For all manufacturers, experimental prototype testing and
development of 1975 emission control system design options is continuing
5-1
-------
as of this date. With reference to production scheduling, the timing of
this testing and development activity is regarded as highly extraordinary
in that it penetrates well into the production development phase of the
manufacturing schedule. According to the manufacturers, test results to date
provide no assurance of culminating in a satisfactory design. Normally, new
functional car systems that are imperfectly developed at this stage of car
development are deferred to subsequent model year production programs.
Notwithstanding this current lack of suitable emis sion hardware
to meet 1975 goals, the automobile manufacturers appear to be proceeding
on production development schedules that are basically the same as those
submitted in the requests for suspension of the 1975 standards and that are
intended to provide full production of 1975 model year automobiles by
August 1974.
5. 1 GENERAL MOTORS
5. 1. 1 Overall Schedule
5.1.1.1 Production Schedules
The 1975 emission control system master timing schedule for
General Motors is presented in Figure 5-1. This schedule shows only the
deadlines for those component systems still under development and which
could impact the 1975 production lead time. These are the catalytic converter,
improved carburetion, and early fuel evaporation (EFE) systems. The
1975 unitized ignition system schedule also is shown. This timing schedule
is structured to have car assembly start approximately the first week of
August 1974 with component full production commencing 1 month
earlier for the carburetor and catalytic converter, and 2 months earlier
for the unitized ignition and EFE systems. It is to be noted that the first
milestone with respect to production lead time, the tooling and facilities
5-2
-------
CY 72 CY 73 CY 74
|J|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|S|O|N|P|J|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|S|0|N|D|J|F|M|A|M|J|J|
30 25 20 15 10 5 0
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
CATALYTIC CONVERTER
B
G H
NEW CARBURETORS
B
G H
i
OJ
QUICK HEAT MANIFOLD
(EARLY FUEL EVAPORATION)
B
G H
ELECTRONIC IGNITION
A/B/C
F' G' H'
(1974 MODEL YEAR)
G H
(1975 MODEL YEAR)
A - PRODUCTION DESIGN PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
B - TOOLING & FACILITIES PROGRAM APPROVAL
C - START PRODUCTION TOOLING
D - START PRODUCTION PRETEST BUILD FROM PARTIAL TOOLING
E - START PRODUCTION SAMPLE BUILD
F - START VEHICLE PILOT PART PROGRAM
G - FULL COMPONENT PRODUCTION
H - START VEHICLE PRODUCTION
Figure 5-1. General Motors Master Timing Schedule for 1975 Emission Components
-------
appropriation approval date for the carburetors and catalytic converter,
occurred in May and June of 1972. The corresponding date for the unitized
ignition system is March 1, 1972 for 1974 model production. Since
this ignition system will be installed in 1974 models, this item should not be
a critical impact factor with regard to the 1975 model year production
schedule. The EFE system appropriation approval date is scheduled for
March 1, 1973.
Not listed are some emission control devices already in
general use, such as a modified spark timing system, the pollution control
valve (PCV), the air pre-heater, and the evaporative emission control system.
Other devices such as the air injection pump and exhaust gas recirculation
(EGR) will be used on practically all 1973 models, and General Motors plans
to increase its production in increments with improvements incorporated
annually until full production coverage in 1975 is achieved.
General Motors considers this timetable to be more theoretical
than realistic, since it is based on the assumption that all the devices needed
to achieve 1975 emission levels can be developed in time, and that the manufac-
turing and assembly equipment necessary can be designed, built, installed, and
brought up to production capacity within this period. Nevertheless, this
schedule, which was presented at the April 1972 Suspension Request Hearings
was still considered by General Motors to be essentially valid at the time
of the present investigation.
It should be noted that there are other changes which are
required to accommodate the new emission control devices. Although not
included in the schedule in Figure 5-1,these changes are to be accomplished
within the period shown. Affected items include — linkage mechanisms,
vacuum hose connections, and sensor and fuel line routings for new carbure-
tors; new intake and exhaust manifold systems required with the new carbure-
tors; new configurations of exhaust piping; and vehicle changes such as new
frames and new body configurations that must be designed to accommodate
the new emission control devices.
5-4
-------
With respect to the catalytic converter system, General Motors
has adopted a basic change in direction since the Suspension Request Hearings.
At that time, the basic system being pursued was the base metal pellet,
under-floor catalytic converter system. -General Motors is now planning to
incorporate a mix of both platinum-group metal and base metal pellets in its
under-floor catalytic converter. Also, it is actively working on the develop-
ment of a new system called the triple-mode (or T-MECS) emission control
system. This system incorporates a catalyst in a container that is cast into
the exhaust manifold. Both concepts are being pursued and the final selection
is still some months in the future. Prototype testing of both systems is in pro-
gress; some encouraging results have been obtained at low mileage conditions,
but no high mileage data have been obtained to assure either durability or the
capability to meet 1975 emission standards under these conditions.
Production equipment development activity schedules for the two
new catalytic converter systems described above are shown in Figures 5-2 and
5-3. Both schedules indicate that manufacturing equipment development is to be
initiated in August 1972. The end date for production startup is the same for
both. The schedule for the under-floor converter is essentially the same as
the "compressed" process development and manufacturing timetable presented
in the General Motors suspension request document. It is noted that the start
date (for the production equipment development phase) has been slipped
by 1 month and that the new schedule exhibits greater overlap of activities in
the early stages of the program.
The General Motors carburetor program is based on producing
a family of both improved and new carburetors that will provide the precision
fuel metering required to helpmeet the 1975 emission standards. The
schedule shown in Figure 5-4 delineates the time phasing and duration of the
various activities related to production development for the new carburetors.
5-5
-------
1972
1973
1974
1975
J FMAMJJA50NDJFMAMJ JASONDJFMAMJJASOwDJ
1 1
1 1
1 1
PR
i 1
ODUC
1 1
riON E
1 1
[QUIPI
1 1
rfENT
1 1
DEVE
1 1
LOPM
1 1
ENT
r~
PRO
C
OU(
r~
CESS
1
3TE
1
ORDE
C i
DE
R
SIGN
LJ i
PF
1
*E-CE
BUILD
1
RTIFI
V
END OF
? TRYOUT
r i
SHIP
L I
1
CATIO
NSTA
LL
1
TRYC
)UT
1
'RODUCTIO
N TESTS
/ 1
sj ST/
RT UF
d
1 1
3
1 1
Figure 5-2. General Motors Production Equipment Development
Schedule for 1975 Model Year Under-Floor Oxidizing
Catalytic Converter (Compressed Schedule)
5-6
-------
1972
1973
1974
1975
J FMJ
1 1
\ M J x
1 1
J A S(
DN D.
PROD
i FM;
UCTIC
XMJ .
1 1
)N EOl
1 A SC
JIPME
) N D v
1 1
NT DE
J FM/
1 1
:VELC
^ \ \ *
iPMEN
|
PRC
C
0
r
PF
)CESS
]
LJOTE
Zl
ORDER
DESIGN
1
BUILD
1 I
IE-CE
RTIFI
VENDOR TRYOUT
1 1
SHIP
1 1
INSTALL
L I
F
3ATIO
TRYOUT
1 1
RODUCTIOr
N TESTS
> 1
JSTAF
IT UP
[
J AS C
1 1
T
)NDJ
1 1
Figure 5-3.
General Motors Production Equipment Development
Schedule for Manifold-Mounted Oxidizing Catalytic
Converter (Compressed Schedule)
5-7
-------
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
oo
PRODUCT
ENGINEERING
GENERAL
TESTING
CAR
DIVISION
TESTS
PRODUCTION
ENGINEERING
FINALIZE
DESIGN
*
14 MONTHS DESIGN &
MODE AN
FAILURE
ALYSIS
LAB, SAMPLE SAND & DIE CAST PARTS TESTING 45 MONTHS
GENERAL DRIVING & EMISSIONS TESTING MO3N8THS
FIELD TEST & 18
DURABILITY MONTHS
CARB.. EVALUATION-COLD, „ ^nMT,,,-
ALTITUDE, DURABILITY JD MUNI Mi
INI
TIAL PROD
FULL
PROD
PROVIDE PROD TOOLS 1 FULL VOLUME 34 MONTHS
8,000/DAY 22 MONTHS | 20 MONTHS OVERALL
Figure 5-4. General Motors Ne\v Carburetor Lead Time
-------
This schedule shows a two-phase overlapping program covering the
1975/76 model years. The objective of General Motors is to be ready to
produce 8000 units per day of the new two-barrel design at the start of 1975
production. The balance of 1975 production will be revised versions of the
existing carburetor. This plan. General Motors emphasizes, is dependent
upon the success of the emission system now being developed to meet the
1975 federal emission standards. Release of long lead time facilities to
cover the production of the full volume of 30,000 new carburetors per day for
1976 will be started in mid-1973. This two-phase program takes 34 months
to complete. General Motors estimates that a 26-month lead time would be
required if the full volume of nearly 30,000 new carburetors were to be
introduced at the start of the 1975 model year. That time is no longer
available.
5. 1. 1.2 Major Impact Factors
Although to date General Motors has not demonstrated that its
emission control systems will meet the 1975 federal emission standards, it
is compelled to make commitments for equipment and components to meet
the 1975 production target date.
The component having a major impact on production lead time
is the catalytic converter. With regard to the under-floor catalytic converter,
General Motors recent decision to incorporate platinum-g roup metal in its pellet -
type system has further intensified the testing activity and delayed the attainment of
certain design milestones for this system. At the present time, this under-
floor system is still regarded as the prime system for 1975 production. Many
engineering commitments with respect to the container have been made; for
example, the AC Spark Plug Division has developed a set of hard dies, and
engineering has been accomplished for the automatic assembly equipment.
At the time of this investigation, the catalyst supplier had not been selected,
although General Motors indicated that a decision would be made very soon.
5-9
-------
Production equipment development for the catalyst cont.iiiu-r is
considered to be a major schedule impact factor. In mid-January 1972,
General Motors arrived at what it believes to be a satisfactory container
design (providing manufacturing difficulties did not occur). At the time of the
Suspension Request Hearings, General Motors indicated that the longest lead
time item <.>!' equipment for container production was the electron beam (E-B)
welders. General Motors feels that electron beam welding is the only
practical way to edge-weld the converter canister components to eliminate
leakage. The E-B welders used would be the largest machines available.
Figure 5-5 shows the lead times associated with various
production line equipment needed to produce the under-floor catalyst container,
The composite lead time of 104 weeks is dictated by the 104 weeks necessary
to obtain the six E-B welding machines required. The lead time necessary to
acquire the first welder is 74 weeks. Other line equipment requiring long
lead times (but less than the six welders) are the multi-spot-welder station,
rotary MIG welder, catalyst fill machine, leak test machine, and the
crimp machine. These items require approximately 80 weeks lead time.
With respect to the manifold mounted, or T-MECS, system,
General Motors is investigating an extruded monolithic converter. At the
present time, General Motors is proceeding with plans to build its own mono-
lithic converters. At the same time, it is still considering outside vendors.
Engineering has been completed on defining the assembly operations for the
monolithic converter. This includes making the ceramic substrate paste,
extruding this material, cutting the resulting cylinder, and applying the
platinum-group metal. The planned assembly line will have an automatic
reactants test for every converter to verify its conversion capability.
Regarding the status of the equipment for manufacturing the monolithic
catalysts, General Motors presently has a pilot-type, manually operated
extruding machine at the AC Spark Plug Division.
5-10
-------
COMPOSITE TIMES, WEEKS
to
to
UJ
8
a
a
5
UJ
cS
D
0
6
^
UJ
Q
6
z
a
to
UJ
Q
16
Q
_l
D
CO
34
%5
QO
Z >-
uj a:
> h-
10
a
I
to
3
_i
_i
<
2
10
h-
0
>-
c£
»-
u
<
3
8
cc
a
^
^
u.
11
_j
<
j-
5
\-
104
LINE EQUIPMENT
SPEC MULTI-SPOT WELDER (4)
DC PROJECTION WELDER
SPEC MULTI-SPOT WELDER |4)
SPEC MULTI-SPOT WELDER (2) STA
SPEC ROTARY MIG WELDER
SPEC ROTARY MIG WELDER
SPEC 2 HEAD MIG WELDER-CAM OP
SPEC 2 HEAD MIG WELDER-CAM OP
1ST MACHINE
TOTAL FOR 6 MACHINES
SPEC (2) HEAD ROTARY SIZING MACH
SPEC (2) HEAD MIG SPOT WELDER
SPEC ROTARY HEAD MIG WLDR-INLT
SPEC (2) HEAD MIG SPOT WELDER
SPEC ROTARY HD MIG WLDR-OUTLT
SPEC CATALYST FILL MACHINE
DRIVE FILL PLUG TO TORQUE LIMITS
LEAK TEST
MARKING MACHINE
SPEC CRIMP MACHINE
MIG SPOT WELDER - COVER 6 PLACES
SPEC MIGWLDR(2) ROTNG HDS-BRKT
WATER LEAK TEST STAND - SALVAGE
SPEC CRIMP MACHINE - (FILL HOLE)
6
7
6
4
3
3
8
8
2
2
7
7
8
7
8
5
8
4
8
4
6
6
8
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
6
5
4
4
8
8
5
5
7
7
8
7
8
5
8
5
8
5
6
6
8
7
6
6
6
10
5
6
6
6
16
16
8
6
4
6
4
12
5
10
6
10
8
8
4
8
34
26
34
42
54
54
24
24
24
54
24
28
24
28
24
38
19
42
22
42
36
36
20
24
3
2
3
4
2
2
2
2
6
6
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
4
1
4
2
3
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
3
1
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
3
1
3
2
3
1
2
68
59
68
80
81
81
63
63
74
104
60
62
58
62
58
78
51
81
55
81
70
75
51
62
Figure 5-5. General Motors Composite Times to Secure Equipment
(Under-Floor Catalytic Converter)
-------
Another item considered to be a schedule impact factor is the
improved carburetor. The Rochester Products Division of General Mo^-'i - i:
responsible for the fuel system and thus for the carburetor. This division is
presently working on a new design of both two-barrel and four-barrel versions.
General Motors plans to have revised versions of existing carburetors as well
as new-design carburetors for 1975. It plans initially to produce 8000 car-
buretors per day of the new design and to gradually phase this carburetor into
full production for 1976. Progress to date indicates that the long lead time
items are now being ordered and that the carburetor calibration systems are
to be ordered in November 1972. Additions to the plant at Rochester Products
are being made, and the plant is scheduled to be occupied in November 1972.
The EFE system (previously called a quick-heat intake manifold)
is a system which accelerates the evaporation of fuel during engine warmup to
reduce exhaust emissions during the first 120 seconds of the Federal test
cycle. This will involve the redesign of engine components to accommodate
the concept. The development of this concept and its attendant engine com-
ponent modifications is in process. General Motors emphasi/.ed that only
limited running of the complete system has been accomplished, and that much
more data must be accumulated on various engine and car combinations in
order to arrive at the system to be incorporated into production. Tooling
commitments do not appear to be critical at this time.based on its early
successful development.
5. 1. 1.3 Critical Lead Time Items
The principal critical lead time element in the Grnoral Motors
production program concerns the manufacture of the catalytic converter
system. For the under-floor catalytic converter, the longest lead time item
is the E-B welder. General Motors called attention to this welder as a
possible source of schedule delay on the basis of lack of experience with this
equipment in this particular application. Good corrosion-resistant steel for
the catalyst container has been developed but General Motors has had no
production experience with the material with respect to its capability to form
into needed shapes, or its weldability.
5-12
-------
The basic structure of the catalyst container consists of upper
and lower shell halves that are stamped out of sheet metal. The container for
the pellets consists of two perforated plates inserted between the two halves.
Attached to the container are sleeves used to fill and remove pellets plus
inlet, exit, and bypass sleeves. The manufacturing process starts with
assembly and welding of the lower shell and fill bushing. This is followed
by assembly of the upper shell. After this operation, the pellet container
plates are spot welded to their respective container halves and the complete
container is then ready for welding. The outer flange will use E-B welding by
the somewhat unconventional ambient air welding method. The E-B welding
operation is performed in a lead-lined enclosure to safeguard workers from
x-rays generated by the ultra-high voltage E-B gun. Following welding, the
pellet-type catalysts are inserted into the container by a catalyst fill machine.
General Motors has actually started design and has placed orders
for some of the long lead time items of equipment for canister production.
The Hamilton Standard Division of United Aircraft Corporation manufactures
the E-B welding equipment and has recently delivered the first prototype E-B
welder to AC Spark Plug for equipment evaluation and development and train-
ing of personnel.
Specific critical items were not delineated by General Motors
for the T-MECS system; however, since this system has had less development
time than the underfloor catalyst system, it should be identified as a critical
lead time item. A start has been made in placing purchase orders for long
lead time production items for this system. Monolithic catalysts have been
manufactured at AC Spark Plug on a pilot plant basis, but not with automatic
assembly equipment.
The vendors' lead times for the carburetor, electronic ignition,
and EFE systems are not critical. For those systems, General Motors
lead time for capital equipment procurement and the time required for
adequate field testing exceed any of the vendor lead time requirements. With
respect to the unitized ignition system, General Motors indicated that its own
production equipment development was approximately on schedule. As
5-13
-------
mentioned before, the EFE system is not a critical item. General MoLoib is
fully committed to the carburetor programs, and plant and capital equipment
commitments have been made. The carburetor does not depend on which of
the two catalytic converter systems is to be selected.
5.1.1.4 Prototype Test Programs
According to General Motors, a total of 380 catalytic converter
systems had been built and tested during the 2 years preceding the April 1972
EPA Suspension Request Hearings. Emission test results from 50 low
mileage experimental systems were included in the General Motors submis-
sion. These encompass tests on a variety of catalytic converter types and
makes, including platinum-group metal monolithic and base and/or platinum-
group metal pellet designs. No success has been experienced to date with
respect to demonstrating 50, 000 miles durability.
General Motors test program for EPA certification involves a
minimum of 13 durability test cars. This phase of its certification test
program is scheduled to begin in November 1973. In addition to the certifica-
tion test fleet, General Motors will pretest 13 similar vehicles to verify
emissions and durability. A concurrent test program will check out the cars
from the standpoint of driveability, fuel consumption, safety, mechanical
durability, etc. , under customer driving and variable weather conditions.
This will be done on its own proving ground. Because of the large number of
models, engines, and transmission options provided, the test program will be
designed on a statistical basis to verify satisfactory performance and operation
over the broad spectrum of hardware combinations. The number of cars to be
tested in this program has not yet been determined.
In addition to the above, General Motors is operating a baseline
test fleet to determine the durability of the catalytic converter canister.
Additional insight into its prototype test programs can be gleaned from the
information supplied by General Motors with respect to the new carburetor pro-
gram. In this regard, road tests started in May of 1971 on features and ideas
for perfecting general vehicle driveability in concert with low emissions. This
effort encompasses a 38-month detailed program which includes a time
5-14
-------
allowance for cold, hot, and altitude testing. General Motors plans to make
a final evaluation at altitudes in the Colorado area. This effort was carried
out under the complete control of Rochester Products, its design-responsible
division. Further field tests for long range durability are planned by
Rochester Products for the summer of 1973.
In addition to the tests described above, the respective car
divisions will conduct tests which are required to perfect or demonstrate the
individual carburetor models projected for use in 1975 cars. A total of
75 models are anticipated, each of which must be tailored for maximum per-
formance and minimum emissions. A 35-month carburetor evaluation
program will be conducted by the car divisions to evaluate the different
carburetor models to be used. As an example of the extent of this program,
General Motors cited that in the current two-barrel carburetor test program
a total of 95 samples are now undergoing testing: 47 at the car divisions and
48 at Rochester Products. Of the Rochester Products units, 5 are on the
engines of vehicles, 39 are undergoing laboratory testing, 2 are at the
Milford proving grounds, and 2 are at the Phoenix and/or Denver proving
grounds. For the new four-barrel carburetor, a total of 85 samples are
in test: 25 at the car divisions and 60 at Rochester Products. Out of these
60, 3 are on engines and vehicles, 50 are undergoing laboratory tests, 5 are
at Milford, and 2 are at Phoenix or Denver.
Prototype testing and final hardware definition must be
completed by November 1973 in preparation for the start of durability testing
for EPA certification.
5. 1. 1.5 Schedule Compression
General Motors refers to the production development schedules
for its catalytic converter systems (Figures 5-2 and 5-3) as "compressed"
schedules. The basis for the use of this terminology may be explained by
referring to Figure 5-6, taken from the General Motors suspension request
documentation.
5-15
-------
1971
1972
J A SO NDJ F
I
H-4-
1973
JA S ON DJ FMAMJ J A S
I I I I I l I I l I I I 1 I I I l
1974
1975
MAMJ J AS
1 i
HARD DIES
PROCESS DEVELOPMENT
PROTOTYPE EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT
PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT
^y/v//rt///.
PROCESS
I
QUOTE
ORDER
1
DESIGN
BUILD
VENDOR TRYOUT
s^
SHIP
:U
INSTALL
TRYOUT
FULL PRODUCTION
I I
v////////////////////////,
PROCESS
QUOTE —
ORDER_
DESIGN
BUILD _
SHIP
INSTALL
VENDOR TRYOUT.
DIV. TRYOUT
Figure 5-6. General Motors Process Development and Manufacturing
Time Table for Under-Floor Oxidizing Catalytic
Converter ("Normal" Schedule)
5-16
-------
Figure 5-6 displays the overall process steps and activities
involved in getting the under-floor catalytic converter into production. This
schedule represents near-normal timing for the introduction of a new device
to production, except that the Production Equipment Development phase,
shown as a 24-month duration, reflects the application of a strong overtime
effort. The "normality" of the schedule is primarily characterized by the fact
that the Production Equipment Development phase is launched after the proto-
type assembly line Build activity is well under way and satisfactory operation
of some of the equipment has been verified. At this point, the Process activity
commences, shown in Figure 5-6 at the April 1973 date. This normal
sequence of events, it will be noted, carries the setup of production line equip-
ment out to April of 1975, well past the 1975 model year (Vehicle Job No. 1)
production target date.
To meet the 1975 ~iodel deadlines, General Motors is now
targeted to the schedules displayed in Figures 5-2 and 5-3. Figure 5-2, the
schedule for the under-floor catalytic converter, is a "compressed" version
of the normal schedule discussed above, showing only the Production Equip-
ment Development phase. It will be noted that the Process activity in this
schedule is initiated in August 1972 compared with April 1973 in the normal
schedule. Other activities are similarly advanced; for example, the Build
activity moves from August 1973 in the normal schedule to January 1973 in
the compressed schedule.
In reference to the compressed schedule timing, General Motors
has stated that this is the worst possible way to set up for production, noting
that (a) tool suppliers have to begin fabrication about 6 months before prototype
equipment build is complete and, (b) much of the production line has to be
built and installed before the full prototype line is tested. This approach is
accompanied by high risks, involving the possibility of having to redesign and
rebuild the assembly equipment. Further, General Motors states that the
accelerated schedule calls for considerable overtime work for itself and its
suppliers and demands compromises allowing less automation and requiring
higher labor input. Because of these conditions, the canister will cost more
5-17
-------
than one designed and built in a normal manner. Generator Motors further
emphasized that commitments had to be met for the production equipment,
even though there was no assurance from the results of its development tests
that the emission standards could be met.
5.1.2 Major Elements in the Schedule
5. 1. 2. 1 Major Elements for the Catalytic Converter
The major elements of General Motors production schedule will
be discussed with explicit reference to those systems having a major impact
on production lead time. As discussed earlier, one of these systems is the
catalytic converter.
After an intensive design development and selection program,
General Motors arrived at what it believed to be a satisfactory (under-floor)
catalytic converter design in mid-January 1972. At this point, the proper
manufacturing method had to be selected. General Motors has defined
certain steps which must be followed in order to get into production with a
new device involving new materials and new assembly techniques. These steps
include the firming up of the design of the product, the building of sample
parts on preliminary dies, the development of the process for assembling these
parts on mockup assembly equipment, the design and build of prototype
production equipment based on what is learned from the mockups, and opera-
tion of the prototype assembly line to make sure that the job will be accom-
plished properly. In a system such as the catalytic converter canister assem-
bly, this sequence is planned to take about 26 months of continuous effort, even
on an overtime basis. When the last phase of this process development, the
prototype equipment development stage, is far enough under way to permit
decisions on the design of the final production equipment, these designs are
incorporated in a set of process equipment specifications. This point then
defines the start of activities referred to by General Motors as production
equipment development. In Figure 5-2, this date is August 1972.
5-18
-------
below.
The major steps involved in General Motors production
equipment development phase, from product release to production, are as
follows:
a. Process
b. Quote by vendor
c. Order
d. Design
e. Build
f. Vendor tryout
g. Ship
h. Install and try out
i. Full tryout for production startup
The details of the activities within each major step are delineated
a. Process
Prepare manufacturing and process specifications
1. Describe the sequence of operations.
2. Establish the process to be used for each operation.
3. Describe the work to be done.
4. Identify the type of equipment to be used.
5. Identify the tools to be used.
6. Identify the inspection equipment to be used.
7. Identify the gauges to be used.
Prepare requests for quotation.
1. Describe the operation to be performed.
2. Describe the engineering concept to be used.
3. Specify the equipment cycle time.
4. Specify standards for drives and motors, electrical,
hydraulic, pneumatic, lubrication, safety, noise, etc.
5. Describe the method for loading parts -- manual, semi-
automatic, or automatic.
6. Describe the inspection stations required.
5-19
-------
3. Order long lead items.
4. Complete machine layouts.
5. Review with AC Spark Plug for design approval.
6. Complete design of tooling, hoppers, and feeders.
7. Review with AC Spark Plug for build approval.
8. Order all materials and release to floor for build.
Build
1. Obtain materials and build details.
2. Complete all electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic, and
control drawings.
3. Review with AC Spark Plug for approval.
4. Obtain materials and build controls.
5. Obtain production parts for fit-up of tooling.
6. Check purchased components and assemble.
7. Install controls and wire and pipe.
f. Vendor Tryout
1. Cycle machine for function.
2. Single index parts through machine.
3. Make necessary changes.
4. Automatic cycle machine.
5. Make necessary changes in machines, tools,
controls, feeders, and hoppers.
6. Make sample run.
7. Make any further changes necessary.
8. Make sample production run.
g. Ship
1. Receive AC Spark Plug approval.
2. Dismantle.
3. Ship to AC Spark Plug.
4. Reassemble at AC Spark Plug.
5-21
-------
h. Install and Try Out
1. Locate in place and provide necessary utilities.
2. Cycle machine for function.
3. Integrate with material handling equipment.
4. Cycle material handling equipment for function.
5. Single index machine and material handling equipment.
6. Make necessary changes to machinery and material
handling equipment.
7. Automatic cycle machinery and handling equipment.
8. Make necessary changes.
i. Full Tryout for Production Startup
1. Run all equipment as a complete line.
2. Make necessary changes and improvements necessary
to meet production schedules.
Significant schedule milestones for the major steps described
above are as follows (see also Figures 5-2 and 5-3):
Production Equipment Developmement Phase Start: August 1, 1972
Build Phase: December 1972 to March 1974 (under-floor)
November 1972 to May 1974 (manifold-mounted)
Installation Phase: July 1973 to May 1974 (under-floor)
June 1973 to June 1974 (manifold-mounted)
Production Startup Phase: mid-June 1974 to July 1, 1974
5.1.2.2 Carburetor Program
The major elements of the new carburetor program are shown
in Figure 5-4. These elements are discussed in the following paragraphs.
5.1.2.2.1. Product Engineering - Design and Failure Mode Analysis
This element has a total duration of 14 months, commencing in
early 1971. A 2-month design feasibility study is performed; consisting of
surveys and laboratory tests to indicate whether preliminary design ideas are
practical and producible. Further work is then undertaken to provide individual
test samples and develop failure mode and effect analysis for all the features
5-22
-------
that are anticipated to be incorporated into the new product. More work,
extending beyond the finalized design date (not shown in Figure 5-4), 'must
take place to coordinate the specification changes and refinements which
evolve from continued testing.
5. 1. 2. 2. 2 Testing - Lab Sample and Die Cast Parts Testing
This element has a total duration of 45 months, commencing about
July 1971. Initial tests were conducted with model shop samples. Complete
sand-cast carburetors were fabricated starting in November 1971, and in
May 1972 die-cast sample carburetors were available for test and evaluation.
In March 1973, durability carburetors will be built to prove out the carbu-
retor in its entirety.
5.1.2.2.3 Testing - General Driving and Emissions Testing
This element involves road testing of the carburetor designs
and has a duration of 38 months. General Motors has been road testing since
May 1971. A time allowance for cold, hot, and altitude testing is included in
the test timing plan.
5.1.2.2.4 Testing - Field Test and Durability
Field tests of die-cast carburetors for long-range durability
will take place in the summer of 1973 and continue throughout 1974.
5.1.2.2.5 Car Division Tests
The car divisions started receiving sand-cast carburetors in
February 1972 and first die-cast samples in July 1972 to start their carburetor
general evaluation through the winter and spring of 1973. Summer testing and
altitude evaluation will be done in the summer of 1973, with general evaluations
continuing through the winter of 1973. Testing of production samples will start
early in 1974 and will continue throughout the year.
5.1.2.2.6 Production Engineering
The lead times for production engineering shown in Figure 5-4
are for a two-phase, overlapping program covering the 1975/76 model years.
5-23
-------
Work on the design, specification, and ordering of long lead time tooling and
equipment began in the spring of 1972 and was continuing at the tiine of this
report. General Motors has structured its carburetor program to produce
8000 units per day of the new two-barrel design at the start of 1975 production
(milestone in Figure 5-4 identified as initial production). The production
engineering lead time for this program is 22 months. An overall time of 34
months is required to get into full production of 30, 000 new carburetors per
day for 1976.
5.1.2.3 Functional Flow Chart for the New
Two-Barrel Throttle Body
Figure 5-7 shows a functional flow chart for the new two-
barrel carburetor throttle body. Similar charts exist for other parts of
the two-barrel carburetor. Figure 5-7 depicts the inter-relationships
for all of the pieces of tooling and equipment that will be required for
throttle body manufacture. These are die casting molds, in-line trans-
fer conveyors for machining, assembly conveyors, subassembly dials
and fixtures, punch presses, and functional test conveyors.
For purposes of presentation, General Motors has shown all
purchase orders starting at the same time. In reality, orders are staggered
in such a way that parts flow is in logical sequence with the completion of
equipment construction. Thus, total lead time is more than the 64 weeks
shown here for test conveyors alone.
The chart allocates a given amount of time for each procedure
required to obtain the tooling or equipment. These generally include specifi-
cation and ordering, design and building, vendor tryout and debug, shipping,
installation, and debugging at Rochester Products prior to full volume
production.
5. 1. 3 Company/Vendor Schedule Consistency
With respect to the catalytic converter, General Motors pro-
duction development schedule for either of its catalytic converter concepts
5-24
-------
ro
'Jl
DIE CAST
MOLDS
ORDER
moldT~molcTT"~mold
DESIGN. BUILD & SHIP } \ 2 _\ 3 44 WEEKS
INLINE MACH. ORDER
DESIGN; BUILD & SHIP
DEBUG INST 58 WEEKS
ASSEMBLY
CONVEYER
SUB-ASSEMBLY
DIALS & FIXTURES
PUNCH PRESS ORDER
DESIGN. BUILD & SHIP
DESIGN. BUILD & SHIP
DESIGN. BUILD & SHIP
54 WEEKS
CONCEPT
QUOTE
DESIGN. BUILD & SHIP
DEB
INST 64 WEEKS
FUNCTION TEST
CONVEYER
jfj^- PARTS FLOW
Figure 5-7. General Motors Apache Two-Barrel Throttle Body Integrated Lead Time
-------
shows no inconsistency with information received from the catalyst manu-
facturers. It is noted that a number of the major decision and commitment
deadlines regarding catalyst supply had not been met at the time of the visits,
and thus some of the early milestones shown in General Motors catalytic
converter production schedule would have to be further compressed in order
to meet the 1975 production target date. However, based on information
obtained from catalyst manufacturers (see Section 6), the production lead
time allowance for catalyst plant development probably can be compressed.
The lead time cited by GM for one electron beam welder is
74 weeks. If 9 weeks are subtracted for process and quote times,this leaves
65 weeks from time of order to full production. This checks well with the
52-78 weeks shown in Section 8. 3 for a special automated welder plus tooling.
5.1.4 Current and Pending Contractual Agreements
General Motors has $630,000 committed to W. R. Grace for
the preliminary design of production line facilities for both monolithic and
pellet catalyst plants. No other catalyst-related commitments are known to
exist at this time, although preliminary contract negotiations with nine poten-
tial oxidation catalyst suppliers are underway.
The platinum-group metal for the catalysts would be obtained
from a metal supplier. General Motors is negotiating with a number of
platinum-group metal mining companies in South Africa and with the Soviet
Union. At the time this report was written, it had made only one new con-
tractual arrangement. This is a contract with Impala Platinum, Ltd. , of
Johannesburg, South Africa to develop the production capacity to supply
General Motors with 300, 000 ounces of platinum and 120, 000 ounces of
palladium per year. Although the Impala Platinum effort right now is in the
planning phase, negotiations are in process concerning price, quantity, and
delivery schedule. General Motors considers the contract as a statement of
its intent to buy the quantities cited. General Motors has contacted other
potential suppliers but to date has signed only with Impala Platinum.
5-26
-------
General Motors has placed a priority on this issue and a
number of decisions are expected to be made very soon such as the actual
amount of platinum-group metal to be required each year. Its requirements
are fully dependent on the results of current road tests on a cross-section of
vehicles with different catalyst loadings of platinum-group metals (0. 025
ounce to slightly above 0. 1 ounce). Many cars have accumulated 20, 000 to
25, 000 miles, but the relative deterioration factors must be fully assessed
before the requirements can be determined. Also, General Motors require-
ments must be linked with industry capacity to see if new mines must be
opened. An additional consideration is the ability and time required for
mining companies to increase current stockpiles of materials.
5. 2 FORD MOTOR COMPANY
5.2.1 Overall Schedule
5.2. 1. 1 Production Schedule
An overall schedule depicting Ford's 1975 model year produc-
tion development program is shown in Figure 5-8. This schedule combines
elements of Ford's timing plans for the vehicle and the engine/emission
system, based on schedules and other information provided in its submittal
to the April 1972 Suspension Request Hearings and in Ref. 5-1. Key mile-
stones taken from these sources and incorporated in Figure 5-8 are briefly
described in the following paragraphs.
Typically, the formal manufacturing program for a given
model year car begins with the definition of an overall vehicle package
plan 43 months prior to first production. First production usually is
targeted for early July to mid-August of the calendar year preceding the
model year designation, or at Milestone J in Figure 5-8. This fixes
Milestone A, the start date for 1975 model year production development,
at January 1971.
As is the case for nearly all emission systems projected
for use in 1975 vehicles, Ford's emission package includes an oxidizing
catalytic converter. Milestone B (May 1971) represents Ford's initial
5-27
-------
1971
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
5
0
N
D
1972
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
5
0
N| D
1973
J
F|M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
1974
J
F
M
A
M
j| J
B
H
oo
I
I
I
40
35
30 25 20 15
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
10
A - INITIATE CAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN
B - FIRST COMMITMENT TO ENGELHARD
C - START 50,000 MILE DURABILITY TESTS
D - CAR PROGRAM APPROVAL
E - COMMITMENT TO ENGELHARD MAIN PLANT/ORDER
PRODUCTION TOOLING AND EQUIPMENT
F - START TOOL SET-UP AND TRYOUT
G - START CERTIFICATION TESTING
H - COMPLETE TOOL SET-UP AND TRYOUT
I - DELIVER/FABRICATE PRODUCTION SAMPLES
J - VEHICLE JOB No. 1
Figure 5-8. Ford Overall Schedule: 1975 Vehicle and Emission Engine Program
-------
commitment to Engelhard covering the development of pilot plant facilities
for the production of catalytic converters.
Milestone C (February 1972) identifies the start of Ford's
50, 000 mile (Riverside, California) durability test program to evaluate
alternate emission control systems. This test program, which is still
in progress, will be discussed in greater detail later.
Twenty-eight months prior to Vehicle Job No. 1, at Mile-
stone D (April 1972), the car manufacturing development program started at
43 months is given a final review by Ford management, and approval is issued
to proceed with manufacturing development. The program approval point
usually signals the beginning of large-scale capital equipment and tooling pro-
curement operations, and is therefore frequently identified with the production
lead time requirement, even though some initial capital commitments (for
example, Ford's Milestone B) may already have taken place. Ford's 1975
car line programs have been approved on this schedule, even though some car
systems are still in the prototype testing phase (catalytic converter emission
control systems, for example).
By August, 1972, Milestone E, firm designs for engine and
emission systems have been established that form the basis for ordering pro-
duction tooling and equipment. Milestone E also represents the approval point
for the vehicle body design based on the base clay model. Additionally,
Milestone E delineates Ford's commitment to Engelhard Industries covering
initial construction expenditures for Engelhard's Plant No. 2 or main facility
for catalytic converter production operations.
Milestone F (April 1973) identifies the start of major equipment
installation on the Ford assembly line. Completion of this operation is
scheduled for February 1974, Milestone H.
Milestone G (October 1973) is Ford's target date for starting
EPA certification testing.
At Milestone I (April 1974), the last sample part fabrication
made to engineering design on the newly acquired and installed equipment is
5-29
-------
completed. Production samples are then checked for functional fit and per-
formance. Engine production is initiated about 1 month prior to vehicle pro-
duction, which begins at Milestone J (August 1974).
5.2.1.2 Major Impact Factors
The factors that have major impact on the Ford production
schedule can be divided into two categories: (1) production development
operations that are common to the manufacture of any model year car line,
and (2) 1975-peculiar, emission system-related items.
Factors that appear to be common to any model year car pro-
gram include most of the production engineering design, equipment and parts
procurement, and assembly line development activities that take place follow-
ing the car program approval milestone. These activities involve the develop-
ment of process specifications, the evaluation of vendor quotes, vendor
selection, equipment/tooling design, and equipment construction, installation,
and tryout. An example of an important impact factor in this category would be
the lead time required for the procurement and installation of transfer lines,
a major assembly line equipment item.
In general, a normal Ford production development program
for the complete automobile involves 8 months of production engineering over-
lapping with 24 months for facilities, equipment, tools, and production
proveout. Ford's 1975 production schedule appears to be based on such a
normal timing sequence. According to Ford, the 28-month production devel-
opment lead time allowance for its 1975 car line program is a historically
established guideline that provides sufficient time for sound production
planning as well as sufficient leeway for the resolution of unpredictable
problems that arise in developing the manufacturing process.
With regard to 1975-emission-control-related impact factors,
Ford, like other manufacturers, is proceeding with production development
based on the use of a catalytic converter emission control system design
that is presently unproven with respect to 1975 performance requirements.
Program approvals for the 1975 car lines were issued (April 1972) when the
5-30
-------
Riverside durability test program had recently been started, and catalytic
converter emission system road performance and durability characteristics
were largely unknown for the specific designs in test. Normally, a develop-
ment engineering program culminating in a successful invention would pre-
cede the approval milestone event. The Riverside tests are continuing, but,
according to Ford, show little promise of meeting the 1975 emission goals.
Ford regards its unilateral decision to proceed with catalytic
converter development and production as a "high risk" step that might ulti-
mately be highly disadvantageous financially and schedule-wise if EPA elects
to issue interim 1975 standards that might also be met by other control
devices such as full-size thermal reactors. According to Ford, the choice
of systems could have a serious impact on the engine compartment packaging
design, which is usually fixed at 37 months prior to Vehicle Job No. 1.
According to Ford, this design milestone is critical because changes in the
compartment geometry can progressively impact the entire body structure,
starting with the engine cowl and proceeding to the "A" pillars flanking the
windshield, the door supports, the overhang, etc. Furthermore, the time is
now past the critical point for ordering arc and holding furnaces for foundry
operations involved in the manufacture of full-size thermal reactor manifolds
for the 1975 model year.
Characteristically high operating and exhaust temperatures
associated with catalytic converter operation has led Ford to consider an
extensively shielded exhaust system of stainless steel materials. As much as
75 pounds of stainless steel per car may be required, and Ford is concerned
about the available supply. Potential suppliers such as International Nickel
Company, Inc. have been pressing Ford for estimates of its future require-
ments, but Ford is unable to provide a forecast of its needs on the basis of
prototype testing conducted to date. Stainless steel procurement and its
associated vendor lead time requirement may be another Ford schedule
impact factor.
5-31
-------
5.2.1.3 Critical Lead Time Items
In common with other automobile manufacturers, Ford's
critical (pacing) element of lead time concerns the catalytic converter emission
control device. The present Riverside test evidence pointing to deficiencies in
emission control performance and durability is one factor, already mentioned,
that may ultimately stretch out the Ford production schedule by demanding addi-
tional development and testing before a final production catalyst design is identi-
fied. Aside from this, the controlling item in the Ford schedule is the develop-
ment of vendor facilities for mass producing catalytic converter hardware.
The critical technical aspect of catalytic converter production
.-.ippears to be the development of a new mass production technology covering
the design, fabrication, and checkout of equipment required for the substrate
coating operations, particularly the application of the platinum-group metal
catalyst. Only limited-volume batch coating know-how presently exists. In
consideration of this problem, Ford entered into an agreement with Engelhard
Minerals and Chemical Corporation to underwrite a significant part of the
costs for developing a pilot plant facility that could be used to develop the
needed technology. Pilot plant equipment procurement was made in March
1972. Using the latter date as a reference, Ford's production schedule
(Figure 5-8), calling for the last delivery of production samples at Milestone H
(April 1974), would provide about 24 months lead time for developing the
mass production processes and associated facilities for catalyzing operations,
including the construction, startup and checkout of the Plant No. 2 main
production facility. According to Ford, the available time may be only
marginally sufficient.
5.2.1.4 Prototype Test Programs
The production development plan incorporates a number of
vehicle prototype test programs, the results of which can impact the overall
car development schedule at several different levels of significance. These
programs include emission system prototype durability tests, mechanical
prototype car tests, engineering prototype car tests, and EPA certification
tests.
5-32
-------
Ford's prototype emission system durability tests were initiated
on February 1, 1972. This is a two-phase program utilizing 44 vehicles: 32
vehicles are being tested at Riverside, California and 12 vehicles at Dearborn,
Michigan. Phase I is a 50,000-mile durability study to determine system/
component deterioration factors. Phase II will determine 4000-mile emission
levels, which, in conjunction with the deterioration factors from Phase I, will
be used to project certification emission capabilities of the candidate emission
systems under test.
Vehicles used for this test program are production 1972 vehicles
modified to include the appropriate exhaust system for use with reactor manifolds
and/or oxidizing catalytic converters (Engelhard PTX platinum-group metal
monolithic type). Additionally, the test vehicles are equipped with secondary
air injection, breakerless ignitio^, advanced carburetors, and exhaust gas
recirculation. There are several emission system component combinations
undergoing evaluation: Group I vehicles are equipped with a single catalytic
converter; Group II vehicles are equipped with thermal (manifold) reactors
and two catalytic converters in series; Group III vehicles are equipped with
two converters in series without the thermal reactors. A Group IV vehicle
set is equipped with a second generation version of the basic Group I system.
Of the'systems described above, Ford favors the single catalytic
converter without reactors on the basis that it has a minimum impact on front
end packaging and controls emission about as well as any of the other systems
at substantially less cost. At mid-year, the possibilities for further per-
formance improvement of this system looked good, and testing is planned to
be continued through November or December. However, results accumulated
as of mid-Sept ember indicate that the 1975 standards are not attainable.
In addition, a substrate cracking problem in the Group IV vehicles has been
observed.
With regard to production scheduling, the timing of the prototype
emission system durability test is, in Ford's opinion (shared by other auto-
mobile manufacturers), highly extraordinary in that it penetrates well into the
5-33
-------
production development phase: of the manufacturing schedule and provides no
assurance of yielding a satisfactory design. In normal practice, an advanced
engineering development program would have been conducted, a suitable
invention would have been created, and the newly invented system would then
be turned over to production engineering for refinement and modification into
a production design version. This event would have occurred at a point
possibly 4 months prior to the program approval milestone. Under present
conditions, Ford's options in the event that the Group I system fails to meet the
1975 emission standards are (1) to postpone the 1975 production target date
in ordor to allow additional time for emission system development, or (2) to
re-petition for a suspension of the 1975 standards.
Mechanical and engineering prototype tests are common to
nearly all automotive manufacturing development programs. First mechanical
prototype car build appears in the Ford schedule at July 1972 (Figure 5-9)
about 24 months before Vehicle Job No. 1. The mechanical prototype vehicle
is representative of the final car product in the floor pan, chassis, and dash
panel areas. It represents the first time all subsystems are operated together
to test interactions between working components. Mechanical prototype tests
include hot weather, altitude, performance, economy, cooling, and durability
road tests, as well as cold weather and octane laboratory tests. Preliminary
design parts and systems are periodically replaced by later designs, and refine-
ments are made until the mechanical prototype systems reach a production
design level. Normally, major changes in system design are not required, and
unplanned impacts on the production schedule are usually minor. Ford
schedules the mechanical fit and function signoff (approval) in June 19730
Engineering prototype tests are conducted about 13 months prior
to Vehicle Job No. 1. The engineering prototype is totally representative of
the final car product in all areas, and is used to structurally test body sheet
metal, to continue the test and development of mechanical features, and to
generally prove out all of the car systems in a duty cycle designed to encompass
all of the conditions encountered in customer driving service. The test con-
ditions include rough road operation, city traffic, hot and cold weather tests,
5-34
-------
^ 1970
MONTHS PRIOR
10 FIRS!
PRODUC1ION Wt
N D
45 44
1971
j
1?
*» «/
F
42
M a
41 UO
MI J
39)38
J
37
A
36
S
35
0
34
N
33
D
32
1972
j
31
F
30
M | A
?s(S
M J J
)27|?6
J
25
A
24
S
23
0
22
N
21
D
20
1973
j
19
F
IB
M
17
A
16
M
15
J
14
J
13
A
12
S
II
0
10
N
9
0
8
1974
j
7
F
6
M
5
A
4
M
3
J
2
J
1
INITIATE DETAILED CAR
DEVELOPMENT PLAN (DIMENSIONS.
EQUIPMENT, BUDGET. ETC )
PROGRAM
APPROVAL
4- J
APPROVE
INSTRUMENT PANEL CLAY
APPROVE BASE
CLAY MODEL
6-1
PRODUCT PLANNING
UJ
U1
DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL
OF CAR SYSTEMS
• DRIVELINE
• CHASSIS
• BODY STRUCTURE
• SEATING PACKAGE
• INSTRUMENT PANEL
• TRUNK 8 EXTERIOR
DIMENSIONS
ADVANCED ENGINEERING
FINALIZE EXTERIOR SHEET
METAL 8 INSTRUMENT
PANEL APPEARANCE
10-1
DESIGN CENTER
BUILO FIRST
MECHANICAL
PROTOTYPE CAR
7-14
T
COMPLETION OF
PRODUCTION ENGINEERING
CHIEF
ENGINEERS
REVIEW
CONCURRENCE
IN FINAL
PROGRAM
J-l
T
PRODUCTION
SAMPLES
DELIVERED
4-15
BASIC MANUFACTURING DIVISIONS
AUTOMOTIVE ASSEMBLY DIVISION
)
Figure 5-9. Ford 1975 Car Line Program
-------
and high altitude road tests, some of which are run at the Michigan Proving
Ground, the Arizona Proving Ground, and Pike's Peak, Colorado. These tests
constitute a much more severe evaluation of the emission control system than
the EPA certification durability test. The Ford schedule calls for completion
of engineering prototype durability testing in March 1974.
Ford will submit required data for EPA certification tests,
including vehicle and emission system descriptions and projected sales data,
along with sample hardware to EPA for their approval to start final durability
and certification tests in October 1973 (Milestone G, Figure 5-8).
Practically speaking, the rate of mileage accumulation in the
durability certification test process is limited (400 or less miles per day,
average). Therefore, Ford has scheduled a total of 5-1/2 months for the
durability (50, 000 mile) phase of the test program (regarded as a minimum
allowance) and, on this basis, plans to complete this phase on April 1, 1974.
Tests of the emission data (4000 mile) vehicle fleet are scheduled to start in
March 1974. Ford has stated that this schedule requires the concurrent
(overlapping) testing of the emission data and durability data vehicles, and
provides no allowance for re-engineering of systems in event that durability
deterioration factors are worse than projected.
5. 2. 1. 5 Schedule Compression
Figure 5-10 shows two versions of Ford's emission system
production development schedule. The schedule in the upper half of the figure,
designated "normal", was abandoned because of the failure of some components
encountered in an earlier experimental durability development test program.
This same plan, it may be noted, was once referred to as a "high risk" plan
(Ref. 5-1) on the basis that Ford had to start production engineering design
several months prior to the availability of a proven invention; that is, at the
milestone identified as "12-1, Preliminary Design Assumptions. " The lead
time indicated in this plan is measured from this milestone and is shown as
32 months.
5-36
-------
1970 1971
START FINISH
SYSTEM DIV8LOPMINT PRBLIk
DESIGN DUIGN PRODU
1-1 ».| OEilGk
. . ASSUM,
I9T2 I9T3 I'M
:TIOM / C.P.A. REPORT
TO CONGRESS
TIOW ^T-l'Tt
^/ SYSTEM DCSION | T >|
BUILD » 1 •- L
Li - i
>-\ «-i i '
START START TCST
BUILD TIST JSfJu,
ASSUM
INVALI
V 1
\- EXPERIMENTAL DEVELOPMENT
ES.
TIONS
D
19TS
NORMAL EMISSION
PROGRAM LEAD TIME
REQUIREMENT PLAN
THIS PLAN NOT ATTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT FAILED TO
MEET I9T5 FEDERAL EMISSION
STANDARD AND LAW REQUIRES
1975 MODEL APPLICATION OF
T PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY ENGINE REVISE SIGN-OFF FOR
DESIGN PROGRAM DESIGN CERTIFICATION
ASSUMPTIONS APPROVAL ASSUMPTIONS TESTING
12-1 4-1 e-l 6-15 RECEIVE E.P.A.
V T T T CERTIFICATION
^L
i
5-24 r— '
Itt COMMITMENT 12-1
AGREEMENT: PR E LIMN A
CNGELHARD DESIGN
AUUUPTIO
DEVELOPMENT
RIVERSIDE
(Colilornitj)
-TOGr , .»
II MING
PRODUCT
DEVELOPMENT
CROUP
MARCH ?2. 1?TZ
/
PRODUCTION ENGINEERING DESIGN & RELEASE *g '^"
^^ DURABILITY (CERTIFICATION TESTING 1 '
r-* «-, »i
t-IS 10-1 REQUEST E.P A.
RECEIVE REOUESJ RECEIVE CERTIFICATION
DESIGN ENGINE
ASSUMPTIONS JOB NO. 1
B-I r-t
» f
^/^ FACILITIES. COUIPUCNT, TOOLS 1. PRODUCTION |
Ztd COMMITMENT 7-1 10-1 ' I-IS 4-1 4-ls
MS COMMITMENT START MAIN 4 TRYOUT LAST "Mfltl
PLANT
I/
I/ FINAL E.P.A. RL .
f & 19T1 STANDARDS
N,.,-n
1 N
SIART COUPLEIE
SO.OOO MILE 4.000 MILE
A M.A. CERTIFICATION
DURABILITY TEST
J-l 6-IS
T T
_
1 ' 1
T I
SELECT PRIME
SYSTEM &
PRELIMINARY
PRODUCTION
DESIGN
ASSUMPTIONS
LAST ENGINEERING COMPLETE
START ORDER FIRST ADVANCE SIGN-OFF FOR FINAL ENGINE
DESIGNS HARDWARE PRINTS ^ 1 8-1 '2-'
3-1 7-1 1 t I . | 1 RECEIVE E.P.A
. T T ^ f | CERTIFICATION
1 PRODUCTION ENUINbcKiNO DESIGN & RELEASE | y
"*^^-— -^^ DURABILITY & CERTIFICATION TESTING | *
A A A A A A
11-1 i-i 4.15 r-1 T— i 4-1
BUILD TEST ?nd SERIES REQUEST RECEIVE CERTIFICATION
VEHICLES CERTIFICATION
TEST
ENGELHARD
ENGINE SEMI -WORKS ENGELHARD
PROGRAM PROVE OUT PRODUCTION ENGINE
APPROVAL START SAMPLES JOB No. 1
7-1 3-1 3-1 T-t
T T T T
r-> * *-, *i r-»«— .
lit COMMITMENT 3-15 FORD 10-1 Z-l «•! «-IS
A
/ \m MODEL
VEHICLE
\JOB No. 1
6-I-7A
PROGRAM LEAD TIME
REQUIREMENT "HIGH RISK"
PLAN
THIS PLAN. ADJUSTED TO
MEET PROVISIONS OF LAW.
PROVIDES HIGH RISK
ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT
ANO MINIMUM EVALUATION
OF DURABILITY-RELIABILITY
IT IS BASED ON:
(a) LACK OF FEASIBLE
REQUIRED
(cl CATALYST REQUIRED
/I
/ 1975 MODEL
f VEHICLE
, JOB No t
N
ENGELHARD MAIN PLANT DESIGN L si »*MKLLi
ORIENTED
MAIN PLANT
EQUIPMENT
! {
S 40 35
! i ! ! 1 1
30 25 20 15 10 5 0
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
Figure 5-10.
Ford 1975 Model Federal Emission Program and
Passenger Car Timing Plan
5-37
-------
The schedule in the lower half of Figure 5-10, designated as
"compressed" and "high risk", is Ford's current emission system timing plan.
This plan, it may be noted, is identical to the schedule submitted as Exhibit 4-8a
in the Ford suspension request submittal in April 1972, which was targeted to
the establishment of interim Federal standards requiring the use of catalytic
converters. The term "high risk" as used here refers to the lack, as of
March 22, 1972, of a feasible system or proven invention relative to Ford's
proposed interim standards and to the durability requirements specified by
the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970.
In the current Ford emission system production development
schedule, the lead time is measured from the Prime System Selection/
Preliminary Production milestone dated July 1, 1972, and is shown to be 25
months, compared with 32 months in the "normal" plan. The numbers
indicate a reduction of 7 months; hence the use of the term "compressed" in
the current schedule. Note, however, that all of the milestones pertaining to
facilities, equipment, tools, and production are unchanged between the
"normal" and "compressed" plans. In view of the fact that the facilities
requirement for catalytic converter production paces Ford's timing, it would
appear that the term "compressed" simply reflects a slip in the program start
or schedule reference point. This lead time reference point of 25 months for
the emission control system and engine occurs 3 months later than the
reference lead time (28 months) for the complete automobile.
According to Ford, they have had no previous experience appli-
cable to schedule compression for emission control systems and do not know
what a compression plan might cost. A case of schedule compression occurred
on their 1973 Ford/Mercury bumper development program. On this program,
Ford had to proceed with production development before National Highway
Traffic Safety Agency standards were officially released. Unexpected changes
in the regulations, when issued, caused design modifications that delayed
Clay Approval and Engineering Prototype Build by about 16 weeks. The points
of slippage occurred at about 23 and 13 months before Vehicle Job No. 1,
respectively. The cost of this slippage was quoted as 25 to 30 million dollars,
of which nearly half was due to major engineering changes in tooling.
5-38
-------
5. 2. 2 Major Schedule Elements
5. 2. 2. 1 Introduction
Details of the Ford schedule for 1975 model year production are
most conveniently presented in two major categories: (1) Ford's car line
program, and (2) Ford!s engine/emission system program. These schedules
are discussed in the following paragraphs.
5.2.2.2 Ford Car Line Program
The target date for production of the first vehicle off the
assembly line, Vehicle Job No. 1, varies among different Ford lines from
early July to mid-August. August 1 is used as a representative date. A
typical car line development program is shown in Figure 5-9.
The development ~f an overall package plan for a given car is
initiated 43 months prior to Vehicle Job No. 1. The initial phase of this
effort establishes the broad objectives for the product design, including per-
formance levels sought, overall size, styling goals, equipment to be included,
and cost.
At 40 months prior to Vehicle Job No. 1, the driveline selection
has been finalized and the chassis and hood dimensions are defined.
At 37 months, the body structure is finalized and the complement
of equipment to be packaged in the engine compartment is delineated. According
to Ford, this is an extremely critical milestone because possible changes in
the engine compartment geometry can progressively impact the entire body
structure.
At 33 months, preliminary designs for the instrument panel,
front compartment, and seating package are delineated. These designs are
finalized at 28 months. Also at 33 months, the design of a first mechanical
prototype vehicle begins (the mechanical prototype incorporates all of the
structural and chassis equipment aspects of the vehicle). All dimensions
needed to package the components for a working vehicle are defined.
The development initiated at 43 months continues through to
the 28-month milestone, with management reviewing and approving the
5-39
-------
selected designs for the various car systems (driveline, chassis, body
structure, etc. ) on a continuing basis. At 28 months, management makes a
final overall review of the program and issues approval to proceed with manu-
facturing development. As mentioned earlier, this is a key point in the
program, signaling management's decision to commit major program funds
to the continuation of the product development effort.
At 24 months, a final approval of the exterior car styling is
made (Base Clay Model Approval). Also at 24 months, production engineer-
ing design (order) of long lead parts and tools (nonengine) is started. Con-
currently, work starts on the acquisition of prototype parts for the assembly
of full engineering prototype vehicles. The first engineering prototype build
and test occurs at about 13 months (July 1, 1973). The prototype build and
test program continues, with car systems successively updated, until designs
at the production level are attained. Vehicle function and fit signoff is
scheduled in mid-February 1974, 5-1/2 months before Vehicle Job No. 1.
Production engineering design and drawing release continues
through mid-January 1974 (7 months) when the last drawing release is issued.
By April 1, 1974, all basic tools must be finished so that
sources can fabricate first samples from tools by that date. Ford concurrently
starts layout inspection and laboratory examination of these samples.
Production samples of all tooled parts are due at the Ford
Automotive Assembly Division by April 15, 1974. The samples are used to
check complete vehicles so that all tool-made parts are verified as to fit and
performance in a completely assembled car.
By July 15, 1974, vendors and parts suppliers have completed
their initial production runs and parts are made available in the Ford assembly
plants to start stocking the production line. Vehicle Job No. 1 commences
about August 1, 1974.
5. 2. 2. 3 Ford Emission Engine Program
Ford's latest Emission Engine Program is shown in Figure
5-10. To the milestones shown in this figure can be added several more
5-40
-------
details from Ref. 5-1 and Ford's submittal to the April 1972 Suspension
Request Hearings. These items, though not designated in Figure 5-10, are
incorporated in the description of the program given in the following
paragraphs.
The Riverside/Dearborn development tests initiated on
February 1, 1972 (30 months prior to Vehicle Job No. 1) will continue through
December 1972 and possibly longer. The selection of a prime system from
among the several emission control systems under test was projected for
mid-year (July 1, 1972), when the 4000-mile development prototype certifica-
tion tests were scheduled for completion. Additional information on vehicle
prototype testing and scheduling is shown in Figure 5-11.
Parallel design work on the various systems under test was
started on March 1, 1972; first series mechanical prototype hardware based
on the prime system selection wo\...l be ordered on July 1, 1972. Building
and testing of these prototypes was scheduled to commence on November 1,
1972 and January 1, 1973, respectively.
First Advanced Information (AI) prints refer to the initial pro-
duction design specifications leading to engineering prototype vehicle devel-
opment. Last AI prints would be issued on July 1, 1973 (13 months), which
corresponds to the Figure 5-9 milestone designated "Build First Engineering
Prototype Car."
Testing of a second series prototype design begins on
April 15, 1973 (16 months). The second series design will be equipped with
a catalytic converter produced by the Engelhard pilot line facility, and all
other new parts will be production prototype category. Prototype testing will
continue, with experimental and preliminary components periodically replaced
by refined designs. Preliminary engine/emission system/mechanical system
function and fit signoff has been scheduled for June 15, 1973 (not designated in
figure)^
August 1, 1973 (12 months) is the scheduled date for engineering
signoff for certification testing, fixing the hardware to be used for the 50,000
mile emission durability fleet. Fleet testing is scheduled to start in October
5-41
-------
ggj 4,OOO MILE CERTIFICATION DEVELOPMENT
IME SYSTEM SELECTION
1973
50 OOO MILE RIVERSIDE AMA DURABILITY TEST
O SERIES PROGRAM
ggg STUDY PRINTS j
ASSUMP; JOJ^PREL-FEASIBIUTY
! I
ADVANCE DECLARATION OF FEASIBILITY
I
BUILD DYNO TEST ENGINES
CALIBRATIONS
COMPONENT BENCH
DURABILITY
VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT -
i
r FUNCTION -
\. E Ml SSION
PROCURE HARDWARE f- BUILD CUSTOMER VEHICLE DURABILITY FLEET
•JP3--3I DURABILITY
: ND SERIES PROGRAM
WITH CATALYTIC
FROM PILOT L'NE EQUIPMENT
URE FOR P3-3I d. 10,000 AMA
•WW*^ • • W V • MTTW W W * • W WV* W • • • *
PROOUCTION PROGRAM
ALL PARTS FROM F*m3oUCTION TOOLJNG i
!
NEW MODfL PLANNING. TIMING,1 AND CONTROL QEPT.
CUSTOMER VEHICLE DURABILITY FLEET
1974
OLD WEATHER
DURABILITY
f CATALYTIC CONVERTER FROM PILOT LINE EQUIPMENT
J AN]D ALL OTHER NEW PARTS FROM PRODUCTION
|_ PROTOTYPE
BUILD ENGINES ». VEHICLES FOR VARIOUS TEST
-HOT WEATHER
CALIBRATION
COMPONENT BENCH
DURABILITY
i
LTITUDE
[CUSTOMER VEHICLE DURABILITY
tAND DEFINE HARDWARE FOR EMISSION DURABILITY
\ ORDER HARDWARE 50,000 MILE CERT FLEET
i*86 BUILD 50/000 MILE CERT FLEET '
SUBMIT PART I
CERTIFICATION HARDWARE ESF DIV-GPO,
: j !
2-29-72
3-16-72 REVISED
ORDER HARDWARE 4,000 MILE CERT FLEET
BUILD 4,000 MILE CERT FLEET
4,000 MILE CERT FLEET
SUBMIT PART II ClNCLUDING EPA
GOVERNMENT APPROVAL
8886$ ENGINE VALIDATION
MOCK LAUNCH
TEST
^ ENGINE JOB I
7-1-74
I
Figure 5-11. Engine/Emission Hardware Testing and Scheduling
-------
and will continue for about 6 months. EPA certification is anticipated on
June 1, 1974.
With regard to the facilities/tooling schedule, the first Ford
commitment to Engelhard occurred in May 1971 and the second on
March 15, 1972. These commitments relate to the development of Engelhard's
Plant No. 1 pilot facility. Ford facilities commitments indicated at July 1
refer to additional vendors that may be involved in catalyst manufacture for
Ford.
On August 1, 1972 (not shown in figure), Ford made another
commitment to Engelhard covering capital investments involved in the con-
struction of Engelhard's Plant No. 2, or main production, facility. Construction
of this plant was scheduled to start October 1, 1972.
Ford contract awards for facilities and long lead manufacturing
equipment required for Ford-ma ufactured parts were issued on
September 1, 1972 (not designated).
Engelhard main plant design-oriented equipment is scheduled
to be ordered on February 1, 1973. First pilot plant output is planned to be
available shortly after, on March 1, 1973. Tooling setup and tryout for
Ford-produced components has been scheduled to start on April 1, 1973, 16
months prior to Vehicle Job No. 1, and will be completed on February 15, 1974
(not shown in figure). Engelhard catalytic converter production samples are
scheduled for availability on March 1, 1974. Last sample parts fabricated
on Ford's installed production equipment are made on April 1, 1974 and are
assembled on April 15, 1974. Engine Job No. 1 is scheduled for July 1, 1974,
one month prior to Vehicle Job No. 1 because the acceleration of engine pro-
duction is initially somewhat slower than acceleration of vehicle production.
5. 2. 3 Ford/Vendor Schedule Consistency
With regard to schedule consistency between Ford and its ven-
dors, there are two major elements of the Ford schedule that might be selected
for examination: the time allocation for the procurement of long lead equipment
and tooling, and the time allocation for the development of vendor facilities
for catalytic converter production, the critical or pacing item in the Ford
schedule.
5-43
-------
Among the longest lead time items in the inventory of possible
production equipment required is the transfer line. This equipment performs
automatic sequential machining operations on castings such as engine blocks,
cylinder heads, transmission components and other parts. It has already
been mentioned that 13-1/2 months have been scheduled for the design, con-
struction, delivery, and installation of transfer lines for the 1974 Ford Pinto
cylinder heads. Transfer lines for other car line production operations have
taken 14 to 16 months for the period from receipt of order until completion of
installation (see Section 8. 1).
Another long lead time item of equipment is the high capacity
press for cold metal stamping operations (forming, blanking, piercing, etc. ).
Lead time for this equipment from receipt of order to installation and check-
out ranges from 6 to 11 -months, depending on the press type (single, double,
triple action), capacity, and associated feed and control accessories (see
Section 8. 2).
Ford has allocated the period from Milestone E through H
(Figure 5-8), or 18 months, for the procurement, installation, and tryout of
tools. This would appear to be reasonable, in view of the delivery times
quoted above for major items of equipment and the necessity for integrating
this equipment in the assembly line process.
The other major schedule item that is useful to examine for
consistency is Ford's allocation for the development of vendor facilities for
(monolithic) catalytic converter production. There are two basic manufacturing
operations and vendor classifications to be considered in this regard: the
catalyst manufacturer and the substrate manufacturer. Ford has selected
Engelhard as its prime catalyst manufacturer. Other manufacturers that
have been considered include Mathey Bishop, Inc. , Universal Oil Products
Company, and W. R. Grace and Company. One monolithic substrate supplier
definitely participating in the manufacture of Ford catalysts i-s American Lava
Corporation. Another possible contender is Corning Glass Works.
Both catalyst and substrate manufacturers have lead time
requirements involving, primarily, the construction of new facilities and the
5-44
-------
development of a production technology required to produce the millions of
catalyst devices needed for 1975 automobile production. Figure 5-12 shows
the timing requirements supplied to Ford by the various vendors. The data
shown have been verified by the testimony and documentary evidence sub-
mitted at the April 1972 Suspension Request Hearings and by information
acquired in visits to the manufacturers' facilities during the course of the lead
time study. It can be seen that the facilities (main plant) construction, tooling,
and production timing requirements for the various catalyst manufacturers
are reasonably consistent, ranging from 20-1/2 to 23 months. The substrate
manufacturers show lead time requirements ranging from 21-1/2 to 23 months.
In terms of Ford's production needs, American Lava's lead time requirement
might be considerably reduced (see Section 6. 1).
The essential data shown in Figure 5-12 have been reproduced
in Figure 5-13 for comparison wi'.'i Ford's overall timing schedule. The
milestone designations are the same as shown in Figure 5-8. Milestone E in
the Ford schedule is Ford's commitment to the Engelhard main plant, and
represents authorization to proceed with plant construction. The Engelhard
initiation of production corresponds to Ford's March 1 date for receipt of
Engelhard production samples (Figure 5-10). Full Engelhard production by
April 1, as scheduled, provides sufficient time for stockpiling catalysts so as
to develop production buildup of the canister fabrication either at the Ford
plant or at vendor facilities in time for proper inventory buildup and pilot
production runs at the Ford Automotive Assembly Division plants.
5. 2. 4 Current and Pending Contractual Agreements
Known Ford contractual agreements include commitments made
to Engelhard relating to catalyzing operations, and commitments made to
American Lava relating to substrate manufacture.
The first commitments involving Engelhard concern the develop-
ment of pilot plant facilities (Plant No. 1) designed to evolve a mass production
technology for performing wash coat (alumina) and catalyzing (platinum-group
metal) operations on a monolithic substrate supplied by other vendors, e.g. ,
American Lava, Corning. Ultimately, the technology developed in the pilot
5-45
-------
'971
N i 0
PLANT NO I BUILDING COS STP'JCTION'
CIVIL-ELECTRIC AL-PI »l SO—3E SK
PRODUCT DESIGN OPIENTEO E
^????;?5K£t^
fs^E?^^?E"sitrN^P*OCljtff^
: BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
[SITE SELECTION.
ff*JV^*****^**
J
ME
A. , = O j N
D
1
1 j
S E3UIPN1ENT TOR PLANT t
^N'vv^-^wM'yvvWEri^Nrrf^yvOO'
30 A
LIT^ CONTROL
ION,
V^^S^%^^«^^^v^-N^-..>^^V^k^-^-^**V^V--^^^-
REME
ERIN
ta---^^
1973
)JF|MiA|M-j! JIAis'o
. F RAMFORPTX AUTl
'INCLUDES PLATING'
j
!
£8888088080888
QQOQQwwwvOW
p^JQgtaS!MR888g
^^gPROOUCTION START-UP
N 1 0
i
-EXL, J-T4
|
I
i
3~clvi L - ME CH L— ELECTRICAL DESIGN— PREP— CONSTRUCTION
NCN--DE?tGN ORIENTED EQUIPMENT
«^M*%A--»*^AAA.
J 1 F ! M i A
! ! 1
i i
LYST MFC
1974
M
J
J
HARD INDUSTRIES
^rTOOOCXXXJOOOOO
I
A ! S ' 0
i
i
PRODUCT-DESIGN ORIENTED EQUIPMENT
TOOLING-FIXTURES—GAGE 5-OUALITV CONTROL
SPECIFY DESIGN-PROCURE-FABRIC ATE -INSTALL -STARTUPX
. . . • . .«•-•» wwwvw»««v. w f«
SUBSTRATE SUPPLIERS
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION- TOOLING-°RODUCTION
1
DE VE LOP- PR OCE S S- TOOLING- F A
I=°ODUCTIO'< FACILITIES
L PLANNING. TIMING. AND CONTROL OEPT
Figure 5-12. Vendor Timing Requirements
-------
2 1 4
CY 72
6 | 8 | 10 | 12
2
CY
4 | 6
73
8 | 10 | 12
CY 74
2 | 4 | 6 | 8
SITE SELECTION
SITE PROCUREMENT
CONSTRUCTION
TOOLING & FIXTURES
PRODUCTION
ENGLEHARD PLANT NO. 2
Ui
\
MATTHEY BISHOP
U.O.P.
W. R. GRACE
CATALYST
PLATER
OTHER
CATALYST
PLATERS
AMERICAN LAVA
CORNING GLASS
SUBSTRATE
SUPPLIERS
D - CAR PROGRAM APPROVAL
E - COMMITMENT TO ENGELHARD MAIN PLANT/ORDER
PRODUCTION TOOLING AND EQUIPMENT
F - START TOOL SET-UP AND TRYOUT
G - START CERTIFICATION TESTING
H - COMPLETE TOOL SET-UP AND TRYOUT
I - DELIVER/FABRICATE PRODUCTION SAMPLES
J - VEHICLE JOB No. 1
Figure 5-13. Ford Catalytic Converter Program Timing
-------
operation is planned to be incorporated in a main plant production facility
(Plant No. 2). The production capacity of the pilot plant (1,500, 000 units per
year) eventually would be combined with that of the main plant to provide
Engelhard1 s total output capacity. This capacity is not known; however,
overall, 3.4 million units per year will be supplied to Ford. Engelhard will
wholly own these facilities.
The first Ford commitment agreement concerning Engelhard
pilot plant development occurred May 24, 1971 (Figure 5-10). In this agree-
ment, Ford and Engelhard committed funds totaling $2. 4 million, presumably
for site procurement and initial construction operations. Half of this con-
sisted of (nonrecoverable) Engelhard funds. The next major increment of
commitment was made late in March 1972. By June, Ford had committed
$4. 0 million to the pilot program, of which $3. 7 million was direct capital
investment guarantees to Engelhard and $300,000 was assigned to American
Lava.
On August 1, 1972 Ford made another commitment to Engelhard
relating to the development of the main plant facility. The capital involved in
this agreement is not known. Ford commitments to Engelhard plant develop-
ment will rise sharply to about $10 million in March 1973 when product-design-
oriented equipment and facilities are purchased, and to $14 million by
April 1974.
In addition to the facilities development commitments described
above, Ford has a 3-year contract with Engelhard committing it to supply
Ford 500,000 troy ounces of platinum per year. The contract was said to be
written on a price-protected, no-cost-for-cancellation basis.
As of June 1972, American Lava had a formal commitment
from Ford ($300, 000) covering its capital expenditures through calendar
year 1972 for the scaleup of production facilities to meet a portion of Ford's
(Englehard's) substrate requirements. This agreement has been extended
(capital commitment unknown) to cover, on a time-phased basis, the develop-
ment of additional American Lava production capacity through the first quarter
5-48
-------
of 1974. This is a maximum cancellation agreement (similar to Engelhard1 s),
providing for reimbursement of American Lava's nonrecoverable expenditures
in the event of order cancellation. Two production units are covered by
contract. The first of these will be completed in the first quarter of 1973, the
second in this first quarter of 1974. Each unit has a two-shift capacity of
1. 5 million units per year.
As of October 1972, American Lava was negotiating with Ford
on a piece-part contract that would guarantee American Lava some minimum
quantity of production business. In these negotiations, American Lava had
been asked for an "irrevocable, paid-up, royalty-free license in perpetuity"
which would permit Ford to manufacture or license other manufacturers
to make the American Lava product at some future date.
No other Ford contracts in force have been identified, although
it is known that Ford is seeking other substrate manufacturers and has
talked with Corning and others. Additionally, Ford is known to be seeking
fabricators for the manufacture of the catalyst canister. Walker Manufacturing
Company, Arvin Industries, and others have been mentioned as possibilities.
5-49
-------
5. 3 CHRYSLER CORPORATION
5. 3. 1 Overall Schedule
Chrysler's proposed 1975 model year emission control system
is a best systems choice which incorporates a combination of established or
improved devices introduced in previous model years plus some new devices.
The chronology related to the introduction of new systems leading to the emis-
sion control package projected for 1975 production is shown in Table 5-1. As
indicated here, the items presently involved in production development for
1975 are the catalytic converter system; the altitude-compensated, variable
vcnturi carburetor; the electronic spark advance and electronic EGR control;
and the frame and body modifications needed to accommodate the catalytic
converter device. The manufacturing development schedules for these items
are discussed in the following sections of this report.
5. 3. 1. 1 Production Schedules
Figure 5-14 shows Chrysler's overall production development
schedule, including the overall lead times for new 1975 emission control
components and related items. The longest lead time item is the catalytic
converter system which had a production design approval date of April
1972. This milestone is 28 months prior to vehicle production which starts in
August 1974. Other milestones shown in Figure 5-14 are discussed in
Section 5. 3. 2.
5. 3. 1.2 Major Impact Factors
An important milestone in the schedule for the catalytic
converter system is the production start date for the assembled converter.
Like other automobile manufacturers, Chrysler will subcontract the manu-
facture of the major components of this device and will assemble the com-
ponents in-house. Accordingly, its manufacturing development schedule is
impacted by the need to coordinate activities among, and exercise interface
control between, three separate vendors involved in the converter manu-
facturing process: the substrate manufacturer, container manufacturer,
5-50
-------
Table 5-1. Chrysler Emission Control Modifications for 1970 through 1975
Model Year Production
Modifications
Engine Modifications
Lower compression ratio
EGR
Air injection and exhaust
manifold reactor
Electric choke
Altitude-compensated, variable
venturi carburetor
Electronic Engine Controls
Electronic ignition
Electronic spark advance
Electronic EGR control
Catalytic Converter System
Monolithic catalyst converter
Catalyst converter bypass and
bypass valve
Double wall exhaust pipe
Frame and Body Modifications
Model Year
•70
L
'71
L
L
'72
A
L
L
L
'73
A
A
L
A
A
'74
A
A
L
A
A
L +
'75
A
A
A
A
A*
A
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
L - Limited Number of + - Early Release for some 1974
Models Imperial Models
A - All Models * - New for 1975 Models
5-51
-------
CHRYSLER CORPORATION
1975 PRODUCTION SCHEDULE
OVERALL LEAD TIME
MAJOR FRAMES & BODY
STAMPINGS
ELECTRONIC SPARK
ADVANCE & EGR CONTROL
CATALYTIC CONVERTER
SYSTEM
CARBURETORS
VEHICLE PRODUCTION
START
j
F
M
A.
L
t
/
A
ji
\
\
c
M
fl
Y
j
V
^
19
j
•*
s
72
A
s
A
0
N
D,
i
*
D
\
r
\ c
[_/
J
In
u
i,
r
LY
1
M
)
y
A
c>
M
t
f
J
y
j
19
j
>
?2
73
A
f
S
IA
G
6.
G
W
o
N
D
J
F
/
F
y^
\
M
H
i
H
^
A
Cl
M
f
J
V
19
j
"f
kY
jt
A»
J
A
1
/
74
A
IK
K
y
C
K.
(
\
s
o
N
0
I
(Jl
30 25 20 15 10 5
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
A -
B -
C -
D -
E -
F -
PRODUCTION DESIGN PRELIM. APPROVAL G -
TOOLING & FACILITIES PROGRAM APPROVAL H -
START PRODUCTION PRETEST FROM SOFT TOOLING I -
START PRODUCTION TOOLING J -
LIMITED PRODUCTION START K -
START PRODUCTION SAMPLE BUILD
START EPA CERTIFICATION TESTS
START VEHICLE PILOT PROGRAM
EARLY USE
FULL COMPONENT PRODUCTION START
START VEHICLE PRODUCTION
NOTE: 1. D1 - START PROCUREMENT OF DIE CAST DIES
2. D2 - START OTHER MAJOR TOOLING
Figure 5-14. Chrysler Overall Schedule for the 1975 Emission Control System
-------
and catalyst manufacturer. Furthermore, few of these vendors have had
previous experience in an automotive, mass production supply relationship.
Potential schedule problems arising from these factors may delay the start of
converter assembly.
An additional item of major impact to all systems is the start of
the vehicle certification tests. The test vehicles must incorporate all systems
that are associated with the operation of the catalytic converter, including
engine modifications, electronic controls, frame and body modifications, and
related exhaust system modifications. To ensure that the components in test
are similar in all material respects to production components, production
samples are planned to be delivered earlier than the normally planned pilot
runs. With regard to the catalytic converter, Chrysler has selected a
platinum-group metal monolithic design, but has not yet finalized the system
sufficiently to release a production design specification and place orders
for manufacture. This may impact the scheduled start date for certification
testing.
Another potential impact factor involves the modifications to the
vehicle frame and body which may be required to accommodate the catalytic
converter. The Chrysler unibody and torsion bar suspension design features
make modifications to the underfloor more complex than in the more
conventional, separate frame and body construction. As an example, modifica
tions to the floor pan to make room for the catalytic converter container
involve structural modifications of considerable complexity. The torsion bars
which are placed under the floor of the car present obstructions to the routing
of exhaust and bypass pipes and to the placement of components that go under
the floor of the car, and also add to the complexity of the structural
modifications.
5-53
-------
5. 3. 1. 3 Critical Lead Time Items
The major lead time problems relate to commitments to
vendors for the catalyst substrate and catalyst container^which have fallen
behind the planned dates. At this time Chrysler is uncertain whether or not
it can obtain representative production-type catalytic converters by the
start of EPA certification tests in September 1973 and whether volume
production of catalytic converters will be available for the vehicle production
target date of August 1, 1974. The other 1975 systems appear to be on
schedule and no major problems are foreseen.
A contract with UOP was signed in September 1972; however,
this contract covers only the production design and development of the
catalyzing process; commitments for the construction of a process plant are
still pending.
5. 3. 1.4 Prototype Programs
The prototype test programs for carburetors appear to be
under control and no specific problems are apparent. Prototype design of
the electronic spark advance and EGR controls has been underway since
early in 1972 and the test program for these devices is scheduled to start in
December 1972. This particular portion of 1975 emission control prototype
testing is also under control.
The major problem in prototype testing relates to the catalytic
converter. It had been planned to establish the design by January 1972;
however, as of November 1972, prototype testing was still proceeding without
success.
5. 3. 2 Major Elements in Schedule
Details of the schedules shown in Figure 5-14 are presented
in Figures 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, and 5-18 for the major frame and body component
5-54
-------
modifications, electronic spark advance and EGR control, catalytic
converter system, and carburetors, respectively. It is the purpose of the
following discussion to explain some of the activities and schedule milestones
which comprise the manufacturing development lead times required for these
systems.
5. 3. 2. 1 Major Frame and Body Components
Details of the schedule milestones pertaining to the lead time
requirement for the major frame and body component modifications are
presented in Figure 5-15. The lead time indicated is 22 months. It must be
noted that the rear quarter panel is one of the longest lead time items in the
frame and body category and was used as the basis for detailing the schedule
milestones shown in Figure 5-15.
Upon completion and approval of the vehicle body clay, a
management decision is made to proceed with production development. For
the 1975 model year this decision was made early in October 1972. This
decision signals the start of styling drawings. Styling release is scheduled
for November 1972. At this point, engineering metal draft drawings are
started. Die models for the body panels (both wood and plastic) are due by
August 1973. The dies are produced by vendors and are tested at the vendor
plant prior to delivery to Chrysler. After delivery, the dies are placed into
hydraulic presses in the body panel production line and sample parts are pro-
duced to check out the tooling and to produce parts for pilot assembly opera-
tions. The date for delivery of the last sample part is March 1974. The
sample parts are released to the Chrysler pilot plant by the end of March
1974 and pilot assembly of vehicles is started. Upon completion of pilot
production and verification of assembly for all models, full volume production
of the frame and body components starts in early July 1974. The frame and
5-55
-------
CHRYSLER CORPORATION
1975 PRODUCTION SCHEDULE
LEAD TIME
PRODUCTION DESIGN APPROVAL
ENGINEERING
STYLING RELEASE
ENGINEERING DRAWINGS COMPLETED
PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT
PURCHASE ORDERS COMPLETE
DIE MODELS COMPLETE
LAST SAMPLE PARTS DELIVERED
PRODUCTION
SAMPLE PARTS DELIVERD
TO PILOT PLANT
FULL VOLUME PRODUCTION STARTS
VEHICLE PRODUCTION START
j
F
M
A
c
M
Y
j
19
j
.
72
A
S
4
£
o
i
M
D
>
J
f
M
A
C
M
A
f
J
19
j
t
\
73
A
\
,i
S
O
N
D
a
F
L
M
^
t
A
i
c
M
Y
j
19
J
A
I.
74
A
^
1
S
O
N
D
30 25 20 15 10 5
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
Figure 5-15. Chrysler 1975 Production Development Schedule for Major
Frame and Body Components
-------
body components are then shipped from the frame and body component manu-
facturing plants to the vehicle assembly plants where initial volume production
is started by the middle of July 1974. The first vehicle usually comes off the
line 3 to 4 days after start of production. For purposes of uniformity and
simplification, the full volume vehicle production start date has been placed
at August 1, 1974.
5.3.2.2 Electronic Spark Advance and Electronic EGR Control
The production development schedule for the electronic engine
controls system is shown in Figure 5-16. A lead time of 26-1/2 months is
indicated. Since this is a functional system, portions of the product develop-
ment cycle beginning with the start of prototype design precedes the produc-
tion design approval milestone. Prototype design was started in March 1972
and is continuing at the present tr.ne. Prototype system testing, which was
started in April 1972, is also continuing.
Production design was started in the middile of May 1972, and
procurement of tooling and vendor equipment was initiated in August 1972,
with completion scheduled for December 1972. Laboratory testing of produc-
tion prototype samples for operating characteristics, such as durability,
was planned to be initiated in December 1972 and will continue throughout
most of 1973. This system will be phased into production, starting with a
limited volume output scheduled for June 1973. These systems will be
installed in 1974 Imperial models for observation of performance in customer
use. Final release of EPA certification test cars is scheduled for September
1973, at which time durability and certification tests will be started. Full
component production will start in July 1974, in preparation for production
starting in August 1974.
5.3.2.3 Catalytic Converter System
The production development schedule for the catalytic converter
system is shown in Figure 5-17. A 28-month lead time is indicated. This
5-57
-------
Ul
oo
CHRYSLER CORPORATION
107^ DDOnilPTIOKi ^PUIPTII II C"
1 C A n Tl MP
PRODUCTION DESIGN APPROVAL
PROTOTYPE DESIGN
DYNAMOMETER & CAR TEST
PRODUCTION DESIGN
PROCUREMENT
LABORATORY DEVELOPMENT & TESTS
EARLY RELEASE
FINAL RELEASE
CERTIFICATION TESTS
EARLY USE-1974 IMPERIALS
COMPONENT PRODUCTION START
VEHICLE PRODUCTION START
CY 1972 CY 1973 '. CY 1974
J F M A M J J - S O !. D J f V - '•'• 1 J A S C N D J f -V A '.' J J i -, '-, '. ^
- - . .
A
£y^—*±
£^mm—*!>
A
A
A
A
. 1 ! 1 I ; . . 1 ! , i • . I , i
30 25 20 15 10 5
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
Figure 5-16. Chrysler 1975 Production Development Schedule for Electronic
Spark Advance plus Electronic EGR Control
-------
CHRYSLER CORPORATION
1975 PRODUCTION SCHEDULE
CY 1971 CY 1972
J f M A M J J A S O ; M . D , J . F M A | M i J J A S O ' N
! ' '
LEAD TIME £-T-
PRODUCTION DESIGN APPROVAL
CATALYST
DESIGN
PROCUREMENT
TEST
COMPLETE SYSTEM FINALIZATION
SYSTEM PRODUCTION DESIGN
DESIGN
CATALYST COMMITMENT
PROCUREMENT
TEST
LONG LEAD TOOLING COMMITMENT
RELEASE
TEST
50.000 MILE DURABILITY
CERTIFICATION
PRODUCTION
PRODUCTION SAMPLES
PILOT PRODUCTION
VOLUME PRODUCTION START
VEHICLE PRODUCTION START
i ! • i ' i
—
A
T i
• , i
i
' />W«?k
• A
t- -
CY 1973
oi j F
M. A
i -
i ! '• i
' 1 I
i ; ;
! i ;
i i : i
1
i
|
j
j
i
i
\ \
^•i»W^
M J J A S 1 OlN
,
1 :
1 1
1
;
' 1
1
1
i
CY 1974
D! J F IM
! '
1 i
A I A
J i J A S O N D
! i . ! i
i
' ' ' i '' ' 1 •
i ' i
1 '
;
i
1 : i :
,
! ' • , : | '
' , i
: l i
' /*»• •• *• 'mmt M& i ' . ;
i
>•-
• •
r ^»™
. . ' ! i '1
i
''_!'•
i ;
! . . j ,
, i |
1 ^ i '
•T1' •• • '•
fy.
1
' ; |
!
!
i
1
:
: ! .
' i ' j ' i
*
1
1 ; i .
|
1 i
!
i
! i • - '
i
1 !
1
1
:
1
1
i :
;
1
!
! i '
1
|
!
|
: i : i 1
i
, 1
! i
1
1 '
i
, t
: i
'
1
;
. !
; j»M^M^J
i ;
1
A!
j
j
1 i
1
•
1
1
i
1
; ;
:
i t
! ' !
i '
1
!
1
1
.
i
,
i
•
i
, . '
:
i
, , j •
!
1 .
i
i
;
/^^^
,
1
N*k
A
T •
1 A , i ,
!
i
i •
; j
i
,
;
40 35 30 25 20 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
Figure 5-17. Chrysler 1975 Production Development Schedule for Catalytic
Converter System
-------
timing is based on Chrysler's submittal to the April 1972 Suspension Request
Hearings.
Start of catalytic converter prototype design was initiated in
April 1971; units for development test purposes were available by October
1971. Testing was initiated at this point and is still proceeding. Complete
system finalization of the converter was scheduled for January 1972, but, as
noted previously, has not yet been accomplished. Although the prototype
system has not yet been demonstrated, Chrysler is proceeding with a pre-
liminary production design which was established in April 1972. The
commitment to a catalyst manufacturer was scheduled to take place in
March 1972 but did not occur until September 1972.
The procurement of production prototype catalytic converters
for test purposes was scheduled to start in April 1972 and end by July 1972,
but the procurement has not yet been completed. For this reason, the testing
of converters on automobiles which was scheduled to start in July 1972 is
being performed with experimental systems and Chrysler is essentially still
in the development phase. Long lead time tooling commitments are scheduled
for March 1973 with progressive release over a period of 10 months ending
in January 1974.
EPA durability certification tests are scheduled to start in
September 1973 and end in March 1974. Emission vehicle certification testing
starts in December 1973 and ends in April 1974. As the certification test cars
are to be equipped with hardware similar in all material respects to production
components, any delay in catalyst converter development and commitments
will make it difficult for Chrysler to meet its scheduled test program.
Pilot production is scheduled to start in April 1974 and end in
July 1974, at which time volume production of the catalytic converter system
will start.
5-60
-------
5.3.2.4 Carburetors
Figure 5-18 shows the production development schedule for the
altitude -compensated, variable venturi carburetors. Chrysler has subcon-
tracted the design, test, and production of these carburetors to Holley, Inc. ,
Carburetor Division of Colt Industries. The total production lead time of
19 months is preceded by a considerable period of development by Holley,
accompanied by Chrysler's usual coordination, followup, and evaluation
activities .
The first carburetor samples cast from plaster molds were
received from Holley in June 1972. This sample is a prototype made from
soft tooling as opposed to the production-type sample which is die cast. After
Chrysler's preliminary evaluation, from June 1972 through January 1973,
Holley will be authorized to procure casting dies with receipt scheduled in
January 1973. Development of t^e prototype carburetors by Holley continues
from January 1973 to September 1973.
Initial die cast carburetors are produced at Holley, starting in
January 1973 and continuing through December 1973. Chrysler authorizes
Holley to procure the remaining production tooling in July 1973. Chrysler
receives initial die cast production samples in September 1973. These
samples are used in the durability and emission certification cars. Final
development of the production-type carburetors takes place from September
1973 through June 1974; preliminary production approval by Chrysler is
scheduled for February 1974.
Holley's final tooling checkout starts in October 1973. Final
production samples are received by Chrysler in March 1974. The carburetor
pilot run starts in February 1974 and ends in March 1974. Master production
carburetors and specifications for different models needed for Chrysler's
5-61
-------
CHRYSLER CORPORATION
LEAD TIME
PRODUCTION DESIGN APPROVAL
FIRST PLASTER CAST SAMPLE RECEIVED
CHRYSLER PRELIMINARY EVALUATION
CHRYSLER AUTHORIZES DIE CAST DIES
DEVELOPMENT OF PLASTER CAST
CARBURETORS
DIE CAST CARBURETORS RECEIVED
FINAL DEVELOPMENT
TEMPORARY VENDOR SAMPLE APPROVAL
SAMPLE CARBURETORS RECEIVED
MASTER CARBURETORS AND SPECS
COMPLETE
DESIGN DEPT. STUDY
CHRYSLER DESIGN
RELEASE FOR MAJOR TOOLING
FINAL DRAWING UP-DATE
RELEASE CARBURETOR CASTING DIES
HOLLEY PROCURE DIE CAST PARTS
AND MAKE SAMPLES
HOLLEY FINAL TOOLING AND
PRODUCTION
PILOT RUN
COMPONENT PRODUCTION START
PRODUCTION CARBURETORS TO
ASS'Y PLANT
VEHICLE PRODUCTION START
j
F
M
1 '
r
A
— .
c
M
V
J
^
19
j
72
A
s
— 1
o
N
D
J
/
L
i
J
L
(
>
F
••
M
M
A
M
C
M
•
r
j
-i
-
i
19
j
--
-
*
73
A
^
.
mm
S
^
\
_
O
-
r
,
N
_
O
-
J
L
l_
i
F
i
A
•
^
•».
M
A
_
^
A
mm
CY
M
\
*
1
J
^
L
974
rr A s
;
i
,
; ;
i i
! ,
1 1
i
•
. .
1
i
i
^ i
; :
r l
i i
j
T
i
I
O N O
,
1 J
1 1
1 '
T
i
— t |
• j
"lit
•^i
.
_j_r
,
•
, i
1 !
I
j
'
; !
30 25 20 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
Figure 5-18. Chrysler 1975 Production Development Schedule for Carburetors
-------
configuration control are completed by June 1974. Carburetors are delivered
to the engine assembly plants by the end of June 1974. Full volume carburetor
production starts in early July 1974.
5.3.3 Company/Vendor Schedule Consistency
A comparison of lead times obtained from Chrysler with lead
times obtained from vendors for similar components was made to determine
the degree of consistency relative to the components under discussion.
5.3.3.1 Major Frame and Body Components
Chrysler's data (Figure 5-15) indicate a lead time of 22 months
for major frame and body components. These were compared with data from
Sections 7. 1 and 7.2. However, because Chrysler's schedule did not deline-
ate differences in lead time between body and frame components, it was not
possible to compare these on an individual basis. A period of 22 months is
indicated for body stampings. Lead time for frames is 15-1/2 months if
existing facilities and press lines could be used and 35 months if new facilities
and processes were required. Thus, assuming that no new facilities and press
lines are required, it can be stated that the consistency shown is good for the
combination of body and frame components.
An additional comparison may be made using Chrysler's 1973
model year master timing schedule (Ref. 5-3). This schedule basically
represents a normal model changeover. The lead time required for the frame
and body components, based on data for the highest volume production model
made by Chrysler, is shown in Figure 5-19. The total lead time requirement
is 26 months as compared with the 22 months allowed for 1975 production.
This would suggest that Chrysler has compressed its normal frame and body
component lead time for 1975. This compression may be the result of delays
in styling approval due to unknowns that exist relative to modifications required
by the catalytic converter system. Because these unknowns still exist to some
degree, Chrysler is proceeding with frame and body design on a relatively high
risk basis using an assumed design for the catalyst container configuration and
for associated systems that interface with the frame and body.
5-63
-------
CHRYSLER CORPORATION
19ro PKUUULrllUN oUntUULt
1 C A n T llulP " '
PRODUCTION DESIGN APPROVAL
STYLING RELEASE
ENGINEERING COMPLETE
MAJOR PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT
COMPLETE
SAMPLE PARTS DELIVERED
TO PILOT PLANT
VOLUME PRODUCTION STARTS
INITIAL MATERIAL AT ASS Y PLANTS FOR
VEHICLE VOLUME PRODUCTION
VEHICLE JOB NO. 1 COMPLETE
VEHICLE VOLUME NO. 1 PRODUCTION
STARTS
VEHICLE PUBLIC INTRODUCTION DATE
.1
F
k
M
A
C
M
Y
j
A
19
j
70
A
s
—
/
O
r —
\
N
D
J
F
M
A
C
M
i.
Y
j
A
19
j
71
A
A
s
0
N
O
J
F
M
L
A
*
C
M
Y
j
L
9
j
^
i
72
A
^
A
A
S
i
O N D
j
1
j
|
|
*~
•\
1
• i
i
I (
30 25 20 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
Figure 5-19. Chrysler 1973 Production Development Schedule for
Major "B" Body Sheet Metal
-------
5. 3. 3. 2 Electronic Spark Advance and Electronic EGR Control
No vendor data were obtained to test the consistency of
Chrysler's lead time.
5. 3. 3. 3 Catalytic Converter System
5. 3. 3. 3. 1 Catalyst Substrate Manufacture
In order to meet the certification test schedules, catalytic
converters similar in all material respects to production units are required
before September 1973 for initial testing and installation into the durability
test cars. At this time it is uncertain that production-prototype hardware
will be available to meet this schedule.
Information from the substrate manufacturers is insufficient
to place an exact date on the availability of production samples. However,
some data on the timing for volume production is available. W. R. Grace
stated in August 197Z that it requires a lead time of 22 months after go-ahead
(customer commitment). It has not yet received a commitment from Chrysler.
If Chrysler commits by November 1972, the Grace lead time would result in
the start of volume production by August 1974. This schedule is not likely to
allow sufficient time for fabrication and assembly of catalytic converters for
the start of 1975 model production.
5.3.3.3.2 Catalyst Manufacture
In August 1972, UOP stated that it could set up volume catalyzing
operations by April 1974 if it was given a commitment for technology develop-
ment by September 1972 and a commitment for construction by the end of
December 1972. If UOP itself were to obtain the substrates, a Chrysler
commitment by January 1, 1973 with orders placed by May 1973 would be
5-65
-------
required. UOP must know the exact substrate configuration by July 1973
to design the tooling and production equipment and must have substrate volume
delivery early in 1974. Matthey Bishop provided similar lead times to meet
an April 1974 volume production date.
5. 3. 3. 3. 3 Catalyst Canister Manufacture
Data obtained from Hayes-Albion indicate that canister
production samples require a lead time of 6 months and that a lead time of
10 to 11 months is required for volume canister production. If Chrysler
will take care of the containers needed for EPA certification and pilot cars
using soft tooling, these lead times would require that a purchase order
for high volume production be placed with a subcontractor by approximately
August 1973. Otherwise, a vendor purchase order would be required by
January 1973 to allow sufficient time for pretest and assembly into these
cars prior to start of EPA certification testing in September 1973.
5.3.3.4 Carburetors
A carburetor schedule comparison showed a 19-month lead
time specified by Chrysler and an 18-month lead time noted in Section 7.4.
In general, the activity milestones seem to agree. For example, Chrysler's
Preliminary Evaluation of the First Plaster Cast Carburetor from June 1972
through December 1972 is in reasonably good agreement with the Customer
Calibration with Initial Prototype from September 1972 to January 1973 given
in Section 7.4. Similarly, Chrysler's Development of Plaster Cast Carburetors
from January 1973 through September 1973 also is in reasonably good agree-
ment with the Customer Calibration with Early Prototype from February
1973 through July 1973.
5-66
-------
5. 3.4 Current and Pending Contractual Agreements
5. 3. 4. 1 Frame and Body
For major frame and body components, Chrysler is following
its normal procedures in using its usual vendors. No problems relative to com-
mitments and agreements are foreseen.
5.3.4.2 Electronic Spark Advance and Electronic EGR Control
For electronic spark advance and electronic EGR controls, no
problems relative to contractual agreements are foreseen.
5.3.4.3 Catalytic Converter System
Major contractual problems that relate to the catalytic
converter system are discussed below.
5.3.4.3.1 Substrates
Chrysler has discussed possible manufacturing effort with
several potential substrate suppliers including the American Lava Corpora-
tion, Corning Glass Works, AC Spark Plug, Ford, and Grace. It feels that
American Lava cannot supply enough substrates and that Corning is also
doubtful as a potential high volume supplier. These sources of supply must
immediately demonstrate their ability to convert their technology into high.
volume production. Chrysler has not entered into any contractual agreements
with any of the above companies.
5.3.4.3.2 Catalyst Manufacture
Chrysler signed a contractual agreement with UOP in
September 1972 (Ref. 5-2) for the catalyst and wash coat operations and is
considering Matthey Bishop as another potential catalyst source. The
agreement with UOP is for engineering and development for catalyzing processes
5-67
-------
and Chrysler must commit to a plant construction contract by the end of
December 1972. Contractual agreements with Matthey Bishop, however, are
presently not known. These catalyst manufacturers would receive substrates
supplied by Chrysler or by Chrysler vendors.
In September 1972, Chrysler also entered into a contract
with the Ore and Chemical Corporation for the delivery of 100,000 troy ounces
of palladium from the Soviet Union (Ref. 5-2). Since Chrysler's catalyst will
probably be a mixture of platinum as well as palladium, a commitment for
procurement of platinum is still required. The present status on platinum
procurement is not known. It is reported (Ref. 5-2) that 100,000 troy ounces
of palladium is insufficient to supply Chrysler's requirements for 1975 cars
and that the source of the additional palladium needed has not been identified.
5. 3. 4. 3. 3 Catalyst Canister Manufacture
It appears that Chrysler intends to manufacture most of its
catalyst canisters in-house. Arvin Industries, Inc. , Walker Manufacturing Co. ,
and Hayes-Albion Corp. are potential vendors for manufacturing part of
Chrysler's canister requirements. At this time Chrysler has made no com-
mitments to any of these potential sources.
5.3.4.4 Carburetors
Chrysler has a contract with Holley, Inc. and no problems are
foreseen.
5-68
-------
5.4 AMERICAN MOTORS CORPORATION
5.4.1 Overall Schedule, 1975/76
5.4.1.1 Production Schedules
American Motors has been working to schedules based on
achievement of full production of 1975 model year automobiles by
August 1, 1974. The schedules are influenced by American Motors
relatively small size, which requires that it rely to a large degree on com-
ponent and equipment technology developed outside the company. Its normal
schedule is largely based on a 58-hour work week for one shift.
American Motors production program timing schedule detailing
lead time requirements for body and engine modifications needed to meet 1975
emission control objectives is shown in Figure 5-20. As differentiated from
previous production years, the 1975 model year cars will require changes to
the engine cylinder head, engine intake and exhaust manifolds, and body floor
pans, as well as the addition of a catalytic converter.
Key points to be noted are:
a. Preliminary release of all 1975 engine changes is planned for
November 1, 1972.
b. Detail drawings on critical long lead items (e.g. , the cylinder
head design change) would be released on March 1, 1973.
c. EPA Certification Tests would begin on November 1, 1973.
d. Tool construction would be completed on March 1, 1974.
e. 1975 engines would be installed in sales prototype vehicles
(first build from production-tool parts) beginning on
March 1, 1974.
f. Job No. 1 (first car on limited production run) is planned for
May 1, 1974.
g. Volume Job No. 1 (first car on full production run) is planned
for August 1, 1974.
5-69
-------
CY 72 CY 73 CY 74
iJ|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|S|0|N|D|j|FiMiA|MiJ |J|AiS|0|N|D|j|F|MiA|M|J|J|A|
30
25
20 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
ENGINEERING /-
DEVELOPMENT/
PROGRAM /—
COMPLETE
1-1-74^
PRODUCTION
ENGINEERING DESIGNS
PRELIMINARY RELEASE
ON ALL 1975 ENGINE
CHANGES 11-1-72r7
ENGINE CHANGES/
FINAL REL. OF DETAIL
DRAWINGS ON ENGINE CHGS.
V3"1"73 COMPLETE ALL
RELEASES 10.1-73
MAJOR BODY PROGRAM
APPROVED 5-1-72^
BODY CHANGES
ALL BODY STRUCTURAL
DETAIL DRAWINGS COMPLETE
5-1-73
r-7 ALL BODY RELEASES
_Y COMPLETE 9-1-73
I
A ALL STRUCTURAL
DIE MODELS COMPLETE
5-31-73
PURCHASE ORDER PLACED ON
LONG LEAD TOOLING 3-1-73
TOOL CONSTRUCTION
(CYLINDER HEAD EQUIPMENT)
COMPLETE
3-1-74
COMPLETE
7-1-74
V
INSTALLATION AND REARRANGEMENT
IN AMC PLANT
START CERTIFICATION TESTINGV7
11-1-73 V
START SALES
START VOLUME
PRODUCTION
8-1-74
PROTOTYPE
3-1-74 START
PILOT
5-1-74
Figure 5-20. American Motors 1975 Emission Control Program
Timing Study
5-70
-------
Shutdown for phaseout of the previous model year and changeover to the next
model year occurs from July 15 to August 1.
From product inception through drawing release to product
production, design changes are handled within engineering and are required
to fall inside the management-approved overall vehicle design parameters
set up for the model year in question. After formal engineering drawing
release (which initiates production tooling orders, facility planning opera-
tions, and finalization of vehicle cost quantities), changes are controlled by
the ECR (Engineering Change Request) procedure. The ECR procedure
involves manufacturing, manufacturing engineering, product planning, pur-
chasing, and engineering. Concurrence and signoff from all of these groups
is required to implement the changes in question. Drawing release to manu-
facturing must be such that 1975 model year production parts are available
on March 1, 1974 in readiness for the start of sales prototype vehicle
assembly. Consequently, die models for major body components must be
completed on May 31, 1973 and chassis drawings must be released by
December 1, 1973.
Emission control system packaging concepts, plans, and
scheduling for the 1976 model year are currently being prepared, but no
specific information concerning manufacturing development schedules for
these systems is available at this time. According to American Motors, the
type of schedule discussed for the 1975 model year is not applicable for the
1976 model year.
5.4.1.2 Major Impact Factors
Prior to emission control and safety regulations, American
Motors did not commit designs to production until development was completed.
However, like other automobile manufacturers, it is now proceeding with
production development on a schedule which accommodates a catalytic converter
design that is still under development.
5-71
-------
Incorporation of the emission control system requires many
design changes to different areas of the automobile that are impacted by the
control system components. These design and subsequent manufacturing
changes are major factors in establishing the final lead time requirement
for 1975 model year production development. The major changes anticipated
in 1975 American Motors cars involve the following components and
subsystems:
a. A new cylinder head for the V-8 engine to reduce exhaust
valve leakage, improve cooling capacity, and improve casting
techniques . Four different design concepts have been
reviewed. The design objective is to reduce exhaust valve
leakage so that the 50,000-mile durability requirement for
emission control may be met. In order to improve cooling,
the two-piece core cylinder head casting will be changed to a
one-piece core. The long lead time items related to the
manufacture of the new cylinder head are new transfer lines
and assembly equipment. At this time, American Motors has
made about 50 prototype cylinder heads for testing, using
"soft tooling."
b0 Body and structural changes to accommodate the catalytic
converter. A study has been under way to consider floor pan
changes that are necessary to accommodate a catalytic con-
verter in the 1975 product line. A major problem in accom-
modating the converter is American Motors unibody structure
which is less flexible to changes than the conventional frame
and body design. To make room for the catalytic converter,
a significant modification of the design is required in order to
maintain structural integrity. The degree of change is
dependent on whether a small monolithic converter can be
used or whether the larger pellet-type converter will be
required. The type of tooling and equipment used for the
structural changes consist of dies for rigid body parts and
conventional assembly equipment to ins tall the purchased converter.
Tooling and equipment (involving new machines, welders, and
assembly transfer stations) would have a major schedule impact if American
Motors had to revise its engine installation process. Presently, the engine
is installed from below after the body is completely assembled. The engine
5-72
-------
mount cross-member is attached to the engine prior to installation and is used
for the front suspension system. The carburetor, distributor, EGR system,
valves, air pump, and controls are installed on the engine by manual means.
If a catalytic converter system of another design required that the engine be
installed from above, major changes in design and assembly would be necessary.
Experimental prototype testing is currently being conducted on
the emission control system mounted in test-bed vehicles. To date,
American Motors has not successfully demonstrated that the system
can meet Federal emission standards for 50, 000 miles. Catalytic converter
configuration changes emanating from this program may have a serious
impact on the design of the 1975 model year automobile as well as on the
design of equipment and tooling. Also, unless successful results are forth-
coming, other prototype tests (involving the use of 1975 model year hardware
throughout the car) may be rendered invalid.
5.4.1.3 Critical Lead Time Items
The critical path lies with vendor lead time requirements for
catalytic converter production. (However, at the time of the EPA Suspension
Request Hearings in April 1972, the critical path was associated with the
requirement for new cylinder heads; this is still considered to be a serious
timing factor.) The timing schedule for the 1975 catalytic converter and
associated body changes is shown in Figure 5-21. This schedule for the
converter basically reflects the need for the supplier to develop completely
new facilities for the volume manufacture of catalytic converters required
for 1975 automobile production.
The anticipated changes required for or related to American
Motors 1975 emission control system, ranked in terms of critical lead time,
are as follows:
Catalytic converter/New cylinder head
for the V-8 engine
5-73
-------
CY 72
CY 73
CY 74
S|0|N|D|J|F|M|A|M|J|J|A
30
25 20 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
VENDOR CATALYTIC A^C COMMITMENT PACKAGE SIZE
CONVERTER TO VENDOR 8-15-72 ^FINAL.ZED 11-1-72
COMPLETE
3.1-74 V7
DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT,
TOOLING AND FACILITIES
80 WEEKS
BODY AND STRUCTURE
CHANGES
DRAWINGS
DIE MODEL
TOOLING
START COMPLETE
10-1 -72 V 5-1-73 V
30 WEEKS
START
3-1-73
COMPLETE
V V 5-31-73
[l2 WKSJ
START
6-1-73
I
COMPLETE
3-1.74 V
39 WEEKS
I
START
PILOT
5-1-74
START SALES IsTART
PROTOTYPE VOLUME
3-1-74 PRODUCTION
8-1-74
Figure 5-21. American Motors 1975 Catalytic Converter and Associated
Body Changes Time Study
-------
Body and structure changes to accommodate
catalytic converter
New carburetor
New intake manifold
Breakerless ignition system
American Motors is carrying two different catalytic converter
designs at this time. Different converters may be used on different cars.
The incorporation of oxidizing catalysts also involves the installation of an
air pump. It is understood that General Motors will supply the air pump,
but the American Motors source of supply for catalytic converters has not
been revealed at this time; a verbal commitment to one potential supplier
was made in August 1972 (see Section 5.4.4).
Because of its small volume production, American Motors is
more dependent on outside suppliers than the big three automobile manu-
facturers. For example, the V-8 engine cylinder block is cast by General
Motors (American Motors 6-cyclinder engine is cast in-house by a
subsidiary).
With regard to body changes, the major sheet metal pieces
and the instrument panel are the long lead time items. The critical items
on sheet metal parts are the dies.
The new carburetor, ignition system, and EGR valves are
purchased items and are procured from the most economical source. Tooling
and equipment required for these parts are minimal since they are installed
at American Motors by hand labor.
The changes to the intake manifold are required to provide
quick warmup capability. Plans are to purchase the castings outside with
the machining done by American Motors. This involves modifications to
machining and transfer equipment, or completely new equipment, depending
on the finalized design. American Motors assumes that, vendor capability
and facilities will be available for all of the purchased components.
5-75
-------
5.4.1.4 Prototype Test Programs
American Motors is somewhat informal in dealing with
catalytic converter suppliers; detailed specifications for catalytic converter
performance are not delineated.
American Motors is presently testing three cars with proto-
type catalytic converters. It considers this sample size too small to be
representative, but felt compelled to make an early commitment to a specific
test design. Test results have not proven to be satisfactory to date.
In order to be reasonably sure of meeting emission standards
with production cars, American Motors believes a 25% performance margin
is required between prototype and production vehicles.
According to American Motors, the 50,000-mile EPA certi-
fication test requires a period of 5 months, based on running cars 6 days
per week for 24 hours per day. If the remaining time is short, cars will be
run 7 days per week.
5.4.1.5 Schedule Compression
The timing schedules that were discussed previously (Fig-
ures 5-20 and 5-21) represent normal program timing. Acceleration of
these schedules is dependent upon the successful early completion of engi-
neering development, as well as the ready availability of vendor equipment
and tooling facilities at the time purchase orders are placed.
Tool schedule compression is related to the availability of
Keller machines. These machines are used to make die models; relatively
few are available. An additional tooling consideration has been the procurement
of induction hardening equipment for valve seats on cylinder blocks. This
equipment is required by all automobile manufacturers because of the planned
operation of engines with unleaded gas. At present, only one company (Tocco
Division of Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. ) manufacturers this equipment. No
criticality in availability of this equipment has been found however.
5-76
-------
According to American Motors, the relationship between
schedule compression and product cost is affected by investments (facilities
and tools) as well as piece cost based on labor utilization. In regard to
labor costs, it is normal practice to work single-shift, 58-hour weeks with
full utilization of manpower during that time. Some tooling sources will also
work two 58-hour shifts at the same hourly rate. The maximum schedule
compression (3 shifts: 24 hours per day, 7 days per week) results in costs
of 1-1/2 to 2 times the costs accruing from the 58-hour rate. However,
spending additional funds normally has little effect on compressing program
timing. Hence, it is standard practice to pay compression costs only on
those items which are on the critical path if this action is needed in order to
keep the program on schedule.
In regard to the influence of investment costs, the product cost
should not change if the tooling ib identical. However, if the schedule com-
pression results in the use of less automation, the piece cost will go up. In
addition, if the tooling is not finished and special fabrication methods are
required to meet production, the piece cost is adversely affected.
5.4.2 Major Elements in Schedule
The process American Motors uses in developing a new vehicle
is described in this section. The product activity flow network is shown in
Figure 5-22. Milestone dates related to this network were considered
proprietary and were not furnished. However, it may be stated that the span
of time between the product planning (concept) stage and the presentation for
approval can vary from a maximum of 2 to 3 years for an all-new vehicle to
a minimum of about 4 months for a minor change. The span of time between
approval and volume production also varies with the degree of complexity.
In general, body changes require a 3-year cycle and engine
changes require 5-year cycles; year after year the same items are critical
for normal automobile model changes. The process steps involved in a
representative American Motors car development program are discussed
below.
5-77
-------
PRODUCT
APPROVAL
PRODUCT ADVANCE
PLANNING STYLING
CLAY PRODUCT
MODEL DESIGN
ENGINEERING
REVISION
-vj
oo
BUILD
SALES
PROTOTYPE
ADVANCE
DESIGN
PRODUCT
VOLUME
PRODUCTION
BUILD
ENGINEERING
PROTOTYPE
BUILD SAMPLE
TOOLING APPROVAL
START
PILOT
ASSEMBLY
Figure 5-22. American Motors Summary Network of Product Creation
-------
5.4.2.1 Part I - Concept to Approval
5.4.2.1.1 Concept
Product Planning develops the basic objectives. These include
the theme or image, estimated piece cost, required investment, and the
overall program timing. The theme is reviewed with the Marketing Office
to determine the marketability of the vehicle. The information package is
then transmitted to the Advanced Styling and Engineering Offices.
5.4.2.1.2 Development
Advanced Styling develops the theme in clay. Styling works
in conjunction with Engineering to insure: (a) manufacturing feasibility,
(b) that the driveline can be accommodated, (c) that mannikin positioning is
within basic objectives, and (d) that the structural integrity of the proposed
body is retained. The Safety Office reviews the clay to ensure that all
current statutes can be met, and that considerations related to proposed
legislation are incorporated in the theme.
Product Cost Control reviews the concept continually to ensure
that the cost (piece and investment) objectives will be met. With management
approval, an engineering prototype is then built from soft tooling using
advanced drawings to evaluate the following:
Spatial characteristics
Component interrelationships
Manufacturing techniques
Assembly processes
During the entire advance development stage there are periodic review
meetings with all levels of corporate management.
5.4.2.1.3 Presentation
The entire program is pulled together for a presentation to
corporate management for car program approval. At this presentation,
5-79
-------
costs, marketing strategy, manufacturing feasibility, and product content
are reviewed and evaluated and authorization to proceed with manufacturing
development is either given or denied.
5.4.2.2 Part n - Approval to Volume Production
When a program has been approved, the following steps lead-
ing to volume production are taken.
Styling transmits final surface information to Engineering.
Engineering develops production drawings for the body and chassis.
Die models are built.
Purchase orders are placed.
Tools are built.
Samples are approved.
Prototype vehicles are built and reviewed.
Pilot assembly starts.
Volume production is achieved.
After American Motors management approval of a program, authority to buy
is initiated through issuance of a Manufacturing Release Form based upon an
Engineering Release with the appropriate blueprint package. (Production
buying is centralized in Detroit.) Buyers send blueprint packages and
appropriate instructions to vendors and normally award business to the
lowest combined tooling and piece cost bidder. On components or systems
requiring extensive vendor design assistance, an early sourcing decision
may be required. In such instances, special meetings are held with personnel
from the major in-house activities concerned to evaluate the alternate
sources.
5.4.3 Company/Vendor Schedule Consistency
By using Figures 5-20 and 5-21 as a basis of reference, produc-
tion lead times cited by American Motors can be compared to specific
examples of production development lead time taken from Section 6 for
5-80
-------
substrate and catalyst manufacture and from Sections 7 and 8 for component
and equipment manufacture.
Twenty months are required for fabrication and checkout of
14 sections of an automatic transfer line for cylinder head machining (Sec-
tion 8. 1) This figure corresponds very well with the lead time of 21 months
indicated in Figure 5-20 for the milestone identified as Preliminary Release
On All 1975 Engine Changes. (Note: it is not known how many sections are
planned for American Motors cylinder head production operation. )
Using receipt of order as the point of reference for initiating
work by a vendor, body stampings require a lead time of 22 months (Section 7. 1).
This can be compared in a general sense with American Motors 26-month lead
time for its Body Change Program (Figure 5-20). It would seem reasonable
to assume that the 4-month differential period is required by American Motors
to complete drawings defining boay contours.
In regard to structural detail drawings, Figure 5-20 indicates
a lead time requirement of 15 months. This compares quite well with data
presented in Section 7. 2 indicating a lead time requirement of 15-1/2 months
for body frames.
Figure 5-21 indicates a lead time of 23-1/2 months for the
milestone identifying the American Motors commitment to substrate and
catalyst manufacturers. This time compares favorably with lead times
cited by two firms contacted by American Motors: Matthey Bishop, Inc.
specified a 22-month lead time for Start of Building Design (Section 6. 8),
and Englehard Minerals and Chemical Corporation specified a 23-1/2 month
lead time for Release of Work on Plant No. 2 (Section 6. 4).
In summary, it appears that the American Motors production
development schedules show reasonable consistency with the schedules of its
potential suppliers and with lead times specified for the production develop-
ment of various atuomotive assembly equipment and tooling.
5-81
-------
5.4.4 Current and Pending Contractual Agreements
As noted previously, the relatively small size of American
Motors requires that it rely to a large degree on component and equipment
technology developed outside the company. Most procurements are made on
the basis of purchase orders; cancellation contract agreements are generally
in effect whenever significant capital investments on the part of the supplier
are involved.
A verbal commitment to one catalytic converter supplier for
a completely packaged device was made in August 1972. Neither the details
of the arrangements nor the name of the supplier are available at this time.
However, it is known that American Motors has contacted Englehard,
AC Spark Plug, and Matthey Bishop as potential suppliers.
It is anticipated that the verbal agreement will be bolstered by
a formal contract after design and delivery details are reviewed and agreed
upon. Talks are continuing with potential suppliers and more than one con-
tract may be released by American Motors.
From the timing chart shown in Figure 5-20, purchase orders
were scheduled to be released in November 1972 for V-8 engine cylinder
block castings from General Motors and for new machine, transfer,
and assembly equipment for fabrication of new cylinder heads (possibly to
Joseph Lamb Company which supplies the majority of this equipment). Sub-
sequently, release should be given for purchase of carburetors (likely to
Holley, Inc.)- Purchase orders are also pending for other elements in the
emission control system such as the ignition system and EGR valves.
5-82
-------
REFERENCES
5-1. Ford, May 1971 letter to Ruckelshaus on program timing
5-2. S. Lipsky, "Chrysler to Buy Palladium from Soviet for Possible Use
in Anti-Pollution Devices," Wall Street Journal, September 21, 1972.
5-3. Chrysler Corporation, "Corporate Master Timing Schedule for 1973
Model Year," January 24, 1972.
5-83
-------
SECTION 6
LEAD TIME SCHEDULES FOR CATALYST AND
SUBSTRATE MANUFACTURERS
The following information concerning catalyst and substrate
product description and production lead time schedule status and projections
was obtained during detailed discussions held with the noted manufacturers in
the August through October 1972 time period. (The list of companies visited
and dates of discussions are given in Appendix A. ) Particular emphasis was
directed to the production lead time schedule status of substrate and catalyst
manufacturers because the catalytic converter is considered by all automobile
manufacturers to be the critical lead time component for the 1975/76 model
year automobile.
6. 1 SUMMARY DISCUSSION
6. 1. 1 Converter/Catalyst/Substrate Relationships
The production of catalytic converters (oxidation or reduction)
for use in automotive emission control systems requires a high degree of
interactive planning and coordination between potential supplier and user organi-
zations, as shown in Figures 6-1 and 6-2 for monolithic and pelletized catalytic
converters, respectively. At one extreme, a different company (or several
companies) could be involved in each phase of the overall catalytic converter
fabrication and installation for a given automotive manufacturer. In other
cases, a single company may be involved in two or more activity phases, e. g. ,
W. R. Grace and Company could both produce the substrate and apply the wash
coat and catalyst material(s) to the substrate. At the other extreme, a given
automobile manufacturer, e.g. , General Motors Corporation, could procure
basic raw materials and perform all manufacturing and installation phases
in-house. This latter case may be difficult to achieve during the initial intro-
duction period of the catalytic converter.
6-1
-------
RESPONSIBLE
COMPANY
ACTIVITY
INSTALL
COMPLETED
CONVERTER
FORD
OR ANY AUTO MANUFACTURER
MANUFACTURE
CONVERTER CANISTER
AND INSTALL
MONOLITH
FORD
OR ANY AUTO MANUFACTURER OR DESIGNATE
=i=
APPLY WASH
COAT AND
CATALYST MATERIALS
ENGELHARD
MATTHEY
BISHOP
UOP
W. R.
GRACE
PRODUCE MONOLITHIC
SUBSTRATE
AMERICAN
LAVA
CORNING
UNION
CARBIDE
W. R.
GRACE
SUPPLY CERAMIC
RAW MATERIALS
BASIC RAW MATERIALS INDUSTRIES
(SILICAS, ALUMINAS, ETC.)
Figure 6-1.
Monolithic Catalytic Converters, Typical Flow
of Responsibilities (Examples Only)
-------
I
OJ
-vs^ RESPONSIBLE
ACTIVITY ^"""^^
INSTALL
COMPLETED
CONVERTER
MANUFACTURE
CONVERTER CANISTER
AND INSTALL
PELLETS
APPLY WASH
COAT AND
CATALYST MATERIALS
PRODUCE PELLETS
SUPPLY ALUMINA
POWDERS
GENERAL
MOTORS
t
L
A.C.
SPARKPLUG
DIVISION
i
I JJ
OR ANY AUTO MANUFACTURER
OR ANY AUTO MANUFACTURER OR DESIGNATE
Vlx* \£x **£s"
\ \ \
OXY-
CATALYST
t
W R GRArF AMERICAN uop
W. R. GRACE CYANAMID UUH
\iy ^ 1 ^r i \1f i I
REYNOLDS
t
W. R. GRACE KAISER UOP
's* *<'s* **^>*
REYNOLDS
ALCOA KAISER
Figure 6-2. Pelletized Catalytic Converters, Typical
Flow of Responsibilities (Examples Only)
-------
6. 1.2 Typical Catalyst and Substrate Products Available
The spectrum of potential catalyst and substrate suppliers and
their principal products are summarized in Tables 6-1 and 6-2. The product
mix depicted further illustrates the wide range of choices and/or supply
options available to the automobile manufacturers during their current catalyst
selection cictivities and catalyst supply negotiations. In the case of oxida-
tion catalysts, the full range of product options is offered (noble metal, base
metal, promoted base metal, pellets, monoliths), with multiple sources of
supply in each case. In the case of reduction (NO ) catalysts, multiple
sources of pellet or monolithic ceramic catalysts are potentially available.
Some companies are also considering offering all-metal monolith units (i. e.
rolled wire mesh).
6. 1.3 Production Lead Time Schedule Requirements
6. 1. 3. 1 Catalyst Manufacturer Schedules
A summary of the production lead time schedules currently
proposed by representative catalyst manufacturers is shown in Figure 6-3.
As can be seen, all schedules are structured to start full production for 1975
model year requirements in the April to July 1974 time period. Oxidation
catalyst units needed for pre-production stockpiling and/or vehicle emission
certification testing, etc. would be provided from units produced during the
plant startup and shakedown period (January to July 1974) or from separate
pilot and batch processing lines. Where it is necessary to use catalysts not
produced with production manufacturing equipment and processes in certifica-
tion test vehicles, the issue as to whether or not these catalysts are the same
"in all material respects" as production units will arise. Due to the basic
nature of the substrates and deposited catalytic materials, it may be difficult
to verify that catalyst loading, uniformity of loading, and substrate physical
characteristics are indeed representative of quantity production units.
As of the time of data acquisition, there was considerable
variability with regard to financial commitments made by the automobile
companies (discussed below) and the amount of in-house funds being expended
6-4
-------
Table 6-1. Catalyst Suppliers and Products*
— -~^__^ Principal
^"^--^^^ P roduct s
Company ~~-~-^^
Engelhard
Grace
Gulf
Matthey Bishop
Monsanto
Oxy-Catalyst
Universal Oil Products
(UOP)
Oxidation Catalysts
Base Metal
Pellet
--
Davex 142.
promoted
with noble
metal
--
-
Recently
promoted
with noble
metal
Promoted
with 0. 01 to
0. 04 oz. of
noble metal
(-$10)
--
Monolith
--
--
--
Base and
noble metal
mixtures
--
--
--
Noble Metal
Pellet
--
Davex 145
--
--
--
--
Platinum/
Palladium
Monolith
PTX series
Davex 502
and 512
(platinum
and
palladium)
--
AEC-3A
($15 to
$18)
--
Estimated
Cost: $40
to $50
Platinum/
Palladium
Reduction (NOX) Catalysts
Ceramic
Substrate
--
Both pellet
and mono-
lith sub-
strates
Both pellet
and mono-
lith sub-
strates
--
Pellets
--
Both pellet
and mono-
lith sub-
strates
Other
--
--
--
--
--
'Metallic
monolith
type
--
Potential
Substrate
Suppliers
American Lava
Grace, Kaiser,
Pechiney, Ameri-
can Lava, Corning
Kaiser, Ameri-
can Lava, Corning
American Lava,
Corning
Kaiser,
Reynolds,
Pechiney
Kaiser,
Reynolds,
American Lava,
Corning
UOP, Kaiser,
American Lava,
Corning, AC
Spark Plug
*Limited to those companies contacted on data acquisition visits.
-------
Table 6-2. Substrate Suppliers and Products*
^-•-.^^ Principal
-^^Products
Company ^^^-^^^
American Lava
Corning
Grace
Kaiser
Reynolds
Universal Oil
Products (UOP)
Substrate Product
Pellets
—
Alumina
Alumina
Alumina
Alumina
Monoliths
Cordierite Ceramic,
"Thermacomb, "
stacked or rolled
Cordierite "Extrusion,"
W-l
Recent development
item
--
--
Potential User
of
Substrate Product
Engelhard, Grace,
Gulf , Matthey Bishop,
Oxy-Catalyst, UOP
Grace , Gulf,
Matthey Bishop,
Oxy-Catalyst, UOP
Grace
Gulf, Monsanto ,
Oxy-Catalyst, UOP
Monsanto, Oxy-Catalyst
UOP
*Limited to those companies contacted on data acquisition visits.
-------
by the various catalyst manufacturers to remain in a position to be able to
compete for potential 1975/76 catalyst requirements. In all cases, there was
reasonable confidence that if contract negotiations pending at that time with
automobile manufacturers soon resulted in firm production orders, the
schedules as shown could be met for oxidation catalysts.
6.1.3.Z Substrate Manufacturer Schedules
Corresponding production lead time schedules currently pro-
posed by representative substrate manufacturers are summarized in Figure
6-4. As was the case with catalyst lead time schedules (Figure 6-3), full pro-
duction of substrates is planned for the April to July 1974 time period. Again,
substrate units required for pre-production stockpiling and/or vehicle certifi-
cation testing, etc. would be provided from units produced during the plant
startup and shakedown period (January to July 1974) or from separate pilot
and batch processing lines. Whether or not these proposed production
schedules can or will in fact be implemented is of course dependent upon
timely receipt of firm production contracts from the automobile
manufacturers.
6. 1. 3. 3 Major Schedule Impact Factors
6. 1.3.3. 1 Plant Design and Construction
In every case, the time required for design of the production
facilities, site selection, and construction of the facility or plant is the critical
or pacing item in the overall production lead time schedule. Site selection and
preliminary facility design activities, at a level sufficient to support the lead
time schedules in Figures 6-3 and 6-4, have been or are under way. In some
cases this has been covered by contractual guarantees (e. g. , Ford Motor
Company/Engelhard Minerals and Chemicals Corporation/American Lava Cor-
poration agreements), while in other cases it has been supported by in-house
company funds. Actual construction of the production facility will not be initi-
ated by either catalyst or substrate manufacturers until they receive a firm
production order contract or similar financial guarantee. At the time of this
6-7
-------
I
oo
CY71
|J|A 5|OlN|D J|F|M|A|N
CY72 CY73 CY74
/I|J|J A|S|0|N|D J|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|S|0|N|D J |F|M|A|M| J| J A|S|O|
ENGELHARD {1) 35 30 2'5 20 15 10 * °
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
• PLANT NO. 1 S_^| (^^^sS\SS^
• PI ANT NP> ? > _.....
£1111
OXY-CATALYST ^1
MATTHEY BISHOP (2)
W.R. GRACE0 '(MONOLITH) *£.
MONSANTO (2)
UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS ;1) ^
1 1 RFSFARCH, 1
fiimmiiimliifliim Pwori^AM At-
SPECIFICAT
^\\V\S\S\S PI ANT 5ITF *
IWWWW9 FQIJIPMFNT 1
^MS^WL i •
"7
mfi III .___,.,
Hill ill ^XXXXXXXXNXXXVvXXXXXXVvVsXXXXXXXXVsXXVOsX^
JJJ)Q{XjJxxx>?ys?s?s?s?s^vvvvs^s^vs^vyyxy^i i i ^^
i*«>\So^>3'ji^^^S^^\\YtVvlSAA\x\\\S^
gJ2SiiI^^^^^Tx'^^^"L^<^x ^NVyVxVx *x x xx xj^J -^*^^
^ ^nmminy ' r
»™4 ill !«^x\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\^
— *
^9VSSSSSi)Hifl
)ESIGN, DEVELOPMENT
>PROVAL PERIOD (COMMITMENT AGREEMENTS, PRODUCT
ION DEFINITION, ETC.)
SELECTION, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION
5ESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, DELIVERY, INSTALLATION
FUP, SHAKEDOWN
(1) INITIAL COMMITMENT RECEIVED FROM AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURER
(2) START DATE SELECTED BY CATALYST MANUFACTURER
Figure 6-3. Production Lead Time Schedule for Catalyst Manufacturers
-------
CY71
A|S|O|N|D| J|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|S|0|N|D
CY72
JlAlS
CY73
J|F|MIA|M|J|J|A|S
CY74
|M|J|J|A|S|O|N|D|J|F|M|A|M|J|J A|S|O|
AMERICAN LAVAH)
• MODULE NO. 1
35
30
25 20 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
.MODULE NO. 2 O,—,
• MODULES
NOS. 3,4
CORNING
(2)
KAISER
(2)
REYNOLDS
(2)
L
RESEARCH, DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT
liliiiilllllilll.illlllll PROGRAM APPROVAL PERIOD (COMMITMENT AGREEMENTS, PRODUCT
SPECIFICATION DEFINITION, ETC.)
PLANT SITE SELECTION, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT DESIGN. CONSTRUCTION. DELIVERY, INSTALLATION
WAREHOUSING FACILITIES
PLANT STARTUP, SHAKEDOWN
I-.-:. •-.;•.-.. "-I FULL PRODUCTION
(l)INITIAL COMMITMENT RECEIVED FROM FORD/ENGELHARD
(2JSTART DATE SELECTED BY SUBSTRATE MANUFACTURER
Figure 6-4. Production Lead Time Schedule for Substrate Manufacturers
-------
investigation, negotiations for such production contracts were under way by
the major domestic automobile manufacturers and catalyst/substrate manu-
facturers (discussed in Section 6. 1.3. 7).
6. 1.3.3.2 Equipment and Materials Procurement
Raw materials for substrates and wash coats are considered
available in either abundant or necessary quantities and do not materially
impact the lead time schedule.
Platinum-group metals (platinum and/or palladium) used as the
catalytic agent are considered by the catalyst manufacturers to be available
in the lead time schedule time period. The acquisition of these platinum-
group metals is considered by most catalyst suppliers to be the province of
the automobile manufacturers who are currently negotiating with suppliers
in South Africa and the Soviet Union (see Section 11 for full discussion of
noble metal availability).
The necessary processing equipment and tools required for both
substrate and catalyst manufacturing facilities are largely conventional in
nature and do not represent limiting lead time items.
6.1.3.3.3 Plant Startup
Operation of either substrate or catalyst manufacturing facil-
ities is considered to be either simple or routine compared with the operation
of a chemical or petro-chemical plant. Allowances of 2 to 6 months have been
incorporated in the schedules of Figures 6-3 and 6-4.
6. 1. 3. 3. 4 Cost
Available estimates of capital cost requirements per individual
supplier are in the range of $4 to $5 million for substrate production facilities
and $4 to $15 million for catalyst production facilities, depending upon the
projected production capacity. At these cost levels, the substrate and catalyst
manufacturers will not commit venture capital without a firm production
contract or other form of guarantee. It is this fact which presently strongly
impacts the projected schedules of Figures 6-3 and 6-4, since the required
production facility construction will not commence until such agreements are
negotiated.
6-10
-------
6. 1. 3. 3. 5 Production Capacity
The production capacity of an individual substrate or catalyst
manufacturer impacts the lead time schedule in the sense that the required
capacity has to be known in a timely manner in order that the completed facility
will have the required capacity. In most cases the catalyst manufacturing
plants are being designed as modular units, with the capability to increase
capacity by adding production modules; therefore, in these cases production
volume currently has little effect on lead time. For example, Matthey Bishop,
Inc. requires a commitment by December 1,1972 to initiate a new plant con-
struction to meet the needs of a given production order. Once initiated,
however, a decision regarding additional capacity could be delayed until
approximately April 1973 to meet the same full volume production date.
(However, orders for substrates might have to be placed before that date. )
6. 1. 3. 3. 6 Product Specification Changes
A number of the catalyst manufacturers have indicated that
modifications of their currently projected plant equipment and catalyzing
process can be incorporated long after the start of catalyst plant construction.
Also, substrate modifications in terms of length, shape, and cell structure
can be implemented during the next 6 to 8 months. However, catalyst modifica-
tions requiring different process line components probably could not be
incorporated after placement of the equipment orders.
6. 1. 3. 4 Quality Control and Warranty
In most cases, product specifications have not as yet been
specifically delineated and definitive quality control measures have not been
completely spelled out. Items of concern include porosity control, wash coat
control, noble metal control, substrate breaking and chipping (monoliths), etc.
Candidate control techniques include both continuous on-line and batch testing
and could include weighing (before and after each process) and destructive
testing to verify uniformity and amount of wash coat and noble metal
distribution.
6-11
-------
It is noted that the mass production of catalysts of these types
has never before been accomplished by any company; however, the catalyst
firms involved believe that related production and quality control techniques
(chemical and petro-chemical industries) provide a firm basis for assurance
that quality control requirements will not adversely impact their proposed
production lead time schedules.
With regard to warranty, the catalyst and substrate manufac-
turers plan to warrant only that the finished product meets the product
specification requirements. They will not warrant the performance of the
finished catalyst as it is installed in the automobile.
6. 1. 3. 5 Pilot Plants
All catalyst manufacturers contacted except the Monsanto
Company, Grace, and Gulf have some form of pilot processing production
plant in operation. Monsanto has made no decision as to whether or not a
pilot plant will be used, while Grace has decided that there is insufficient
time to do so and still maintain its projected lead time schedule. Such
pilot plants do not directly impact the lead time schedules as shown, but do
provide a means for providing quantities of catalyst units needed for pre-
production inventory buildup and certification testing, etc. , during the period
prior to full operation of the completed catalyst production facilities. Where
pilot plants are not available, such required quantities would have to be pro-
cessed in batch production facilities.
In the case of substrate manufacturers (American Lava, Corning
Glass Works, Reynolds Metals Company), all have current pilot production
capability.
6. 1. 3. 6 Schedule Compression Potential and Effects
With regard to the potential for compressing or shortening the
production lead time schedules shown above, the substrate manufacturers have
stated, in general, that no appreciable compression can be made at the present
level of schedule definition (Figure 6-4).
6-12
-------
In the finished catalyst area, there is some hope of minor
schedule compressions, as follows:
a. Grace. No schedule compression for monoliths; 3 to 6 month
schedule reduction for pellet catalysts at a 10 to 15 cent per
pound cost increase (due to premium pay and increased capital
cost).
b. Matthey Bishop. One to two month schedule compression for
building construction with overtime work (at a negligible
product cost increase).
c. Monsanto. Some reduction on plant construction and equipment
procurement time. The magnitude of schedule compression and
related cost effects are not estimatable at this time.
d. Oxy-Catalyst. Approximately 3 month schedule compression
at 10% cost increase due to overtime pay.
e. Universal Oil Products Company. One to 1 1/2 months reduction
in facilities construction. The resulting cost penalty is not
known.
6. 1. 3. 7 Current and Pending Contract Agreements
6. 1. 3. 7. 1 Catalyst Manufacturers
At the time of this investigation (August through October L972)
the status of contractual agreements between the automobile manufacturers and
the catalyst manufacturers was one of uncertainty and change because during
this period apparently serious negotiations were under way between most of
the major domestic automobile manufacturers and the various potential catalyst
manufacturers. The following is the status reported as of the time of visits
made to the various companies involved (summarized in Table 6-3).
6. 1. 3. 7. 1. 1 Engelhard Minerals and Chemicals Corporation
Ford has contracted with Engelhard for supplying catalysts to
be used in its emission control system, and to date has provided financial
backing of up to $4. 9 million for production facilities and equipment. According
to one source, this agreement would be for meeting -60 percent of Ford's
1975 catalyst requirements (or up to 3. 6 million catalyst units/year). Addi-
tional Ford commitments will rise to about $10 million in March 1973 when
product design oriented equipment and facilities are ordered, and to $14 million
6-13
-------
Table 6-3. Current and Pending Contract Agreements —
Oxidation Catalysts and Substrates
o--
-^_^^ Domestic Auto
---^^^ Company
C a i a 1 y s t o r ^~~~"~ — ^^^^
Substrate Supplier ^^
E:iL-elhard
Grace
Mat'.hey Bishop:':
Monsanto
Oxy-Catalyst
i
OOP
1
[
i
Ante rican Lava
1
Reynolds
Genera! Victors
S630, 000 engin-
eering commit -
ment
Bidding on 25 ^o
of !r'75 require-
ments
Bid on 1^75
require in ents
Negot i at ing
Negotiating
Bid on pellet re-
quirements of
potential catalyst
suppliers (Davis,
Oxy-Cal al vsi . Mon-
santo)
i o rd
-60"' of 1 "75- re-
quirements (up to
3. o million units/year)
Current commitment
$4. C1 million
Could increase to $14
million by April 1974
Negotiating for
-30r of 1975 re-
quirement (-1.8
million units/year
^ ' c ^',ot iating
S300. 000 capital guaran-
tee (scale-up of facility
for portion of 1975 re-
quirements. Agreement
for further scale -up in
1973: negotiating pro-
duction orders.
C h r \ s I e. r
Nepot i at ing fo r
25"'. to i!Jr., of
1 975 reqr.i remem
Engineering com-
mitment (facility
design). Expect
production con-
tract fo r " s uh -
stamial' par; of
1975 requirements
L
American Motors
i
1
-May also be asked to supply all of International Harvester rrqui reiv.unt s.
-------
by April 1974. These are maximum cancellation agreements providing for
reimbursement of Engelhard1 s nonrecoverable costs in the event of contract
cancellation.
6.1.3.7.1.2 W. R. Grace and Company
Grace has received a $630, 000 engineering commitment from
General Motors covering work in the period from August through December
1972. These funds are for the preliminary design of production plant facilities
for both monolithic and pellet catalysts (parallel efforts). Grace is currently
completing bid proposals to supply 25% of General Motors oxidation catalyst
requirements. While actual bidding, ope rations with other companies are not
yet in progress, it hopes to bid on the catalyst requirements of other auto-
mobile manufacturers.
6. 1. 3. 7. 1. 3 Gulf Oil Company
Gulf has no commitment for reduction (NO ) catalysts from the
automobile industry. Since reduction catalysts are not utilized in 1975 model
year vehicles, Gulf feels that serious negotiations with the automobile com-
panies will not be instituted before the end of 1973.
6.1.3.7.1.4 Matthey Bishop, Inc.
Contract negotiations are under way with Ford, and Matthey
Bishop expects a firm commitment for catalysts from Ford most likely for
30% of Ford's total catalyst requirement for three years (quantities up to
about 1. 8 million units per year).
Recently, contract negotiations were initiated with Chrysler.
Matthey Bishop believes its share of the Chrysler business could be 25% to
30%. Also, Matthey Bishop may be asked to supply all of International Har-
vester Company's requirements. Conversely, it expects no orders from
General Motors or American Motors Corporation. To date, no contracts
have been awarded to substrate and materials suppliers (American Lava and
Corning are potential substrate suppliers).
6-15
-------
6. 1. 3. 7. 1. 5 Monsanto Company
Monsanto has no commitment for catalysts from any automobile
manufacturer. It has no contractual agreements with potential suppliers of
plant equipment or catalyst materials.
6.1.3.7.1.6 Oxy-Catalyst Inc.
Oxy-Catalyst has no commitment for catalysts from any auto-
mobile manufacturer. However, it is currently negotiating with General
Motors.
6. 1. 3. 7. 1. 7 Universal Oil Products Company (UOP)
UOP recently signed an agreement with Chrysler involving
design, engineering, and site preparation of a manufacturing facility with a
capability of providing a "substantial part of Chrysler's 1975 catalyst require-
ments. " A separate contract would be negotiated for a specific production
output. Current indications are that Chrysler would contract for the monolithic
substrate from another source (as yet unidentified).
UOP has also been talking to and negotiating with Ford, General
Motors, Volkswagen AG, and Toyota Motor Company, Ltd.
At the insistence of the automobile companies, UOP has agreed
(reluctantly) to accept a technology-sharing contractual arrangement which
would require it to release its processes, royalty-free, to other automobile
company sources of supply.
6. 1. 3. 7. 2 Substrate Manufacturers
A similar state of flux characterizes the status of contractual
agreements between substrate manufacturers and catalyst or automobile manu-
facturers. The following is the status reported as of the time of visits made to
the various companies involved (summarized in Table 6-3).
6-16
-------
6. 1. 3. 7. 2. 1 American Lava Corporation
American Lava has a formal agreement with Ford for the
scale-up of production facilities to meet a portion of Ford's substrate
requirements for 1975. Under this agreement, Ford will guarantee the
expenditure of American Lava venture capital to the extent of $300, 000
through the end of December 1972. A second agreement, of an undisclosed
amount, covers additional scale-up of production facilities in calendar year
1973. However, American Lava has not yet received a production order for
catalytic substrates, but is actively negotiating this with Ford. The number
of production units involved in these negotiations was not disclosed.
6.1.3.7.2.2 Corning Glass Works
Corning does not yet have any contractual commitments from
catalyst or automobile manufacturers. It is currently seeking construction
cost guarantees similar to the Ford/Engelhard/American Lava agreements.
6.1.3.7.2.3 W. R. Grace
Grace has no commitments for their monolith substrate.
Samples have been supplied to Ford, and at its request, to other catalyst
manufacturers.
6.1.3.7.2.4 Kaiser Chemicals
Kaiser has no commitments for their pellet substrates.
6. 1. 3. 7. 2. 5 Reynolds
Reynolds currently has no firm contractual agreements with
either catalyst or automotive manufacturers. It has provided quotes on its
pellet substrates to Davis Chemical, Oxy-Catalyst, and Monsanto, who were
in turn bidding on potential General Motors catalyst requirements in the
August through September 1972 time period.
6-17
-------
6. 1.3.8 Prognosis for 1975 Lead Time Requirements
Based on the lead time schedule projections made by catalyst
and substrate manufacturers in the August through October 1972 time period,
quantity production of oxidation catalysts for, 1975 model year automobiles is
possible if production order commitments or other acceptable venture capital
guarantee arrangements were made by the automobile manufacturers in the
November through December 1972 time period. The exact "no go" or "can't
make" decision date is difficult to define, because it is intimately related to
the level of effort sustained by the substrate or catalyst manufacturer since
the schedules (Figures 6-3 and 6-4) were acquired. It is very likely that
schedule compression efforts, in the plant construction area in particular,
would have to be employed to meet production schedules, at some risk of
product cost increase.
Whether or not the automobile manufacturers will make the
necessary contractual commitments for 1975 oxidation catalyst requirements,
is of course a matter for conjecture only, as it is impossible to predetermine
their evaluation of the relative risk factors involved in making such produc-
tion commitments.
6-18
-------
6.Z AMERICAN LAVA CORPORATION
6. Z. 1 Company Experience and Products
6. Z. 1. 1 Automotive and Nonautomotive Products
American Lava, a subsidiary of the Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company, manufactures a broad spectrum of technical ceramic
products which include the Thermacomb Brand corrugated ceramic materials.
It has been engaged in the production of Thermacomb ceramics for
such applications as catalyst supports for industrial air pollution control
equipment, waste heat and gas turbine heat exchangers, and flame arresters
for over 10 years.
Automotive applications have been confined to the development
of a catalytic support base, or substrate, for use as an oxidation or reduction
catalyst. Two basic forming methods, rolled and stacked, have been used to
fabricate the corrugated substrate. Examples of these two types are shown
in Figure 6-5. The stacked structure is currently favored for automotive
application.
6. Z. 1.2 Automotive Catalyst-Related Products
The particular Thermacomb ceramic being used by American
Lava for the automotive substrate, has as its primary constituent a cordierite
material, Z MgO* Z A12O3' 5 SiO^,bearing the trade name AlSiMag 795. The
corrugation pattern of this stacked monolithic substrate is the split cell
configuration shown in Figure 6-6. The current design has 8 corrugations
per inch with 0. 008 inch wall thickness.
American Lava describes its substrate production process as
consisting of three fundamental steps: forming, drying and firing, and
finishing. Raw material for the process is received from Minnesota
Mining in rolls of cordierite impregnated paper. American Lava corrugates
(using techniques similar to those used for the manufacture of cardboard
containers), cuts, glues, and stacks the material in large blocks. Moisture
picked up in the gluing operation is driven off in a drier. The dried stacks
6-19
-------
•
ROILED STRUCTURES } ,
Figure 6-5. American Lava-Stacked and Rolled Corrugated Structure
6-20
-------
SC SPLIT CELL (Note Separator)
XFSC
CROSS-FLOW,
SPLIT CELL
Note separators
and corrugations
at 90*
xxsc
CRISS-CROSS,
SPLIT CEU
Note separators
and corrugations
it 45*
XXHC
CRISS-CROSS,
HONEYCOMB
with corrugations
at 45"
Note there is no
separator.
Figure 6-6. American Lava Corrugated Structure Types
6-21
-------
are then fired at 1310 C. Following this the ceramic structure is core
drilled to produce a circular cross section, which is then cut to length. The
cut pieces are form ground to the specified geometry, e. g. , circular or oval
(Chrysler apparently is the only manufacturer still considering the oval geom-
etry). Washing, drying and inspection operations complete: the procedure.
The finished substrates would be packaged in cartons and
shipped (600 substrates per pallet, 56 pallets per box car) to a catalyst manu-
facturer, such as Engelhard, who would apply the wash coat and catalyst.
American Lava states that Engelhard may also apply the belly-band, or cylin-
drical portion, of the catalyst container. End cones would be applied
by fabricators such as Walker Manufacturing Company and Arvin
Industries. American Lava indical.es that Ford is still not happy with present
techniques for mounting the catalyst in the container. One approach uses a
spring loaded support and Fiberfrax cement filler. American Lava could
spray the Fiberfrax, but it is not actively pursuing this business.
6. Z. 1.3 Automotive Catalyst/Substrate Test Programs
American Lava does not have an in-house catalyst test program
since it produces only the substrate. However, development work on automo-
tive substrate properties and characteristics is continuing.
Historically, American Lava has been a major source of supply
for monolithic substrates. These have been evaluated by all domestic and
most foreign automobile manufacturers as well as many catalyst manufacturers
including Engelhard, Grace, Matthey Bishop, and UOP.
6. 2. 1. 4 Current Research Programs
American Lava has examined other substrate designs. Some
of these (unspecified) are still under consideration for automotive use. More
corrugations per inch would provide quicker catalyst light off but higher
exhaust back pressure. There is also a tradeoff between the number of cor-
rugations per inch and web thickness versus strength. The present design is
not yet optimized in this respect.
6-22
-------
American Lava is also looking at new substrate designs for
possible use in the 1976 production. One of these is an extrusion process.
This eliminates the need for the paper base and many of the operations pres-
ently used. On the other hand, it feels that the extrusion process produces
a pre-loaded structure that is less resistant to thermal stress. It also is
not convinced that the process is necessarily a lower cost approach, in
view of the high cost of the dies involved and the lack of flexibility in changing
substrate geometries. The larger capital equipment at least partially offsets
the economic advantage of fewer process operations.
6. 2. 2 Overall Schedule
6. 2. 2. 1 Normal Production Lead Time Schedule
The manufacturing scale-up schedule that was initially projected
by American Lava to produce the monolithic stacked substrate is presented in
Figure 6-7. Its basic approach is to develop its production capability on a
modular basis. Each module would have a production capacity of 2. 25 mil-
lion units per year, based on a 3 shift per day, 5 day per week schedule.
The first module was planned for completion on a production
basis by April 1, 1973. The second module was planned to be ready by July 1,
1973, thereby providing a production capability of 4. 5 million units per year
only 18 months after the start of the design phase.
Modules 3 and 4, which would bring the total production capac-
ity to 9 million units per year, were planned to be ready by April 1, 1974.
These four production modules were planned for construction at the
Chattanooga plant, where space could be made available by transferring other
operations from Chattanooga to a South Carolina plant.
Additional modules, if required, would be installed in Minnesota
Mining's plant facilities outside of Chattanooga, raising the total production
capability to 30 million units per year. This represents American Lava's
estimate for 30% of the world substrate market in 1976. This number is based
on an average utilization of 1. 8 oxidizing and 1. 8 reducing catalyst units per
domestic car and 1.6/1.6 units per foreign car. It was assumed by American Lava
6-23
-------
o
o
_l
EQUIPMENT BUI
1972 1973 1974
j |F M|A|M J j| A s
DESIGN
AND
CONTRACT
0 N D J F M
^ RUIl 0
BUILDI
PROTOTYP
PRODUCTH
DESIGN AND BUILD 1
FIRST CORRUGATING MODULES
DESIGN PARAMETERS
FOR NEW KILNS
A M| J J A S 0 N|D J FMAMJ J | A| s|o N D
WAREHOUSE
NG
PREPARE 3M PLANT
FOR PRODUCTION
y V BUILD NEW PLANT
1 / \
/ \
F PROPERTY DESIGN
* SEARCH AND
>N CONTRACT
ORDER AND BUILD ADDITIONAL UNITS AS NEEDED
^°^TAYN^EBKU|LLND ORDER ADDITIONAL KILNS AS NEEDED
CHART REPRESENTS SCALE UP TO 4. 5 MILLION UNITS BY JULY 1973
" 9.0 MILLION UNITS BY MARCH 1974
" 30.0 MILLION UNITS BY MARCH 1975
Figure 6-7. American Lava Initially Projected Schedule for Manufacturing Scale-Up
-------
that the same substrate material would be used for both oxidizing and reducing
catalysts. The "Build New Plant" phase of its projected schedule (Figure 6-7)
would only be put into effect if a requirement arose to supply more than 30%
of the world market.
Each production module will require a total of 9, 000 square
feet of plant space, including the area required for the kilns. This relatively
small plant area requirement was said to be due to the unique design of the
kilns. The only building construction involved in the development of the
9 million units per year capability at Chattanooga is a warehouse building to
house the incoming raw materials. The size of this building is not known.
Under the terms of its agreement with Ford (see Section 6. 1. 6),
American Lava is currently proceeding on a revised schedule for the develop-
ment of the Chattanooga production facilities (Figure 6-8). The processes
developed in its existing pilot ope ration at Chattanooga will be utilized as a
basis for designing these production facilities. The first module is still
scheduled for completion in the first quarter of 1973. The second module is
now scheduled for completion in the first quarter of 1974. This schedule,
reflecting current contract considerations, includes the third and fourth
modules which could also be built at Chattanooga. Ford has told American
Lava that it would need the maximum annual capacity output (3 shifts per day)
for a 13 or 14 week period only.
6. 2. 2. 2 Major Impact Factors
American Lava states that construction of the warehouse for
raw material storage is the critical, or pacing, item in the development of
the Chattanooga production modules. This must be started by October 1972 to
meet the planned schedule. American Lava would not proceed with construc-
tion until a piece part contract is obtained.
In response to an inquiry from Ford concerning the latest
possible date for making substrate design changes, American Lava indicated
that January/February 1973 was the last date for making modifications in
6-25
-------
WAREHOUSE BUILDING
DESIGN AND CONTRACT
BUILD
EQUIPMENT
A. PRODUCTION MODULE No. 1
ITO MEET FORD REQUIREMENT)
1. CORRUGATING UNITS
DESIGN AND BUILD
PROTOTYPE
PRODUCTION
2. ADDITIONAL KILNS
DESIGN
ORDER AND BUILD
B. PRODUCTION MODULE No. 2
1. CORRUGATING UNITS
DESIGN AND BUILD
PROTOTYPE
PRODUCTION
2. KILNS
DESIGN
ORDER AND BUILD
C. PRODUCTION MODULES 3 AND4
(PROJECTED)
1. CORRUGATING UNITS
DESIGN AND BUILD
PROTOTYPE
PRODUCTION
2. KILNS
DESIGN
ORDER AND BUILD
j
F
M
r~
A
r~
c
M
Y
j
19
j
72
A
s
1
F
0
1
N
D
J
F
riC
M
<
A
_V
^
^
C1
M
b>
Lj
'
J
P/
9"
j
T3
A
s
•~n
0
N
D
J
F
M
A
:Y
M
1
J
9"
J
'4
A
S
O N D
j
1
!
i
[
'
;
30 25 20 15 10' 5
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
Figure 6-8. American Lava Revised Production Lead Time Schedule (Chattanooga Facilities)
-------
material properties. Deadlines for geometry changes such as web thickness,
corrugations per inch, finished configuration, etc. , ranged from December
1972 to June 1973. The lead time required for a paper thickness (web thick-
ness) change was specifically delineated as 6 to 9 months.
American Lava also has stated that March 1973 was the latest
date on which it could accept an order from General Motors to build sub-
strates for the 1975 model year. As indicated in Figure 6-8, this suggests
that American Lava could double the number of production modules at Chatta-
nooga in the succeeding 1Z months.
6. 2. 2. 3 Reduction Catalysts
American Lava assumes that the same substrate material will
be used for the reducing catalyst as that used for the oxidation catalyst. As
discussed in Section 6. 2. 1. 4, American Lava also is looking at new substrate
forming techniques, including an extrusion process, for possible use in 1976
production.
American Lava has had discussions with General Motors on
designs for the General Motors Triple Mode Emission Control System being
considered for possible use in 1976 and has submitted quotes to General
Motors. With regard to the two-component system required to meet the 1976
standards, American Lava has been told that pellet catalysts produce higher
back pressure and could not be used in series for both oxidation and reduc-
tion catalysts.
6. 2. 3 Major Schedule Elements
6. 2. 3. 1 Plant Design and Construction
As discussed in Section 6.2.2. 1, the only building construction
which must be accomplished at American Lava's Chattanooga facility is the
warehouse required for storage of raw materials.
If a production capacity in excess of 9 million units per year
is required, existing space can be prepared for substrate production within a
period of 10 months. However, in the event that American Lava required a
production capacity in excess of 30 million units per year, a new facility
6-27
-------
would have to be built. As indicated in Figure 6-7, this would require a
total of 17 months. American Lava does not believe that this requirement
could be significantly reduced.
6. 2. 3. 2 Equipment and Material Procurement
Process equipment to be used by American Lava includes cor-
rugating machines, cutter/stackers, driers, kilns, diamond-tipped saws and
core drills, and diamond form grinders. The form grinders may be either
the wheel or belt type; the final choice has not yet been made. An existing
tunnel kiln used in the pilot facility will be utilized in the first production
module.
American Lava's greatest design effort has been on the form-
ing equipment, i. e. , the corrugating machine and the cutter/stacker. It
feels, however, that none of this equipment involves development beyond the
present state of the art. The cutter/stacker for the first module has been
ordered and will be delivered in September 1972. In addition to designing
its own corrugating machines, American Lava is having a paper corrugator
built as a backup machine. A critical item from the standpoint of cost and
continuity of production is the corrugating wheels. At the present time,
American Lava is replacing four rollers per week per corrugating unit
because of the high abrasive nature of the ceramic impregnated paper and is
looking at tungsten carbide rollers as a possible means of reducing the fre-
quency of replacement. The frequency of replacement could create a poten-
tial supply problem and affect the continuity of production, particularly if the
supplier were to encounter a labor strike.
American Lava has been using form grinders for many years
and anticipates no problems in the acquisition of new machines or in the
operation of them under mass production conditions.
There are four manufacturers who can supply the required
kilns. An existing tunnel kiln will be used in the first module. The second
kiln required for the first module was ordered the last week in August and
will be delivered March 1, 1973. Two additional kilns are required for the
6-28
-------
second module. The present kiln design may be modified for the second
module but will not create a scheduling problem. The type of drier required
has been selected, but the supplier has not yet been chosen. Delivery time
on this unit is only 13 weeks.
6.2.3.3 Plant Startup
American Lava has allowed a total of 3 months for plant
startup as shown under prototype production in Figure 6-8.
6.2.4 Pilot Plant
American Lava's present output of automotive substrates is
produced at a pilot facility at the Chattanooga plant which was generally
described as being nonautomated. Production capability of this facility is
not known. A portion of the pilot facility (tunnel kiln) will be incorporated
into the first production module scheduled to be on-line by April 1,1973.
6. 2. 5 Current and Pending Contracts
American Lava has a formal agreement with Ford for the
scale-up of production facilities to meet a portion of Ford's substrate require-
ments for 1975. Under the terms of the initial agreement, Ford will guarantee
the expenditure of American Lava venture capital to the extent of $300, 000
through the end of December, 1972,, In the event of order cancellation,
American Lava's expenditures for capital equipment would be reimbursed to
the extent that these expenditures were nonrecoverable; i. e. , that the facili-
ties and equipment could not be used for other American Lava operations. A
second agreement, of an undisclosed amount, covers additional scale-up of
production facilities in calendar year 1973 with a similar cancellation clause.
American Lava is proceeding on the scale-up of production
capability to achieve the completion of the first production module by April
1,1973 and the second module by April 1,1974. It has not .yet, however,
received a production order for catalytic substrates, but is actively negotiating
this with Ford. The number of production units involved has not been disclosed.
Construction of the warehouse would not be started until a production contract
is signed.
6-29
-------
6.3 CORNING GLASS WORKS
6.3.1 Company Experience and Products
6.3.1.1 Automotive and Nonautomotive Products
Corning Glass Works manufactures technical and specialty
glass and glass ceramics. Major nonautomotive product lines include
electronic and electrical components, optical and ophthalmic glass, consumer
ware, and a variety of technical components for industry.
Corning has been involved in an active research and development
program on monolithic substrates for automotive catalyst supports since the
spring of 1970. In addition it has been involved since 1950 in the manufacture
of multi-cellular ceramics for numerous applications, including use as a
rotary heat exchanger in gas turbine engines.
6.3.1 .2 Automotive Catalyst-Related Products
Corning is actively pursuing the automotive monolithic sub-
strate market. It has done research work on the wash coat and on the appli-
cation of the catalytic materials, but does not intend to compete for business
in these areas.
Early substrate development work by Corning included both
the rolled and stacked corrugated substrate configuration in which the
cordierite (magnesia/alumina/silica) ceramic material was deposited on a
corrugated paper base.
The current Corning substrate, designated as the W-l, was
introduced to catalyst and automotive manufacturers in December 1 971 . The
basic material used is also cordierite but the structure is a true monolith
rather than a built-up structure as in the case of the stacked or rolled sub-
strate. Corning will not reveal the processes used to manufacture the W-l
but does indicate that it has previously been referred to as an- extrusion and
that this is acceptable nomenclature for the purpose of discussion. While
the present W-l substrate has a square-cell matrix, the product can be
6-30
-------
fabricated in a wide variety of cross sectional configurations, as shown in
Figure 6-9. The square cell matrix pattern is not considered to be final and
the product can be made in hexagonal, triangular or other shapes. Different
cell configurations are still being evaluated to determine the optimum con-
figuration from the standpoint of strength, bulk modulus of elasticity, uni-
formity of coating, etc. Nominal properties of the W-l substrate are shown
in Table 6-4.
6. 3. 1. 3 Automotive Catalyst/Substrate Test Programs
Corning presently is testing substrates in engine dynamometer
facilities and on four cars: a Ford, a Chevrolet, a Datsun, and a Volkswagen.
Road test data have been used to establish the environmental conditions in its
bench testing facility.
Corning has been told that the rotary engine exhaust pulsations
impose a particularly severe vibration environment for the substrate which
could accelerate breakdown of the substrate structure. Corning has ordered
a Mazda to test this condition. No test results are available at the present
time.
Corning has supplied W-l substrate samples to Chrysler
Corporation, Ford, and General Motors, in addition to many catalyst and
chemical firms, including Engelhard, Matthey Bishop, UOP, Gulf, Monsanto,
American Oil Company, Mobile Oil Company, Smith and Associates, Davis
Chemical, American Cyanamid Company, and Oxy-Catalyst. It has also
provided test samples to European and Japanese auto manufacturers and
catalyst manufacturers .
Corning reports that Ford had successfully accumulated
36, 000 miles on the W-l substrate without mechanical breakdown. The
emission levels for this test were not necessarily within standards.
6-31
-------
Figure 6-9. Corning Substrate Geometries
6-32
-------
Table 6-4. Corning W-l Monolithic Substrate Nominal Properties
MECHANICAL STRENGTH
Crushing Resistance
Axial
Radial
45°
*Impact (Cumulative ft-lb - 5 ft drop)
Radial (140 ft-lb)
Axial (140 ft-lb)
Vibration (280 cpm, Amp 1 .062 in.,
80 min)
Thermal Expansion (75° to 1 830°F)
^Mounted in Converter Assembly
STRUCTURAL UNIFORMITY
Bulk Density
Cell Uniformity (0.06 in. X 0.06
in.
Wall Uniformity (0.010 in. Thick
Wall)
Cells/in.2 (0.06 in. X 0.06 In.
Cell, 0.01 in. Wall)
Outside Diameter (Nominal 4-5/8 in.)
Open Frontal Area
Porosity - by Mercury Porosimeter
Median Pore Size - by Mercury
Porosimeter
5, 000 psi
500 psi
50 psi
8% wt. loss
3% wt. loss
11% wt. loss
1 .25 X 10-6 in/in°F
28 ± 2 lb/ft3
.060 in. to .061 in.
.010 in. to .0095 in.
203 ± 5
± 1/32 in.
74% ± 2%
34%
7 . 5 microns
6-33
-------
6.3.1.4 Current Research Programs
Corning indicates the following advantages for the W-l
substrate:
a. A more direct fabrication process which requires less labor
and fewer process steps, which reduces the cost.
b. The crimping process in the fabrication of the corrugated
layered or stacked substrates results in a loss of effective
surface area. This does not occur with the W-l cell matrix
geometry.
c. The layered or stacked process produces nonuniform cells
and, therefore, nonuniform flow distribution, resulting in less
effective utilization of catalyst surface.
d. The heavy protective layer of cordierite on the exterior sur-
face of the W-l substrate results in a 5000 psi axial crushing
strength compared with 2500 psi for the stacked/layered type.
Along with the foregoing advantages, however, Corning has indicated that
improvements to the W-l substrate must be made in two areas before it is
ready for release to production. One of these concerns a bonding problem
between the W-l substrate and the alumina wash coat. Catalyst manufacturers
have requested that Corning make every effort to improve the bonding char-
acteristics of the cell surface. Although the bonding phenomenon is not well
understood by the industry, Corning infers that this problem is primarily
identified with high temperature operation. It does not know if other sub-
strate manufacturers are confronted with this difficulty.
The other primary problem to which Coming's development
effort is directed is the improvement in the resistance of the substrate to
thermal stresses produced by temperature cycling under normal driving
conditions .
6.3.2 Overall Schedule
6.3.2.1 Normal Production Lead Time Schedule
Corning is proceeding on the production development schedule
shown in Figure 6-10. Corning would build a new manufacturing facility for
6-34
-------
o-
I
OJ
BUILDINGS
1. ENGINEERING DESIGN, BIDDING
AND AWARD CONTRACTS
2. CONSTRUCTION
NON DESIGN RELATED EQUIPMENT
1. DESIGN AND ENGINEERING
2. PROCUREMENT
3. INSTALLATION
DESIGN RELATED EQUIPMENT
1. DESIGN AND ENGINEERING
2. PROCUREMENT
3. INSTALLATION
PLANT SHAKEDOWN
PRODUCTION BUILDUP
j
F
M
A
C'
M
f
J
9"
J
n
A
S
o
N
D
J
F
M
A
e
M
f
J
19
j
73
A
S
o
1
N
D
J
F
M
A
c>
M
'
J
9'
J
f4
A
S
O
N
D
30 25 20 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
Figure 6-10. Corning Production Lead Time Schedule
-------
1975 model year production. Current planning calls for this facility to be
located at the present Corning site.
None of the activities indicated in the schedule have proceeded
beyond the design and engineering phases, which, to date, have been under-
taken at Coming's expense. Building construction or production equipment
orders would not be implemented without a commitment from either a catalyst
manufacturer or an automobile manufacturer.
The Corning schedule is based upon a production target of
300, 000 to 900, 000 units per month (3.6 to 10.8 million units per year),
although the lack of any commitment to date is reported by Corning to make
these goals somewhat academic (see Section 6.3.2.2).
Corning has indicated that a plant size of approximately
100, 000 square feet would be required for the 300, 000 unit per month pro-
duction rate, although it may represent a production capacity somewhat
higher, since it would probably build to accommocate excess capacity. The
higher production rates (up to 900,000 units/month) would require 150,000 to
200, 000 square feet. It should be pointed out that these square footage
requirements may not be directly comparable to those of other manufacturers,
since Coming's figures include kilns which are located indoors, whereas
other manufacturers may locate them in separate, outside facilities.
Although Corning is comparatively new to the catalytic sub-
strate field, it feels that the foregoing schedule could be achieved based upon
the experience gained in the operation of its Company-funded pilot facility.
Operation of this facility has contributed to the development of prototype
manufacturing equipment and the optimization of its process and product
parameters.
6. 3. 2. 2 Major Impact Factors
Corning has stated that there are no critical path items within
the framework of its normal production lead time schedule (Figure 6-10).
Facility construction time was critical at one time, but new construction
6-36
-------
techniques used twice previously by Corning have eliminated this item from
the critical category. Raw materials are reported to be available in carload
lots upon order. The forming equipment used by Corning, while not available
off the shelf, could easily be procured within Coming's projected schedule.
Tooling and tool construction are also reported as presenting no significant
problems .
Corning states that its production schedule is about as tight as
it could possibly be. At the time of the meeting with Corning (August 29
1972), it was within the time frame of the schedule and had not had to
face any requirements for possible compression as far as production (for the
1975 model year) is concerned. However, a recent telephone contact with
Corning brought to light what must be considered the most serious problem
impacting its planned production schedule. Because of the fact that it has
not received any commitments fr< i potential customers, Corning may
decide to defer further production development until a firm commitment has
been received. This would mean a slip in the published Corning schedule.
6. 3. 2. 3 Reduction Catalysts
Corning expects the substrate for the reduction catalysts to be
used on the 1976 automobiles to be similar to, if not the same as, that used
for the oxidation catalyst. On this basis, it feels that a shorter development
schedule for 1 976 substrate production may be possible, since the manufac-
turing processes would already have been proven out during the 1975
production.
For 1976 production, a second production facility would be
required which would probably be built at a different location to ensure that
labor is available for a minimum production output at all times.
6.3.3 Major Schedule Elements
6.3.3.1 Plant Design and Construction
Plant design is being carried out by Corning at its own expense
as a part of its in-house effort toward the development of the production
6-37
-------
schedule discussed in Section 6.3.2.1 . As indicated in Figure 6-10, the
design engineering, bidding and contract awarding phases were scheduled to
be completed by December 1,1972, followed by a 10-month construction
period scheduled for completion early in October, 1973. Building design is
based upon new construction techniques used by Corning on two previous
occasion? . Construction would not be started without a commitment from a
potential customer.
As previously pointed out, the Corning in-house effort may
be deferred until such a commitment is received. The effect of such a
deferment on the ability of Corning to meet its proposed schedule is
unknown at the present time.
6.3.3.2 Equipment and Material Procurement
There are no lead time problems associated with Coming's
raw material requirements. Sources of supply have been identified and
the raw materials will be available upon order. Corning declines to
identify its source of raw materials, indicating that this information
might reveal to its competitors the chemical properties of its cordierite
supply.
Equipment involved in the production of the W-l substrate is
generally described by Corning as consisting of blenders, mullers (mixers),
"forming equipment", drying and firing kilns, and cutters. Corning will not
be more specific as to the nature of the process equipment since it considers
this to be proprietary information.
The "forming equipment", although not an off-the-shelf item,
is reported to be generally available to the industry. Corning would order
such equipment to its own specifications or modifications. Such equipment
would be readily available within the time frame of its production schedule.
Tooling and tool construction are also reported as not being a significant
lead time consideration.
As shown in Figure 6-10, Corning has indicated two basic
categories of equipment, i.e., nondesign and design related equipment. The
6-38
-------
nondesign related equipment refers to such items as raw material processing
equipment, e. g. , blenders, mixers, and other equipment not dependent on a
knowledge of the finished dimensions of the product. Design related equip-
ment would be dependent on knowing the finished dimensions. As shown in
its schedule, Corning states that design related equipment would have to be
ordered by January 1,1973. This would be the last date to define the produc-
tion geometry to be used.
6.3.3.3 Plant Startup
Corning has allowed a three-month period starting January 1,
1974 for plant shakedown followed by an additional three-month period for
production buildup to 100% capacity. This six-month interval appears to be
two to three months longer than that reported by other substrate manufacturers
and could possibly represent sor^e margin for schedule compression.
6.3.4 Quality Control and Warranty
Corning reports that firm specifications on the substrate have
not yet been established by the auto manufacturers and that it can not define
any warranty requirements on their part. Corning is working with the catalyst
processors to define and develop suitable strength and adherence properties.
Auto manufacturers are expected to provide only gross specifications, such
as maximum back pressure, overall dimensions, etc.
6.3.5 Pilot Plant
The present capacity of the pilot plant is reported by Corning
to be 1500 to 3000 units per month. Original planning by Corning called for
additional equipment to be added during the next six to seven months which
would raise the production capacity to 30, 000 or more units per month by
6-39
-------
June 1973 to permit catalyst manufacturers to build an adequate inventory
for preproduction trial runs in 1974. However, this program might be cur-
tailed in view of the absence of commitments from the automotive industry.
6.3.6 Current and Pending Contract Agreements
Corning has not yet had any contractual commitments from
catalyst processors or auto manufacturers.
Corning feels that the auto manufacturers would have the final
word on who will supply substrates to their catalyst suppliers and expects to
contract directly with the auto firms to supply substrates to the catalyst
manufacturers. Corning is currently seeking guarantees that facilities
construction costs would be covered in the event of an order cancellation,
similar to the Ford/Engelhard/American Lava agreements.
6-40
-------
6.4 ENGELHARD MINERALS AND CHEMICALS CORPORATION
6.4.1 Company Experience and Products
6.4.1.1 Automotive and Nonautomotive Products
Engelhard is a major refiner of precious metals, and a major
manufacturer of precious metal catalysts and products used by the chemical,
petro-chemical, petroleum, and pharmaceutical industries for processing
and pollution control for more than 20 years.
For several years Engelhard has been engaged in the develop-
ment of oxidation catalysts for potential use in automotive exhaust emission
control systems. Engelhard does not manufacture the catalyst substrate, but
it does apply the wash coat and the catalyst materials to the substrate.
6.4.1.2 Automotive Catalyst-Related Products
Engelhard1 s principal automotive oxidation catalyst product is
a noble metal (platinum) monolithic catalyst. The primary monolithic sub-
strate utilized to date by Engelhard is the corrugated ceramic (Thermacomb)
produced by American Lava in both the stacked and rolled configurations (see
Section 6.2). The Corning W-l monolithic substrate (see Section 6.3) could
also be used.
The standard Engelhard PTX catalyst has been under develop-
ment for automotive application for some time. More recently Engelhard
has been concentrating its efforts on an improved version of the PTX. Accord-
ing to Engelhard this new formulation has better high-temperature stability and
improved lightoff characteristics.
6.4.1.3 Automotive Catalyst Test Programs
Engelhard has an extensive in-house catalyst research, develop-
ment and test program. Laboratory facilities are available for evaluating
catalyst activity both adiabatically and isothermally. To'date, more than 600
different catalysts have been screened in the laboratory.
6-41
-------
Six engine dynamometers, a chassis dynamometer, and up to
six test cars are available at Engelhard's auto exhaust test facility.
Also Engelhard has been supplying PTX catalysts to both
domestic and foreign auto manufacturers for use in their evaluation programs
6.4.1 .4 Current Research Programs
Engelhard's catalyst research is concerned primarily with new
substrate configurations and improved catalyst formulations (part palladium)
in an effort to improve the lightoff characteristics and durability of its
catalysts.
6.4.2 Overall Schedule
6.4.2.1 Normal Production Lead Time Schedule
The Engelhard catalyst production capability is being developed
in two phases. The first phase covers the development of a pilot plant
facility, Plant No. 1, and is designed to evolve a mass production technology
for performing wash coat and catalyzing operations on a monolithic substrate
supplied by outside sources: (e.g. , American Lava or Corning). The tech-
nology developed in the pilot operation (Plant No. 1) is planned to be incorpo-
rated into a main plant production facility (Plant No. 2) . The production
capacity of the pilot plant would be combined with that of the main plant to
provide Engelhard's total output capacity. Engelhard will wholly own these
facilities.
The Engelhard schedule for the completion of Plant No. 1 is
shown in Figure 6-11 . This schedule indicates that mechanical completion
of Plant No. 1 will be accomplished by January 1, 1973 with full production
capability achieved by April 1, 1973. The capacity of Plant No. 1 will be 1. 5 mil-
lion units per year, based upon a 3-shift-per-day, 5-day-per-week operation.
The schedule for Plant No. 2, shown in Figure 6-12, calls
for completion in January 1974, with the exception of painting and insulation,
with full production to start March 15,1974. Engelhard feels that Plant No. 2
will require a slightly longer period to complete than Plant No. 1.
6-42
-------
OJ
PLANT 1 RELEASE
p&i FLOW DIAGRAMS
PLOT PLANS
SITE PREPAPATION AND STRUCTURAL
EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT AND
INSTALLATION
PIPING. INSTALLATION AND ELECT.
PROCURE. AND INSTALLATION
STARTUP AND DESIGN CONFIRMATION
j
F
M
A
c
M
Y
j
*
9
j
71
A
S
O
N
D
J
F
M
A
C
M
Y
j
9
j
T2
A
S
0
N
D
J
F
C1
M
f
A
9'
M
'3
j
j
A
30 25 20 15 10 5
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
Figure 6-11. Engelhard Production Lead Time Schedule, Plant No. 1
-------
PROJECT RELEASE
SITE SELECTION
FLOW DIAGRAMS
OVERALL PLOT PLAN
BUILDING LAYOUT
DETAIL EQUIPMENT PLAN
SITE PREPARATION
ROADS AND RAILROAD
UNDERGROUND PIPE
ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION
PROCESS BUILDING
PLANS. DRAWINGS. CONTRACT
FOUNDATION AND SLAB
STRUCTURAL STEEL
EXT. WALL AND ROOF
INT. WALL AND FINISH
HEATING. AND VENTILATION
CONVEYORS
CUSTOM EQUIPMENT
OTHER EQUIPMENT
SWITCH GEAR
MECHANICAL
ELECTRICAL
INSTRUMENTATION
INSULATION AND PAINTING
OFFICE BUILDING
PLANS. DRAWINGS, CONTRACT
FOUNDATION AND SLAB
EXT. WALL AND ROOF
INT. FINISH
STARTUP
PRODUCTION
j
F
M
I
A
c
M
1
J
9
j
72
A
T
L
L
s
°i
d
^
N
zl
-1
1 —
D
_
C
1
J
z
[—
f
1
M
L
1
J
A
I]
C1
M
f
J
J
I
9
j
L
L
73
A
S
c
o
c
1
— 1
N
D
J
J
1
F
M
J-
A
O
M
r
j
9-
j
74
A!
s
\
Q
N
D
30 25 20 15 10 5
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
Figure 6-12. Engelhard Production Lead Time Schedule, Plant No. 2
-------
A final decision has not yet been made regarding the six.c and
production capacity for Plant No. 2. Jf started now, the plant could be built
within the time frame indicated in Figure 6-12 with a production capacity
approaching 10 million units per year by April 1974.
6.4.2.2 Major Impact Factors
Two major impact areas are pointed out by Engelhard with
regard to its catalyst production schedule to meet 1975 model year demands.
The first is related to the plant si/.c and capacity needed to meet customer
demands over and above the existing commitment to Ford (see Section
6.4.6). Currently this total demand for Engelhard's automotive catalysts
is unknown.
The second major impact area relates to the availability of
adequate supplies of platinum in !'me to meet the production requirements
for the 1975 model year. According to Engelhard the deadline for platinum
suppliers to open new mines was October 1,1972. Engelhard will buy 99+%
pure metal platinum which it will then refine further to achieve the required
purity of 99.995%. Delivery of the platinum from the mines is required
three months before startup of the catalyst plant.
A detailed discussion of the overall platinum availability is
included in Section 11.
6.4.3 Major Schedule Elements
6.4.3.1 Plant Design and Construction
As indicated in Figure 6-11, the Plant No. 1 (pilot) facility
will be completed, including piping, instrumentation and electrical procure-
ment and installation, on February 1,1973, 16 months after the release
date.
The Plant No. 2 facility, including mechanical, electrical
and instrumentation procurement and installation will be completed by
January 15,1974, as shown in Figure 6-12. Insulation and painting work
will be completed March 1,1974, 18. 5 months after program go-ahead.
6-45
-------
6.4.3.2 Equipment and Material Procurement
The plant equipment required for Plant No. 2, e.g., calciners,
driers, conveyors, etc. will extend the completion interval over that required
for Plant No. 1 . However this is not expected to prevent the completion of
Plant No. 2 within the schedule required to meet the projected production
startup date of March 1,1974.
As discussed in Section 6.4.2.2, Engelhard refers to certain
lead time problems associated with the development of additional platinum
mining and processing capability as having a possible impact on the availability
of raw materials.
6.4.3.3 Plant Startup
Engelhard has scheduled a three month period for Plant No. 1
startup and design confirmation commencing on January 1(1973. Full pro-
duction capacity will be achieved on April 1, 1973.
Two months have been scheduled by Engelhard for the startup
of Plant No. 2 with production starting March 15, 1974.
6.4.4 Quality Control and Warranty
Engelhard will warrant its automotive catalysts only for quality
of materials and construction, but not for catalyst performance in the
vehicle.
6.4.5 Pilot Plant
The Engelhard pilot plant (Plant No. 1) facility is discussed in
Section 6.4.2.1 in connection with the development of Engelhard1 s overall
production capability.
6.4.6 Current and Pending Contractual Agreements
Engelhard has a contract with Ford to supply a portion of
Ford's converter requirements for 1975 through 1977. The Engelhard oper-
ations will include the application of the wash coat and the noble metal
6-46
-------
catalyst to a monolithic substrate supplied by other sources such as
American Lava. Packaging of the catalyst in a metal canister will be done
outside by manufacturers such as Walker Manufacturing Company and Arvin
Industries. In addition, Engelhard is negotiating with other domestic and
foreign automobile manufacturers.
The first Ford commitment agreement with Engelhard was
made in 1971 concerning the development of a catalyst pilot plant. At that
time Ford and Engelhard committed funds totaling $2.4 million, presumably
for plant site procurement and initial construction. Half of this amount con-
sisted of nonrecoverable Engelhard funds. The next commitment to Engelhard
by Ford was made in March 1 972 arid amounted to a $3.7 million capital
investment guarantee to Engelhard by June 1972.
An additional commitment was made by Ford in August 1 972
dealing with the development of r-e Plant No. 2 facility. Ford commitments
to Engelhard plant development will rise to about $10 million in March 1973
when product design oriented equipment and facilities are ordered, and to
$14 million by April 1974. These are maximum cancellation agreements
providing for reimbursement of Engelhard's nonrecoverable costs in the
event of cancellation.
In addition to the facilities development commitments above,
Engelhard has a three-year contract from Ford to supply Ford with one half
million troy ounces of platinum per year for the 1975/77 time period. The
platinum will be procured by Engelhard from Rustenburg Platinum Mines,
Ltd. of South Africa. The contract was reported by Ford to be written on
a price-protected, no-cost-for-cancellation basis.
6-47
-------
6.5 W. R. GRACE AND COMPANY
6.5.1 Company Experience and Products
6.5.1.1 Automotive and Nonautomotive Products
The Davison Chemical Division of Grace is one of the country's
leading suppliers of petroleum cracking catalysts and a number of industrial
catalysts such as phthalic anhydride catalysts and Raney nickel. Currently,
Grace produces large amounts of these catalysts for the petroleum industry.
These catalysts are of the silica type and contain no metal of any kind.
Aside from potential automotive catalyst and/or substrate
products, Grace does not supply products to the automotive industry.
6.5.1.2 Automotive Catalyst-Related Products
Grace's principal potential automotive products include the
following:
1 . Pellet oxidation catalysts
a. base metal (Davex 142)*
b. noble metal (Davex 145)
2. Monolith oxidation catalysts
a. noble metal (Pt/Pd) (Davex 512 and Davex 502)
3. Pellet substrates
4. Monolithic substrates
5. Reduction catalysts (monolithic or pellet substrates)
In the case of both oxidation and reduction catalysts, the sub-
strate could either be made by Grace or procured from outside vendors.
Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation and Pechiney are preferred
pellet suppliers . American Lava and Corning are being considered as outside
monolith suppliers.
^Promoted (small amounts of noble metal), to improve lightoff characteristics
6-48
-------
6.5.1.3 Automotive Catalyst Test Programs
Grace's in-house catalyst program consists of the following:
1 . Producing experimental quantities of catalyst support mate-
rials for both pellet and monolithic catalysts.
2. Generating experimental formulations of catalysts on pelleted
materials and monoliths, with base metal and noble metal
catalytic materials, both for oxidation of hydrocarbons and
carbon monoxide and the reduction of nitrogen oxides.
3. Evaluating the effectiveness of such catalyst formulations in
laboratory screening units.
4. Evaluating the effectiveness of the more promising catalysts
on automobiles with the EPA test schedule on a chassis
dynamometer.
5. Evaluating the stability of catalyst activity by "aging" full-
sized containers of catalyst on a test stand dynamometer for
the equivalent of up to 5000 miles.
Grace does not conduct vehicle road testing for catalyst dura-
bility, and is not involved in any development work on the design of catalytic
converters.
Also, Grace has supplied catalysts to various automobile
manufacturers for use in their own emission control programs, including
General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, American Motors, International Harvester
Company, Volvo, Inc., Saab-Scania, Volkswagen, Daimler-Benz AG, Fiat,
Peugeot, Toyota, and Nissan Motor Company.
6.5.1.4 Current Research Programs
Grace is continuing to develop catalytic formulations with
improved effectiveness characteristics.
In the case of monolithic substrates, Grace is developing an
in-house product, of proprietary construction. Catalysts using the Grace
monolithic substrate have recently been submitted to a number of automobile
manufacturers . To date, Grace has not received definitive information from
the manufacturers regarding the performance of these catalysts.
6-49
-------
Grace is also working on a new monolith mounting syyLcrn.
It feels that the stainless steel mesh coverings and end flanges used by some
manufacturers for monolith substrate protection have not worked well for
the auto companies. Grace feels its new approach has promise to solve the
problem.
6.5.2
6.5.2.1
Overall Production Schedule
Normal Production Lead Time Schedule
Grace's estimated normal production lead time schedule for
oxidation catalysts is essentially unchanged from previous estimates. It is
based on the need for entirely new and different plants for the pellet and
monolithic catalysts (no existing production capacity; current catalysts pro-
duced via processing lines with no prototype pilot plant). The major schedule
milestones are presented in Table 6-5.
Table 6-5. Grace Major Schedule Milestones
Milestone
Start of engineering; commitment
by customer
Critical equipment ordered; start
of construction
Critical equipment delivery
Plant completion
Plant shakedown
Full production
Lead Time, Months
Pellet Catalyst
24
21
9
3-4
2
Time 0
Monolithic Catalyst
22
19
7
3-4
2
• Time 0
6-50
-------
Grace estimates such production facilities could cost in the
range from $5 to $15 million, with detailed engineering costs representing
approximately 10% to 15% of the overall plant investment cost.
6.5.2.2 Major Impact Factors
Grace considers that the most critical lead time item is the
construction of the catalyst plant itself, which consumes from 16 to 18
months (Grace feels that plant leasing is not feasible). Then follows the
substrate procurement time period. While Kaiser has estimated up to 30
months for its lead time requirement, Grace feels it can build its own alumina
(A 1303) pellet plant in the same time frame as the catalyst production plant.
In the case of monolith supports, Grace estimates a lead time requirement
of approximately 20 to 22 months. American Lava has stated a 24-month
requirement, and Corning an 18-month requirement.
The processing and handling equipment is conventional in
nature and can be procured within the time frame set for plant construction
(e.g., furnaces, kilns, mixers, etc. -- 10 to 12 months).
In the case of alumina pellet substrates, Grace has the capacity
(with modifications to existing facilities) to produce 15 to 20 million pounds
per year, using hydrated alumina purchased from outside sources. Since 100%
of the General Motors pellet requirements could be as high as 50 million
pounds per year, outside pellet suppliers would be required if Grace was
selected as General Motors sole catalyst supplier. However, Grace feels
that 2 or 3 catalyst suppliers might be selected by the big automobile manu-
facturers. During the past 9 months it has worked primarily with its own
substrates, since most of the pellets supplied by outside vendors have shown
excessive variability in the physical properties of the pellets.
Grace feels that no schedule compression is possible for its
monolith catalysts (the full 22 months' lead time is needed because of a lack of
experience in that area). The pellet catalyst lead time could be compressed by
three or possibly even by six months at a 10 to 15 cent per pound cost
6-51
-------
increase (premium pay to equipment manufacturers and increased capital
cost of the production facility). In both cases, improvements in the catalyst
substrates and formulations can be implemented long after the start of plant
construction.
6.5.2.3 Reduction Catalysts
No production scheduling problems are currently foreseen for
reduction catalysts, which could be produced at these facilities. The same
basic processes are involved whether the substrates are pellets or monoliths.
6.5.3 Major Schedule Elements
6.5.3.1 Plant Design and Construction
Grace is currently having an outside contractor perform the
preliminary design of production plant facilities for both monolithic and
pellet catalysts (parallel efforts). Grace is providing only in-house surveil-
lance of the design activities. An outside contractor would be selected by
Grace to build the production facility. Again, Grace would perform in-house
surveillance during the construction period.
6.5.3.2 Equipment and Material Procurement
The major pieces of the required plant and process equipment
have not yet been fully identified; the just-initiated plant engineering effort
should result in a complete identification of the required equipment. In the
case of the Grace in-house monolithic substrate, the equipment types are not
known; however, for the pellet substrates and catalyst finishing operations,
conventional equipment would be required; e.g.,
a. Pellet substrates (mixers, extruders, cutters, dryers, heat
treaters, drive motors, etc. )
b. Finished catalysts (mixing and holding tanks, pumps, spraying
equipment, dryers, calciners, etc.)
6-52
-------
Grace has conventional arrangements for the supply of raw
materials (alumina, catalyst metals, etc.) and substrates (pellet or mono-
lithic). The platinum and palladium supply would probably be secured by
direct agreements between the auto companies and the platinum/palladium
producers. (Grace feels that less than 0.1 ounce of noble metal would be
required for noble metal catalysts.) However, Grace is also, conducting
negotiations with noble metal suppliers in South Africa and with the Soviet Union.
6.5.3.3 Plant Startup
Grace feels that such catalyst manufacturing plants and their
operations are not complex, in comparison with chemical plants, and there-
fore foresee no difficulty in initial plant startup activities following plant
completion.
6.5.4 Quality Control
Grace does, however, envision several quality control problems
which might exist for monolithic catalysts, since there has been no mass-
production experience by anyone in the field. These problems include,
porosity control, wash coat control, noble metal control, substrate breakage,
and substrate chipping.
To minimize substrate breakage and chipping, Grace feels
that it might be advisable to put the outer container shell on the monolith at
the catalyst plant to protect it in further handling/shipping operations. It does
not recommend that any end closures or weldments be done at the catalyst
plant, however.
Final quality control specifications have not yet been set. For
monolith catalysts, the monolith would probably be weighed at each step of
the process to determine loadings (wash coat, amount of platinum, etc.).
Destructive tests would probably be used to ensure uniformity of wash coat
and platinum distribution.
6-53
-------
6.5.5 Pilot Plant
Grace has not established a pilot production plant and does
not plan to do so as there is insufficient time remaining.
6.5.6 Current and Pending Contractual Agreements
Currently, Grace is completing bid proposals to supply 25%
of General Motors'automotive oxidation catalyst requirements in both the
pellet and monolithic areas. These proposals are based on a monolith
catalyst plant that can be converted to pellet catalyst production.
In addition, Grace has received (approximately August 1 7 to
18, 1972) a $630,000 engineering commitment from General Motors to cover
the period until the end of 1972 (funds may actually be spent by November 15,
1972). These funds are to be used for preliminary design of production
plant facilities for both monolithic and pellet catalysts (parallel efforts).
Grace is working with an outside contractor in this regard and would provide
only in-house surveillance of the design and construction activities.
While actual bidding operations with other auto companies are
not yet in progress, Grace also hopes to bid on the catalyst requirements of
other auto companies. However, in view of its currently projected limited
capability for producing pellet catalysts for 1975, Grace will be forced to
limit its pellet catalyst bids. In the case of monoliths, it would be willing
to proceed with the program on a risk basis if commitments were received
before the end of 1972.
Samples of the Grace-developed monolith catalyst have been
supplied to Ford. At Ford's request, Grace also supplied monolith substrate
samples to other catalyst manufacturers. Outside monolith suppliers being
considered by Grace are American Lava and Corning; however, no commit-
ments have been made to these companies. Grace doubts that American
Lava could supply Grace's need (since they are under contract to Engelhard/
Ford), unless American Lava would construct new facilities. In any event,
the auto company would designate which monolithic substrate would be used.
6-54
-------
Grace is negotiating with suppliers in South Africa and with
the Soviet Union for potential noble metal needs. General Motors, however,
would arrange directly with the metal supplier for its catalyst needs.
6-55
-------
6.6 GULF OIL COMPANY
6.6.1 Company Experience and Products
6.6.1 .1 Automotive and Nonautomotive Products
The Gulf Oil Company is a major refiner of petroleum products
In addition, Gulf is involved in a number of other ventures, including nuclear
power, real estate, and hotel/motel developments.
The Process Research Division of Gulf is responsible for all
research and development work conducted by Gulf in the area of petroleum
processing (hydro- desulfurization, cracking, synthetic fuels, etc.). Approx-
imately 90% of the efforts of this division are catalyst-oriented. All the
catalysts used by Gulf are developed in-house and manufactured by outside
companies under license to Gulf. Aside from petroleum products, Gulf does
not supply products to the automotive industry.
6.6.1.2 Automotive Catalyst-Related products
Several years ago, Gulf decided to take a serious look at
oxidation catalysts for automotive applications. However, this work, which
had been initiated primarily to gain experience in the field of automotive
catalysts and to advise the corporation on potential future gasoline require-
ments, has now been terminated.
More recently, a program has been started at Gulf to evaluate
the problems related to the stringent 1976 NOX standards and to determine
whether Gulf's catalyst experience would be applicable to automotive reduc-
tion (NO ) catalysts. It has since developed a number of reduction
X.
catalysts which look very promising in the laboratory. Samples of these
catalysts have been submitted for testing to three major automobile manufac-
turers. In addition, Gulf has initiated an in-house reduction catalyst test
program.
Gulf has investigated both monolithic and pellet substrates
manufactured by several companies. Based on this work, Gulf has concluded
6-56
-------
that monoliths are the better choice for automotive applications. Although
the monoliths supplied by American Lava (crystal structure) and Corning
(extruded) have comparable physical properties, Gulf favors the extruded
type, feeling that the extrusion process is less expensive and better for the
noncylindrical catalyst configurations projected by some automobile and
catalyst manufacturers .
With regard to pellet catalysts, Gulf has used primarily sub-
strate material supplied by Kaiser. However, Gulf is now in the process of
evaluating pellets from another manufacturer.
Gulf states that its reduction catalyst formulation consists of
a number of different metals including a small amount of a "critical" ele-
ment. However, it declines to identify the composition of the catalyst.
Although Gulf would prefer to manufacture the catalysts in-house, it might
also consider selling its catalyst formulation to other catalyst manufacturers.
Gulf will proceed with its reduction catalyst program until
approximately December, 1972. If prospects remain promising, Gulf will
then join with another company to investigate in more detail the problems and
potential benefits associated with the design and operation of a reduction
catalyst plant. Negotiations are presently under way with three or four
manufacturers who have experience in mass production and good working
relationships with the automobile industry.
6.6.1 .3 Automotive Catalyst Test Programs
Performance and durability testing of Gulf reduction catalysts
is being conducted by Gulf and a number of automobile manufacturers.
The test work at Gulf is primarily concerned with screening
of catalysts and determination of basic performance parameters, including
lightoff characteristics, lead and sulfur sensitivity, and ammonia formation.
Also, Gulf is studying the mechanisms involved in NOX reactions in an effort
to find an explanation for the low ammonia formation observed on its catalysts
6-57
-------
A CFR (Cooperative Fuel Research Council) engine, two V-8 engines, and
a complete CVS (Constant Volume Sampling) installation are available for
this work.
Currently, Gulf has no plans for a catalyst/vehicle road test
program. It feels that this work should be performed by the automobile
manufacturers and not by the catalyst suppliers.
To date, Gulf has provided monolithic and pellet type reduction
catalysts to a number of automobile manufacturers, including General Motors
and Ford. The units delivered to General Motors for incorporation into the
new General Motors Triple-Mode Emission Control System are six inches
long and have a diameter of 3.28 inches. The catalysts supplied to Ford are
three inches long and have a diameter of 4. 6 inches.
General Motors has tested Gulf monolithic reduction catalysts
on a Buick and a Cadillac vehicle between March and June of 1972 and has
reported NOX conversion efficiencies between 80% and 96%. One of these
vehicles (using a Gulf reduction catalyst and a Grace oxidation catalyst) was
tested by EPA in June 1 972. The emissions from that vehicle were below
the 1976 standards. In addition, General Motors has conducted a limited
number of durability tests of Gulf pellet-type catalysts (Kaiser pellets).
6.6.2 Overall Schedule
Based on preliminary plant and process design studies, Gulf
feels that approximately 1 8 months will be required for the design and con-
struction of a reduction catalyst plant. The estimated lead time for the
procurement of the plant equipment is six to eight months . Thus, a decision
regarding the construction and operation of a manufacturing facility for
reduction catalysts for 1976 model year vehicles is required before October
1973.
A "paper organization" is currently being set up by Gulf to
handle the design, construction, and operation of such a catalyst plant. To
date, Gulf has completed an in-house preliminary plant design study. The
6-58
-------
detail design work and the actual construction of the facility would be per-
formed by an experienced outside contractor upon receipt by Gulf of a
commitment from an automobile manufacturer. Gulf estimates that a capital
investment of approximately $4 million is required for a catalyst plant
designed for a capacity of 10 million units per year. A substantial part of
the total cost will be spent on warehousing facilities. No decision has been
made with respect to plant location. Although Gulf declines to identify its
catalyzing process and the equipment used in its projected catalyst plant, it
indicates that all process equipment is conventional in nature, and the proc-
esses involved in the production of automotive catalysts are apparently simple
by petro-chemical standards. As a result, Gulf does not anticipate any
major problems related to the construction and operation of a catalyst plant.
All plant construction material, process equipment, substrates
and the raw materials required for the wash coat and the active metal coating
will be procured from outside sources. Gulf has no in-house production
capability in these areas.
6.6.3 Contractual Agreements
Gulf has not yet received commitments for reduction catalysts
from the automobile industry. Since reduction catalysts are not utilized in
1975 model year vehicles, Gulf feels that serious reduction catalyst negotia-
tions with the automobile manufacturers and potential substrate suppliers
will not be initiated before August 1973.
Discussions are in progress with a number of firms to evalu-
ate the prospects of a jointly owned catalyst manufacturing company.
6-59
-------
6. 7 KAISER ALUMINUM AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION
6. 7. 1 Company Experience and Products
6. 7. 1. 1 Automotive and Nonautomotive Products
Kaiser is a major producer of aluminum products. In the
early 1950's Kaiser entered the specialty aluminas field, with the production
and sale of alumina hydrate and calcined alumina. The aluminas are mar-
keted to major segments of industry for use in dehydration processes and the
manufacture of many products, including abrasives, catalysts, ceramics,
petrochemicals, and refractory materials. In addition, Kaiser has contin-
ued research, development, and facilities construction work related to the
production of highly active and durable aluminas.
6.7.1.2 Automotive Catalyst-Related Products
Kaiser's experience in the area of aluminas is directly
applicable to the manufacture of the substrates currently projected for use in
automotive catalytic converter systems.
In 1959, Kaiser began commercial production of high-purity,
low-cost spherical active alumina. Although this material was designed
primarily for use as a dehydrating agent, certain of its properties proved to
be useful to the catalyst industry. This was evident during the 1961 through
1962 time period when a specially modified alumina product was provided by
Kaiser for potential use in the automotive catalysts considered by the State
of California at that time.
In 1970, Kaiser began commercial production of gel-type
alumina. This particular material was manufactured by means of a new
process technique which is substantially different from that normally
employed in the manufacture of active aluminas.
6.7.1.3 Automotive Catalyst/Substrate Test Programs
Since 1970, Kaiser has delivered pellet substrate material for
test purposes to a total of 22 domestic and foreign automobile and catalyst
manufacturers, including General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, Engelhard, and
Matthey Bishop.
6-60
-------
In-house testing by Kaiser is limited to the determination and
evaluation of the physical properties of their product, including surface
area, bulk density, porosity, crushing strength, and attrition.
6.7.1.4 Current Research Programs
Recently, Kaiser has terminated all its research and develop-
ment work on substrate materials for automotive applications, because of its
inability to obtain commitments from the automobile industry. Kaiser's
development expenditures to date exceed $1 million.
6.7.2 Overall Schedule
6.7.2.1 Normal Production Lead Time Schedule
Kaiser has concluded that the construction of new plants would
be required for the production of pellet substrates for automotive application,
because of insufficient capacity ol its Baton Rouge facility. The current
schedule for its projected plant is presented in Figure 6-13. After receipt
of a firm commitment, an initial period of one month is required to institute
engineering services. Following that, a 20-month period is then needed for
plant and process line construction and up to three months to achieve full
production capacity.
The plant would be located somewhere other than Baton Rouge
because that particular area is not considered by Kaiser to be economically
desirable. The projected plant has a capacity of up to 60 million pounds per
year of pellet substrate material which would be adequate to satisfy the
requirements of all domestic automobile manufacturers.
6. 7. 2. 2 Major Impact Factors
Kaiser feels that the longest lead time items in its schedule
are the calciners and kilns. Both components require a lead time of
approximately eight to ten months after completion of the engineering design.
The production of the alumina substrate involves problems
related to water and air pollution. Kaiser feels that a considerable effort
is required to solve these problems, and this could have a significant impact
6-61
-------
ro
BUILDING
DESIGN APPROVAL PHASE
ENGINEERING SERVICES
ENGINEERING DESIGN
SITE ACQUISITION
AND PREPARATION
PILING AND FOUNDATIONS
ERECTION
ROOFING AND SIDING,
COOL ING TOWER
PIPING AND INSULATION
ELECTRICAL WORK
RAILROAD
PAVING. PAINTING.
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIPMENT
ENGINEERING DESIGN
ORDER AND FABRICATION
INSTALLATION OF PROCESS
EQUIPMENT
INSTRUMENTATION
DUCT WORK
WASTE TREATMENT
PLANT STARTUP
CY 1972
j
F
i
M
A
M
J
- -
j
A
H
.-. — _.
!
j
!
I
-
—
S|
"1
o
-
N
~
• — • -f
D
—
CY 1973
j
F
M
i
A
M
J
J
A
s
O
!
N
O
i
i
, ;
4
T
-1
;
i
;
L
'
"1
1
CY 1974
j
F
M
!
A
i
M
-1
I
1
i
t i
• '
1
:
!
i i
!
' i '
i '
!
__i ,
_
„._
1
i'
1 1
—
i i i
I.
1
' i
i
1
; :
|
1
1
! '• • i .
, i '
1
t
!
,
1
I
i
,
1
• SCHEDULE START DATE ARBITRARILY SELECTED BY KAISER (AWAITING COMMITMENT
i
1
n !
i
'
j
i
-
—
A
~
S
o
N
D
l •
,
1
1
!
, 1
1
•
1
i
i
: . j
!
j
!
!
—
l i
]
' i
i
30 25 20" 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
Figure 6-13. Kaiser Production Les»r! Time Schedule
-------
on production lead time. Evaluation of these problems is not yet complete.
Relative to schedule compression, Kaiser states that no signif-
cant compression is possible for its projected new substrate plant. In
Kaiser's opinion, overtime labor would not be the answer and would only
result in higher cost. However, approximately 4 million pounds of pellet
substrates could be provided prior to completion of its new plant by means of
stockpiling substrates manufactured at Kaiser's existing Baton Rouge facility.
In addition, the annual production capacity of the Baton Rouge plant could be
increased by as much as four to five million pounds by incorporating addi-
tional equipment. However, Kaiser states that this would result in a cost
increase of the substrate material.
6. 7. 3 Major Schedule Elements
6. 7. 3. 1 Plant Design rnd C istruction
After initial agreements have been reached with the catalyst
and automobile manufacturers, a request for investment will be prepared
by Kaiser for in-house corporate review and approval. Then a definitized
agreement will be worked out with the catalyst manufacturer for inclusion in
the final request for investment to Kaiser's board of directors. The total
time period allotted for these negotiations is approximately one month,
although considerably more time may actually be required.
Although not shown in the schedule (Figure 6-13), Kaiser will
litiate work on a number of items to meet critical path scheduling. These
include final process design, final piping and instrument diagrams, major
process equipment and design, final plant layout design, final site preparation
engineering, and preparation of waste disposal permit applications prior to
final program approval by the Kaiser board of directors. The
major portion of the design work would be completed approximately ten
months after the project start date.
Upon receipt of the waste disposal permit, plant site prepara-
tion and foundation work commences. This work will be essentially completed
approximately 15 months after project approval. Structural steel erection
commences during the 13th month after project approval and requires six
6-63
-------
months to complete. Mechanical, electrical, instrumentation, and piping
work starts during the 14th month after project approval, and will be
completed in approximately seven months.
6.7.3.2 Equipment and Material Procurement
The long lead time process equipment items will be designed
and ordered upon project approval by Kaiser's board of directors. Installa-
tion of this equipment is scheduled to commence approximately 13 months
after program approval. The scheduled completion date for this phase is 21
months after project approval. As indicated in Figure 6-13, the electrical,
instrumentation, and piping phases overlap with the major process equipment
procurement and steel erection phases. With proper scheduling this over-
lap is feasible and, in fact, necessary in order to minimize the overall lead
time requirements for the plant.
6.7.3.3 Plant Startup
Kaiser considers a period of three months necessary for the
production line startup and plant shakedown and feels that this provides
sufficient margin to implement production line equipment and process modi-
fications, if required.
6. 7. 4 Pilot Plant
Currently, Kaiser's Baton Rouge plant has a maximum annual
pellet substrate production capacity of approximately four million pounds.
In the past, this plant has been used by Kaiser to optimize its substrate
fabrication processes and to manufacture experimental substrate samples
for use by the automotive industry. The pilot plant equipment is similar to
the equipment considered for Kaiser's projected new plant.
6. 7. 5 Current and Pending Contractual Agreements
Kaiser has no commitments from the automotive industry for
pellet substrates or raw alumina. It has submitted proposals to a number of
potential automotive catalyst manufacturers covering substrate quantities of
between 10 and 60 million pounds per year. Kaiser's latest proposal expired
on August 31, 1972.
6-64
-------
In lieu of a firm manufacturing proposal, Kaiser has recently
submitted cancellable development proposals to a number of automobile/
catalyst manufacturers. In this document, Kaiser proposes to start on the
design of a substrate plant, with the customer paying cancellation costs in
case of project termination.
6-65
-------
6. 8 MATTHEY BISHOP, INC.
6. 8. 1 Company Experience and Products
6.8.1.1 Automotive and Nonautomotive Products
Matthey Bishop, Inc. is an affiliate of Johnson Matthey Company,
Inc. , Wembley, England. Johnson Matthey is a major refiner of noble metals
and a producer of catalysts for petrochemical applications. Other Johnson
Matthey products include colors for the porcelain industry, rare-earths, and
nonprecious metal tubing. It has a long-term (50 to 70 years) contract
with Rustenburg Platinum Mines, Ltd. of South Africa to market the noble
metals produced by that company. Currently, Matthey Bishop is
involved in the reclamation of noble metals from spent catalysts for a number
of petroleum products firms. In addition, it manufactures pellet catalysts
for use as replacement material in catalytic exhaust purifiers installed on
forklift trucks, and catalytic exhaust cleaners used in several paint spraying
plants.
6.8.1.2 Automotive Catalyst-Related Products
Matthey Bishop is a manufacturer of experimental auto-
motive oxidation and reduction catalysts. To date, several hundred oxida-
tion catalysts and approximately 70 reduction catalysts have been supplied by
Matthey Bishop to domestic automobile manufacturers, including Chrysler,
Ford, International Harvester, and General Motors. Johnson Matthey and
its affiliates have provided many additional catalysts to a number of European
and Japanese automobile manufacturers. Most of the automotive catalysts
manufactured by Matthey Bishop (and Johnson Matthey) to date are of the
noble metal monolithic and noble metal/base metal monolithic types. In
addition, a number of pellet-type catalyst configurations have been developed
by Johnson Matthey for automotive applications. Since the performance of
its pellet catalysts was generally lower than that of its monoliths, Matthey
Bishop has decided to concentrate its catalyst development work on the mono-
lithic type.
6-66
-------
In order to provide the automobile manufacturers with a
product of constant properties, Matthey Bishop has frozen its oxidation
catalyst design some time ago. This monolithic catalyst, designated AEC-3A,
contains approximately 0. 04 ounce of platinum and a proprietary amount of
non-noble metals.
Matthey Bishop and Johnson Matthey are not interested in
manufacturing substrates. They have evaluated substrates produced by a
number of potential suppliers and have concluded that the American Lava
and Corning monoliths are the best products currently available. Although
Matthey Bishop feels that these substrates have a number of "nonideal"
features (chipping, melting, etc. ), it is confident that both firms will be
able to further improve their products in the near future. Regardless of
Matthey Bishop's evaluation of monolithic substrates it feels that the auto-
mobile manufacturers will m ike j final decision regarding the selection of
the substrate supplier.
Matthey Bishop believes that the wash coat properties are at
least as important as the catalyst formulation itself. It identified alumina
as the major wash coat compound, but declined to identify the other six
ingredients used in its formulation. Each one of these ingredients is being
added to inhibit deactivation of the catalyst by one or more of the poisonous
species contained in the engine exhaust gases. Generally, two suppliers will
be selected by Matthey Bishop for each of the seven wash coat ingredients.
Yith the exception of one compound, these ingredients are commodity items
which are available in carload quantities.
Although Johnson Matthey has considerable experience in the
design of catalyst canisters and packaging procedures, Matthey Bishop is not
interested in becoming a canister manufacturer. Conversely, the European
and Japanese affiliates of Johnson Matthey are directly involved in the design
and production of the canister. Matthey Bishop feels that. Chrysler, Ford and
General Motors will manufacture their own containers and/or contract
directly with outside suppliers. Conversely, International Harvester appar-
ently perfers the procurement of packaged catalytic converters. In that case,
6-67
-------
Matthey Bishop would negotiate a contract for canisters with one of the lead-
ing domestic muffler manufacturers. However, to take full advantage of its
own experience in that area, Matthey Bishop would participate in the design
of the canister and the packaging procedures without cost to the canister
manufacturer.
With regard to noble metal procurement, Matthey Bishop
states that the noble metals would be supplied either by Johnson Matthey or
by means of direct agreements between the automobile manufacturers and
the noble metal mining firms.
6.8.1.3 Automotive Catalyst Test Programs
Performance and durability testing of Matthey Bishop/Johnson
Matthey oxidation and reduction catalysts is being conducted by Matthey
Bishop/Johnson Matthey and by a number of domestic and foreign automobile
manufacturers.
The test work at Matthey Bishop is primarily concerned with
screening of substrates and wash coat and catalyst formulations to determine
and optimize their performance in terms of crushing strength, shrinkage,
porosity, density, active metal loading, lightoff temperature and conversion
efficiency. In addition, Matthey Bishop is conducting catalyst tests on a
Chevrolet engine, a Ford engine, and a Buick vehicle. The Avenger vehicle,
which had accumulated 24, 000 miles at the time of the April 1972 EPA
Suspension Request Hearings, exceeded the HC and CO standards at 26, 500
miles. At that point, substrate cracking was observed (4-cylinder engine
vibrations are still a serious problem) and the baseline emissions of the
engine had increased considerably due to deposit buildup on the valves and
the valve seats. The engine has since been overhauled and a new catalyst
has been installed on the vehicle for further durability testing by Johnson
Matthey. Other vehicle tests currently being conducted by Johnson Matthey
include 1975 system concept tests on a Fury III and 1976 system concept
tests on another vehicle.
6-68
-------
6.8.1.4 Current Research Programs
Research and development work on advanced catalysts is
proceeding at both Johnson Matthey and Matthey Bishop. These efforts are
aimed primarily at reducing the platinum content of the AEC-3A catalyst and
at discovering other suitable metals and combinations of metals. Also, new
catalyst substrate designs (in terms of diameter and length) are being inves-
tigated. Matthey Bishop feels that most of the current catalysts are too
short and that the catalyst design should be based on space velocity (approx-
imately 100,000) and temperature considerations.
In addition, Matthey Bishop and Johnson Matthey are investi-
gating all-base metal catalysts and monolithic reduction catalysts.
6.8.1.5 Noble Metal Reclamation
Matthey Bishop states that recovery of noble metals from
spent automotive catalysts m^ght ii^t be economically feasible because of the
many steps involved in such a program, including collection and shipment of
the old catalysts to the refining plant and the cosHy smelting and refining
processes required to achieve adequate noble metal purity.
6.8.2 Overall Schedule
6.8.2.1 Normal Production Lead Time Schedule
The lead time, chart for the projected Matthey Bishop catalyst
plant is shown in Figure 6-14. As indicated in this figure, Matthey Bishop
equires a total of 20 months to complete the design, construction, equipment
procurement, and startup/shakedown phases of the plant. No major problems
related to plant construction and operation are currently foreseen by Matthey
Bishop. The processes involved in manufacturing catalysts are considered
simple by industry standards and the equipment required is conventional and
of the type currently used by the chemical process industry. Matthey Bishop
is very confident of its ability to build a catalyst plant in accordance with its
lead time schedule and feels that the experience gained during the construction
of its platinum refining plant (which required 18 months) is directly applicable
to the projected automotive catalyst plant.
6-69
-------
I
~J
o
BUILDINGS
1. DESIGN
2. AWARD OF CONTRACTS
3. CONSTRUCTION
NONDESIGN EQUIPMENT
1. DESIGN
2. AWARD OF CONTRACTS
3. BUILD
4. INSTALL
DESIGN EQUIPMENT
1. DESIGN
2. AWARD OF CONTRACTS
3. BUILD
4. INSTALL
PLANT SHAKEDOJVN
FULL PRODUCTION
j
f
M
A
C1
M
r
j
9"
j
T2
A
S
°,
I.
N
D
1
J
LJ;
^
r
F
J
._j
M
1 ,
A
c\
M
'
J
9'
J
r3
A
S
o
r
N
u
M
D
r
j
F
M
A
c>
M
'
J
1
9'
J
T4
A
S
O
N
u
1 1
^
D
30 25 20 15 10 5
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
Figure 6-14. Matthey Bishop Production Lead Time Schedule
-------
In order to minimize cost, Matthey Bishop has adopted a
modular plant design concept. Initially, two identical production line mod-
ules are being considered by Matthey Bishop for the production of monolithic
oxidation catalysts for Ford. As discussed in Section 6. 8. 6, Matthey Bishop
feels that it will receive an order from Ford covering 30% of Ford's
total 1975-1977 oxidation catalyst requirement. Each of the two pro-
duction line modules will be designed for a nominal capacity (two 8-hour
shifts, fifty 5-day work weeks) of 900, 000 catalysts per year. By operating
on a 3-shift, 7-day work week, the capacity of the two modules could be
easily increased to supply approximately 50% of Ford's total requirement.
Further expansion in plant capacity would require installation of additional
production line modules. Since plant expansion is rather simple, a decision
regarding additional capacity for oxidation catalysts can be delayed until
approximately April 1973. However, orders for substrates might have to be
placed before that date.
The floor space of the currently projected plant (2 modules)
is approximately 50,000 square feet, most of which is used for warehousing
and offices. The actual production area of each module covers approximately
2000-2500 square feet. Probably, the plant would be built adjacent to
Matthey Bishop's new platinum refining plant located in Winslow, New Jersey.
According to Matthey Bishop, construction of its projected
catalyst plant requires a capital investment of about $4 million. If a suitable
building could be leased, the initial plant cost could be reduced by approxi-
mately $500, 000. Although Matthey Bishop favors the construction of a new
facility, it feels that a building might have to be leased unless a commitment
from an automobile manufacturer is received before December 1, 1972.
6.8.2.2 Major Impact Factors
As indicated in Figure 6-14, the originally scheduled start date
for Matthey Bishop's catalyst plant project was October -1,1972. Initiation of
the work on the plant project is being delayed until a commitment is received
from an automobile manufacturer. However, Matthey Bishop feels that
compression of the building phase of the schedule by approximately one to
6-71
-------
two months might be possible by means of overtime work. The cost increase
due to schedule compression is considered negligible by Matthey Bishop.
According to Matthey Bishop a one-month compression of the
nondesign equipment phase of the schedule might be feasible up to June 1973.
The nondesign equipment consisting of basic process equipment (compressors,
mixers, conveyors, instrumentation, etc. ) can be ordered without knowing
the precise monolith specification. Conversely, procurement of the design
equipment (calciners, dryers, feeders) requires knowledge of the exact
catalyst specifications and dimensions.
Since research and development work on improved catalysts
is proceeding at Matthey Bishop, it is conceivable that improved wash coat
and catalyst formulations will be available for use in the 1975 emission
control systems. As long as platinum remains the major active compound
of the catalyst formulation (base metals used as fillers), the currently pro-
jected catalyzing process and process equipment can be easily modified to
accommodate new catalyst formulations. Also, substrate modifications in
terms of length, shape, and cell structure can be implemented during the
next six to eight months. Conversely, utilization of all-base metal formula-
tions would probably require different process equipment and this might have
a significant impact on production lead time. However, as previously stated,
the prospects for all-base metal catalysts are not very bright at this time.
Production volume currently has little effect on lead time
because of the modular design concept used by Matthey Bishop in the construc-
tion of its plant. Also, the catalyst durability requirement (currently 50, 000
miles) has little impact on lead time unless the required catalyst life would
be reduced to the 10,000 mile level. In that case, pelletized palladium
catalysts might be applicable, and this might simplify the catalyst manufac-
turing process.
6. 8. 2. 3 Reduction Catalysts
As previously pointed out, Matthey Bishop is working on the
development of automotive reduction catalysts. It appears that the equipment
required for the manufacture of reduction catalysts is similar to that used by
6-72
-------
Matthey Bishop in its projected oxidation catalyst plant. Therefore, reduc-
tion catalysts could also be manufactured in its projected plant, although
installation of additional production line modules might be required. Since
reduction catalysts are not utilized in 1975 emission control systems, no
decisions are required in the near future regarding construction of production
facilities for reduction catalysts.
6. 8. 3 Major Schedule Elements
6. 8. 3. 1 Plant Design and Construction
As indicated in Matthey Bishop's production lead time
schedule (Figure 6-14), the plant design and construction phase extends over
a period of 15 months. The building design phase has been under way for
some time. Preliminary plant design, process design, and schedule analyses
have been completed by Matthey Bishop, including sizing of the required plant
equipment. The preliminary plant design and project schedule work conducted
by Matthey Bishop is currently being refined and detailed by an outside engi-
neering firm, without cost to Matthey Bishop. The firm selected by Matthey
Bishop for this work has extensive experience in mass production procedures
and processes. Upon receipt by Matthey Bishop of a commitment for cata-
lysts, this firm will be awarded a turnkey contract for the projected catalyst
plant. The plant will be constructed adjacent to Matthey Bishop's platinum
refining plant located in Winslow, New Jersey.
''. 8. 3. 2 Equipment and Material Procurement
The equipment required by Matthey Bishop for its projected
catalyst plant is conventional in nature and of the type currently used by the
petrochemical process industry. Procurement of the nondesign equipment
requires approximately 11 months. This equipment includes storage and
mixing tanks for the wash coat and active catalyst solution, pipes, conveyors,
blowers, pumps, instrumentation, purge gases, waste treatment equipment
and warehousing facilities. Since Matthey Bishop's catalyst manufacturing
process does not involve utilization of chloroplatinic acid, the problems
associated with the treatment of the off-gases are alleviated, compared with
the catalyzing processes used by other catalyst manufacturers.
6-73
-------
The estimated lead time required for the design, fabrication, and
installation of the design equipment is 12 months. This equipment includes
calciners, dryers, feeders and other components required in the application
process of the wash coat and catalyst formulations. The dryers, which are
approximately 100 feet long, represent the most expensive single item.
Most of the instrumentation required is quality-control-type
equipment. The most sophisticated instrument is a spectrographic device
(manufactured by Norelco) which will be used on-line to measure the overall
platinum loading of the catalysts. Procurement of this instrument requires
approximately five to six months. Other critical components include the
calciners and dryers which have a total lead time of approximately nine
months. Assembly of the production line will be handled by a special contrac-
tor who has experience in the area of production line design and installation.
Matthey Bishop is not interested in the manufacture of sub-
strates, canisters, and wash coat and catalyst compounds. American Lava
and Corning are considered potential monolithic substrate suppliers. In the
past, Matthey Bishop has been told by the substrate manufacturers that
sufficient substrates would be made available to Matthey Bishop either
directly or through the automobile manufacturers.
For PTX-5 type (round) monolithic substrates, American
Lava provided Matthey Bishop with a cost quote of $2. 81 per unit. The cost
of the equivalent Corning product is $2. 54. For oval designs, the projected
cost of the American Lava substrate is almost twice that of the Corning
substrate. Although most of the automobile manufacturers prefer round
catalysts, Matthey Bishop feels that oval configurations might be a better
choice. A price of $15 - $18 was quoted by Matthey Bishop for its finished
product, including the substrate, wash coat, and noble metal coating. All
these cost data are based on high volume production.
The wash coat ingredients used by Matthey Bishop are commod-
ity items, except for one compound which requires a lead time of approximately
6 months. This particular product will be used at the rate of 5000 pounds per
month. Both American Lava and Corning have also shown interest in the
6-74
-------
wash coat business. However, Matthey Bishop feels that its own wash
coat technology is more advanced than that of other companies.
The noble metal required by Matthey Bishop in its catalyst
formulation will be procured either by Matthey Bishop or by the automobile
manufacturers themselves. According to Johnson Matthey, adequate supplies
of platinum and other noble metals will be available in 1975 for use in auto-
motive catalysts. The question of platinum availability and usage is discussed
in more detail in Section 11.
6.8.3.3 Plant Startup
Matthey Bishop considers that a five month period is desirable
for plant startup and shakedown. During that period, approximately 45 people
will be hired and trained to operate the catalyst plant. Based on this schedule
the plant will be fully operational by June 1, 1974.
6.8.4 Quality Control and Warranty
Matthey Bishop feels that quality control might be a potential
problem area. To assure adequate product performance, continuous on-line
tests as well as batch tests will be performed by Matthey Bishop. These
tests are listed in Table 6-6. The thickness distribution of the wash coat
and active metal layer will be determined by means of destructive tests not
listed in the table.
Matthey Bishop will only guarantee its product in terms of
meeting the specifications established jointly by the customer (automobile
manufacturer) and Matthey Bishop. It will not guarantee the substrate,
the canister, and the performance of the catalyst in the vehicle.
6. 8. 5 Pilot Plant
Johnson Matthey has been operating a nonautomated catalyst
pilot plant in England for some time. This plant has a production capacity
of approximately 100 catalysts per day and is used by Johnson Matthey to
manufacture catalysts required by the European automobile industry for test
purposes.
6-75
-------
Table 6-6. Matthey Bishop Quality Control Tests
Test/Property Identification
Test Type
(1)
Average particle size - dry - wash coat
Particle distribution - wash coat
Spectrographic analysis - wash coat
Dissolved solids - wash coat
Specific gravity - wash coat
Viscosity - wash coat
pH-control - wash coat
Visual inspection - substrate
Average water absorption - substrate
Spectrographic analysis - substrate
Surface area after wash coating
(2)
Elemental purity - PGM raw material
Compositional analysis - PGM input
(2)
PGM concentration - catalyst solution
(2)
Qualitative PGMV ' presence - catalyst
PGM loading and uniformity - catalyst
PGM surface area - catalyst
Analysis - raw materials
(1) B = Batch
C = Continuous
(2) PGM - Platinum Group Metals
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
B
B
B
6-76
-------
Matthey Bishop is in the process of constructing an automated
pilot plant in the United States. This plant is designed for a maximum capacity
of 700 units per day and will be completed in December 1972. The plant can
be scaled up and will be used primarily to optimize catalyst manufacturing
processes and to fabricate experimental catalysts for use by the automobile
industry and by Matthey Bishop.
6. 8. 6 Current and Pending Contractual Agreements
Contract negotiations with Ford have been under way since the
beginning of August 1972 and Matthey Bishop expects a firm commitment for
catalysts from Ford. As an alternate approach, Ford has recently
proposed to form a jointly owned catalyst company with Matthey
Bishop. Most likely the commitment from Ford will be for 30% of Ford's
total catalyst requirement for thr.^e years, and will amount to approximately
1. 8 million units per year. Previously, Engelhard has been awarded 60 per-
cent of the Ford catalyst business and, according to Matthey Bishop, the
remaining 10 percent might be produced by Ford themselves.
Recently, contract negotiations have been initiated with
Chrysler also. Matthey Bishop believes that its share might be as much as
25 to 30% of Chrysler's total catalyst requirement. Also, Matthey Bishop
might be asked by International Harvester to supply all the catalysts required
by that company. Conversely, it expects no orders from General Motors
ind from American Motors.
To date, no contracts have been awarded by Matthey Bishop
to substrate and materials suppliers. It has an agreement in principle
with an engineering firm for the construction of the catalyst plant. Contracts
for substrates will be negotiated with American Lava and/or Corning upon
completion of the Ford/Matthey Bishop contract negotiations.
6-77
-------
6. 9 MONSANTO COMPANY
6. 9. 1 Company Experience and Products
6.9.1.1 Automotive and Nonautomotive Products
Monsanto is a major producer of chemical products, including
plastics, resins, man-made fibers, herbicides, detergents, and petroleum
products, with facilities in the United States, Europe, South America and
Asia. In addition, a number of finished products are being marketed by
Monsanto including household items and electronic and process control
equipment. Enviro-Chem Systems, Inc. , a wholly owned subsidiary is
active in the area of air and water pollution and solid waste abatement.
Currently, Monsanto supplies the domestic and European auto-
motive industry with a number of products including chemicals and nylon
yarn used by tire manufacturers, polyvinyl butyral (PUB) sheets used as
interlayers in safety glass, and allyl alcohol for use in a newly developed
auto body priming process in Europe.
6. 9. 1. 2 Automotive Catalyst-Related Products
Monsanto has manufactured a number of pellet type, base
metal and promoted base metal catalysts for automotive applications. Orig-
inally all-base metal formulations were utilized by Monsanto. However,
more recently, it has initiated development of promoted formulations
which contain a proprietary amount of noble metal to improve the lightoff and
durability characteristics of the catalyst. Monsanto declines to identify the
type and amount of noble metal used in its new catalyst formulations.
To date, Monsanto has submitted pellet-type base metal oxi-
dation catalyst samples to almost all automobile manufacturers with the
exception of British and German firms. Although it has not been encour-
aged by Ford as far as base metal pellet type catalysts are concerned, it
is concentrating its. efforts on pellets since it is not interested in
manufacturing another catalyst of the Engelhard PTX type.
A number of pellet type reduction catalysts are also being
developed by Monsanto. However, these catalysts which have shown good
6-78
-------
performance under idealized conditions in the laboratory are currently not
ready for installation in vehicles.
Monsanto has no plans to manufacture catalyst1 substrates,
wash coat materials, or canisters. Most:likely, the substrate and the
alumina used in the wash coat would be purchased from Kaiser, Reynolds,
Pechiney or other suppliers. Monsanto states that the production of the cat-
alyst canisters will probably be handled by the automobile manufacturers
themselves.
6. 9. 1. 3 Automotive Catalyst Test Programs
Performance and durability tests of Monsanto pellet type oxi-
dation catalysts are being conducted by Monsanto and by a number of auto-
mobile manufacturers, including General Motors, Saab and Volvo.
The test programs performed by Monsanto include cold start
simulation (COSIM) tests on the dynamometer, special engine dynamometer
tests designed to simulate the thermal loads on the catalyst during vehicle
operation, and accelerated mileage accumulation tests. The COSIM proce-
dure, developed by Monsanto, is less complicated than the CVS procedure
and is used by Monsanto in most of its emission test work. Catalyst dura-
bility tests are conducted in accordance with its own special accelerated test
procedure. In that procedure controlled amounts of fuel contaminants are
used and the catalyst is exposed to temperatures above and below those nor-
mally encountered in vehicle certification and AMA driving cycle testing.
As a result, performance trends are detected much sooner than by means
of conventional procedures.
Catalyst testing in 1972 General Motors vehicles are being
conducted by Auto Labs, Denver, Colorado, under contract to Monsanto.
The purpose of these tests is to identify the best catalysts in terms of
lightoff characteristics and durability in the vehicle. General Motors
also is testing Monsanto's pellet catalysts. One of these promoted
base metal designs has successfully accumulated the equivalent of
23, 000 miles. Saab has tested a number of Monsanto catalysts in Saab vehi-
cles. One of these vehicles incorporating an "advanced" Monsanto catalyst
6-79
-------
(probably promoted base metal) has accumulated 27, 000 miles within the
1975 Federal emission standards. However, the same catalyst type.- has
failed for unknown reasons in another Saab vehicle and also at General
Motors.
6. 9. 1. 4 Current Research Programs
Monsanto is continuing research and development work on
automotive pellet type oxidation and reduction catalysts using base metal and
promoted base metal formulations. These efforts are aimed at improved
catalyst performance in terms of lightoff temperature, durability and sensi-
tivity to poisonous fuel contaminants, such as lead, sulfur and phosphorus.
6. 9. 2 Overall Schedule
6. 9. 2. 1 Normal Production Lead Time Schedule
A chart showing the functional steps for construction of Mon-
santo's automotive catalyst plant is presented in Figure 6-15. Additional
information is included in its EGA oxidation catalyst production lead time
schedule, illustrated in Figure 6-16. This schedule is identical to that pre-
viously provided by Monsanto to all its potential customers and to EPA. As
indicated in this schedule, a total lead time of 24 months is projected for the
construction and startup of a pellet catalyst plant.
According to Monsanto, the schedule in Figure 6-16 is
already accelerated for the first nine months and is "normal" thereafter.
As indicated, the initial study efforts by both Monsanto and its substrate
supplier(s) commence well in advance of the completion of contract negotia-
tions and appropriation request approval by Monsanto1 s top management.
Monsanto states that construction of a new plant would be
required since no existing Monsanto facility is available that could be modi-
fied for catalyst production. Part of the preliminary plant and process engi-
neering and economics has been completed by Monsanto. The plant would be
designed for a pellet catalyst capacity of 1 0 to 50 million pounds per year,
which is sufficient for approximately 2 to 1 0 million converters. Monsanto
considers construction of a plant of this type to be a major undertaking.
6-80
-------
RESEARCH
SAMPLES
TO AUTO
MANUFACTURER
FEEDBACK
AND PRODUCT
IMPROVEMENT
ENGINEERING
STUDIES AND
ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS
COMMITMENT
FROM AUTO
MANUFACTURER,
PROJECT APPROVAL
SELECT SITE
AND SCOPE
PROJECT
PROJECT
ESTIMATE
AND
ECONOMICS
JL
CONTRACT
NEGOTIATION
WITH AUTO
MANUFACTURER
CONTRACT
NEGOTIATION
WITH RAW
MATERIALS
SUPPLIERS
SIGN
CONTRACT
SIGN
CONTRACT
PROCESS
DESIGN
MECHANICAL
DESIGN
STRUCTURAL
DESIGN
I
I
ELECTRICAL
AND INSTRUMENT
DESIGN
I
UTILITIES
DESIGN
QUOTATIONS ON
EQUIPMENT,
INSTRUMENTS,
AND MATERIALS
PURCHASE
EQUIPMENT,
INSTRUMENTS,
BUILDING STEEL
AND OTHER
MATERIALS
EQUIPMENT
INSTALLATION
VENDOR
FABRICATION
AND DELIVERY
EQUIPMENT
CHECKOUT
BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION
PLANT
STARTUP
DELIVER
CATALYST
Figure 6-15.
Monsanto Functional Step Chart--Automotive
Exhaust Catalyst Project
6-81
-------
I
oo
CATALYST PLANT
BUILDING
SITE EVALUATION
PROJECT SCOPE AND ECONOMICS
APPROVAL CYCLE
FLOW DIAGRAMS
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
FOUNDATION
STEEL PROCUREMENT AND ERECTION
ROOF, SIDING AND INTERIOR
PIPING
DESIGN
PROCUREMENT
INSTALLATION
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL
DESIGN
PROCUREMENT
INSTALLATION
VAC. EQUIPMENT
DESIGN
PROCUREMENT
INSTALLATION
INSTRUMENTATION
DESIGN
PROCUREMENT
INSTALLATION
PROCESS EQUIPMENT
SPECIFICATION AND FLOW DIAGRAMS
QUOTES AND ORDERS
MANUFACTURER AND DELIVERY
INSTALLATION
CHECKOUT
PLANT START-UP
PRODUCT DELIVERY
SUBSTRATE MANUFACTURER
CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
SPECIFICATIONS
CONTRACT APPROVAL CYCLE
PLANT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
CHECKOUT AND STARTUP
j
F
i — i
M
A
1
_-,-„
1
1 ,
i
CY
M
—
1972
J J
A
s
4-
u
O
N
1
D
CY
j
F
M
A
;
1 " • D _i
1
u
__
i
— i
-
_
!
1
;
;
r
i
L-
M
J
1973
J 1 A
l
1
s
!
1
1 I
O
N
1 1
i
i i :
i i
i
i
1-
(
L±l
L
D
CY 1974
j
F
i
M
A
M
i
1 1
•
i
r i
i
i i
i — i
i
i
: '' • i
1
SUBSTRATE DELIVERY TO OXY-CATAL 'ST
t
'
:
J
j
A
E ! O'N D
—j_4~— .
,
1
i
I :
i
i
1
f
,
!
i
J
1
~T~
i
3 L .
I
!
i
1
1
•
i : ' ! ;
— _ i . — , 1
;
i
1
1 1 :
j
1
n
1
-1
i
,
1
i
1
;
,
! ,
I
i
i
1
(
i
l i
a
i i
1
j i
l
|
u
1
i
re
L=
I
i
......=Jj
1
,
i
— i
30
25
20
15
10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
• SCHEDULE END DATE ARBITRARILY SELECTED
Figure 6-16. Monsanto Production Lead Time Schedule* (EGA Oxidation Catalyst Plant)
-------
The total estimated plant expenditure is of the order of several million
dollars.
Monsanto emphasizes that it would never build a catalyst plant
without a firm long range commitment fr.om an automobile manufacturer. In
justifying its position Monsanto states that a catalyst plant is designed spe-
cifically for catalyst production, and conversion of such a plant to another
product line is unfeasible. Conversely, it feels that plants designed for the
fabrication of conventional automotive parts, such as frames, are more
flexible and can be easily modified to produce other components.
Monsanto believes that the construction and operation of its
projected pellet catalyst facility is simple by comparison with most of its
chemical process plants. Although neither Monsanto nor its potential sub-
strate and equipment suppliers expect any problems in the construction and
operation of a pellet catalyst plant, it states that delays could occur, of
course, as a result of strikes and other unpredictable events.
6. 9. 2. 2 Major Impact Factors
Monsanto states that the assembly of the catalyst production
line and procurement of the substrate material are the most critical items in
its schedule. As indicated in Figure 6-16, a total of 20 months is required
for the equipment specifications, plant and process design, component pro-
curement, installation, checkout, and startup of the catalyst production line.
Based on information received by Monsanto from potential substrate suppli-
ers, the lead time for the design, construction, checkout, and startup of the
substrate plant is 1 8 months. This does not include the three-month initial
time period required for contract negotiations and establishment of product
specifications.
Monsanto does not foresee any lead time problems related to
the procurement of the catalyst plant equipment. This equipment, which is
itemized in Section 6. 9. 3. 2, is conventional in nature and of the type cur-
rently used by the chemical process industry. The critical equipment com-
ponents are the calciners, dryers, and coolers, which require a lead time of
five to eight months.
6-83
-------
With regard to further compression of its schedule (Figure
6-16), Monsanto feels that some additional reduction in lead time might be
possible by means of overtime work on the part of the plant construction and
equipment supply firms. However, the magnitude of schedule compression
and the associated cost increase cannot be estimated by Monsanto at this
time.
Improvements in catalyst formulation can be implemented
almost up to the completion date of plant construction. However, substrate
and catalyst modifications requiring different process equipment probably
could not be incorporated after placement of the equipment orders. Mon-
santo feels that the capacity of its projected catalyst plant could be increased
very easily by increasing the number of production line modules providing
sufficient power will be available from the utilities. A decision regarding
additional plant capacity would be required approximately nine months after
the go-ahead date of the catalyst plant project.
6. 9. 2. 3 Reduction Catalysts
Although research and development on reduction catalysts has
been under way at Monsanto for some time, Monsanto feels that these cata-
lysts are not yet ready for production. Therefore, it has no current plans
for construction of a reduction catalyst plant. However, it feels that the
manufacturing processes and the required production line equipment are
very similar to those used in its projected pellet oxidation catalyst plant.
6. 9. 3 Major Schedule Elements
6. 9. 3. 1 Plant Design and Construction
To date, Monsanto has completed the first four items listed
on its functional step chart (Figure 6-15). However, further work on the
project has been suspended until a firm commitment for catalysts has been
received from an automobile manufacturer.
The plant and process design work would be performed
in-house, utilizing Monsanto's expertise in that area. It has a sizable plant
6-84
-------
design department which is responsible for all its plant and process engi-
neering and construction work.
As indicated in Figure 6-15, the actual plant construction
work commences with the site evaluation and process basis phases. The
site evaluation phase is concerned with the final selection of the plant loca-
tion and considers such factors as location of the automobile manufacturing
plant, freight rates, weather conditions during plant construction, etc. The
process basis phase is concerned with final considerations and decisions
regarding final selection of the product and the manufacturing procedures.
During the project scope phase, a document will be prepared by Monsanto
presenting guidelines for the operation of the plant. Following project
approval by Monsanto management, all plant equipment and materials will be
designed and ordered. Plant erection commences upon delivery of the
foundation material and structural steel.
6.9.3.2
Equipment and Material Procurement
The equipment materials identified by Monsanto for its pro-
jected catalyst plant are listed in Table 6-7. The delivery times shown in
this table are referenced to the date of purchase order.
Table 6-7. Monsanto Projected Equipment and
Material Lead Time Requirements
Equipment/Material
Structural Steel
Pipes, Valves, Fittings
Electrical Substations
Other Electrical
Equipment
Process Instrumen-
tation
Conveying Equipment
Screens
Projected
Lead Time
in Months
3 to 4
1
4 to 6
2 to 3
2 to 3
3 to 4
2
Equipment/Material
Dryers, Calciners,
Coolers
Storage Bins and Silos
Pumps
Tanks
Noble Metal
Dust collection equipment
Waste disposal equipment
Projected
Lead Time
in Months
5 to 8
3 to 4
3 to 4
3 to 4
18
Not identified
Not identified
6-85
-------
All these components are conventional items of the type cur-
rently used by Monsanto and other chemical process companies, except per-
haps for the projected dust collection and waste disposal equipment. How-
ever, no problems are anticipated regarding the procurement of the
pollution abatement systems. As indicated, the critical items are dryers,
calciners, and coolers, which require a procurement time of five to eight
months. All plant equipment and materials will be procured from outside
sources since Monsanto has no facilities to manufacture components of this
type.
Currently, Monsanto does not intend to produce the catalyst
substrates and the raw materials required for the wash coat and the active
metal layer of the catalyst. Kaiser and Reynolds are considered potential
substrate suppliers. The wash coat ingredients are commodity items and no
difficulties are anticipated in the procurement of these materials. The noble
metal required for Monsanto's newly developed promoted base metal catalyst
formulations would be procured either by the auto manufacturers themselves
or through direct negotiations by Monsanto with noble metal producers.
Apparently, Monsanto, through its European operations, has good business
relations with the Soviet Union and would prefer to deal directly with the
Russians in this matter. Monsanto has requested permission from the State
Department to investigate a noble metal deal with the Soviet Union.
According to Monsanto, catalyst substrate suppliers require a
lead time of 21 months from the start of contract negotiations. As indicated
in Figure 6-16, a period of 1 8 months is required for the actual design, pro-
curement, construction, and production startup phases of the substrate
plant. These time periods are in reasonable agreement with the lead time
requirements quoted by Reynolds (18 months) and by Oxy-Catalyst for sub-
strate delivered to Oxy-Catalyst by Kaiser (21 months) and by Reynolds (21
months), and are compatible with the lead times required for Monsanto's
catalyst plant and for noble metal procurement.
6-86
-------
6.9.3.3 Plant Startup
No unusual problems are anticipated by Monsanto with respect
to the startup and shakedown of its projected catalyst plant. Based on past
experience with chemical process plants, Monsanto feels that a 3 month
period is adequate for checkout and startup of a catalyst plant.
6. 9. 4 Quality Control and Warranty
Although sophisticated quality control procedures will be
required in the manufacture of catalysts, Monsanto expects no unusual prob-
lems related to quality control. Monsanto has developed proprietary test
procedures including on-line monitoring and batch test methods to determine
a multiplicity of substrate and catalyst performance parameters (i. e. , sub-
strate crushing strength, porosity, shrinkage at elevated temperatures, cat-
alyst activity, etc. ).
With regard to warranty, Monsanto states that its catalysts
will be guaranteed to meet the specifications established jointly by Monsanto
and the customer. Also, Monsanto will guarantee the performance of the
catalyst when determined in accordance with its test procedures. However,
catalyst performance in the vehicle cannot be guaranteed by Monsanto
because of interactions between the catalyst and other emission control sys-
tem components.
6. 9. 5 Pilot Plant
Construction of a catalyst pilot plant has been given some
consideration by Monsanto. It has concluded that a pilot plant would require
less lead time and capital investment than a full-size plant. However, the
product cost would be higher compared with a full-size plant and the produc-
tion capacity would not be sufficient to supply more than a small fraction of
the catalysts required by a major automobile manufacturer.. A decision
regarding the construction of a pilot plant will be made by Monsanto upon
receipt of a commitment from an automobile manufacturer.
6-87
-------
Currently, all Monsanto catalysts are manufactured in its
low-capacity batch process facility.
6. 9. 6 Current and Pending Contractual Agreements
Although Monsanto has provided General Motors with many
experimental base metal pellet type catalysts, it has no commitment for
catalysts from General Motors or from any other automobile manufacturer.
Currently, Monsanto has no contractual agreements with potential suppliers
of plant equipment and catalyst raw materials.
6-88
-------
6. 10 OXY-CATALYST, INC.
6.10.1 Company Experience and Products
6. 10. 1. 1 Automotive and Nonautomotive Products
Oxy-Catalyst, Inc. , a subsidiary of Research-Cottrell, Inc. ,
is a principal manufacturer of catalytic exhaust purifiers used in spark igni-
tion engine and diesel engine powered industrial vehicles (forklift trucks,
mine locomotives, etc. ). To date, Oxy-Catalyst has manufactured approxi-
mately 90% of the pellet (bead) type catalysts procured by industry for these
applications. Monolithic (rod-type) catalysts for use in forklift trucks are
also being produced and marketed by Oxy-Catalyst. Other products manu-
factured by Oxy-Catalyst include small catalytic units used by the airlines to
eliminate kitchen odors, and large industrial catalytic exhaust gas treatment
systems containing several cubic feet of pellet catalyst material.
6. 10. 1. 2 Automotive Catalyst-Related Products
For automotive applications, Oxy-Catalyst is considering the
manufacture of both pellet and monolithic (honeycomb) type catalysts utiliz-
ing base metal, noble metal, and promoted base metal formulations. Its
promoted base metal catalysts contain small amounts (0. 01 to 0. 04 ounce) of
noble metals. Currently, it favors the pellet type, primarily for product
cost and replacement reasons. The issue of catalyst replacement is dis-
cussed in Section 6. 10. 1. 5.
Currently Oxy-Catalyst is concentrating its automotive cata-
lyst development efforts in the area of promoted base metal configurations.
In these formulations the noble metal (primarily platinum) is being added
primarily to increase catalyst durability. Oxy-Catalyst quotes a price of
approximately $10 for its promoted catalyst (five to six pounds of pellet
catalyst required per catalytic converter), and about $6 for all-base metal
designs. These costs are low compared with the cost of $40 to $50 for its
monolithic (platinum) catalysts.
6-89
-------
Oxy-Catalyst has no intention of manufacturing the catalyst
substrates and the ingredients required for the wash coat and the -.ctive
layer of the catalyst. These materials will be procured from outside
sources.
Although Oxy-Catalyst manufactures the converter package
for their forklift truck units (including canister and containment screens), it
has no plans to fabricate canisters for automotive catalysts.
6. 10. 1. 3 Automotive Catalyst Test Programs
The test work performed by Oxy-Catalyst is primarily con-
cerned with preliminary screening of its catalysts in bench test setups.
These tests are conducted to determine catalyst activity, shrinkage at ele-
vated temperatures, attrition and abrasion characteristics, crushing
strength, and thermal and chemical stability. Oxy-Catalyst does not per-
form catalyst performance tests on vehicles, and therefore has to rely on
data supplied by the automobile manufacturers.
To date, more than 100 different oxidation catalyst configura-
tions have been submitted by Oxy-Catalyst to a number of automobile manu-
facturers, including General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, and several European
and Japanese companies. The majority of these catalysts are of the base
metal, pellet type.
6.10.1.4 Current Research Programs
Research work on base metal, noble metal, and promoted
base metal oxidation catalysts is proceeding at Oxy-Catalyst. These efforts
are aimed at the development of improved catalyst configurations, in terms
of lightoff temperature, HC/CO conversion efficiency and durability. Both
pellet and monolithic designs are being evaluated.
In the area of reduction (NO ) catalysts, research and devel-
X (
opment work is being conducted on metallic monolith type configurations.
One of these catalysts has been tested by General Motors. Although the per-
formance of this catalyst was satisfactory, further engineering work is
required on the metallic substrate design concept.
6-90
-------
6. 10. 1. 5 Catalyst Replacement and Noble Metal Recovery
Since catalysts may not be capable of meeting the 50, 000-mile
durability requirement, the question of catalyst replacement is considered a
very important issue by Oxy-Catalyst. It has developed a reliable and sim-
ple replacement method for pellet catalysts which is widely used on its fork-
lift truck units. The equipment required to replace the catalyst pellets con-
sists of a vibrator/vacuum device which is being marketed by Oxy-Catalyst,
(Oxy-Quik Catalyst Changer). According to Oxy-Catalyst, the pellet
replacement cost is approximately $20 to $30 per catalyst. Conversely,
Oxy-Catalyst states that the projected replacement cost for monolithic cata-
lysts is considerably higher, because of the required exchange of complete
converter units (catalyst and container).
With respect to noble metal recovery from spent catalysts,
Oxy-Catalyst feels that this approach might not be economically feasible,
considering the handling involved in shipping the catalysts to the platinum
refining plant and the cost to operate that plant. However, recovery of the
platinum would certainly reduce the requirement for newly mined metal, and
might indirectly result in lower platinum prices.
6.10.2 Overall Schedule
6. 10. 2. 1 Normal Production Lead Time Schedule
Oxy-Catalyst's current estimated project schedule for pellet
or monolithic catalyst plant construction is presented in Figure 6-17. This
schedule was prepared by Oxy-Catalyst at the request of General Motors and
is based on a start date of September 1, 1972. The important milestones of
its new schedule are shown in Table 6-8. Also listed in this table are the
milestones from a schedule which had been submitted by Oxy-Catalyst to
EPA during the April 1972 Suspension Request Hearings.
A parallel program will be developed by Oxy-Catalyst to staff
and train the personnel required to operate the plant. The training will
include familiarization with its current catalyst production facilities, cata-
lyzing procedures, pilot plant, and laboratories.
6-91
-------
I
NO
1972
N
1973
J|F[M|A|M|J|J[A[S[O[N[~D
PELLET OR MONOLITH
DECISION DATE
"PHASE I"
COMMITMENT
BY GM
SEPT 1, 1972
SITE
SELECTION
"PHASE II"
GO AHEAD
BY GM
JUNE 1, 1973
PRODUCT
DEVELOPMENT
HASE I-PLANT
DESIGN AND
ENGINEERING
VENDORS
PHASE I
PLANT DESIGN
AND
DEVELOPMENT
PRODUCT AND PROCESS
SPECS SET
PROCURMENT CYCLE-
PLANT AND EQUIPMENT MATERIALS
' al
1974
M
M
J | J
START SHIPMENT
OF MATERIALS
TO AC SPARK PLUG
PELLET SUBSTRATE
FROM PILOT PLANTS
(STOCK PILE)
PLANT IN FULL
PRODUCTION
STARTUP
SHAKEDOWN
PLANT ERECTION CYCLE
ERECTION AND STARTUP AND
SHAKE DOWN CYCLE
"PHASE I"
COMMITMENT TO
VENDORS' BY OC
"PHASE II"
GO AHEAD TO
VENDORS BYOC
MONOLITH SUPPLY
•PROJECT START DATE
ARBITRARILY SELECTED BY
OXY-CATALYST
I
I
I
PELLETS
FROM
KAISER OR
REYNOLDS
PRODUCTION
PLANT
I
25
20
15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
Figure 6-17. Oxy-Catalyst Production Lead Time Schedule* (Pellet or Monolithic Catalysts)
-------
Table 6-8. Oxy-Catalyst Plant Construction Milestones
Milestone
Plant design and engineering
Plant procurement and erection
Plant shakedown
Plant in full production
Lead Time, Months
New
Schedule
20
16
4
time 0
Previous
Schedule
24
-
5
time 0
As of September 1972, Oxy-Catalyst has made no decisions
with respect to plant site location. It feels that it might be desirable to
build its catalyst facility in the vicinity of a manufacturer's catalytic con-
verter assembly plant. Although the Oxy-Catalyst schedule (Figure 6-17) is
applicable to both pellet and monolithic catalysts, a decision regarding
catalyst type must be made by January 1, 1973, which represents the
start date for the procurement of the plant and process equipment.
The pellet catalyst plant currently projected by Oxy-Catalyst
will be designed for a maximum annual capacity of 1 5 to 20 million pounds
which is sufficient for approximately 3 million catalytic converters. The
maximum capacity of the projected monolithic catalyst plant is 4 million
units per year. Normally, the plants would be operated at approximately
65% of maximum capacity. Oxy-Catalyst has not provided cost data for
these plants.
The production of pellet catalysts is considered a routine
operation by Oxy-Catalyst. Conversely, the manufacture of monolithic cata-
lysts may be more difficult because of potential problems related to quality
control and substrate breakage and chipping. To minimize catalyst damage,
Oxy-Catalyst proposes shipment of the coated monoliths in the substrate
crates or in specially designed cans.
Oxy-Catalyst feels that improvements in catalyst and wash
coat formulations can be incorporated as late as 4 months before the start of
catalyst production.
6-93
-------
6. 10. 2. 2 Major Impact Factors
As indicated in Figure 6-17, procurement of the pellet sub-
strate material represents the most critical lead time item. According to
Oxy-Catalyst, Kaiser and Reynolds will achieve full production of their pro-
jected pellet substrate plants by the end of May 1974 and the beginning of
June 1974, respectively, whereas Oxy-Catalyst needs the substrate material
by May 1, 1974. Other critical items include the construction of the catalyst
plant and the procurement of part of the process equipment. Although cur-
rently not identified as a potential lead time problem area, the design and
fabrication of the required plant pollution abatement equipment might well be
the most difficult technical problem.
Oxy-Catalyst estimates that a three-month compression of its
currently projected lead time schedule might be possible at an increase in
cost of approximately 10%. This cost increase reflects the premium pay-
ments required for equipment purchase and plant construction work.
6.10.2.3 Reduction Catalysts
The oxidation catalyst plants considered by Oxy-Catalyst are
also suitable for the manufacture of pellet or monolithic type reduction (NO )
X
catalysts. However, installation of an additional production line might be
required for reduction catalyst manufacture. Since similar process equip-
ment would be utilized on both lines, Oxy-Catalyst does not anticipate major
difficulties in the construction and operation of a pellet or monolithic reduc-
tion catalyst facility. Conversely, different process equipment would be
required to manufacture all-metal (rolled screen) type catalysts. Although
procurement of this equipment might affect the required plant lead time, no
serious problems related to plant construction and process design are
currently foreseen by Oxy-Catalyst.
6-94
-------
6.10.3 Major Schedule Elements
6. 10. 3. 1 Plant Design and Construction
Upon receipt of a commitment from an automobile manufac-
turer, Oxy-Catalyst will proceed with the design and construction of a new
catalyst plant and will initiate a program to train the personnel required to
operate this plant. Oxy-Catalyst will then award a turnkey contract to an
engineering firm for the design and construction of the plant and will assist
in the process design and plant shakedown phases. This approach was
selected by Oxy-Catalyst in order to minimize the overall cost and lead time
requirement of the plant. A contracting firm has been chosen by Oxy-
Catalyst. This contractor is currently evaluating some of the potential
problem areas associated with the design and construction of a catalyst
plant. The interrelationship between Oxy-Catalyst, contractor, and sub-
strate and material suppliers is illustrated in Figure 6-18.
6. 10. 3. 2 Equipment and Material Procurement
Oxy-Catalyst has identified the following process equipment
for its projected pellet and monolithic catalyst plants.
Pellet Catalysts Monolithic Catalysts
Storage bins Warehouse facilities
Mixing and holding tanks Mixing and holding tanks
Mixers Mixers
Pumps and blowers Pumps and blowers
Blenders Spraying equipment
Feeders Dryers
Dryers Calciners
Calciners Product coolers
Product coolers Dust collectors
Classifiers (screens) Pollution abatement equipment
Dust collectors Material handling and packaging
Pollution abatement equipment equipment
Material handling equipment Quality control instrumentation
Quality control instrumentation
All of these components are conventional in nature except
perhaps for the pollution abatement equipment required for treatment of the
6-95
-------
CORPORATE
MANAGEMENT
MANUFACTURING
AUTOMOTIVE
SALES
ENGINEER
CUSTOMER
DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM
PROJECT
MANAGER
(ENGINEER)
I
RESEARCH
CHEMIST
TURNKEY
ENGINEERING
AND
CONSTRUCTION
PLANT AND
EQUIPMENT
Figure 6-18. Oxy-Catalyst/Contractor/Supplier Relationships; Oxidation Catalyst Plant
-------
off-gases and solid waste produced in the catalyst manufacturing process.
Oxy-Catalyst does not anticipate a lead time problem related to the procure-
ment of this equipment. All plant equipment will be procured from outside
sources, except for the pollution abatement, equipment which will be designed
and built by Oxy-Catalyst.
Oxy-Catalyst has no intention of manufacturing substrates and
wash coat compounds. Kaiser and Reynolds are considered potential pellet
substrate suppliers. Tests conducted by Oxy-Catalyst revealed little differ-
ence in the physical properties of the Kaiser and Reynolds pellets, although
different manufacturing processes are used by these two companies. No
problems are foreseen by Oxy-Catalyst for either pellet type with respect to
porosity, crushing strength, and shrinkage at high temperatures.
The monolithic substrates might be procured from American
Lava and/or Corning. Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa), Kaiser and
Reynolds are potential alumina suppliers. Based on current estimates, an
adequate supply of monoliths will be available from American Lava and/or
Corning by March 1, 1974 to satisfy the catalyst needs of General Motors.
However, in the case of pellet catalysts, stockpiling of substrate material
from the Kaiser and Reynolds pilot operations would be required, since ini-
tial substrate delivery from their new plants is scheduled for the end of May
1974 (Kaiser) and the beginning of June 1974 (Reynolds). Most likely, Oxy-
Catalyst will not get involved in the procurement of noble metals and catalyst
canisters. This will be handled directly by the automobile manufacturers.
6.10.3.3 Plant Startup
As indicated in Figure 6-17, Oxy-Catalyst allocates a four-
month period for plant startup and shakedown. This period, which was
selected by Oxy-Catalyst on the basis of its experience in catalyst manufac-
ture, provides a reasonable margin of safety in the event of unexpected diffi-
culties. Oxy-Catalyst feels that some catalysts would be produced during
that period which would then be available to the automobile manufacturers
for test purposes and/or stockpiling.
6-97
-------
6.10.4 Quality Control and Warranty
Since the catalyst specifications have not been released by the
automobile manufacturers, Oxy-Catalyst has not been able to establish firm
quality control requirements and test procedures. However, Oxy-Catalyst
has concluded that certain tests will be required to monitor a number of sub-
strate, Vv
-------
6. 11 REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY
6. 11 „ 1 Company Experience and Products
6. 11. 1. 1 Automotive and Nonautomotive Products
The Reynolds Metals Company is a major producer of forged,
cast, and sheet mill aluminum products for a wide range of commercial
industries (automotive, aircraft, building, electrical, highway, machinery,
consumer goods). In the automotive area, a Reynolds-developed aluminum
alloy is used in the Chevrolet Vega engine. The company is also working
with auto producers to design lightweight aluminum bumpers and backup
beams to meet new federal safety standards.
6. 11.1. Z Automotive Catalyst-Related Products
Reynolds' principal automotive product bearing on the issue of
1975/76 vehicle production lead time requirements is an alumina support for
pellet-type oxidation catalysts. Leynolds could produce the pellets in bulk
quantity for supply to either a catalyst manufacturer or automobile manufac-
turer for deposition of the active catalytic material on the pellet substrate.
As extruded and cut (0. 1 inch diameter; about 0. 25 inch long),
the alumina supports (beads, pellets) are plastic and do not stick together.
Some heat treatment is required before the extrusion process to remove
excess moisture. Several alumina phases can be obtained in the dehydration
process, depending upon the selected temperature versus time profiles. At
1800 degrees Fahrenheit, the low surface area forms of alumina (alpha
phase) begin to occur. At 2200 to 2500 degrees Fahrenheit, there are large
occurrences of alpha alumina.
The high surface area desired in the alumina support is
developed in the heat treatment process (which is proprietary) and is the
key to the required porosity. In November 1971, Reynolds adopted a single
treatment process to give the auto companies a stable product with consistent
qualities and to afford a valid basis for evaluation. This treatment has been
maintained since that date. However, Reynolds' proposed production plant heat
6-99
-------
treatment facilities would be flexible enough to incorporate any heal: treat-
ment improvements that might evolve in the course of further research.
Reynolds' proposed specifications for experimental alumina supports are
presented in Table 6-9.
Table 6- ?. Reynolds Proposed Specifications for Experimental Alumina
Supports, 6x8 Mesh; Nominal 0. 100 in. Diameter
(August 11, 1972)
SHAPE: Rounded Cylinders (Not Spheres)
MEAN DIAMETER: 0.100 in. ± 0. 005 in.
MEAN L/D: 1.3/1 to 1. 7/1 (Based on piece count, not weight)
U. S. STD. SCREEN ANALYSIS
+ 5 Mesh (0. 157 in. opening)
+ 6 Mesh (0. 132 in. opening)
+7 Mesh (0. 1 1 1 in. opening)
+8 Mesh (0.0937 in. opening)
-8 Mesh
CHEMICAL ANALYSES
Loss on Ignition @ 1000°C <5. 0
*Min A12O3
*Max Na2O
*Max SiO2 (
*Max Fe2O3
*Max CaO (
99
0,
0
0
0
6
10
10
05
06
(* on 0% LOI or calcined basis)
SURFACE AREA (BET METHOD):
180 M^/g minimum
200 M2/g typical
BULK DENSITY: 32 - 36 lb/ft3
34. 0 lb/ft3 typical
APPARENT DENSITY: 0. 85 - 0. 94 g/cc
(Of an individual cylinder) 0. 88 g/cc typical
ABSOLUTE DENSITY: 3. 15 - 3. 35 g/cc
(Of an individual cylinder) 3. 25 g/cc typical
TOTAL PORE VOLUME: 0. 750 - 0. 880 ml/g
(Of an individual cylinder) 0. 830 ml/g typical
Volume of Pores >500A Diameter: >0. 320 ml/g
typical
CRUSH STRENGTH (total load): 5.0- 10. 0 Ib
7.0 Ib typical
AIR ATTRITION LOSS: <10%
6% typical
Typical Pore
Analysis via Hg
Porosimeter
Diameter
(Microns)
+ 10
+ 5
+3
+2
+ 1. 5
+ 1
+0. 5
+0.3
+0. 1
+0. 07
+0. 05
+ 0.035
Volume
(ml/g)
0.027
0. 046
0.073
0. 106
0. 132
0. 165
0. 206
0. 238
0. 301
0. 324
0. 338
0. 360
6-100
-------
Current Reynolds alumina supports have much less than 5%
volume shrinkage when exposed to 1832 degrees Fahrenheit for 24 hours.
Reynolds is also a major supplier of raw material for the
alumina portion of the monolith support produced by American Lava. (Typi-
cally, monoliths contain about 30% alumina. ) Alcoa is the major supplier of
similar -v.atorials to Corning for the production of the Corning monolithic
substrate.
6.11.1.3 Automotive Catalyst/Substrate Test Programs
Reynolds in-house test programs are limited to determina-
tions of the physical properties of its pellet substrate product. These
include pellet size screening, chemical content analyses, surface area, bulk
density, apparent pellet density, absolute pellet density, total pellet pore
volume, crushing strength, and attrition characteristics.
Reynolds has no specific cooperative programs with automo-
bile manufacturers. Reynolds merely supplies the pellet substrates to cata-
lyst manufacturers, as requested.
6. 11. 1.4 Current Research Programs
Research is continuing to improve pellet characteristics,
particularly with regard to crushing strength and attrition loss improve-
ments. In general, this is related to heat treatment processing changes.
6.11.2 Overall Schedule
6.11.2.1 Normal Production Lead Time Schedule
Reynolds has estimated that 18 months are required to pro-
duce its alumina supports in production quantities. This 18-month period
would commence with the receipt of a firm purchase order and include the
following:
a. Preliminary engineering (3 months)
b. Plant and equipment construction (12 months)
c. Plant startup (3 months).
6-101
-------
The plant being considered would be a new one, approximately
20, 000 square feet in size, adjacent to its existing Arkansas facilities, and
would be used only for its alumina support product and nothing else. For
this reason, Reynolds has concluded that it must have a firm three-year
commitment before proceeding with plant construction.
Based on such a plant operating at full capacity (approxi-
mately 1 2, 000, 000 pounds per year), it estimates a product price of $0. 41
per pound f. o. b. Bauxite, Arkansas (freight rates to East or Midwest should
be less than one rent per pound). However, the product price would have to
be reconsidered if the specifications were changed significantly.
Reynolds estimates a capital investment cost of $4 to $5 mil-
lion for the production plant facility.
6. 11.2.2 Major Impact Factors
As noted above, the limiting schedule factor is construction of
the plant and equipment. All items of process equipment (mixers, extrud-
ers, kilns, etc. ) are conventional in nature and represent nothing unusual in
the way of procurement or manufacture. Reynolds does feel that the heavy
electric drive motors required (for mixers, rotary kilns) would most likely
represent the most critical item with respect to lead time, since they are
not normally off-the-shelf items and require manufacture to customer
specifications.
The raw materials for the alumina supports are produced in
copious quantities. Reynolds states it could operate its Arkansas plant for
20 years, supplying the whole automotive industry with alumina supports,
without making a dent in its proven reserves at that location. Current
alumina production at the Bauxite, Arkansas plant is several hundred thou-
sand tons per year.
At the present level of schedule definition, Reynolds does not
feel that any significant amount of compression is achievable. Although
some processing equipment might be obtained with approximately 10% time
compression (at considerable cost increase), it doubts that the acquisition
of heavy drive motors could be accelerated.
6-102
-------
6.11.2.3 Reduction Catalysts
The Reynolds pellet substrate could be used for reduction cat-
alysts as well as oxidation catalysts.
6. 11.3 Major Schedule Elements
6. 11. 3. 1 Plant Design and Construction
Reynolds would do its plant engineering in-house. Chemical
flow process diagrams for the production facility have been completed, but
Reynolds still has the plant design effort to go through. Reynolds' current
price quotations and production schedules have been based on historical val-
ues for dryers, buildings, etc.
Reynolds is as yet undecided on whether to construct its own
plant or have an independent contractor do the work.
6. 11. 3.2 Equipment and Material Procurement
The alumina raw material is the result of calcining hydrated
alumina. Processing the alumina into the finished pellet support requires
the following:
a. Mixers (to produce a plastic state suitable for extruding)
b. Extruders (to extrude the plastic alumina)
c. Cutters (to cut the extruded product to the proper length)
d. Dryers and heat treaters (to produce the desired porosity and
chemical state)
e. Drive motors (to power the various equipment)
As Reynolds product is based on its own raw materials (Table
6-9) and necessarily involves its own proprietary heat treatment proc-
esses, there is no issue involving internal vs external procurement of the
6-103
-------
product or portions thereof. Processing equipment (mixers, rotary kilns,
extruders, etc. ), of course, would be procured from outside suppliers.
6.11.3.3 Plant Startup
Reynolds considers the production of its alumina supports as
a routine manufacturing operation. It envisions no difficulty in starting up
and checking out the plant and equipment during the three-month period allo-
cated for this purpose.
6. 11.4 Quality Control and Warranty
Quality control specifications have not been considered at a
detailed level. Normal product warranty provisions (i. e. , that the product
meets procurement specifications) are envisioned.
6. 11. 5 Pilot Plant
A small pilot plant assembly line was completed in July 1972
in Reynolds research plant in Arkansas. This pilot plant can produce thou-
sands (up to 5000) of pounds per month of alumina supports. Several thou-
sand pounds have been shipped to a number of catalyst and automotive manu-
facturers for testing.
6. 11. 6 Current and Pending Contractual Agreements
Reynolds has no firm contractual agreements with either
catalyst or automotive manufacturers. Reynolds has provided quotes on its
pellet substrates to Davis Chemical, Oxy-Catalyst, and Monsanto, who
were, in turn, quoting on potential General Motors catalyst requirements
in the August through September 1972 time period.
6-104
-------
6. 12 UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY
6. 12. 1 Company Experience and Products
6. 12. 1. 1 Automotive and Nonautomotjve Products
Universal Oil Products Company (UOP) is a worldwide orga-
nization engaged in the research, development, operation and/or licensing of
processes for use by the petroleum refining industry. Several divisions
within UOP are active in the design, development, marketing and servicing
of hardware and facilities for air, solid waste and water pollution abatement.
UOP also produces truck and passenger car seats. Both are sold to the
domestic automobile industry, while the specialized truck and other vehicle
seats are marketed throughout the world.
UOP has been active in the research and development of noble
and non-noble metal catalyst formulations, spherical pellet substrates and
the application of the wash coat and catalyst to monolithic substrates, as
well as the design, prototype manufacture and installation of catalytic con-
verter systems.
6. 12. 1.2 Automotive Catalyst-Related Products
UOP is hoping to supply a finished catalyst, without canisters,
to the auto industry. Although its Flexonics Division is capable of produc-
ing canisters and has done so for UOP prototype catalytic converters pro-
duced for durability tests, UOP does not expect to compete in this area.
There are several ways in which UOP could act as a supplier
to the automotive industry:
a. UOP could produce its own pellet substrate and also apply the
catalytic material to the substrate.
b. Alternately, UOP could buy the pellet substrate from another
company, e.g. Kaiser, and then add the catalyst. UOP indi-
cates that this might result in a lower cost but could also
result in a pellet with lower surface area. The UOP pellets
have an average bulk density of 0. 33 gram per cubic centi-
meter, whereas, the density of the Kaiser pellet was reported
by UOP to be 0. 56 gram per cubic centimeter.
6-105
-------
c. If a monolithic substrate was required, UOP would buy the
unit from American Lava or Corning and apply thr- :i' unina
wash coat and catalyst material, since UOP does not have the
capability of producing the monolithic substrate. UOP also
indicates that, for General Motors units, the substrate might
be supplied by the AC Spark Plug Division of General Motors
Corporation.
In spite oi the current trend toward the noble metal, monolithic catalytic
converter, UOP expresses the opinion that base metal catalysts will eventu-
ally dominate the market, primarily because of cost considerations. It also
feels that pellet designs have, generally, yielded lower backpressures and
provide the potential advantage of being easier to recharge or refurbish.
(This is in direct contrast to a statement made by American Lava that Gen-
eral Motors had indicated that the pellet catalysts produce higher back pres-
sures than monoliths and that pellets could not be used for both oxidizing and
reducing catalysts. )
6. 12. 1. 3 Automotive Catalyst Test Programs
UOP has provided catalytic converters to both domestic and
foreign automobile manufacturers for test and evaluation. UOP reports that
most auto manufacturers, including Ford, Chrysler, General Motors,
Toyota and Volkswagen, currently favor the noble metal, monolithic cata-
lyst. It is, however, still getting orders for test samples of pellet catalysts
from various companies and that pellet testing is still active. UOP reports
that General Motors had recently accumulated 52, 000 miles on the UOP
PZ-214 base metal pellet catalyst. Emission levels were, according to
UOP, within the 1975 standards, although no specific details were given.
The test is reported to be continuing.
6. 12. 1.4 Current Research Efforts
Current research efforts by UOP deal with the development of
catalyst designs utilizing less platinum. UOP's latest precious metal blend
is predominantly palladium. This combination has been found by UOP to
provide a better conversion efficiency than straight platinum at a
proportionate reduction in cost. Palladium has been variously quoted at
6-106
-------
$35 to $60 per ounce, while platinum is approximately $140 per ounce. UOP
is currently generating data to establish the optimum palladium/platinum
ratio for minimum emissions.
UOP pellet substrates are currently 0. 125 inch in diameter.
General Motors has asked if UOP could produce 0. 25 inch diameter pellets
to reduce exhaust back pressure. This is also undergoing development
by UOP.
6.12.2 Overall Schedule
6. 12. 2. 1 Normal Production Lead Time Schedule
UOP indicated that regardless of which catalyst they contract
to supply to industry, new facilities would have to be built. The projected
schedule, shown in Figure 6-19, was prepared by UOP prior to any contrac-
tual commitments, but was verified as still being valid subsequent to a
recent agreement between UOP and Chrysler (see Section 6. 12. 6).
The plant location was not revealed by UOP but it did indi-
cate that several site locations were being considered, including Fayetteville,
Arkansas, Owensburg, Kentucky, and Tulsa, Oklahoma. Primary consider-
ations in site selection are said to include the need for large quantities of
water and fuel, preferably natural gas, in addition to an adequate labor
supply.
The UOP production capacity for monolithic catalysts is
planned at 8 million units per year based upon a three-shift per day, five-
day per week operation. This includes the number of units scheduled for
production for Chrysler, but since the details of that agreement have not
been released, UOP declines to discuss the production level scheduled for
Chrysler.
Plant facilities required to meet the planned production
capacity would require a total of approximately 93, 000 square feet, exclud-
ing kilns, which would be located between the process buildings to reduce the
heat load in the buildings. The plant floor area is itemized in Table 6-10.
6-107
-------
O
oo
BUILDINGS
1. DESIGN
2. CONSTRUCTION
NONDESIGN RELATED EQUIPMENT
1. DESIGN AND ENGINEERING
2. QUOTES. ORDERS
3. EQUIPMENT ON ORDER
4. INSTALLATION AND TEST
DESIGN-ORIENTED EQUIPMENT
1. RE-ORDER CHANGED PARTS
TOOLING AND FIXTURES
1. DESIGN AND ORDER
2. DELIVERY AND INSTALLATION
RAW MATERIALS
(METALS AND SUPPORT BASE)
1. QUOTES
2. PLACE ORDERS
PLANT SHAKEDOWN
PRODUCTION
SHIP
j
F
M
A
ci
M
1
r
j
19
j
72
A
1
1
s
1
1
0
N
I
|
f
D
J
|
1
f
\
1
M
A
Cl
M
|
|
1
f
J
,
19
j
1
1
73
A
1
1
S
0
N
D
J
F
I
1
I
|
M
f..
\
\
C1
M
1
r
j
19
j
74
A
S
O
1 —
•
j
N I D
1
1
i
j
!
,
'
L
!
30 25 20 15 10 5
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
Figure 6-19. UOP Production Lead Time Schedule
-------
Table 6-10. UOP Catalyst Plant Floor Area Requirements
Facility
Process Bldg No. 1
Process Bldg No. 2
Maintenance
Offices
Laboratories
Employees Welfare
(Showers, Lockers, etc.)
Total
Floor Area, ft2
50, 000
12,000
8, 000
7, 000
8, 000
8, 000
93, 000
In addition to the development of the pellet substrates for cat-
alytic converters, UOP also has done extensive research and development
work associated with the monolithic substrate. The major areas of effort
have been concerned with the development of a high surface area coating
(wash coat) bonded to the substrate, with particular emphasis on the resist-
ance to spalling when subjected to prolonged temperature cycling. In addi-
tion, it has been active in the development of a stabilizer which inhibits
phase transitions and area loss of wash coat.
Experience gained in the development of coating and catalyz-
ing techniques for monolithic substrates has contributed to the design of pro-
duction facilities planned by UOP.
6. 12.2.2 Major Impact Factors
UOP has stated that there is no one identifiable critical item
in its production lead time schedule (Figure 6-19). UOP has, in essence,
stated that if a commitment was made by September 15, 1972, it could
meet the production delivery date indicated in the schedule. A partial com-
mitment has been made by Chrysler and UOP is in the process of implementing
its schedule.
UOP indicates that it might be possible to accomplish some
reduction in the schedule, primarily during the facilities construction phase.
6-109
-------
UOP feels that one month to six weeks could be cut from this period through
the use of overtime labor. Cost penalties are not identified by Li jP.
6. 12. 2. 3 Reduction Catalysts
UOP is working on the development of a dual coating tech-
nique, for pellets and for monoliths, which produces a catalyst suitable for
either reduction or oxidation. It is also working on the development of
a reduction catalyst that can be applied either to a pellet or monolithic
substrate.
Catalyst production would require the building of additional
new facilities. Approximately the same lead time requirement as shown for
1975 production would be necessary, if a separate reducing catalyst was
required. If the dual coating were to be used in a pellet configuration, the
schedule could be significantly compressed because the coating processes
f-
and equipment have already been developed.
6. 12. 3 Major Schedule Elements
6. 12. 3. 1 Plant Design and Construction
UOP has indicated that work will start on the foundations for
the monolithic catalyst plant facilities on December 1, 1972. This is approxi-
mately 2-1 /2 months ahead of the schedule originally prepared by UOP.
UOP is also proceeding on the design engineering and contract
preparation for a pellet manufacturing facility since General Motors has
indicated that it will make a final decision by December 31, 1972 on whether
to order pellet or monolithic converters.
6. 12. 3. 2 Equipment and Material Procurement
UOP does not foresee any problem in obtaining adequate sup-
plies of alumina for use in the manufacture of pellets or for the wash coat.
Under the terms of the agreement with Chrysler, UOP has
stated only that Chrysler will contract separately for the monolithic sub-
strates, for delivery to UOP. To date, a substrate supplier had not been
selected by Chrysler. No other details are currently available.
6-110
-------
In this connection, Corning has indicated to UOP that mono-
lithic substrate specifications and production quantities would have to be
defined by September 1, 1972, or Corning would not have sufficient time to
develop the necessary facilities for production.
UOP's basic production tooling and equipment is reported to
be very conventional chemical process apparatus. These were identified
only in general terms, such as blenders, mixers, digesters, impregnators,
pressurizers, conveyors, aging tanks, heat exchangers, drop towers and
furnaces. If UOP were to manufacture pellet substrates, the longest lead
time items are reported to be certain process equipment with nickel-steel or
glass-lined steel equipment which would take about ten months for delivery.
The design of equipment to be used in the application of the
wash coat to the substrate has been completed and one unit is on order and is
scheduled for delivery on March 1, 1973. Additional units will be ordered at
a later date.
Nondesign and design related equipment was defined by UOP
in a similar manner to that given by Corning: the nondesign related equip-
ment is not dependent on knowing the finished dimensions of the monolith
while the design related equipment is dependent on the finished dimensions.
UOP has indicated that the latest possible date for re-ordering design
related equipment due to a change in the monolith dimensions is mid-July
1973, with an attendant delivery period of seven months (Figure 6-19).
6.12.3.3 Plant Startup
As indicated in Figure 6-19, UOP has allowed two months for
plant shakedown, with delivery to start in mid-May 1974, one month after
the start of production.
6. 12. 4 Quality Control and Warranty
Quality control procedures and equipment are not specifically
delineated by UOP. UOP does indicate that it is currently producing
pellets to specifications covering size, crushing strength, porosity, and
abrasive resistance. General Motors has asked if UOP would be
6-111
-------
willing to accept a performance specification on durability and perform.a;.^ ;
for the finished catalytic converter. UOP has tentatively agreed, bj:t a final
decision is dependent upon a precise definition of the requirement.
6. 12. 5 Pilot Plant
UOP operates pilot plant facilities as a part of its research
laboratory. Production capacities are not disclosed, but it is stated that
many of the processes are essentially a hand operation.
UOP does indicate, however, that General Motors require-
ment for a preproduction shipment of approximately 30, 000 catalysts in
April or May of 1974, could be handled by UOP's existing manufacturing
equipment.
6. 12. 6 Current and Pending Contract Agreements
An agreement was recently signed by UOP with Chrysler
involving the design, engineering and site preparation for a manufacturing
facility "with a capability of providing a substantial part of Chrysler's 1975
catalyst requirements. " A separate contract would be negotiated for actual
plant construction and for a specific production output.
Current indications from UOP are that Chrysler would con-
tract for the monolithic substrate from an as yet unidentified vendor and
UOP would apply the wash coat and catalyst. It is not known whether Chrys-
ler or UOP would contract for the required palladium and platinum although
Chrysler has announced that it has negotiated a contract with the Soviet
Union for the delivery of 100, 000 troy ounces of palladium in 1973.
UOP states that it has also been talking and negotiating with
Ford, General Motors, Volkswagen and Toyota. UOP also indicates that it
has not been in contact with American Motors for some time.
General Motors has directed UOP not to bid on the platinum
required for any General Motors units, since the number of recent bidders
has driven the price up. General Motors indicates it would carry out the
procurement process for UOP or others.
6-112
-------
In dealing with UOP and other catalyst suppliers, the automo-
bile companies have been insisting on a technology sharing contractual
arrangement which would require vendors to release their processes, roy-
alty free, to other auto company sources of supply. UOP has agreed (reluc-
tantly) to accept these terms. However, UOP feels that future advances in
process development will soon make these shared processes obsolete so that
the individual vendors could again acquire exclusive manufacturing tech-
niques. A similar situation was also reported by American Lava (See Sec-
tion 6. 2).
6-1 13
-------
SECTION 7
LEAD TIME SCHEDULES FOR AUTOMOBILE
COMPONENT MANUFACTURERS
This section presents normal production schedules, major
impact factors, and critical lead time items and discusses major elements
in the schedules for automobile component manufacturers. Production lead
time data were obtained from various manufacturers based on both recent
and current experience. However, for ease of comparison, the data are pre-
sented in the 1975 model year time frame. Figure 7-1 presents a summary
of the overall production lead times for various components from receipt of
order to the automobile manufacturer's Vehicle Job No. 1. This type of
presentation is used throughout this section. Noted on Figure 7-1 are some
of the more common major impact factors associated with component lead
times. For example, the typical transmission lead time is about seven
months for reorder of a type that is in production. If a new transmission is
ordered the lead time increases to 19-1/2 months.
For this discussion, tooling is defined as those items which are
attached to production equipment in order to perform an operation. The set
of production equipment to perform all operations on a component is defined
as a production line. For example, to form a body part, the tooling is the
dies that perform the operations such as bending, shearing, and piercing.
A press containing one die set is a piece of equipment. The production line
is comprised of all the presses, their dies, equipment to transfer panels
between presses, and so forth, which are necessary to completely make a
set of body parts.
One of the key dates for a component supplier is the date required
for delivery of production samples to the customer. These samples are
made from the equipment and tooling that will be used during the actual
production run, and the parts are representative of the production parts.
7-1
-------
CY 72 CY 73 CY 74
iJiFiMiA|MiJiJ|A|S|0|N|D|j|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|S|0|N|D|j|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|
BODY
STAMPINGS
A
PRODUCTION L
FRAME
k
A
PRODUCTION^
J
TRANSMISSION
I
NEW
DESIGN
REORDER
-0 A
PRODUCTION^
CARBURETOR
NEW
DESIGN
KNOWN
DESIGN
PRODUCTION^
EXHAUST
SYSTEM
1
I
NEW PRODUCTION
LINE REQUIRED
TOOLING ONLY
>£ A
PRODUCTION|_
WHEEL &
BRAKE PARTS
L
-0
NEW PRODUCTION TOOJr'.^S
LINE REQUIRED ONLY
I
PRODUCTIONL
OTHER
C AST INGS
REQUIRED
TOOLING^ A
ONLY
PRODUCTION^
30
25 20 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
LEGEND: RECEIPT OF ORDER
A DELIVERY OF PRODUCTION SAMPLES
Figure 7-1. Automobile Component Manufacturers' Overall
Production Lead Time
7-2
-------
The production samples are delivered to the customer for approval, and the
customer in turn uses the production samples for testing or to build a pilot
lot of car models.
Although actual production deliveries begin some months after
these samples are delivered, the component manufacturer continues to
develop his production line. He may need to eliminate problems from the line,
or he may install additional equipment needed for volume production rates
but which was not necessary for the fabrication of the samples. He may
make preproduction runs to verify production rate or to build up parts
inventory.
Inventory of production parts is an important aspect of cost and
scheduling. The automobile manufacturers keep an absolute minimum inven-
tory of components, subassemblies, and cars. In general, the inventory of
components and subassemblies consists of those in transit from the suppliers.
To keep production lines rolling, the supplier is forced to carry most of the
inventory. The following sections discuss each of the component manufacturer
schedules in detail.
7. 1 LEAD TIME SCHEDULES FOR BODY STAMPINGS
The body of the automobile for a body and frame type manu-
factured car and for that of a unitized construction car is made up of a series
of panels that are stamped from sheet metal. The sheet metal is supplied in
coiled form and, following decoiling, a "blank" for the particular part is
sheared by a hydraulic press operated die. The final shape is stamped by a
series of hydraulic press operations. A single panel might require as many
as 17 die sets. The panels for a complete automobile, such as the Lincoln
panels made by The Budd Company, require 550 die sets for major sheet-
metal stampings, without counting the floor pans.
Figure 7-2 illustrates a roof panel stamping operation at Budd
for the Ford Econoline van. The completed and unpainted panels are pro-
tected from rust and then shipped to the automobile manufacturer's assembly
plant. Rail shipment limits the panel size to 8 feet in width by 9 feet in
height. Where shipment by truck is necessary, the maximum width allowed
is 7 feet.
7-3
-------
Figure 7-2. Extended Roof Panel for the Ford Econoline Van
7-4
-------
7.1.1 Normal Production Schedule for Body Stampings
A normal production schedule for producing body stampings
is shown in Figure 7-3. The schedule is-based on past experience, but is
indexed to the 1975 model year for ease of comparison. It is seen that the
commitment for production of stampings is required 22 months prior to
vehicle production. The normal schedule is predicated on availability of
existing plant capacity to produce the stampings and on no requirements for
new capital equipment.
For the press shop operation performed by Budd Company,
model changeover does not usually require major changes to the fabrication
and transfer process. In general, new dies are simply placed in the presses.
As a rule of thumb, the same parts production line runs 10 to 20 days on
one model and is then changed over to another model.
7.1.2 Major Impact Factors for Body Stampings
The factors that can have a major impact on the lead time for
body stampings are (a) insufficient plant capacity requiring a new facility and
(b) the need for new capital equipment. Although it was not specifically cited
for body stampings, the lead time associated with a new facility is on the
order of 36 months prior to vehicle production.
If new capital equipment is required, its associated lead time
will cause an increase in the overall normal body stamping lead time to some
degree depending on the amount and type of equipment. Tabulated below are
representative pieces of major production line equipment with their associ-
ated lead time.
Normal Lead Time
Major Equipment Used Including Installation (in months)
Decoiling, straightening and feeding 15
system 96 inches
Double Action Press, 2000 Tons 15
Single Action Press, 1000 Tons 13
Single Action Press, 800 Tons 8
7-5
-------
CY 72 CY 73 CY 74
iJiFiMiAiMiJiJiA|5iOiNiD|j|F|M|A|M|J|J|AiSiO i N i D| J i F i Mi A i Mi J i J i A j
OVERALL LEAD TIME
PROCESS DESIGN
TOOL DESIGN
TOOL FABRICATION
EQUIPMENT ENGINEERING
EQUIPMENT I N0 MAJOR
PROCUREMENT | I^'^ESSE's
EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION & CHECKOUT
TOOL TRYOUT
PRODUCTION SAMPLES [J
A
FULL PRODUCTION
_L
30
25 20 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
LEGEND: RECEIPT OF ORDER
A DELIVERY OF PRODUCTION SAMPLES
Figure 7-3. Body Stamping Lead Time
7-6
-------
7. 1. 3 Critical Lead Time Items for Body Stampings
As noted from Figure 7-3, tooling is the critical lead time
item. Tooling consists mainly of dies and the assumption is made that an
existing production line type press shop (presses with replaceable dies) can
produce the parts with only minor changes to the equipment. As an example,
details for the lead time of typical dies are given as follows:
Design of the Dies 8 to 9 weeks
Polystyrene Pattern for Dies 6 to 8 weeks
Meehanite Castings for Dies 4 to 5 weeks
Machining of Dies 7 to 1Z weeks
Installation of Dies 1 to Z weeks
Time to Initial Tryout (Summation of above) Z6 to 36 weeks
These figures are for single die sets; a group of die seta
would require longer times. The rear quarter panel is the worst case and
requires the maximum time of 36 weeks. The total time period to produce
all die sets is approximately 13 months as shown in Figure 7-3.
The use of dies in presses requires blank holder development
which is included in Figure 7-3 with Tool Fabrication. The blank holder is
required to hold the sheet metal blank to prevent wrinkling, splitting, or over
stressing. It is of interest that in almost all cases a group of die sets is built
only once for a given model body panel. If the die wears or is damaged,
repairs are made by welding. A single die canbe used for 1 million stampings
of complex shapes and for up to 15 million stampings of simple shapes.
This is not true for "soft tooling" which allows only 1000 to 10,000 stampings.
7. 1.4 Major Elements in Body Stamping Schedule
The major elements of the body stamping schedule begin
with process design where the sequence and details of the blanking, forming,
and cutouts of each panel are worked out and the major equipment to be used
is established. Following this, tooling design and fabrication is performed
as discussed in Section 7. 1. 3.
7-7
-------
Other items of equipment are specified and negotiated with
the equipment vendors. Customer approval is secured and the equipment is
ordered, received, installed and checked out. Typical equipment items and
their lead times are as follows:
Equipment Item Lead Time (months)
300 KVA Transformer 4
Solid State Controls for 300 KVA 3
Press Type Feeder 5
Press Type Extractor 5
It is noted that these items of equipment are only needed
on-line prior to production, rather than prior to making the set of production
samples, which can be run off at a slow rate.
During the equipment acquisition period, tool tryout is
conducted where sample pieces are made from the new dies and checked
against the drawings. If required, the dies are modified. After tool check-
out, body stamping production samples are run off and delivered for
approval. Production of parts for inventory buildup may be initiated prior
to full production which typically starts about one month prior to vehicle
production.
7. 2 LEAD TIME SCHEDULES FOR FRAMES
The automobile frame is the basic structure on which the body,
engine, and axles plus most other systems are mounted. Equipment and
techniques used for frame production are quite similar to those used to
fabricate body stampings as discussed in the preceding section.
7. 2. 1 Normal Production Schedules for Frames
A typical frame production schedule indexed to the 1975 model
year is shown in Figure 7-4. The activities are the same a-s those noted on
the body stamping schedule. However, the overall frame lead time of
7-8
-------
CY 71 CY 72 CY 73 CY 74
,S,0|N|D|J|F|MIA|M|JIJ|A|S|0|N|D|J|FIM|AIM|JIJIA|S|0IN|D|JIF|M| A|M, J|
OVERALL LEAD TIME
START OF
CUSTOMER
NEGOTIATIONS
^PRODUCTION ORDER A
FORMAL PURCHASE
ORDER FACILITY &
EQUIPMENT
FACILITY 1
CONSTRUCTION |
ORDER LONG LEAD TIME
EQUIPMENT - HYDRAULIC PRESSES
EXTENDED LEAD TIME REQ'D
WITH NEW FACILITY &
PRESS LINE
^PROCESS & TOOL DESIGN
TOOL
FABRICATION
(EQUIPMENT ENGINEERING
EQUIPMENT
PROCUREMENT
(NO MAJOR
EQUIPMENT)
EQUIPMENT
INSTALLATION
AND CHECKOUT
TOOL TRYOUT
PRODUCTION SAMPLESJj
A
TYPICAL
LEAD TIME
PRODUCTION
J_
35
30
25 20 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
LEGEND: RECEIPT OF ORDER
A DELIVERY OF PRODUCTION SAMPLES
Figure 7-4. Frame Lead Time
7-9
-------
15-1/2 months is 6-1/2 months less than that of the body stampings. This is
because of the much smaller number of parts required for frame production.
7.2.2 Major Impact Factors for Frames
The same factors impact the frame schedule as those noted in
the preceding body stamping discussion, i.e. , possible requirement for new
facilities or new capital equipment. The timing required for a new facility
for frame production is noted on the left hand side of Figure 7-4, which is
indexed to the 1975 model year, although the actual events are related to
1972 model year production.
For example, for the 1972 Ford Torino frame produced in
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, the size of the existing Budd plant had to be
doubled. This facility construction is normally estimated to take three years
from the time that a site is selected. Because of the availability of the site
and duplication of the architecture of the original plant, four months were
saved on this project. Nevertheless, a total of 35 months elapsed from the
start of the negotiations in September 1968 until vehicle production. Although
the formal purchase order was not signed until mid-1969, Budd had already
contracted for facilities and large lead time equipment such as stamping
presses prior to this date. Upon receipt of the Ford Motor Company engineer-
ing design concepts for the frame, engineering models were built by Budd
in cooperation with the customer. Budd's contribution to design were confined
mainly to manufacturing feasibility and cost cutting. Approximately 197
prototypes were built prior to and through the engineering phase from mid-
1969 through mid-1970. These were forwarded to Ford for checkout
purposes.
7. 2. 3 Critical Lead Time Items for Frames
As for body stampings, the critical lead time item in the
frame schedule is tool design and fabrication, which is largely dies. Due to
the much smaller number of dies involved, frame tooling time is about five
months less than that for body stampings.
7-10
-------
CY 72 CY 73 CY 74
iJ|F|M|A|MiJiJ|A|SiOiNiD|j|F|M|A|M|J|J|AiSiO[N|D|j|F|M|A|M|.:|J,
REPEAT ORDERS - TYPICAL
WITH GRAY IRON CASTINGS
OVERALL
LEAD TIME
A
J
WITH FORCINGS AND MALLEABLE IRON CASTINGS
OVERALL
LEAD TIME
PRODUCTION
7
NEW TRANSMISSION
-ONCE PER 5 YEARS
OVERALL LEAD TIME
DESIGN
PROCESS^
NEGOTIATE EQUIPMENT
SPECS & COST
7
ACQUIRE EQUIPMENT
& TOOLING
EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION & CHECKOUT
\
2 TO 6 YEARS DEVELOPMENT
TIME
ASSEMBLE PRODUCTION SAMPLES
PRODUCTION
7
30
25 20 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
LEGEND: i> RECEIPT OF ORDER
DELIVERY OF PRODUCTION SAMPLES
Figure 7-5. Transmission Lead Time
7-12
-------
7. 3. 3 Critical Lead Time Items for Transmissions
The critical lead time items for production of a new
transmission are the long lead equipment items to be used in the production
line. These include automatic machining transfer lines (for machining the
transmission case and the extension housing) and the more conventional
machine tools such as milling machines, lathes and grinders. Besides the
equipment acquisition time, the engineering time to negotiate specifications
and the time to install and checkout the equipment are also critical. The
overall critical lead time for equipment is about 15 months between
engineering and the end of installation and checkout.
7. 3. 4 Major Elements in the Transmission Schedule
For a new transmission there is considerable development
time involved between the concept and the first production order. The
sequence begins with the definition of the concept by either the customer or
the vendor. A concept layout is prepared by the vendor for customer
acceptance. After acceptance, the vendor's engineering department prepares
shop drawings and the cost analysis is refined (three to eight months). These
drawings are then submitted to the customer. At this point the vendor would
normally receive an order for a pilot lot of prototype units, around 25. Pre-
liminary tooling is designed and fabricated, some of which may be used
later in production. The pilot lot of transmissions is delivered to the
customer for his testing. The above activities usually take 20 to 24 months
for a new design. For a minor modification to an existing design about six
months is required. The customer then tests the prototype transmission and
the design is refined. The time required for this test activity is highly vari-
able ranging from three months to four years. The final piece-part cost
for the refined design is prepared by the vendor and quoted to the customer
for the production order. No engineering or purchasing for production is
done until receipt of the production order. The above development time
7-13
-------
would require two to six years depending on customer testing time, however,
the six years would seem unusual. Perhaps 30 months would be reasonably
representative of the development time.
Upon receipt of the production order, refining of the process
design for the transmission production line is initiated. The emphasis is to
first complete the process design that relates to the long lead equipment
items so that equipment specifications can be negotiated as soon as possible.
Once the equipment is specified it is placed on order, followed by orders for
tooling, piece parts and raw material.
As the equipment is received it is installed and checked out.
Transmission piece parts together with production samples of purchase
piece parts are used to assemble the lot of transmission production samples
for delivery to the customer for approval.
In order to compress the schedule by two months, as in the
case of the 1974 model year Pinto four-speed manual transmission, two steps
are being taken. The first step was to have Ford assist in negotiations with
long lead time equipment vendors, so that equipment specification time was
reduced. The second step was to plan means for assembly of the transmission
production samples while installation and checkout of the line is being con-
ducted. This will be accomplished by the equipment manufacturer using
tryout piece parts furnished by the transmission manufacturer for final
checkout of equipment prior to shipment.
7.4 LEAD TIME SCHEDULES FOR CARBURETORS
In the production of carburetors the manufacturer makes all
critical functional parts and stampings, and machines the piece parts and
die castings; the carburetor is then assembled and tested. (Rotary indexing
machines are used in many machining operations for transferring the part
between machining stations.) Die castings, gaskets, fasteners, formed
tubing, rubber goods and other specialized items are normally purchased
from suppliers.
7-14
-------
7.4.1 Normal Production Schedules for Carburetors
Normal schedules for a new 1975 carburetor (with its
associated development time) and for a previously developed carburetor of
known design and production experience-are shown in Figure 7-6. The
overall production lead time for a new carburetor is 18 months between
receipt of order and vehicle production, and is 12-1/2 months for a carburetor
of proven design. The reasons for the 5-1/2 months of additional time appear
to be the greater time required to build dies to produce die castings for a new
carburetor, time to acquire equipment and tooling (including flow check equip-
ment for calibration functional tests), and the additional contingency time for
equipment installation and checkout. The necessity for the contingency time
is illustrated by a vendor's production experience with a carburetor
(incorporating a pressure tap for control of engine exhaust gas recirculation)
which was being produced with an 80% reject rate.
For a proven carburetor it was estimated that the schedule
might be compressed about one month by compression of tool design and
build periods and by compression of equipment installation and checkout
periods. This would result in an overall lead time of 11-1/2 months.
For an unknown, or new carburetor there may be a potential
for schedule compression. Much depends on the degree of financial risk
the carburetor vendor ia willing to assume. A new carburetor on a crash
program entails the possibility that engineering and purchasing funds
expended for a given initial design will be lost through later changes.
7.4.2 Major Impact Factors for Carburetors
Assuming that facility expansion would not be required, the
major impact factor cited was product design, which impacts as discussed
in Section 7.4. 1.
7.4.3 Critical Lead Time Items for Carburetor
The items in the critical path of a carburetor schedule are
tooling design, tooling fabrication, and installation and checkout of the pro-
duction line equipment, which are all carburetor manufacturer activities.
7-15
-------
CY 72 CY 73 CY 74
|J|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|S|0|N|D|J|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|S|0i N i DJ J . F i Mi A i Mi J , J i A ,
| OVERALL LEAD TIME |
DESIGN FEASIBILITY A
INITIAL PROTOTYPE
JBUILD DIE CASTINGS
^,,CT«.^» ,-., ,M.TIM, ACQUIRE EQUIP. & TOOLING. INSTALL & CHECK OUT
CUSTOMER CALIBRATIONprrrTTTTTOTI I =Li= 1 PROD. LINE
WITH INIT. PROTOTYPEl22222Z£222l I 1
EARLY PROTOTYPEr77777777777£l I IDURABILITY &
DESIGN & BUILD&2222222222223 I IPERFORMANCE TESTS
CUSTOMER CALIBRATIONK777777777777I I iBUILD CERTIFICATION
WITH EARLY PROTOTYPEl^wW?fl I lHARDWARE
i I CUSTOMER
I 1 CERTIFICATION
PRODUCTION. 1
SAMPLES!
1975 EMISSION CONTROL —
CARBURETOR SCHEDULE
TYPICAL SCHEDULE FOR
CARBURETOR OF KNOWN
DESIGN & PRODUCTION
PRODUCTION! >
| OVERALL LEAD TIME |
A A
| (DESIGN TOOLING
IBUILD TOOLING!
ACQUIRE EQUIPMENT & PARTS[_
INSTALL & CHECK OUT PRODUCTION LINE
PRODUCTION SAMPLES! I
A
PRODUCTION'
30 25 20 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
LEGEND: RECEIPT OF ORDER
A DELIVERY OF PRODUCTION SAMPLES
Figure 7-6. Carburetor Lead Time
7-16
-------
7.4.4 Major Elements in Carburetor Schedule
Although not in the production lead time per se, the development
activities for a new carburetor influence the production lead time. The
development time begins with design feasibility as noted on Figure 7-6.
The carburetor manufacturer's advanced engineering depart-
ment performs design feasibility work and an initial lot of prototypes are built
and furnished to the customer who tests the carburetors on the prototype
engine. It is an iterative process where test results are fed back to the
carburetor manufacturer and carburetor modifications are made or new
prototypes are built and further testing is performed on the engine. As the
carburetor design is refined, early production prototypes of the anticipated
design are furnished to the customer for calibration with the engine. The
nature of the development activity gives the carburetor manufacturer a good
understanding of potential problems that may be encountered during the
actual production and tends to decrease the lead time. Then the carburetor
manufacturer prepares a quotation based on customer furnished production
delivery dates and production rate.
The first activity after receipt of the .production order for a
new carburetor is to release an order to a castings supplier to build the
dies and supply castings. The major items of equipment are then specified,
the tooling is designed, the orders are released for equipment, and tooling
fabrication is begun. Concurrently, as die cast samples are received, proto-
type carburetors are fabricated and assembled for durability and perform-
ance tests by the carburetor manufacturer. When final die castings are
received, the "certification carburetors" are fabricated and assembled and
furnished to the customer for certification testing. As the production line
equipment and tooling is received it is installed and checked out. Upon
completion of this effort, the lot of production samples is built and furnished
to the customer.
The activities for a known carburetor are similar except the
die casting dies exist and the testing for durability, performance, and certi-
fication is not required.
7-17
-------
7. 5 LEAD TIME SCHEDULE FOR EXHAUST SYSTEMS
The lead time schedules for exhaust systems arc shown on
Figure 7-7. The normal overall lead time for a conventional exhaust system
is six months, with tooling design and fabrication being the pacing item. For
a new exhaust system with a resistance welded stainless steel canister the
overall lead time between receipt of order and vehicle production is nine
months.
Both of the above normal schedules assume that production
line equipment is available and that tooling is the critical item.
If new major production equipment should be required, the
overall lead time might be as much as 18 months. Based on the timing of
production line elements discussed in previous sections, an estimate of the
major schedule activities for process design, equipment specification
negotiation, equipment acquisition and installation and checkout for a new
•netal forming line has been made as shown on Figure 7-7.
7. 6 LEAD TIME SCHEDULES FOR WHEELS AND BRAKE PARTS
The overall lead times between receipt of order and vehicle
production for wheels and brake parts are depicted on Figure 7-8 and
tabulated below.
Overall Lead Times (Months)
Tooling Equipment
Item Critical Critical
Wheels 10 14
Hubs 14 14
Discs 14 14
Brake Cylinder 10 14
Disc Brake Caliper, Defined 10
Disc Brake Caliper, New Design -- • 19
7-18
-------
CY 72 CY 73 CY 74
iJ|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|S|0|N|D|j|F|M|A|M|JiJ, AjS lOi N , pi JiFiMiA i Mi J , J i A,
CONVENTIONAL
EXHAUST SYSTEM
LEAD
5 A^
PRODUCTION
ACQUIRE
TOOLING
7
NEW EXHAUST
SYSTEM WITH CANISTER
& A^
PRODUCTION
ACQUIRE
TOOLING
7
EXHAUST SYSTEM
REQUIRING NEW
PRODUCTION
EQUIPMENT
OVERALL LEAD TIME
PRODUCTION
DESIGN
PROCESS
7
NEGOTIATE EQUIPMENT
SPECIFICATIONS & COST
ACQUIRE EQUIPMENT
& TOOLING
INSTALLATION
& CHECKOUT
A
7
30
25 20 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
LEGEND: RECEIPT OF ORDER
A DELIVERY OF PRODUCTION SAMPLES
Figure 7-7. Exhaust System Lead Time
7-19
-------
CY T2 CY 73 CY 74
iJiFiM|AiMiJiJ|A|SiOiN|D|j|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|S|0|N|D|j|F|M|A|M|J|JiA|
WHEELS .
I OVERALL LEAD TIME |
IF TOOLING
EQUIPMENT ONLY
_
NEEDED NEEDED PRODUCTION |_
HUBS AND DISCS
L
OVERALL LEAD TIME
-0
EITHER EQUIPMENT
OR TOOLING NEEDED
PRODUCTION^
BRAKE CYLINDER
I OVERALL LEAD TIME \
A
EQUIPMENT TOOLING
NEEDED ONLY
NEEDED
PRODUCTION^
CALIPER - DEFINED
L
-0 -6
EQUIPMENT TOOLING
NEEDED ONLY
NEEDED
| OVERALL LEAD TIME
A
PRODUCTION
CALIPER • NEW DESIGN
L
OVERALL LEAD TIME
30
^ INCREMENTALLY START UP
EQUIPMENT AND BUILD CALIPER FOR
NEEDED CERTIFICATION TEST
BRAKE CERTIFICATION TEST( j*
_j i | | |
25 20 15 10 5
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
LEGEND:
RECEIPT OF ORDER
DELIVERY OF PRODUCTION SAMPLES
Figure 7-8. Wheels and Brake Parts Lead Time
7-20
-------
7. 6. 1 Major Impact Factors for Wheels and Brake Parts
The factor cited as having a lead time impact was the
regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Act. As noted on Figure 7-8,
this required additional time to conduct the brake certification tests which
added five months to a schedule where equipment is required for a new
production line.
7. 6. 2 Critical Lead Time Items for Wheels and Brake Parts
The pacing items that determine the lead times are either
tooling or new equipment for a new production line as noted on Figure 7-8.
The times required between receipt of order by the wheel or brake part
manufacturer and delivery of production samples from the new line is
tabulated below, for the situation where the equipment designated is pacing
the schedule.
Time From Order to
Equipment Production Samples (Months)
Bullard, (8) Spindle Type "L" 9-10
Machine
Motch/Merrywheather Transfer 12
Machine
Assembly Transfer Machine 8-10
Vertical Lathes 6-8
Multispindle Drill 5
Grinder, Disc Brake 8
Washer, Transfer Type/ 6
Multistage
Rim Line 12
Welders, Submerged Arc 6-8
Presses, 250 Ton 8
Cincinnati Hydro spin 10
Trimming Lathe 8
Assembly Machine, Hydraulic 6
Paint System 5-6
7-21
-------
7.7 LEAD TIME FOR OTHER COMPONENTS
The normal lead time for other components of the automobile,
such as valves and window assemblies, are shown in Figure 7-9. Ordinarily,
existing production equipment is adequate and obtaining new tooling is the
critical lead time item. Where a range of lead time is indicated, the variation
is due to complexity of the tooling resulting from different parts design.
7.7. 1 Major Impact Factors for Other Components
The major impact factors identified are product design,
production rate and foundry capacity in the instance of castings.
If the product is of a type and size range that has been built
before, its lead times are minimum and are paced by its tooling lead times
as noted above. However, if new equipment is required by the design of the
product, the lead time may be increased, depending on the type and quantity
of equipment needed. This is indicated by the timing shown for a radiator
fan on Figure 7-9 where the overall lead time is 14 months for a fan built
from a new production line as contrasted with a period of 8 months for a fan
built from an existing production line.
If the production rate is significantly higher, a new facility
becomes necessary, which has the most significant lead time impact.
Figure 7-10 indicates the key events and their timing for a new facility for
engine valve production. As was done for the other figures, it is set in the
1975 model year time frame for ready comparison. Approval of the
appropriation request is shown as the main starting point since it represents
the management decision to commit resources for production. In the seven
months preceding that point, however, the site location is selected and
orders for the hot forging presses (critical pacing item) are placed with
a no charge cancellation clause. The press orders are made firm upon
the approval of the appropriation request and other equipment is ordered.
Partial production begins, using purchased forgings prior to receipt of the
hot forging presses.
7-22
-------
CY 72 CY 73 CY 74
|J|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|S|0|N|D|j|F|M|A|M|J|J|AiS|0|N|D|j i Fi Mi A i Mi J i J i A i
VALVES
OVERALL LEAD
TIME
A
PRODUCTION
WINDOW ASSEMBLIES
OVERALL LEAD
s^TIME
A
PRODUCTION
[ £
METAL
TRIM
\:
&
OVERALL LEAD 1
TIME !
A
PRODUCTION
[ ^
FERROUS CASTINGS
OVERALL LEAD TIME
A
PRODUCTION
BUMPER FINISHING
OVERALL LEAD TIME
(EQUIPMENT CRITICAL)
CUSTOMER TESTS
A
PRODUCTION
u
DIE CASTINGS & AUCTION LINE~L
RADIATOR FAN FOR NEW FAN
r-
|
FAN FROM EXISTING
PRODUCTION LINE
\
OVERALL LEAD
TIME
(EQUIPMENT CRITICAL)
A
PRODUCTION
\
30
25
20 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
LEGEND: • RECEIPT OF ORDER
A DELIVERY OF PRODUCTION SAMPLES
Figure 7-9. Other Components Lead Time (Tooling is
Critical Item Unless Noted Otherwise)
7-23
-------
CY 71
CY 72
CY 73
CY 74
I Ji Ji Ai S i
OVERALL LEAD TIME
APPROPRIATION REQUEST APPROVED
FACILITY & PROCESS DESIGN COMPLETED
FIRM EQUIPMENT ORDERS PLACED
FACILITY CONSTRUCTION
r
LINE 25% OPERATIONAL WITH
PURCHASED FORCINGS
^PARTIAL PRODUCTION^
INSTALLATION & CHECKOUT
OF FORGING PRESSES
1ST PRESS
14TH PRESS
FULL VALVE PRODUCTION
L7
I
I
35
30
25 20 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
Figure 7-10. New Engine Valve Facility Lead Time
7-24
-------
The line required 14 forging presses which took about
21 months from delivery of the first press until installation and checkout of
the last press. The line was producing at full production rate at the end of
September in the year prior to the model year. The lead time for procure-
ment of presses is very dependent on the business state of the hot forging
press suppliers. If they are in slack times one press could be delivered in
15 months. If they are heavily back ordered, the first press might require
36 months lead time.
If additional foundry capacity for ferrous castings is required,
36 months is required to bring it to full production status. However, there
is a reluctance in the industry to invest in new foundry capacity since profita-
bility is less due to price controls and there are energy supply uncertainties.
Total industry foundry capacity maybe critical with some uncertainty about
the ability to supply future requirements.
7-25
-------
SECTION 8
LEAD TIME SCHEDULES FOR PRODUCTION
EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS
This section presents normal production schedules, major
impact factors, and critical lead time items and discusses major elements
of the schedules for production equipment manufacturers. Lead time data
based on both recent and current industry experience were obtained from
various manufacturers. However, for ease of comparison the data are
presented in the 1975 model year time frame. Presented in Figure 8-1 are
summary lead times for major items of automobile production line equipment
from receipt of order to Vehicle Job No. 1. The times shown are for single
units; however, the discussion on welders covers the lead time impact when
more than one unit is ordered.
8. 1 LEAD TIME SCHEDULES FOR AUTOMATIC TRANSFER
LINES
For this report the term automatic transfer line has been
adopted as a generic term for equipment that performs automatic machining
or assembly operations. Transfer lines are used for automated machining
of a wide variety of automotive piece parts, with the engine block and head
machining lines being among the more notable examples. Figure 8-2
illustrates the sections of an engine block machining transfer line and the
various machining operations performed. Another transfer line application
is the automatic assembly of automobile bodies.
8.1.1 Normal Production Schedules for Automatic Transfer Lines
Figure 8-3 provides several illustrations of lead time associated
with automatic transfer lines. Depending on the complexity and size of the
8-1
-------
CY 72 CY 73 CY 74
[J|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|S|0|N|D|j|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|S|0|N|D|j|F|M|A|M|J|JiA|
COMPLEX
TYPICAL
MACHINING
LINE
SIMPLE
AUTOMATIC
TRANSFER LINES
ENGINE PRODUCTION
COLD STAMPING
PRESSES
£
PRESS
WITH
FEED
SINGLE
ACTION
PRESS
BODY
PRODUCTION
WELDERS
"• -•-••-"- ^r /\
ELECTRON STANDARD **
BEAM pLFr?RoS STANDARD
WELDER Jpfu RESISTANCE
WELDER WELDER
30
25 20 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
LEGEND: RECEIPT OF ORDER
END OF INSTALLATION & CHECKOUT
Figure 8-1.
Production Equipment Manufacturers' Overall
Lead Time
8-2
-------
Cylinder Block
A brief description of the
major machine sections follows.
1) Mill and broach locating
notches.
2) Rough mill trans, notches,
brg. half rd., oil pump mtg.
face, brg. cap seats, pan rail and
fin. mill brg. cap seats.
3) Rough mill rear face, left
bank, right bank and front
face, finish mill top rails, fuel
pump mtg. pad and front face.
4) Mill brg. lock notches, rough
mill rear crank brg., finish mill
motor mounting pads, crank
brg. side faces and inner-crank
brg. side faces.
5) Semi-finish cylinder bores.
6) Drill and tap front and rear.
7) Drill pan rail.
8) Drill and tap pan rail sides and
angular front holes.
9) Drill right and left banks.
10) Drill and ream tappet holes,
tap bank and misc. holes.
11) Finish cylinder bores.
12) Semi-finish cam and crank
bores.
13) Press in cam brg. shell.
14) Finish cam and crank bores.
15) Finish mill bank and rear
faces.
Figure 8-2. Engine Block Machine
Transfer Line
8-3
-------
-v ri.-
« .u
Figure 8-2. Engine Block Machine
Transfer Line
8-4
-------
CY 72 CY 73 CY 74
iJ|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|S|0|N|D|j|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|S|0|N|D|j|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|
-rXDEVELOPMENT 1 TO 18 MONTHS
^ (4 MONTHS TYPICAL)
TYPICAL
SIMPLE
ENGINE PRODUCTION^
| DIESEL CYLINDER BLOCK MACHINING LINE|
[ CHRYSLER CYLINDER BLOCK MACHINE LINE |
MAVERICK BODY ASSEMBLY LINE
PINTO CYLINDER BLOCK MACHINE LINE
| PINTO CYLINDER HEAD MACHINE
I TRANSFER LINE-NORMAL SCHEDj
TRANSFER LINE-COMPR. SCHED.
I 1
I
30
25 20 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
LEGEND: A RECEIPT OF ORDER
END OF INSTALLATION & CHECKOUT
IN CUSTOMER'S PLANT -1 LINE
Figure 8-3. Automatic Transfer Line Lead Time
8-5
-------
transfer line the overall production lead time between receipt of orde. tnd
vehicle production can range from 13 to 30 months. A typical leaJ time for
a transfer line is considered to be about ZO months based on the case
histories noted in Figure 8-3.
The bottom two schedule bars in Figure 8-3 are based on
data furnished by a manufacturer as being typical of schedules quoted to the
automotive industry for a transfer line costing about $1 million. Assuming
no piece-part changes and plant capacity is available, it might be com-
pressed about two months at no cost increase.
8. 1. 2 Major Impact Factors for Automatic Transfer Lines
The major impact factors identified were product design and
business conditions. It was implicit that facility expansion of the transfer
line manufacturer is accomplished in accordance with sales forecasting
where continuous future use of the new facility might be expected.
The lead time requirement is based on the available plant and
engineering capacity of the transfer line manufacturer and on the type of
design of the transfer line. A simple, small machine requires little engineer-
ing or shop time, whereas a complex transfer line several hundred feet
long requires significant amounts of engineering, fabrication and assembly
time.
Business conditions impact lead time in the form of number
of orders placed by the automobile manufacturers. The backlog of orders is
a measure of plant and engineering capacity already committed. Therefore
any new orders will be delayed in implementation until they can be accom-
modated within the manufacturer's capacity.
8.1.3 Critical Lead Time Items for Automatic Transfer Lines
As can be inferred from the above discussion, the critical
lead time item is the transfer line manufacturer's available plant and
engineering capacity; the available engineering capacity is the most critical.
While portions of the shop work can be subcontracted for schedule control
purposes, this is impractical for the engineering work. Standard practice
8-6
-------
during periods with order backlogs is to work 50 to 55 hours per week in the
engineering departments, so there appears to be little expansion potential
for engineering overtime.
8.1.4 Major Elements in Automatic Transfer Line Schedules
Figure 8-4 presents the major elements of a transfer line
manufacturer's schedule for a multisection cylinder head machining line.
It is noted that the job is processed in series beginning with the first section
of the line. The initial activity is engineering on the first section where the
long lead purchase items (e.g. precision bearings - up to five months, bar
stock for the main transfer bar - four months) are identified early and
released for purchasing. Castings are designed and drawings are released
to the shop at an early date. Engineering is then completed on the less
critical items and released. Prior to completion of all engineering on the
first section, engineering is initiated on the second section in a similar
manner. About 8-1/2 months of total engineering time is required for all
14 sections.
Purchasing and parts fabrication by the shop are also done in
series on the sections, so that the sections flow through the assembly floor
in the same manner. Each section is completely assembled and checked out
prior to shipment. Usual practice is to run a section with castings furnished
by the customer and the machining operations are checked by the customer's
gaging and inspection equipment. The checkout operation is witnessed by
the customer and his approval is necessary before shipping.
The section is then torn down to the shipping configuration,
crated and shipped. At the customer's plant, it is reassembled, installed
and checked out. The time between receipt of order and the end of installa-
tion and checkout of the last section is 14 months for a typical overall lead
time of 20 months from receipt of order to vehicle production.
8.2 LEAD TIME SCHEDULES FOR COLD STAMPING PRESSES
Cold stamping presses are used for production of automobile
bodies and frames and for many other sheet metal forming operations.
8-7
-------
CY 72 CY 73 CY 74
|J|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|S|0|N|D|j|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|S|0|N|D|j|F|M|A|M|J , J| A,
I [DEVELOPMENT - 4 MONTHS
OVERALL LEAD TIME
ENGINE PRODUCTION
ENGINEERING
PURCHASING
PARTS FABRICATION
1ST SECTION
14TH SECTION
14
14
ASSEMBLY
CHECKOUT & SHIP
INSTALLATION & CHECKOUT
AT CUSTOMER'S PLANT
30
25 20 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
LEGEND: RECEIPT OF ORDER
END OF INSTALLATION & CHECKOUT
IN CUSTOMER'S PLANT
Figure 8-4. Transfer Line - Representative Lead Time
(Cylinder Head Machining)
8-8
-------
Press types (single action, double action, triple action; overdrive or
underdrive) and capacities (500 to 4000 tons) are variable. Figure 8-5 e
illustrates an underdrive press (drive mechanism located underfloor as
opposed to location on top of the press).
8. 2. 1 Normal Production Schedules for Cold Stamping Presses
The overall lead time for one press ranges from 10 to 15 months
depending on the type of press, the differences in the design from an existing
design, and the optional feed or drives that may be selected. The following
table presents the overall lead times from receipt of order to vehicle produc-
tion for the different presses.
Overall
Type of Press Lead Time Months
Triple Action Presses - Near Duplicate 12 to 13-1/2
- New Design 13 to 13-1/2
Double Action Presses - Near Duplicate 11-1/2 to 13-1^2'
- New Design 13 to 13-1/2
Overdrive Presses - Near Duplicate 10 to 11-1/2
- New Design 10-1/2 to 11-1/2
Synchromatic Press
Lines - Near Duplicate 12-1/2 to 13
- New Design 13-1/2 to 14
Optional Press Feed . 13-1/2 to 15
Optional Press Drive 13 to 14
Optional Dynamatic Drive 12 to 13-1/2
The range of time for any individual press depends on critical
lead time elements of the press which are detailed in a later section.
8.2.2 Major Impact Factors for Cold Stamping Presses
The lead times given in Section 8. 2. 1 are for one press. If a
large number of orders are received in a short period, the lead times will
8-9
-------
Figure 8-5. Underdrive Press
8-10
-------
have to be extended, although subcontracting can be employed to limit the
extension. A case in point is when Ford, General Motors Corporation, and
Chrysler Corporation were all building new plants in the 1955/56 period and
a press manufacturer had contracts for about 60 presses. To meet schedule,
subcontracts were issued to 17 companies to build presses.
1.2. 3
Critical Lead Time for Cold Stamping Presses
The lead time for presses is paced by fabrication of various
parts used in the press construction such as drive controls. The times
required for the various parts are tabulated below in weeks. The
Engineering Time is that required to select and specify a purchase part for
buy items or, in the case of parts fabricated by the press manufacturer, the
time to produce shop drawings. The Vendor Time is the time between
engineering release of a purchase part to receipt of the part. The Press
Manufacturer's Fabrication Time is the time from engineering release of
shop drawings to the point where parts are ready for assembly, and includes
raw material procurement time. Total Time is the sum of Engineering Time
and the appropriate Vendor or Press Manufacturer Fabrication Time.
Press Critical Item Lead Times in Weeks
Item
Press Feeds
Press Drive Controls
Main Weldments
Crankshaft Forgings
Dynamatic Press Drives
Main Weldments-Purchase
Tie Rod Forgings-Purchase
Bearings
Engr.
Time
4
9
7 to 9
4 to 6
1
7 to 9
3
3
Vendor
Time
28 to 32
20 to 24
18 to 25
25 to 30
20 to 26
8 to 26
Press Mfr.
Fabrication
Time
9 to 23
14 to 21
_ _
Total
Time
32 to 36
29 to 33
16 to 32
22 to 31
26 to 31
21 to 30
23 to 29
11 to 29
8-11
-------
Press Mfr.
Engr. Vendor Fabrication Total
Item Time Time Time Time
Fabricated Gears 1 to 4 -- 13 to 20 14 to 24
Finished Gears 1 to 3 14 to 20 -- 15 to 23
Drive Motors 3 13 to 20 -- 16 to 23
Iron and Steel Castings 4 -- 12 to 18 16 to 22
Tie Rod ForgLngs 3 -- 14 to 16 17 to 19
Tie Rods - Hot Rolled 3 -- 10 to 14 13 to 17
8.2.4 Major Elements in Cold Stamping Press Schedules
The major elements in the design and manufacture of a cold
stamping press are indicated in the lower portion of Figure 8-6 for a triple
action press of new design. The upper portion indicates the range of normal
lead times discussed earlier.
The major elements and the activities undergone are quite
similar to the discussion for transfer lines in Section 8. 1.4. However, it
may be instructive to detail the activities for the Main Weldment, which is
the overall press frame, as it flows through the press manufacturer. After
the job enters engineering, the product design engineering department carries
the whole press design to the point where the Main Weldment design can be
transferred to manufacturing engineering for preparation of welding detail
drawings. Once the weld details are completed, the drawings are released
to the shop and the raw material is ordered. If material is in stock there is
no lag time. If not in stock, up to eight weeks are required to receive the
material.
Depending on the size of the press, some of the main weld-
ment pieces are fabricated from 14-inch thick steel plate which is a
8-12
-------
CY 72 CY 73 CY 74
iJiFiMiAiMiJiJiAiSiOiNiD|j|FiM|A|M|J|JiAiSiOiNiD|j|F|MiAiM|J|J|A|
ALL PRESSES
^ -«. OVERALL LEAD TIME |
PRESS & ^
WITH FEED SINGLE
ACTION
PRESS FRAME & BODY
PRODUCTION
I ?
TRIPLE ACTION PRESS . .
NEW DESIGN j OVERALL LEAD TIME |
| ^ENGINEERING
PURCHASE MATERIALS^
PARTS FABRICATION^
ASSEMBLY. CHECKOUT & SHIP
CUSTOMER INSTALLATION & CHECKOUT^]
FRAME & BODYI
1
30 25 20 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
LEGEND: <> RECEIPT OF ORDER
y\ END OF INSTALLATION & CHECKOUT
\7 IN CUSTOMER'S PLANT - 1st PRESS
Figure 8-6. Cold Stamping Press Lead Time
8-13
-------
special mill order. The time to weld the Main Weldment is five to ten
weeks. The welding operations include the following:
a. Torch cut detail piece
b. Machine details
c. Weld set up
d. Welding
e. Stress relieving
f. Shot blast
g. Snagging (clean up with grinder)
The main weldment then goes through the machining operations
which requires four to five weeks. These operations include the following:
a. Layout and inspection (repair welds, add stock as required;
lay out reference lines for subsequent machining)
b. Paint
c. Machining operations - typically:
1. Milling
2. Planing
3. Boring
4. Drilling
d. Final Inspection
The Main Weldment is then sent to the assembly floor. During
the next four to six weeks the entire press is assembled, tried out, disassem-
bled, and prepared for shipment.
8. 3 LEAD TIME SCHEDULES FOR WELDERS
Resistance welding is generally used in the assembly of light
gage materials and can be used to spot weld, seam weld, or lap weld. Most
conventional automobile assemblies are resistance welded using spot welding.
Arc welding [metal-inert gas (MIG) or tungsten-arc inert gas (TIG) welding]
requires consumable electrodes and inert gases and is not used frequently in
the automotive industry.
8-14
-------
Electron beam (E-B) welding, particularly ambient welding,
is beginning to find application in the automotive industry. It is being used
by General Motors to weld the frames for several car models and to weld
collapsible steering columns. The nonvacuum unit is being planned for use
in high volume production edge welding of the General Motors catalytic
converter container for their 1975 model year emission control system. For
this reason, E-B welders are emphasized in the subsequent discussion and
the specific quotation from Hamilton-Standard to General Motors for six
welders is detailed.
An ambient, or nonvacuum, E-B welder designed for produc-
tion line welding is shown in Figure 8-7. A schematic illustrating three
types of E-B welders is given in Figure 8-8.
8.3.1 Normal Production Schedules for Welders
Normal production schedules for resistance and E-B welders
are shown in Figure 8-9. Resistance welders have an overall lead time of
ten months for a standard welder and greater than ten months for a special
welder, depending on the complexity involved. E-B welders for new applica-
tions can require up to 24 months development time with 18 months being
considered more typical. This time is necessary to negotiate and establish
welder design parameters by experimentation with the actual materials,
thicknesses and welding rates.
The overall lead time from receipt of order to vehicle production
for one E-B welder is in accordance with the following table.
E-B Welder Lead Times
A standard (needing minimum design effort) welder generally
requires 11 to 12 months.
A standard (needing minimum design effort) welder/tooling
package generally requires 12 to 14 months.
A special (needing maximum design effort) welder/tooling
package generally requires 14 to 18 months.
8. 3. 2 Major Impact Factors for Welders
As can be inferred from the lead times tabulated above, the
product design or welder complexity impacts the lead time in the amount shown.
8-15
-------
ON
Figure 8-7. Nonvacuum Machine for Electron Beam Welding
-------
SYSTEM OPERATION
I
l->
VJ
PARTIAL VACUUM
NONVACUUM
HIGH VACUUM
Figure 8-8. Electron Beam Welders
-------
CY 72 CY 73 CY 74
iJiFiMiAiMiJiJiA|SiOiNiD|j|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|SiO|N|D|j|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|
RESISTANCE
WELDERS
STANDARD WELDER
SPECIAL WELDER
ELECTRON BEAM
WELDERS
18 MONTHS 1_
DEVELOPMENT \
STANDARD WELDER
WELDER & TOOLING
SPECIAL WELDER & TOOLING
I
30
25 20 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
LEGEND: RECEIPT OF ORDER
OEND OF INSTALLATION & CHECKOUT
IN CUSTOMER'S PLANT - 1st WELDER
Figure 8-9. Production Line Welders Overall Lead Time
8-18
-------
Another major impact factor for the E-B welders is the
quantity of welders involved. As will be further elaborated upon, the over-
all lead time for six welders for General Motors adds 7-1/2 months to the
schedule for one welder.
8. 3. 3 Major Elements in Welder Schedule
The major elements in an E-B welder schedule are listed as
follows:
a. E-B Weld Column Assembly (Total lead time, design/
manufacture, 14 to 16 weeks):
1. Upper Column Assembly (individual lead time,
casing/machining, 12 to 14 weeks)
2. Cable/Insulator Assembly (individual lead time,
4 to 6 weeks)
3. Gun Assembly (individual lead time, 3 to 4 weeks)
4. Lower Column Assembly (individual lead time,
casting/machining, 12 to 14 weeks)
5. Lens (Alignment/Focusing) Assemblies (individual
lead time, 8 to 10 weeks)
b. Vacuum System Assembly (Total lead time, design/
manufacture, 10 to 12 weeks)
1. Vacuum Ducting (flex/rigid) Assemblies (individual
lead time, 3 to 4 weeks)
2. Pump Assemblies (individual lead time, 4 to 6 weeks)
3. Vacuum Valves (8 to 10 weeks)
c. Operating System Assemblies (Total lead time, design/
manufacture, 22 to 24 weeks):
1. Power Supply Assembly (individual lead time,
18 to 22 weeks)
2. Motor Generator Set Assembly (individual lead
time, 18 to 22 weeks)
d. Control System Assembly (Total lead time, design/
manufacture, 1 6 to 18 weeks):
1. Control Cabinet (individual lead time, 6 to 8 weeks)
2. Control Modules (individual lead time, 12 to 14 weeks)
8-19
-------
3. Control (relays, starters, meters, etc. ) Components
(individual lead time, 6 to 8 weeks)
e. Accessories (Total lead time, design/manufacture, 30 to
34 weeks):
1. Tooling (individual lead time, 30 to 34 weeks)
2. Lead Shielding Room/Box (individual lead time,
16 to 18 weeks)
f. Final Assembly/Test, Shipment and Installation (Total lead
time, 10 to 16 weeks)
1. Machine Finished - Assembly /Test, 6 to 10 weeks
2. Teardown (painting and rigging for shipment),
12 to 16 days
3. Field Installation, 2 to 4 weeks
8.3.4 Lead Time for E-B Welders for General Motors Catalyst
Container
For the specific welder for the General Motors pellet catalyst
container, a prototype welder capable of 20 parts per hour has been built and
shipped to the AC Sparkplug Division of General Motors Corporation. The
prototype was developed as a crash program with concurrent development and
manufacture taking place. The development time began 14 months prior to
receipt of order for the prototype. The prototype lacks the handling equip-
ment and numerical controls that will be incorporated into the production
welder. The timing of the prototype is shown at the top of Figure 8-10.
The latest planning for the six production welders, each with
a capability of welding 156 containers per hour, is also shown on Figure 8-10.
Design layouts were expected to be completed around the first of November
1972 at which time the order was expected and detailed engineering was to
begin. Concurrently, the long lead purchase parts will be ordered. The
impact of quantity procurement is again noted where the order for six
welders must be placed 7-1/2 months earlier than an order for one welder.
This schedule has been compressed by two months when com-
pared to a normal schedule which had been quoted earlier. The welder
deliveries have been moved forward in time and the installation and checkout
period at AC Sparkplug has been compressed.
8-20
-------
CY 72 CY 73 CY 74
iJ|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|S|0|N|D|j|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|S|0|N|D|j|F|Mi AiMiJ,JiA,
DEVEL.
i
PROTOTYPE
WELDER
OVERALL LEAD TIME-6 PRODUCTION WELDERS
CATALYST CONTAINER
FULL PRODUCTION
LAYOUT
lENGINEERING
DETAIL
PURCHASE PARTS>
& MATERIALS \
FABRICATE PARTS, SUBASS'Y & TEST
No. 1
No. 6
FINAL ASS'Y & TEST
No. 1
No. 6
INSTALLATION AND CHECKOUT AT GM AC SPARK PLUG DIV.
O. 6\
No.
1 WELDER
30
25 20 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
LEGEND: ^ RECEIPT OF ORDER
END OF INSTALLATION & CHECKOUT
Figure 8-10. Electron Beam Welder Compressed Lead Time Order
for Six Welders for General Motors Catalyst Container
8-21
-------
On this basis the overall lead time for the six production
welders from receipt of order to vehicle production is Zl months. Shipment
of the welded production catalyst containers from the AC Sparkplug Division
to the various General Motors assembly plants must begin in April or May
1974 to meet the 1975 model year schedules.
8-22
-------
SECTION 9
LEAD TIME SCHEDULES FOR NONAUTOMOTIVE
INDUSTRY MANUFACTURERS
9. 1 INTRODUCTION
To provide additional insight into automotive industry lead
time requirements, production schedules for model changes and/or new
model designs were obtained from three nonautomotive industry manufac-
turers. Two of these companies, the Westinghouse Corporation and the
General Electric Company, manufacture major household appliances. The
third company, the Outboard Marine Corporation, manufactures Eyinrude
and Johnson outboard engines and other small engines for lawn mowers,
chain saws, golf carts, and snowmobiles.
In addition to the schedule data, supplemental information
relating to the special requirements of these manufacturers was also
obtained. This material was considered essential to understand the major
impact factors on nonautomotive industry production lead time requirements
and to determine the relevancy of these schedules as compared to those of
the automotive industry.
9.2 THE WESTINGHOUSE CORPORATION - COLUMBUS. OHIO
9.2.1 Background
The Westinghouse facility in Columbus, Ohio manufactures
major household appliances. Its product line includes refrigerators,
freezers, dishwashers, water coolers, and a small number of room air
conditioners. These appliances are produced in large numbers and in some
lines, such as refrigerators, the production rate is comparable to that which
characterizes the automotive industry.
9-1
-------
While the mechanical parts of these appliances arc relatively
simple in comparison to those of an automobile, they have exact'.ig require-
ments, particularly those related to the durability of the product. A life of
15 or more years is expected from some of the appliances, notably refriger-
ators. As a result, considerable development testing of a new mechanical
design is ~" ^formed prior to its commitment for production. Since it is
difficult to accelerate testing in a manner that would properly simulate its
operation during the expected life of the product, this testing is carried over
into the production phase.
Cost is of prime importance in the manufacture of these
products. This is exemplified by the fact that appliance costs in the past
10 years have remained relatively constant and in some cases have even
declined, while the price of other products has substantially increased. The
number and complexity of the changes that are made to these products are
definitely influenced by cost. In fact, most of the appliance changes are made
on the basis of reduced-cost benefits.
While new appliance models are introduced annually, the
changes incorporated are primarily style changes, such as trim and color
options, and include only small improvements in the basic design. Taking
the refrigerator as an example, the only major mechanical change made in
the past 10 years is the design of a new compressor. Other major design-
type changes that have been made in the recent past are the relocation of the
condenser, which was accomplished in 1963, and the relocation of the
evaporator in 1968. Except for the introduction of a foam insulation mate-
rial in the more expensive models, no other significant changes have been
made in the Westinghouse refrigerator line.
The manufacture and assembly of these appliances is mostly
accomplished within the Westinghouse facility and only a very limited number
of fabricated parts are procured outside,, It is also the practice of this
industry to implement changes on a single model only, similar to that which
is done in the automotive industry.
9-2
-------
Once the model changeover has been accomplished, a single
line can run a variety of models in batches, with changeover from one model
to another model accomplished in a matter of hours. The batches run from
a low of 500 to a high of 10, 000 at a rate of 300 to 1500 per day as the upper
limit. A single shift operation for assembly is the usual practice. However,
it is possible to run two shifts where required. The capacity limitations are
in the feeder areas where the components, such as compressors, are made.
9.2.2 Lead Time Schedules
As mentioned above, modifications made for annual model
changes are relatively simple and primarily involve styling changes. The
lead time schedule for a typical model change for a refrigerator is shown in
Figure 9-1. The total elapsed time for this change was 26 weeks, which
includes a period of 1 to 2 weeks for market reviews and management deci-
sions that are not basically a part of production lead time. The critical lead
time element in this schedule is the 19 weeks for the tooling required to pierce
the outer door.
The production lead time schedule for a major refrigerator
change is shown in Figure 9-2. This change called for the relocation of the
evaporator from the inside back wall of the refrigerator compartment to the
divider between the refrigerator and freezer compartments. In addition, a
foamed-in-place-type insulation was included with this change but applied
only to the more expensive models. The key elements of this schedule are
discussed below.
Phase I. This Phase primarily involves a market survey to deter-
mine customer preferences for volume and styling requirements,
and an investigation'of competitive designs. Since capital commit-
ments have not been made, this Phase is not applicable to production
lead time requirements.
Phase n. Two to three months are required to fabricate two units
of each model ("soft tooling" is used in the manufacture of these
prototypes). Four to five months are required for testing of the
prototypes. When this testing has sufficiently progressed, it is the
9-3
-------
PHASE II
CONT.
TESTING
sD
I
APPROX
10/23)RF(° (11/6
TOOLING 17FT3 & 19FT3 F.C.
TOOLING HANDLE & TRIM
(16)
TOOLING 19FT3 CRISPER
TOOLING SUSPENDED CRISPER
(16)
TOOLING OUTER DOOR PIERCING
(19)
(7) NUMBERS
^ REPRESENT
THE DATES
(1) FIGURES
REPRESENT
ELAPSED TIME
IN WEEKS
Figure 9-1. Westinghouse Critical Path Network
-------
MONTHS
|l|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9 |lO|l I|l2]l3|l4|l5|l6|l7|l8|l9|20|2l|22|23|24|
PHASE I
MARKET SURVEY | |
PHASE II
DEVELOPMENT MODEL DESIGN I I
DEVELOPMENT MODEL TEST I I
PHASE III
PRODUCTION DRAWINGS
PARTS LIST
FABRICATE PROTOTYPES
PROTOTYPE TEST
PHASE IV
PRE-PRODUCTION FABRICATION
PRE-PRODUCTION TEST
PRODUCT VERIFICATION
PILOT RUN
Figure 9-2. Westinghouse Refrigerator Evaporator Relocation
-------
practice to release long lead time tooling requirements. The actual
production lead time, therefore, can start as early as the fourth
month of Phase II if the tests of a particular change have progressed
satisfactorily.
Phase ni. Three months are required to detail production drawings
and one month is required to prepare a parts list. A 2 to 3 month
period is then involved in the fabrication of prototype models built
from production drawings. Prototype testing takes about 5 months.
Phase IV. Four months are required to check out tooling and to
fabricate parts for the preproduction test of up to seven models.
An additional 2 or 3 months are required to progress from a low
rate pilot run to full rate production.
Generally, anything that requires over 4 months to procure is
considered a long lead time item by the industry. In this particular case,
the exceptional long lead time of 14 months for the procurement of the foam-
ing equipment made it the critical element in the schedule.
The production lead time requirement for a change of this type
is normally 14 to 18 months, depending upon the particular circumstance.
However, the lead time requirement for a completely new appliance design
was estimated by Westinghouse to be approximately 30 months. This was
based on their recent experience with the development of a dishwasher of
completely new design.
9.3 THE GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY -
LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY
9.3.1 Background
The product line manufactured at the General Electric facility
in Liouisville, Kentucky includes refrigerators, dishwashers, garbage dis-
posals, ranges, air conditioners, and laundry machines. Like Westinghouse,
General Electric is also a major producer of household appliances. Its
average production rate is approximately 60 units per hour. Some of these
appliances (home laundry equipment) are produced at rates as high as 120 per
hour.
9-6
-------
The technology effort at General Electric focuses on
reliability and, in general, changes are made which do not push the state of
the art. New concepts are usually introduced on a single model and then are
spread across an entire line. From the time a change is introduced on one
model until it is introduced on all models, a period of 3 years may have
elapsed.
The implication of cost for home appliances has been already
covered in the Westinghouse discussion. It is of interest to note, however,
that the element of cost is much less significant when a change is accompanied
by an attractive convenience. For example, the self-cleaning oven which
General Electric put on the market a few years ago represented a 50% increase
in cost over the basic appliance, yet it has received very good customer
acceptance.
Most of the components for General Electric appliances are
manufactured in-house. This includes all of the sheet metal parts as well
as several castings. Transfer machinery (manufactured by the Cross
Company) is used in some operations, for example in the manufacture of
transmissions for its automatic dishwashers.
9.3.2 Lead Time Schedule
The General Electric production lead time schedule for a self-
cleaning oven is presented in Figure 9-3. This oven is basically a new
product which required many years of research and development to bring it
to the production stage. A great deal of data were provided to amplify the
information presented in this schedule. However, most of the data were
directed toward emphasizing those details associated with the development
phase and only limited data were provided which would clarify the production
part of the schedule.
With regard to the development schedule, the concept was
first delineated in February 1953. First production was not achieved until
August 1963, more than 10 years later. Manufacturing engineering became
involved in the program in the fall of I960. Management approval and signoff
for production go-ahead was given in the fall of 1961. At this point, the
9-7
-------
I
00
ACTIVITY
PROJECT INITIATED
DEVELOPMENT
PRELIMINARY PRODUCT
DESIGN AND TEST
APPEARANCE DESIGN
FINAL PRODUCT
DESIGN AND TEST
ASSEMBLY AND TEST OF
LIFE AND FIELD MODELS
UNDERWRITERS'
LABORATORIES APPROVALS
APPROPRIATION
PRODUCTION DRAWINGS
PURCHASE
TOOLING
APPROVAL OF TOOL-
MADE PARTS
COMPONENT
PRODUCTION START
TASK FORCE AND
TEST OF TOOLED MODELS
PRE-PRODUCTION RUN
PRODUCTION START
PROGRAM SCHEDULE
CALENDAR YEAR
'53
&
\
'54
-
'55
'56
'57
'58
'59
'60
1
pi
1
'61
'62
1
'63
n
d
CJ
1 2
3
n
n
n
*
345
0
>
Q
-0
@
67
'64
)
'65
COMMENTS
COMMERCIAL
FEASIBILITY PROVED-
FALL 1059
TEMPORARY TOOLS
(APPROX. 100 MODELS)
MANAGEMENT APPROVAL
FOR PLANT. EQUIPMENT
AND TOOLS
FIRST ASSEMBLY OF
TOOLED MODELS
SEE KEY BELOW
KEY:1
1-PRODUCT PLANNING REVIEW, 2-ENGINEERING REVIEW, 3-DESIGN REVIEW,
4- APPROPRIATION APPROVED, 5- LIMITING DRAWINGS RELEASED,
6- TASK FORCE, 7- PRODUCTION START
Figure 9-3. General Electric P-7 Self-cleaning Oven Program
-------
product still lacked a satisfactory high temperature control device and a
satisfactory oven rack finish. First drawing release occurred early in 1962;
the last release occurred in the fall of 1962.
The elements of this schedule that apply to production lead
time requirements start with the appropriation approvals that were initiated
in the third quarter of 1961. Production drawings were initiated prior to
final appropriation approval to provide drawing releases for the procurement
of tooling that had a long lead time requirement (9 months).
Sample production parts were made from production tooling
3 to 4 months prior to a pilot production run to verify the production tooling.
About 3 months in advance of the production target date, a pilot run at full
production rate was made to check out the assembly operation. One hundred
to one thousand units may be produced in this pilot run, depending on the
particular appliance.
This schedule, which shows an elapsed period of 24 months
from appropriation commitment to the start of production, supports the
General Electric position that in the appliance field a minimum of 2 years of
production lead time is required for a change of major complexity.
9.4 THE OUTBOARD MARINE CORPORATION -
MILWAUKEE. WISCONSIN
9.4.1 Background
Outboard Marine is a major producer of small horsepower
engines for applications such as lawn mowers, golf carts, and chain saws.
Its primary production at the Milwaukee facility, however, is the manufacture
of the two-cycle Johnson and Evinrude outboard engines. Historically,
Johnson and Evinrude were separate companies which merged in the 1930s.
These two engines are now identical except for external trim. They are
produced on a common assembly line in sizes ranging from 2 to 135 horse-
power. The production rate for these outboard engines is approximately
100, 000 units per year.
9-9
-------
In addition to outboard engines, a 35-horsepower Wankel
engine is being manufactured at the Milwaukee facility in limited production
quantities. This engine is planned for incorporation into a snowmobile
produced by the Canadian facility of the company and is scheduled to be
marketed late this year.
The mechanical design of these engines is, of course, con-
siderably more complex than the design of household appliances. The func-
tional parts, which include the basic engine, gear reduction, drive train, and
exhaust and cooling systems, are comparable in mechanical complexity to
their automotive counterparts.
The requirements for these engines emphasize compactness
of design with resulting low weight-to-horsepower ratio. The durability
requirements for the outboard engines are based on meeting a 5-year life
expectancy. This period of time typically involves approximately 500 hours of
service operation accumulated at the rate of 100 hours per year. Since the
operating condition for this engine is almost exclusively at wide open throttle,
the design of the engine must be precisely controlled in order to achieve the
durability requirement.
9.4.2 Lead Time Schedules
A schedule for a model year change which included a new
mechanical starter system is shown in Figure 9-4. The total production
lead time to accomplish this change was 30 months. The critical element in
this schedule was the lead time for procurement and try-out of the die-cast
tooling which required approximately 54 weeks. The terms "explode pilot run"
and "explode model" refer to production control milestones at which time the
production rates for parts are computed.
Since Outboard Marine manufactures most of its engine parts
(except for electrical components and miscellaneous nuts and bolts), tooling
procurement is almost always the critical element in its production sched-
ules. The lead time required for tooling procurement ranges from 42 to
54 weeks. An additional 4 to 8 weeks are required to prove out the dies.
9-10
-------
I96S!
1970
1971
1972
PLANNING
LI
PRELIMINARY
DESIGN
ENGINEERING
PRODUCTION
DESIGN
RELEASE
MAJOR STYLING
| TOOLING |
MINOR STYLING
^EXPLODE PILOT RUN
TOOLTRYOUT
PILOT PARTS
| IPILOT TEST
EXPLODE MODEL
ASSEMBLY
Figure 9-4. Outboard'Marine Lead Time Schedule for 1973 Model Year Engine
-------
Another production lead time schedule is shown in Figure 9-5.
This is a schedule for the 35-horsepower Wankel engine being introduced into
the 1973 model snowmobile. It should be noted that this schedule covers only
the period from engineering release to the time at which assembly begins.
Not shown on this schedule is a period of 2 1/2 years which preceded the
engineering release. Also, no new facilities were required for the low
production rates planned.
This extended pre-engineering release period is not typical
of the Outboard Marine schedules. The decision to commit the design to
production was made before the development program was complete and the
requirement for design changes which subsequently developed was the cause
of this extension. In addition, the Begin Assembly date of April 1972 shown
on this schedule has since slipped approximately 4 months. Production is
now expected to begin in December 1972. The production lead time shown
by this schedule, therefore, should be viewed with these comments in mind.
Although the production commitment to the Wankel engine
included a recognized risk due to its development status, it was not a "crash"
program. It was the opinion of Outboard Marine that "crash" programs do
not significantly improve production lead time. It was estimated that doubling
the cost to reduce lead time might result in only a 10% compression.
9.5 AUTOMOTIVE VERSUS NQNAUTOMOTIVE LEAD
TIME COMPARISON
From the information obtained from Westinghouse and General
Electric, it is evident that significant product differences between the appliance
and automotive industries will not permit a direct comparison of production
lead time requirements. Elements common to the lead time schedules of both
industries, however, can be compared on an indirect basis. By accounting
for the differences in product complexity, design requirements, and manu-
facturing processes the consistency of requirements between the two industries
can be examined.
9-12
-------
1970 1971 1972
|J|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|S|O|N|D|J|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|S|0|N|D|J|F|M|A|M|J|J|A|S|O|N|D
ENGINEERING RELEASE
TOOLING
^RECEIVE PILOT
I I PILOT TEST & TOOL
1 'ALTERATION
BEGIN ASSEMBLY
Figure 9-5. Outboard Marine Lead Time Schedule for 1973 Rotary Combustion
35-Horsepower Snowmobile Engine (Wankel)
-------
Because of the simplicity of appliance design, product
engineering for even a major change to an appliance should be significantly
less than for an automobile model year change. This difference in product
complexity is reflected to the expected degree by the 13 weeks required for
the release of production drawings for the refrigerator change shown in the
Westinghouse schedule (the comparable drawing release period for the auto-
motive industry is 8 to 14 months). However, the 43 weeks required for
the release of production drawings shown in the General Electric schedule
for the self-cleaning oven does not reflect the same marked reduction.
Household appliances are characterized by sheet metal and
bracketry which is simply formed with few, if any, contours. Therefore,
the tooling required to form the sheet metal involves dies which are con-
siderably less complex than those required for the contoured lines of an
automobile. Accordingly, it would be expected that the lead time for the
procurement and checkout of tooling for the appliance industry should be
considerably less than for the automotive industry. The expected difference
in elapsed time requirements is reflected by the 16 to 19 weeks required for
tooling for the refrigerator change by Westinghouse compared to the 12 to 15
months for the automotive industry. Again, the General Electric requirement
of 43 weeks to procure tooling for the self-cleaning oven does not reflect the
same degree of lead time reduction.
Because of the similarity in the type of product, the lead
time requirements for the production of outboard motors may be more rele-
vant to those requirements for the automotive industry. Therefore, a com-
parison can be made of elements which are common to the production sched-
ules of both industries. In addition, an indirect comparison can be made of
the production lead time requirements for a model year change by accounting
for differences in product complexity and production rates.
A common element in the outboard engine and automotive
industry schedules is the production time required for the procurement and
checkout of tooling. In this case the 54 weeks required by the outboard
9-14
-------
engine industry compares favorably with the 12 to 15 months required by the
automotive industry.
The typical production lead time required for a model year
change is 30 months for outboard engines and about 25 to 28 months for auto-
mobiles. While the tooling lead time requirements are similar overall,
differences in product complexity and production rates might be expected to
result in a production lead time for outboard engines that is less than that
for automobiles. The comparison, however, did not reflect this effect.
The production schedule for the Wankel engine that is produced
by Outboard Marine is a special case and is not typical of the lead time
requirements for the manufacture of outboard engines. It must be recognized
that a production commitment for this engine was made at a time when the
development was somewhat incomplete. While this is relevant to the present
situation of the automotive emission control devices, the very limited pro-
duction planned for the Wankel engine does not allow for a meaningful
comparison.
9-15
-------
SECTION 10
LEAD TIME SCHEDULES FOR A GOVERNMENT
AUTOMOTIVE PROCUREMENT AGENCY
The U. S. Army Tank Automotive Command (ATAC) is a
government agency responsible for the design and procurement of specific
classes of vehicles for all military services. The vehicles over which they
have cognizance are (a) those built to military design, (b) commercial
vehicles modified to military requirements, and (c) nonmodified commercial
vehicles over 10, 000 pounds gross weight. Commercial vehicles for military
and other use which are less than 10,000 pounds gross weight are procured
by the General Services Administration, Washington, D. C.
10. 1 NORMAL PRODUCTION SCHEDULES FOR GOVERNMENT
VEHICLES
10.1.1 Case History I - M151 Jeep
An example of the lead time schedules involved is the history
of the M151 vehicle. The M151 is a 1/4 ton general purpose (G. P. or
"jeep") utility vehicle which represents a product-improved M38 World War II
jeep. The M151 was developed in conjunction with Ford on a development
contract. After the development, ATAC had a complete set of drawings
which were used for bid purposes for production orders in 1958. Probably by
virtue of its development experience. Ford won the production order. The
time from production contract award to delivery of the first vehicle was
stated by ATAC as being approximately 13 months. The production rate was
less than 2, 000 per month. Ford acted basically as an assembler, having
procured about 90% of the parts.
10-1
-------
It is ATAC practice to subject the initial production vehicles
to Initial Production Testing (IPT) for performance verification. Normal
practice is to warehouse the first run of production vehicles in Army depots
until completion of IPT to simplify any retrofit that the IPT results might
require. For this reason a slow buildup to the full production rate is
scheduled.
10.1.2 Case History II - M151A2 Jeep
Modifications were made to the M151 Jeep, and production
orders were placed with various producers including American General
Corporation (formerly Reo-White). The current order is for the vehicle
designated M151A2. Prior to this time Ford had the last production order.
The government owned the tooling ($3 million) and planned to furnish it to the
successful bidder.
Bids were received for 34, 000 vehicles to be produced over a
3-year program. ATAC normally commits to a production order only over
its first funding year. It retains the option to incrementally pick up produc-
tion bid orders year-by-year over subsequent funding years.
A two-step bid process is normally employed. First, Request
for Proposals (RFP's) are released for technical proposals. The responses
are evaluated, schedules are negotiated, and Request for Quotations (RFQ's)
are sent out to qualified bidders. The contract is awarded subsequently.
The actual and planned events scheduled for the M151A2 are noted below:
August 10, 1970 RFP for technical proposals released.
The desired delivery schedule is in the RFP.
An optimum schedule is established con-
sidering vehicle inventory objectives,
minimum vehicle cost, the 5 year planning
schedule and funds availability. In this
instance two delivery schedules were pre-
pared. One was for Ford, which was in pro-
duction at this time, and one for all other
qualified bidders. The agency desires a slow
production buildup to minimize storing
vehicles during IPT.
10-2
-------
September 26, 1970
December 10, 1970
January 12, 1971
February 16, 1971
January, 1972
Subsequently
February 14, 1972
April, 1972
May 15, 1972
September 15, 1972
October 15, 1972
April 15, 1973
Technical Proposals received and evaluated.
Schedules negotiated with qualified bidders.
Production contracts are not usually placed
with a producer who requires new facilities
or major equipment.
RFQ for cost proposals released.
Cost proposals received.
$117 million contract for 34, 000 vehicles
awarded to American General. Tooling
shipped to American General.
Two vehicles received. Ship vehicles to
Army Proving Ground for IPT.
Production buildup. American General
behind in meeting proposal delivery schedule.
New delivery schedule negotiated. Army
stores vehicles until IPT completed.
EPA waiver received exempting first
19,000 vehicles from emission standards.
Begin IPT.
Begin certification test of second engine
type.
Complete IPT.
Complete second engine type certification
tests.
Agency may pick up option for second year
vehicle order.
For this case of a 2,000 per month ultimate production rate,
with the equipment and most of the tooling on hand and the manufacturer
having experience with the design, the production lead time was 11 months to
delivery of first vehicle. Figure 10-1 depicts the lead times. An additional
7 months was required to approach the 2, 000 per month production rate.
10-3
-------
M151
JEEP
OVERALL LEAD TIME
A
PRODUCTION
M151A2
JEEP
OVERALL LEAD TIME
PRODUCTION
2'/2 TON TRUCK
MODIFICATION
DURING PRODUCTION
TO MEET 1973 DIESEL
EMISSION STDS.
30
ENGINEERING
3
ENGINE CHANGE ORDER
MODIFIED ENGINE PRODUCTION;
ENGINEERING
3
3
I
VEHICLE CHANGE ORDER
MODIFIED VEHICLE PROD.| \
A
I i I
25 20 15 10
MONTHS TO VEHICLE DELIVERY
LEGEND: CONTRACT AWARD
A DELIVERY OF 1st PRODUCTION VEHICLE
.:e 19 -!„ Military Vehicle Procurement .Lead Time
10-4
-------
10. 1. i Case History III - 2 1/2 Ton Truck
Also shown in Figure 10-1 is the lead time involved in
accomplishing a change: during a production run of 21/2 ton trucks. Vehicle-
production was constant at about 800 per month. During October 1971, then:
were four contracts in effect that were: involved in the change. American
General had the production contract for assembly of the 2 1/2 t.on truck and
received the LD465 engine as government furnished equipment. Hercules,
Inc. had the production contract for the engine. Another division ,of American
General had an open end contract for development and engineering on the
vehicle. Teledyne-Continental Motors had an open end development and
engineering contract for the engine which was its own design. Work was done
011 the open end contracts only by special engineering directives from ATAC.
Delivery of subsequent year option vehicles was scheduled to
begin July 1, 1972. Those vehicles required modification to meet 1973 diesel
emission standards. The contract release for the option was made during
October 1971. Apparently as an inducement to secure the contract option,
American General promised to work with Hercules and guaranteed that the
contract option vehicle would meet the emission standards. Also, in
October, 1971, an engineering directive was released to Teledyne-Continental
to modify the LD465 engine to meet the standards. An engineering directive
was also released during October 1971 to the division of American General
responsible for development for work on the vehicle modifications necessary
to meet the standards. The engine modification was essentially the addition
of a turbosupercharger creating the LDT465 engine. The vehicle modifica-
tions included elimination of the muffler, a larger rerouted exhaust tube, and
a larger cab cutout for the larger exhaust tube. The timing of events subse-
quent to October 1971 were:
January 14, 1972 Engine change order released to Hercules.
January, 1972 Begin EPA certification tests.
.April 6, 1972 Vehicle change order sent to American
General.
May 1, 1972 EPA acceptance of engine.
10-5
-------
May, 19V2 Begin delivery of L.DT465 production engines.
July 1, 1972 Begin delivery of 800 production vehicles
per month which meet 1973 diesel engine
emission standards.
Production lead time to accomplish the change is considered to begin with
the release of the engine change order on January 14, 1972 and end at the
delivery of production vehicles on July 1, 1972, or 5 1/2 months lead time.
ATAC felt this to be a fast response time.
An example of a much longer lead time was the case cited for an
engine transmission. Transmissions for special military designs that were
formerly made, but are not now in production, would require an 18 month
lead time. The pacing items are die castings, which would take 9 to 12
months.
10.2 MAJOR IMPACT FACTORS FOR GOVERNMENT VEHICLES
It is noted that the procurement lead times for government
vehicles are considerably less than the new model production lead time
requirements for commercial passenger automobiles (i.e. , 11 to 14 months
noted previously for a jeep vs. about 25 to 28 months for a new model year
light-duty car). Several factors appear to contribute to the shorter lead
time.
The major influencing factors are the pre-existing develop-
ment and tooling status at the time of procurement decision,and the low
production rate of government vehicles--one to two orders of magnitude less
than passenger car rates. With the low rate, it apparently is not economical
for a producer to make his own parts, so they become purchase items from
manufacturers who have equipment and facilities available, thus eliminating
the time to set up parts production lines. The producer acts primarily as an
assembler with a low production rate assembly line which requires much
less time to establish since a high degree of automation is not economically
justified;
10-6
-------
The other factors that contribute to the shorter lead time
seem to be:
1. Tooling is available in some cases and furnished by the
government to the producer.'- ':
2. The design may be known to the producer and he
may have had production experience with it.
3. The government normally will not let a contract
to a bidder who requires major equipment or
facilities.
4. The government establishes a slow buildup to the
full production rate.
10-7
-------
SECTION 11
PROJECTED WORLD PRODUCTION AND USAGE OF NOBLE METALS*
11.1 INTRODUCTION
This section presents an assessment of the projected world
production of noble metals and the demand for these metals resulting from
the use of catalytic converters in the emission control systems currently
projected for the 1975 and later model year vehicles.
The information included in the following sections was obtained
primarily from three sources: the Bureau of Mines platinum-group metals
reports, the EPA in-house study on platinum supply and demand, and discus-
sions with representatives of a number of automobile and catalyst companies.
Section 11.2 presents a discussion of the principal noble metal
producing countries and companies in the world. Section 11.3 discusses the
projected noble metal demand of the automotive industry. The noble metal
supply and demand balance between 1972 and 1983 is evaluated in Section 11.4,
and the conclusions are presented in Section 11.5.
11.2 WORLD PRODUCTION OF NOBLE METALS"
11. 2. 1 General Information
The platinum group consists of platinum, palladium, iridium,
osmium, rhodium, and ruthenium. The most important and most abundant
elements are platinum and palladium. As discussed in Section 6 of this
report, both platinum and palladium are being considered.by the automobile
and catalyst manufacturers for use in their proposed 1975/76 vehicle
emission control systems.
*
The term "noble metals, " as used in this report, refers to the platinum-
group metals.
11-1
-------
During the second quarter of 1972, the producer prices of
platinum rose from $110 to $120 per troy ounce to $120 to $125 }..er troy
ounce, and palladium rose from $36 to $38 per troy ounce to $38 to $41 per
troy ounce (Ref. 11-1). In the same time period, the dealer prices per troy
ounce increased to approximately $140 for platinum and $42 for palladium.
11.2.2 Noble Metals Production -- By Country
The annual noble metal production rates for 1969 through
1971 are listed in Table 11-1 (reproduced from Ref. 11-1). As indicated in
this table, the Soviet Union is the world's largest producer of noble metals,
followed by South Africa and Canada. The United States production amounts
to less than 1% of the total world production.
11.2.2.1 South Africa
The Republic of South Africa is by far the most important
noble metal producer in the free world. According to a recently conducted
study by the Bureau of Mines (Ref. 11-2), South Africa's total noble metal
production capacity for 1972 is estimated at 2.45 million troy ounces. How-
ever, because of unfavorable market conditions, production in 1972 will be
limited to about 1. 45 million troy ounces.
In South Africa's noble metal mining operations, the noble
metals are the principal products, with nickel being a co-product and gold
and silver being by-products. Approximately 0. 12 ounce of noble metals
is obtained from each ton of South African ore. As indicated in Table 11-2,
the composition of the noble metals extracted from the South African ore
is approximately 71% platinum, 25% palladium, and 4% other noble metal
elements (Ref. 11-2). Additional information on the South African noble
metal mining companies is presented in Section 11.2.4.
11-2
-------
Table 11-1. World Production of Noble Metals (troy ounces)
^ — .^^^ Year
Country ~~"~-—-^^^
Soviet Union
Republic of South Africa
Canada
Colombia
United States
Philippines
Finland
Ethiopia
TOTAL
1969
2, 100,000(2)
964, 000(2)
310,400
27,800
21, 590
--
--
340
3,424, 130
1970
2,200,000(2)
1, 502,800(2)
482,430
26,360
17, 310
1,230
650<2>
270
4,231,050
1971(1)
2,300, 000(2)
1,252,800(2)
468, 000
25,610
18,030
2,700(2)
600<2>
220
4,067,960
Preliminary
' 'Estimated
Table 11-2. Estimated Noble Metal Composition (percent)
Element
Platinum
Palladium
Iridium
Rhodium
Ruthenium
Osmium
South Africa
71.2
25. 1
0.8
2.4
0.5
0.01
Soviet Union
30.0
60. 0
2.0
2.0
6.0
0
Canada
43.4
42.9
2.2
3.0
8.5
0
Colombia
90
N. A.
N. A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
11-3
-------
11.2.2.2 Soviet Union
Little concrete information is currently available on the noble
metal mining and refining operations in the Soviet Union. The latest Bureau
of Mines estimates for 1971 indicate an annual Soviet production of 2. 3
million troy ounces (Ref. 11-1). The composition of the Soviet production
is 60% palladium, 30% platinum, and 10% other noble metals. In the Soviet
Union, the noble metals are obtained almost entirely as by-products of the
nickel and copper refining operations conducted in the Norilsk area of north-
western Siberia, the Kola Peninsula, and the Ural region. In 1971 the Soviet
Union exported at least 75% of its total noble metal production. Approxi-
mately 700,000 ounces were sold to Japan and about 400, 000 ounces to the
United States. In addition, unknown quantities of Soviet noble metals reached
western markets through a number of West European countries (Ref. 11-3).
The noble metal production in the Soviet Union is expected
to increase by only 5% per year through 1975. Then production could
increase substantially as a new nickel plant, currently under construction in
the Norilsk area, becomes productive. Although the Soviet Union may be
forced to further increase its noble metal sales in order to finance its
imports of industrial equipment, future exports of noble metals, particularly
to the United States, cannot be predicted at this time.
Recently, an international trading company acting on Chrysler's
behalf negotiated a contract with the Soviet Union for the delivery in 1974 of
100, 000 troy ounces of palladium.
11.2.2.3 Canada
In Canada, the noble metals are obtained as'by-products of
nickel and copper mining conducted primarily by three companies -- Inter-
national Nickel, Falconbridge Nickel Mines, Ltd. , and Consolidated Canadian
Faraday, Ltd. As indicated in Table 11-1, the Canadian production in 1971
was approximately 468,000 troy ounces. The platinum-to-palladium ratio
of the Canadian ore is about 1:1. Production is concentrated in the Sudbury
basin of Ontario and the Thompson-Wabowden area of Manitoba (Ref. 11-3).
Most of the noble metal concentrate is shipped to England and Norway for
final refining, and the pure metals are then returned to Canada for export,
11-4
-------
primarily to the United States. The distribution of most of the Canadian
noble metals in the United States is handled by Engelhard Minerals and
Chemicals Corporation. Since the noble metals are by-products of nickel-
copper mining, Canadian noble metal production cannot be significantly
increased in the near future. Based on recent estimates by the Bureau of
Mines, the annual production of noble metals in Canada will gradually rise
to about 600, 000 troy ounces in 1980 (Ref. 11-3).
11. 2. 2. 4 Colombia
In Colombia, noble metals are being mined by the International
Mining Corporation at a rate of approximately 25, 000 troy ounces per year
(90% platinum). The concentrated ore is then shipped to the United States
for refining and is marketed through various dealers. The Colombian
production is not expected to vary significantly in this decade.
11.2.2.5 United States
The total primary noble metal production in the United States
in 1971 was only 18, 000 troy ounces. Approximately half of that was mined
by the Goodnews Bay Mining Company in Alaska and the other half was
recovered as by-products from copper and gold refining operations in
Maryland, New Jersey, Utah, Texas, and Washington. No significant
increase in noble metal production is expected in this decade.
Noble metal recovery from scrap represents a significant
source of supply in the United States. In 1971, approximately 278,000 ounces
of noble metals were recovered from scrap, which amounts to about 20%
of the total United States industrial demand. If noble metal prices increase
as the result of the projected demand by the automotive industry, processing
of scrap of presently marginal value may also increase.
11.2.2.6 Other Producers
As indicated in Table 11-1, the noble metals production in
Ethiopia,- Finland, and the Philippines is very small and has no significant
impact on noble metals supply and demand considerations.
11-5
-------
11.2.3 Noble Metal Reserves
The noble metal reserves in the world, as estimated by the
Bureau of Mines (Ref. 11-1), are presented in Table 11-3.
Table 11-3. Estimated Noble Metal Reserves in the World
Country
Million Troy Ounces
Republic of South Africa
Soviet Union
Canada
Colombia
United States
200
200
16
5
3
The recoverable noble metal reserves in Africa are currently
estimated at 200 million ounces. Recent discoveries in the Merensky Reef
region of South Africa indicate that the total reserves may actually be signif-
icantly larger. In addition, recent explorations in the Great Dyke area of
southern Rhodesia revealed several significant noble metal deposits (esti-
mates range as high as 100 million troy ounces). With the exception of
Ethiopia, where small quantities of platinum have been mined for many
years, no additional noble metal deposits are currently known in Africa.
11.2.4 Noble Metal Production in South Africa -- By Company
As previously stated, South Africa is the largest producer of
noble metals in the free world and the largest producer of platinum in the
world. Since the future noble metal sales by the Soviet Union cannot be
accurately predicted, primarily South African noble metals are required to
satisfy the projected needs of the automobile industry in the United States
in the post-1974 time period. For these reasons, a more detailed evaluation
of the current and projected noble metal production capacity of the various
South African mining companies is considered appropriate.
11-6
-------
The latest information relative to the current and projected
noble metals and platinum production capacities of the five largest South
African noble metal mining firms is presented in Tables 11-4 and 11-5
(Ref. 11-3). Table 11-4 shows the estimated annual capacities and production
rates of these mines. As indicated, the noble metal output of the leading
mine (Rustenburg) is currently less than 50% of full capacity.
Table 11-4. Estimated 1972 Capacity and Production of
South African Noble Metal Mines
(thousand troy ounces)
Mining Company
Rustenburg Platinum Mines,
Ltd.
Impala Platinum, Ltd.
Western Platinum, Ltd.
Atok Investment, Ltd.
Eland Mine
TOTAL
Annual Capacity
Noble
Metals
1700
600
135
18
--
2453
Platinum
1200
350
100
11
--
1661
Actual Production
Noble
Metals
800
500
135
18
--
1453
Platinum
500
350
100
11
--
961
Table 11-5. Projected Maximum Noble Metal Production
Capacity of South African Mines(U
(thousand troy ounces)
Mining Company
Rustenburg
mpala
Western Platinum
Atok
Eland
TOTAL
1973
1700
600
185
18
0
2503
1974
2000
850
235
40
(2)
3125
1975
2200
950
285
290
300
4025
1976
2400
1050
325<3)
300(3)
4375<3)
1977
2600
1150
375(3)
300(3)
4725<3>
1978
2800
1250
425(3)
300<3>
5075<3)
1979
3000
1350
475(3)
30o13!
5425(3)
1980
3000
1500
500
350
475
5825
(l)Assuming commitments by the automotive industry with each
mining company
(2)Some production possible in late 1974
( 3 ) Approximate
11-7
-------
The maximum production rates that could be achieved by these
mines are shown in Table 11-5. However, these capacities will be obtained
only if contracts are signed in the near future between the automobile
manufacturers and the platinum mining companies. Without such commit-
ments, it is unlikely that the mining companies would proceed with their
projected expansion programs because of the large capital investment
required for these projects. According to Matthey Bishop, Inc. (Ref. 11-4),
more than $500 million would be needed to increase the annual noble metals
output of the Rustenburg mines by 1 million troy ounces. These funds are
required to cover the costs of the new shafts, new refining plants, and educa-
tion and training of the laborers required to operate these plants.
11. 2. 4. 1 Rustenburg Platinum Mines, Ltd.
Rustenburg is the world's largest platinum producer,
controlling approximately 70% of the platinum production capacity in the free
world. For economic reasons, the company operated at reduced capacity
during the past several years. However, it is currently getting back toward
full production because of the higher demand for noble metals resulting from
the projected use of catalysts on the 1975 and later model year vehicles
sold in the United States.
Rustenburg currently operates three mines, a smelter, and
a refinery in the Transvaal District of South Africa. Another refinery is
scheduled for completion in 1974. The company has proven reserves and a
built-in expansion capability to provide over 3 million ounces of noble metals
per year. Moreover, Rustenburg's parent company, Johannesburg Consoli-
dated Investments, Ltd. , holds mining rights to four other promising areas
in South Africa's Merensky Reef region (Ref. 11-3).
Rustenburg has a preliminary 3-year contract (1975 through
77), through Engelhard, to supply 500, 000 ounces of platinum annually to the
Ford Motor Company. If the contract is firmed up (it currently has an
escape clause), Rustenburg can clearly supply this amount of platinum. In
11-8
-------
addition, Rustenburg states that it could provide substantial quantities of
platinum (and palladium) to other automobile companies without cutting
supplies to nonautomotive buyers, provided commitments are received from
the automotive industry before October 1972 (Ref. 11-6). These data are
listed in Table 11-6.
Table 11-6. Rustenburg Platinum Quantifies Potentially
Available to the Automotive Industry
(excluding Ford) (thousand troy ounces)
Year
Platinum Quantity
1974
137
1975
204
1976
860
1977
1200
1978
1250
1979
1200
11.2.4.2
Impala Platinum, Ltd.
As indicated in Table 11-5, Impala is the second ranking noble
metal producer in South Africa. It acquired its Batokeng property in 1967
and completed the mine, mill, smelter, and refinery in 1969. In late 1970
the mine was producing platinum at a rate of several hundred thousand
ounces per year. When the shafts were sunk for current production, Impala
decided to drill additional shafts for future use. These shafts are currently
being drained in anticipation of increased future noble metal sales. This
illustrates Impala's capability of quickly expanding its production.
As indicated in Table 11-5, Impala's projected noble metal
production capacity for 1973 is 600,000 ounces. If commitments are received
from the automobile industry, the capacity of the mine could be increased to
850,000 ounces by 1974 and to 1.5 million ounces by 1980 (Ref. 11-3). In its
latest annual report, Impala states that it could potentially supply 400, 000
ounces of platinum for automotive use in 1974 and could increase delivery
by 100,000 ounces per year until 1977 without curtailing its sales to other
customers.
On September 21, 1973 General Motors announced a develop-
ment contract with Impala that would prepare Impala to supply it with up to
11-9
-------
300, 000 troy ounces of platinum and 1ZO, 000 troy ounces of palladium a year
for use in catalytic converters.
11.2.4.3 Western Platinum, Ltd.
Western Platinum is the third ranking producer of noble
metals in South Africa. This company, which is jointly owned by Lonrho,
Ltd. of England (51%), Falconbridge Nickel Company of Toronto, Canada
(24. 5%), and Superior Oil Company of Houston, Texas (24. 5%), began
production in 1971. Initially, two mines had been planned with a total
capacity of 430, 000 ounces oi platinum by 1974/75 (Ref. 11-3). However,
these plans have since been shelved as the price of platinum declined and
as operational problems were encountered. As shown in Table 11-4, Western
Platinum's current platinum production is approximately 100,000 ounces per
year. By 1980 the platinum output of the mine could be increased to about
350,000 ounces, providing commitments are received in time from the
automobile industry.
11.2.4.4 Atok Investment, Ltd.
Currently, Atok is a small noble metal producer with an
annual noble metal capacity of about 20, 000 ounces. The firm is jointly
owned by Anglo-Transvaal Consolidated Investment Company, Ltd., U.S.
Steel Corporation, and Middle Witwatersrand, Ltd. Apparently, the annual
capacity of the mine could be increased to 40, 000 ounces by 1974. If firm
contracts are received in time, a new shaft, mill, and refinery could be
added to increase the mine's annual noble metal production capacity to
290,000 ounces by 1975 (Ref. 11-3).
11.2.4.5 Eland Mine
This mine is jointly owned by Hanna Mining Company,
Cleveland, Ohio and Amcor, Ltd. The noble metal reserves of this mine
are sufficient for an annual production of 300,000 ounces by 1975. Eland
feels that further expansion to approximately 475, 000 ounces per year is
feasible by 1980 (Ref. 11-3).
11-10
-------
11. 3
11.3. 1
USAGE OF NOBLE METALS
EPA Study
Recently, the EPA conducted an in-house study to determine
the quantity of platinum potentially required by the automotive industry for
use in its projected 1975/76 vehicle emission control systems (Ref. 11-7).
In this analysis, a number of assumptions are made by EPA, including the
projected vehicle production rates, the noble metal loading of catalysts, and
the number of catalysts used in each vehicle. Table 11-7 shows the projected
Table 11-7. Projected 1975 Model Year Vehicle Distribution
(in thousands)
Manufacturer
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American Motors
Japanese
Other
Total Vehicles
Number of Vehicles
4-cyl.
469.7
346.6
54.7
0
666.9
788.9
2326.8
6-cyl.
310. 1
308.9
391.0
165.3
53.6
79.8
1308.7
8-cyl.
4409. 5
2069. 1
1126. 3-
96.9
0
62.7
7764. 5
Total Number
of Vehicles
5189. 3
2274. 6
1572. 0
262.2
720. 5
931.4
11,400. 0
production rates of 1975 model year vehicle/engine combinations used in the
EPA analysis. These data are based on the Department of Transportation
estimate of 11.4 million 1975 model year automobiles to be sold in the
United States, and on the assumption that the engine size distribution in 1975
is equal to that in 1972.
The automotive noble metal requirements for 1975 model
year vehicles, listed in Table 11-8, were computed on the basis of the
following'assumptions (Ref. 11-7).
11-11
-------
a. Oxidation catalysts are used on all vehicles.
b. Noble metal loading of the catalyst(s), as provided by a
number of catalyst manufacturers.
c. Vehicle/engine distribution from Table 11-7.
Table 11-8. Predicted Automotive Noble Metal Requirements
for 1975 Model Year Vehicles(l)
(thousand troy ounces)
Noble Metal Loading
Data Source
Company A^ '
Company B
Company B, adj.
Noble Metal Requirement
4-cyl.
115
119
119
6-cyl.
71
79
79
8-cyl.
590
776
975
Total
Noble Metal
Requirement
776
974
1173
11.4 million vehicles
All-platinum catalyst
Adjusted to reflect higher catalyst noble metal loading for engine
displacements above 400 CID
As indicated in Table 11-8, the predicted total noble metal requirement for
1975 model year vehicles varies between about 770 thousand troy ounces
(Company A) and 1. 2 million troy ounces (Company B, adjusted). As a
further refinement of its prediction calculations, EPA has considered the
following options for 1975 model year vehicles.
Option 1. Ford utilizes an extra catalyst on its 8-cylinder
engines. The noble metal loading of this catalyst
is assumed to be twice that of the two catalysts
considered for V-8 engines.
Option 2. Ford uses the extra catalyst; General Motors uses an
all-base metal oxidation catalyst instead of a noble
metal catalyst. However, General Motors is considering
promoted base metal catalysts for 1975; the all-base
metal option was selected to determine the lowest
platinum demand level.
11-12
-------
Option 3. Ford does not use the extra catalyst; General
Motors uses a base metal catalyst.
The total 1975 noble metal requirements computed for these
options are presented in Table 11-9. As indicated the automotive noble
metal demand for 1975 varies between approximately 400 thousand troy
ounces (Company A; option 3) and 1. 5 million troy ounces (Company B,
adjusted; option 1).
Table 11-9. Predicted Total Automotive Noble Metal Requirements
for 1975(1) (thousand troy ounces)
Noble Metal Loading
Data Source
Company A(^)
Company B
Company B, adj. ' '
Total Noble Metal Requirement
Option 1
933
1180
1449
Option 2
558
697
874
Option 3
401
490
597
( ? \
Option 4l '
776
974
1173
* '1 1 . 4 million vehicles
(2)From Table 11-8
(3)
All-platinum catalyst
(4)
Higher catalyst noble metal loading for engine displacements
above 400 CID.
l
As discussed in Section 3 of this report, the automobile
manufacturers are currently considering reduction catalysts for NO control
in 1976 and later model year vehicles. As a result, the noble metal and
platinum requirements increase substantially between 1975 and the post-1975
time period. This is illustrated in Table 11 - 10 where the projected platinum
requirements are listed for 1975 to 1980. The data in this table were
computed on the basis of the following five ground rules.
a. Vehicle production increases by 200, 000 units per year
between 1975 and 1980 (11.4 million in 1975).
b. Equal noble metal loading for the oxidation and reduction
catalysts.
11-13
-------
c. In the case of Company B 70% of the total noble metal
content of the oxidation catalysts is platinum. Company
A utilizes all-platinum catalysts.
d. Ninety percent of the total noble metal content in the
reduction catalysts is platinum.
e. No base metal catalysts are used.
Table 11-10. Projected Automotive Platinum Requirements
(thousand troy ounces)
Example
No.
1
2
3
4
Noble Metal Loading
Data Source
Company A
Company B
Company B, adj.
Company B
25, 000-mile catalyst
replacement; 90%
platinum recovery
1975
776
682
821
685
1976
1805
1586
1910
1610
1977
1837
1613
1942
1690
1978
1870
1642
1978
1775
1979
1900
1669
2010
1828
1980
1930
1698
2045
1860
Examples No. 1 through 3 in Table 11-10 are for new vehicles only and do not
include the platinum required for catalyst replacement or catalytic retrofit
systems which might eventually be used on pre-1975 model year vehicles.
Example No. 4 is based on a catalyst replacement interval of 25, 000 miles
and 90% platinum recovery from spent catalysts. As indicated in Table 11-10,
the predicted platinum requirements show only small variations in each
calendar year (approximately ±10%).
11.3.2 Chrysler Study
Projected platinum usage data, provided by Chrysler (Ref. 11-8),
are presented in Figure 11-1. These data include only the platinum required
for automotive use (new vehicles and catalyst replacement on used cars) and
were computed by Chrysler on the basis of the following assumptions:
a. 10. 6 million cars per year (no expanding car production
volume).
1 1-14
-------
O 0.08 OUNCE PLATINUM PER CATALYST UNIT
D 0.10 OUNCE PLATINUM PER CATALYST UNIT
60% PLATINUM RECOVERY
80% PLATINUM RECOVERY
75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88
YEAR (January 1)
Figure 11-1. Projected Platinum Usage (Ref. 11-8)
89 90,
11-15
-------
b. One catalyst in 1975 using 0. 08 or 0. 10 ounce of
platinum per car; two catalysts after 1975 using 0. 16 or
0. 20 ounce of platinum per car.
c. Car scrap rate from AMA data.
d. Car mileage 13, 000 miles the first year with a linear
decrease to 7000 miles for the tenth year.
e. 25, 000-mile catalyst replacement interval.
f. 60% and 80% platinum recovery (scrapped cars included).
Based on these assumptions, the critical time period is
between 1980 and 1982. Obviously, the platinum requirement is strongly
affected by the noble metal loading of the catalysts and the catalyst replace-
ment interval.
11. 4 NOBLE METAL SUPPLY-DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS
This section provides information regarding the projected
noble metal and platinum supplies available for automotive applications in
the 1975 to 1983 time period. The supply data are compared with projected
demand figures which were computed on the basis of several different
assumptions.
11.4. 1 Noble Metal Availability
Projected noble metal supply and demand balance data for
1971 through 1983 are listed in Table 11-11. The data for 1971, 1975, and
1980 were provided by the Bureau of Mines (Ref. 11-3) and were used to
determine the noble metal and platinum supply and demand for each year
between 1971 and 1983.
The maximum South African noble metal production
capacities (assuming commitments from the automobile manufacturers)
between 1972 and 1980 were previously presented in Table 11-5. With respect
11-16
-------
Table 11-11. Projected Noble Metal Supply and Demand (thousand troy ounces)
Y ear
Noble Metal Production
Republic of South Africa
Soviet Union
Canada
Colombia
United States
Others
Total Noble Metal Production
Primary Demand, Non-U.S.
Noble Metals Available to U.S.
Nonautomotive Primary U.S.
Demand
Available for Automotive Use
Additional Oil Industry Demand (
Noble Metals Available for
Automotive Catalysts
Platinum Available for Automotive
Catalysts
197l'M
1,253
2,300
468
26
18
12
4,077
3,089
988
988
0
0
0
0
1972
1 .453
2,400
475
26
18
12
4,384
3,222
1,162
1,015
147
0
147
105
1973
2,503
2.510
480
26
19
12
5.550
3,360
2, 190
1,040
1, 150
0
1, 150
819
1974
3. 125
2.625
490
26
19
12
6,297
3,505
2,792
1.070
1, 722
100
1, 622
1, 155
.975("
4,025
2.750
550
26
20
12
7,383
3,655
3,728
1, 100
2,628
100
2,528
1,800
1976
4,375
2,900
560
26
21
12
7.894
3,815
4,079
1, 130
2,949
100
2,849
2.025
1977
4,725
3,050
570
26
22
13
8,406
3,975
4,431
1 , 160
3,271
100
3,171
2.255
1978
5,075
3,200
580
26
23
13
8,917
4, 150
4,767
1 , 195
3.572
100
3,472
2,465
1979
5,425
3,400
590
26
24
14
9,479
4,325
5, 154
1,230
3,924
100
3.824
2,720
1980lU
5,825
3,500
600
26
25
15
9,991
4,510
5,481
1,265
4,216
100
4,116
2,925
1981
5,825
3,700
610
26
26
15
10.202
4.710
5,492
1,300
4, 192
100
4.092
2,910
1982
5,825
3,900
620
26
27
16
10,414
4,915
5,499
1,335
4, 164
100
4. 064
2,890
1983
5,825
4, 100
630
26
28
16
10,625
5, 130
5,495
1,375
4, 120
100
4.020
2.860
' 'Bureau of Mines Data
Assumes Commitments to all South African Noble Metal Companies
Bureau of Mines Estimate
-------
to the post-1980 time period, the assumption is made that the noble metal
production capacity in South Africa remains constant at the 1980 level. The
capacity of the other countries and the nonautomotive demand for noble
metals in the world are assumed to increase steadily during the 1971 through
1983 time period. The platinum quantities available for use in automotive
catalysts were computed by multiplying the automotive noble metal figures in
Table 11-11 by the factor 0. 71Z (platinum-to-noble-metal ratio in South
African ore) and subtracting the additional 100,000 ounces of noble metal
required by the petroleum industry for the production of unleaded gasoline
(Ref. 11-3). As shown in Table 11-11, the projected maximum platinum
supply available for the manufacture of automotive catalysts increases
from approximately 1. 8 million troy ounces in 1975 to 2. 9 million troy ounces
in 1980. After 1980 the projected platinum supply decreases by approximately
20, 000 ounces annually.
The data listed in Table 11-11 are based on the maximum
production capacity of the South African mines. As previously stated, this
requires firm contracts between the automobile manufacturers and all noble
metal mining firms in South Africa. Without contracts, the total South
African noble metal production in the 1975 to 1980 time period will be of the
order of 2. 5 million troy ounces (Ref. 11-3), and as discussed in Section 11. 4. 2,
this would not be sufficient to satisfy the estimated needs of the automotive
industry.
Projected platinum supply and demand data provided by
Rustenburg (through Matthey Bishop) are presented in Table 11-12. Com-
parison with the corresponding Bureau of Mines data (Table 11-11) indicates
good agreement for the post-197 5 time period. However, between 1972
and 1975, the Rustenburg predictions are considerably lower than the data
listed in Table 11-11.
11-18
-------
Table 11-12. Rustenburg Free World Platinum Supply and
Demand Projection (thousand troy ounces)
Year
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Platinum Production
1, 500
1,780
2,290
2,810
4,070
4,510
4,690
Nonautomotive
Consumption
1,800
1,650
1, 750
1,850
1,950
2, 050
2, 150
Platinum Available
for Automotive
Catalysts
-300(D
130
540
960
2, 120
2,460
2, 540
* Covered by stockpiled platinum
11.4.2 Evaluation of Noble Metal Supply and Automotive Demand
Accurate evaluation of the noble metal and platinum supply
and demand balance is currently very difficult, because several factors
related to automotive catalysts are still unresolved. These include the
required platinum loading of oxidation and reduction catalysts, the number
of catalysts used on the various vehicle/engine configurations, the selected
catalyst replacement interval, the vehicle production rates in the post-1975
time period, and the feasibility of platinum (and palladium) recovery from
spent automotive catalysts. To provide a means of assessing these factors
in terms of platinum supply and demand, six different cases are analyzed,
as shown in Table 11-13.
Case 1 in Table 11 - 13 is based on the assumption of a total
catalyst platinum loading of 0. 08 ounce for 1975 model year vehicles
(oxidation catalyst(s) only) and 0. 16 ounce for 1976 and later model year
vehicles (oxidation plus reduction catalyst(s)), 60% platinum recovery from
11-19
-------
Table 11-13. Noble Metal and Platinum Supply — Automotive Demand Balance
(thousand troy ounces)
Noble Metals Available for
Automotive Catalysts'''
Platinum Available for
Automotive Catalysts("
Case 1
Automotive Platinum Requirement
Annual Platinum Surplus
Cumulative Platinum Surplus
Case 2
Automotive Platinum Requirement
Annual Platinum Surplus
Cumulative Platinum Surplus
Case 3
Automotive Platinum Requirement
Annual Platinum Surplus
Cumulative Platinum Surplus
Case 4
Automotive Platinum Requirement
Annual Platinum Surplus
Cumulative Platinum Surplus
Case 5
Automotive Platinum Requirement
Annual Platinum Surplus
Cumulative Platinum Surplus
Case 6
Automotive Platinum Requirement
Annual Platinum Surplus
Cumulative Platinum Surplus
1972
147
105
0
105
105
0
105
105
0
105
105
0
105
105
0
105
105
0
105
105
1973
1. 150
819
0
819
924
0
819
924
0
819
924
0
819
924
0
819
924
0
819
924
1974
1,622
1, 155
0
1, 155
2, 079
0
1, 155
2, 079
0
1, 155
2,079
0
1, 155
2, 079
0
1, 155
2,079
0
1, 155
2,079
1975
2, 528
1, 800
848
952
3, 031
1, 060
740
2,819
1,060
740
2,819
685
1,115
3, 194
848
952
3,031
690
1,110
3, 189
1976
2,849
2, 025
1, 690
335
3, 366
2, 115
-90
2, 729
2, 115
-90
2, 729
1,610
415
3,609
1,695
330
3,361
1,375
650
3, 839
1977
3, 171
2,255
2,015
240
3, 606
2, 519
-264
2,465
2, 304
-49
2,680
1.690
565
4, 174
2, 525
-270
3. 091
2,055
200
4, 039
1978
3, 472
2, 465
2, 331
134
3, 740
2, 917
-452
2, 013
2, 471
-6
2, 674
1, 775
690
4,864
3, 340
-875
2,216
2, 720
-255
3, 784
1979
3, 824
2, 720
2, 306
414
4, 154
2, 893
-173
1, 840
2,457
263
2, 937
1,828
892
5, 756
3, 340
-620
1, 596
2, 720
0
3, 784
1980
4, 1 16
2, 925
2, 584
341
4,495
3,227
-302
1, 538
2, 589
336
3, 273
1, 860
1, 065
6,82!
4, 110
-1, 185
411
3, 350
-425
3, 359
1981
4, 092
2, 910
2, 585
325
4,820
3, 554
-644
894
2,699
211
3, 484
.
-
-
4,890
-1,980
-1, 569
3,975
-1, 065
2,294
1982
4, 064
2, 890
2, 770
120
4,940
3, 463
-573
321
2, 576
314
3, 798
.
-
-
4,890
-2. 000
-3, 569
3, 975
-1, 085
1, 209
1983
4, 020
2,860
2,650
210
5, 150
3,313
-453
-132
2,376
484
4,282
.
-
-
4, 890
-2, 030
-5,599
3, 975
-1, 115
94
'''Data from Table 11-11; assumes commitments to all South African platinum-group Metal Companies
-------
spent catalysts, a 25,000-mile catalyst replacement interval, and the annual
vehicle mileage and vehicle production numbers previously used in deter-
mining the curves shown in Figure 11-1. Based on the assumption of the
noble metal production rates predicted by the Bureau of Mines (Table 11-11),
there would be a growing excess supply of platinum (and other noble metals)
available throughout the 1975 to 1983 time period.
Case 2 is similar to Case 1, except that catalyst platinum
loadings of 0. 10 and 0. 20 ounce are utilized for the 1975 and the 1976 and
later model year vehicles, respectively. In this case, sufficient platinum
will be available through 1982, providing the excess capacity potentially
available in the 1972 to 1975 time period is stockpiled for this purpose.
Beyond 1982 there will be a growing annual platinum deficit (approximately
130,000 ounces in 1983). However, if small amounts of palladium are used
in the catalyst formulation in place of platinum, the total available noble metal
supply will be more than adequate for the manufacture of automotive catalysts
in the 1975 to 1983 time period.
Case 3 is similar to Case 2, except that an 80% platinum
recovery factor is utilized. As indicated in Table 11-13, there is a substan-
tial annual platinum surplus except between 1976 and 1978. During that
period, a small total platinum shortage of about 150, 000 ounces is obtained
which, however, can be easily covered by means of the projected overpro-
duction in the 1972 to 1975 time period. Again, utilization of small amounts
of palladium in place of platinum would completely eliminate any temporary
production deficit.
Case 4 is based on the projected platinum requirement
previously presented in Table 11-10, example 4. As shown in Table 11-13,
a large oversupply of platinum is predicted in this case for the 1975 to 1980
time period. This is primarily the result of the high degree of platinum
recovery (90%) used in this particular case.
11-21
-------
Case 5 is similar to Cases 1 through 3, except that catalyst
platinum loadings of 0. 08 ounce per car and 0. 16 ounce per car, respectively
are used for the 1975 and post-1975 model year vehicles. Furthermore,
this case assumes zero platinum recovery from spent catalysts. As indicated
in Table 11-13, the available platinum supply is adequate through 1980, pro-
viding the platinum is stockpiled during the 1972 to 1975 time period. At
that point, platinum recovery from spent catalysts would have to be instituted
in order to cover the annual platinum deficit of approximately 2 million ounces
predicted for the post-1980 years.
In Case 6, the total catalyst platinum loading is 0. 065 ounce
for 1975 vehicles, and 0. 13 ounce for 1976 and later model year vehicles,
and the platinum recovery factor from spent catalysts is zero. All the other
parameters are identical to those used for Cases 1 through 3. The data in
Table 11 -13 indicate that sufficient quantities of platinum are available in this
case to satisfy the needs up to 1983, providing the full projected noble metal
production capacity of the South African mines is maintained throughout the
1972 to 1983 time period.
The platinum surplus predicted for these six cases is reduced
somewhat if the platinum production rates projected by Rustenburg (Table
11-12) are used instead of the Bureau of Mines data (Table 11-11).
11.5 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analysis of the projected platinum and noble
metal availability and requirements, the following conclusions are presented:
a. The current noble metal and platinum production
capacity in the world is not sufficient to satisfy the
projected requirements of the automotive industry in
the United States in the post-1975 time period.
b. Most of the platinum required for the projected catalytic
converter systems in 1975 and later model year auto-
mobiles must be supplied by South Africa. The production
capacity in other countries is generally related to nickel
and copper mining operations and can not be sufficiently
increased to satisfy the potential demands of the automotive
industry.
11-22
-------
c. In order to assure adequate platinum availability in the
1975 to 1980 time period, contract agreements must be
signed in the near future between the automobile manu-
facturers and the South African noble metal mining
firms.
d. Platinum recovery from spent automotive catalysts may
be required by 1980 unless the platinum loading of the
catalysts is reduced from currently projected levels.
e. Platinum recovery from spent catalysts would not be
required in this decade, if less than 0. 16 ounce of
platinum is utilized on the average 1976 and later model
year vehicles and if the catalyst replacement interval
is 25, 000 miles or higher.
f. The platinum quantities available for automotive
applications may not be sufficient to satisfy the needs of
future catalytic retrofit systems which might eventually
be used in pre-1975 automobiles.
g. The platinum (and noble metal) supply-demand balance
is determined by the platinum (noble metal) loading require-
ment of the automotive catalysts, the number of catalysts
required on the various vehicle classes, the catalyst replace-
ment interval, the mining industry capacity, and the degree
of platinum recovery from spent catalysts. A thorough study
of these parameters is urgently needed in order to provide
all the data required for a complete and meaningful assess-
ment of the platinum and noble metal availability and demand
balance.
11-23
-------
REFERENCES
11-1. Mineral Industry Survey, Platinum Quarterly; U. S. Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, B.C.,
September 1, 1972
11-2. Robert W. Ageton and J. Patrick Ryan, "Platinum Group Metals, "
published in Mineral Facts and Problems, Bureau of Mines
Bulletin No. 650, 1970 edition
11-3. Francis C. Mitko, "Availability of Platinum Group Metals for Use
in Automobile Emission Control Devices, " preliminary Bureau of
Mines report.
11-4. Personal communication with Matthey Bishop personnel,
October 5, 1972
11-5. Personal communication with W. R. Grace, August 21, 1972
11-6. Note on Schedule of Estimated Platinum Availability for Automotive
Industry and Rustenburg Platinum Mines' Capital Expenditure;
informal Rustenburg submittal to the Bureau of Mines
11-7. P. Staltman, "Platinum Supply and Demand Considerations, "
In-house EPA report
11-8. Aerospace/EPA visit to Chrysler Corporation, August 4, 1972
11-24
-------
APPENDIX A
COMPANIES VISITED
In a 2-month period (August 1 to October 5, 1972), 32 domestic
firms were visited in addition to one government automotive procurement
agency. Three of these firms have primary business operations outside of
the automotive industry while 11 others are new to the automotive industry
by virtue of their potential for supplying products that make up the catalytic
converter for the automobile emission control system. Three other firms
produce specialized equipment that is relatively new to the automotive
industry. The balance of 15 firms are heavily involved in the automotive
industry as automobile producers or as suppliers of traditional components
and production equipment and tooling.
In this appendix will be found a list of the companies visited,
arranged in chronological order, along with an example of the company
product line.
A-l
-------
Date of Visit
Company Name
Example of Product Line
August 1, 1972
August 2, 1972
August 3, 1972
August 4, 1972
August 9, 1972
August 10, 1972
August 15, 1972
August 17, 1972
August 18, 1972
August 21, 1972
August 21, 1972
August 22, 1972
August 22,' 1972
Budd Company,
Automotive Division
Troy, Michigan
American Motors Corp.
Detroit, Michigan
Joseph F. Lamb Co.
Warren, Michigan
Chrysler Corporation
Detroit, Michigan
Monsanto Company
St. Louis, Missouri
General Motors Corp.
General Motors
Technical Center
Warren, Michigan
Reynolds Metals,
Primary Metals Div.
Richmond, Virginia
Hayes-Albion Corp.
Jackson, Michigan
Kelsey-Hayes Co.
Romulus, Michigan
Eaton Yale & Towne Co.
Battle Creek, Michigan
W. R. Grace Co.
Davison Chemical Div.
Clarksville, Maryland
Cross Company
Fraser, Michigan
Electron Research Corp.
Santa Ana, Calif.
Wheels, brakes, dies,
and tools
Automobiles
Assembly and machine
equipment
Automobiles
Pellet catalyst
Automobiles
Catalyst substrate
Exhaust systems
Stampings, forgings
Engine valves
Monolith and pellet
catalyst
Assembly and machine
equipment
Electron beam welding
equipment
A-2
-------
Date of Visit
Company Name
Example of Product Line
August 23, 1972
August 23, 1972
August 24, 1972
August 25, 1972
August 29, 1972
August 30, 1972
September 1, 1972
September 6, 1972
September 8, 1972
September 11, 1972
September 12, 1972
AMF, Inc.
Versatran Division
Warren, Michigan
Oxy-Catalyst, Inc.
West Chester, Pa.
U. S. Army Tank
Automotive Command
Michigan Army Missile
Plant
Warren, Michigan
Gulf Oil Corp.
Research & Development
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Corning Glass Works
Technical Products Div.
Corning, New York
Universal Oil Products
Purzaust Department
Des Plaines, Illinois
American Lava Corp.
Chattanooga, Tenn.
Kaiser Chemicals, Div.
of Kaiser Aluminum
& Chemical Corp.
Baton Rouge, La.
Outboard Marine Corp.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Wean United, Inc.
Youngstown, Ohio
Westinghouse Corp.
Columbus, Ohio
Programmed manipulators
Pellet catalyst
Government truck and jeep
procurement agency
Pellet and monolith
catalyst
Catalyst substrate
Pellet and monolith
catalyst
Catalyst substrate
Catalyst substrate
Small gasoline engines
Welding equipment
Home appliances
A-3
-------
Date of Visit
Company Name
Example of Product Line
September 13, 1972
September 15, 1972
September 18, 1972
September 19, 1972
September 19, 1972
September 20, 1972
September 21, 1972
September 22, 1972
October 5, 1972
Hamilton Standard Div.
United Aircraft Corp.
Windsor Locks, Conn.
Gilman Engineering &
Manufacturing Co.
Janesville, Wisconsin
Ford Motor Company
Dearborn, Michigan
Borg-Warner Corp.
Warner Gear Div.
Muncie, Indiana
Engelhard Minerals &
Chemical Corp.
Newark, New Jersey
Onsrud Machine Works
Niles, Illinois
Greenlee Bros. & Co.
Div. of Ex-cell-o Corp.
Rockford, Illinois
General Electric Co.
Louisville, Kentucky
Matthey Bishop, Inc.
Malvern, Pa.
Electron beam welding
equipment
Automatic welding
equipment
Automobiles
Automatic transmission
Monolith catalyst
Milling machine equipment
heavy duty presses
Transfer machine
equipment
Home appliances
Monolith catalyst
A-4
-------
APPENDIX B
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A list of documents that were acquired in the course of a
literature survey for this study is presented in this appendix.
B-l
-------
"Pacemakers In Component Design, " Borg & Beck Division,
Borg-Warner Corporation, Automotive Industries, 15 May 1963, p. 69.
"The Development of TiM -Wheel Steering: From Conception to
Finished Product, " by Philip Zeigler, Saginaw Steering Gear
Division, General Motors Engineering Journal, 4th quarter 1963, pp 2-6.
"Electronic Control System Improves Efficiency of Floor Pan
Assembly Line Operations, " by Dazo H. Ciranko and Arnold C.
Lankenau, Fisher Body Division, General Motors Engineering
Journal, 3rd quarter 1965, pp 23-5T
"Automation Plus at Lordstown, " by R. H. Eshelman, Automotive
Industries, 1 October 1970, pp .40-44.
"Building the Pinto Engine, " by Peter Hoffmann, American
Machinist, 16 November 1970, pp 75-77.
"Automated V8 Diesel Production, " Perkins Engines, Engineering,
27 September 1968, p 478.
"Producing Ford's New 351 CID Engine," Part I, by Joseph Geschelin,
Automotive Industries, 1 January 1970, pp 66-70.
"Producing Ford's New 351 CID Engine," Part II, by Joseph Geschelin,
Automotive Industries, 15 January 1970, pp 52-56.
"Major Operations and Scheduling of Huge Dodge Truck Plant, " by
Joseph Geschelin, Automotive and Aviation Industries, 1 September 1946,
pp 25-27 and pp 85^H>. :
"Modern Production Equipment Conspicuous at Studebaker Plant, " by
Joseph Geschelin, Automotive and Aviation Industries, 1 November 1946,
pp 30-35 and pp 58 and 60.
"Development of the Annual New Car Model -- From Styling to Assembly, "
by Clarence E. Morphew, Cadillac Motor Car Division, General Motors
Engineering Journal, July-August-September 1959, pp 32-38.
"Putting a New Car into Production, " by Edward T. Ragsdale, Buick
Motor Division, General Motors Engineering Journal, September -
October 1953, pp 26-31.
B-2
-------
"An Overall Look at the Toronado -- A New Breed of Automobile, "
by John B. Beltz, Oldsmobile Division, General Motors Engineering
Journal, 1st quarter 1966, pp 2-8.
"Product Engineering in General Motors, " by Harry F. Barr, Vice
President in Charge of GM Engineering Staff, General Motors
Engineering Journal, Isi quarter 1966, pp 9-1^
"Lead Time Practices, " by Joseph Geschelin, Automotive Industries,
15 July 1967, pp 60-63.
"GM Desert Proving Ground, " by D. S. Johnson, Engineering
Operations, Automotive Industries, 1 November 1969, pp 63-65.
"Most Companies in Industry Now in Production of Cars to Some
Degree, " News of the Industry, Automotive and Aviation Industries,
1 November 1946, pp 46, 106, \W.
"Drive On to Attain Volume Car Production, " by Leonard Westrate,
Automotive and Aviation Industries, 1 September 1945, pp 17, 58.
"Return to Civilian Car Production Slow, " by Leonard Westrate,
Automotive and Aviation Industries, 15 August 1945, pp 17, 104, 106, 108.
"Finding New Ways to Make Autos, " Business Week, 11 September 1965,
pp 190-192, 194, 196, 198.
"Development of Assembly Procedures for the Toronado, " by Donald
R. Downie, Oldsmobile Division, General Motors Engineering
Journal, 2nd quarter 1966, pp 35-42.
"Quality Control Aspects of Chrysler's Clean Air System, " Part I, by
R. L. Kessler, Manager, Products Quality, Automotive Industries,
15 August 1969, pp 60-68.
"How Carmaker Tackles Last Minute Design Change, " by L. A. Kintigh,
Director of Forward Planning, General Motors Corporation, Steel,
7 July 1969, pp 88d-88e.
"Many Areas Offer Opportunities for Cutting Lead Time, " by E. C.
Soistman, Martin Orlando, SAE Journal, September 1957, pp 76-77.
"A Summary of the Toronado Engineering Test Program, " by
Theodore N. Louckes and Charles L. Porter, Oldsmobile Division,
General Motors Engineering Journal, 2nd quarter 1966, pp 29-33.
"Quality Control Aspects of Chrysler's Clean Air System," Part II,
by R. L. Kessler, Manager, Products Quality, Automotive Industries,
1 October 1969, pp 74-75.
B-3
-------
"Team Styling at Chrysler, " by Elwood P. Engel, Vice President-
Styling, Automotive Industries, 1 November 1969, pp 53-54.
"AM's Hornet -- A New Concept in Compacts," by William V. Luneburg,
President, American Motors Corporation, Automotive Industries,
15 November 1969, pp 55-57.
"Shifting Trends in Plastics Process Developments, " by J. O'Rinda
Trauernicht, Assistant Managing Editor R & D, Plastics Technology,
January 1970, pp 58-61.
"Ford Exhaust Emission Laboratory, " by Allan Aitken, Director of
Engineering, Ford Motor Company, Automobile Engineer, July 1971,
pp 22, 25.
"Building the Chevrolet Vega, " Automobile Engineer, November 1970,
pp 456-461.
"The Design, Development, and Production of the Toronado Body, "
by Francis E. Smith, Fisher Body Division, General Motors Engineering
Journal, 1st quarter 1966, pp 38-55.
Production of Motor Vehicles, by Henry M. Cunningham and William
F. Sherman, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1951.
L
"Automotive Industrial Engineering Study, " Final Report, PB 178 326,
Arthur Young & Company, January 1968.
"Automotive Industrial Engineering Study: Volume I," PB 178 327,
U. S. Department of Transportation, 31 December 1967.
"Automotive Industrial Engineering Study, " PB 178 328, Booz-Allen
and Hamilton, Inc., Detroit, Michigan, 12 March 1968.
The Man on the Assembly Line, by Charles P. Walker and Robert
H. Guest, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1952.
"The Role of Prototypes in Development, " by B. H. Klein, T. K.
Glennan, Jr., and G. H. Shubert, Rand Corporation Report RM-3467/1-PR,
April 1971.
"Proceedings of the First Planning Conference in the Problems of Intro-
ducing Change in the Automotive Industrial Engineering Process, "
PB 180410, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland,
24 October-1967.
B-4
-------
"Designing the Marlin, " by Roy Abernethy, President of American
Motors, Automotive Industries, February 15, 1965, pp 47-49.
"Critical-Path Scheduling, " by John W. Mauchly, Mauchly Associates,
Inc., Chemical Engineering, April 16, 1962, pp 140-154.
"Network Models for Project Scheduling - Part 1 - Planning Phase, "
by Borge M. Christensen, Manager, Special Systems Studies Computer
Department, General Electric Co. , Phoenix, Arizona, Machine Design,
May 10, 1962, pp 114-117.
"Network Models for Project Scheduling - Part 2 - Preliminary
Scheduling Phase, " by Borge M. Christensen, Manager, Special Systems
Studies Computer Department, General Electric Co. , Phoenix,
Arizona, Machine Design, May 24, 1962, pp 173-177.
"Network Models for Project Scheduling - Part 3 - Advanced Scheduling
Phase, " by Borge M. Christensen, Manager, Special Systems Studies
Computer Departmert , General Electric Co. , Phoenix, Arizona,
Machine Design, June 7, 1962, pp 132-138.
"Network Models for Project Scheduling - Part 4 - Preparation of
Network Model, " by Borge M. Christensen, Manager, Special Systems
Studies Computer Department, General Electric Co. , Phoenix,
Arizona, Machine Design, June 21, 1962, pp 155-160.
"Network Models for Project Scheduling - Part 5 - Preparing Computer
Data, " by Borge M. Christensen, Manager, Special Systems Studies
Computer Department, General Electric Co. , Phoenix, Arizona,
Machine Design, July 5, 1962, pp 105-111.
"Network Models for Project Scheduling - Part 6 - Choosing a Plan, "
by Borge M. Christensen, Manager, Special Systems Studies Computer
Department, General Electric Co. , Phoenix, Arizona , Machine Design,
July 19, 1962, pp 136-140.
"Applied Automation, A group of significant articles from the pages of
Automotive Industries showing the application of modern Automation
Techniques" by James R. Custer, Editor, Chilton Company Publishers,
Philadelphia, published for Automotive Industries.
"'71 Buyers' Directory and Products Guide Issue," Chilton's Automotive
Industries, December 15, 1970.
"Impact of Foundry Pollution, " by Bernard S. Gutow, A. T. Kearney, Inc. ,
Chicago, Illinois, Environmental Science &t Technology, Volume 6,
Number 9, September 1972, pp 790-793.
B-5
-------
"Overtime and Productivity in Electrical Construction, " by The National
Electrical Contractors Association, March 29, 1973.
"Make-or-Buy Decisions in Tooling for Mass Production, " by William
A. Paton and Robert L. Dixon, Michigan Business Reports Number 35,
Publication of the Bureau of Business Research, School of Business
Administration, University of Michigan, 1961.
"The Automobile Industry Since 1945," Lawrence J. White, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1971.
B-6
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Imlrucliont on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-460/3-74-026-b
2.
4. TITLE ANOSUBTITLE
Assessment of Domestic Automotive Industry
Production Lead Time for 1975/76 Model year
Volume II - Technical Discussion
7. AUTHORIS)
D.E. Lapedes, M.G. Hinton, T. lura, and J . Meltze
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Aerospace Corp.
El Segundo, Calif
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION- NO.
6. REPORT DATE
Dec. 1972
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
r ATR-73(7321)-1
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-0417
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
16. ABSTRACT
A survey and analysis of the factors involved in bringing automobiles into
the market place with emphasis on production engineering, prototype testing
and tooling for production of the automobile and the oxidizing catalyst.
17.
a. DESCRIPTORS
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
. b.lDENTIFI
Automobile
Manufacturing
Lead-Time
Catalysts
Production tools
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURM
Unclas
20. SECURH
Uncla
ERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Kicld/Group
i
FY CLASS (This Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
sified 375
rY CLASS (This page) 22. PRICE
5 sified
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
B-7
------- |