Peer Review of Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle (FEV Report)


            Peer Review of Light-Duty Vehicle
            Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis
            Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle
            (FEV Report)
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency

-------
        Peer Review of Light-Duty Vehicle
     Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis —
         Midsize Crossover Utility  Vehicle
                       (FEV Report)
                     Assessment and Standards Division
                    Office of Transportation and Air Quality
                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                           Prepared for EPA by
                 Systems Research and Application Corporation
                       EPA Contract No. EP-C-11-007
      NOTICE

      This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or
      positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data
      that are currently available. The purpose in the release of such reports is to
      facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public of
      technical developments.
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-420-R-12-019
August 2012

-------
  Peer Review of Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-
    Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize
    Crossover Utility Vehicle (FEV Report)
                     Table of Contents
I.  Peer Review of the Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover
     Utility Vehicle (FEV Report), Conducted by SRA International
     1. Background                                           p. 5
     2. Description of Review Process                               p. 5
     3. Compilation of Review Comments                             p. 6
     4. References                                           p. 43
     Appendices
       A. Resumes of Peer Reviewers                              p. 44
       B. Conflict of Interest Statements                            p. 56
       C. Peer Review Charge                                   p. 71
       D. Reviews                                           p. 73
II. EPA's Response to Peer Review Comments                            p. 159

-------
Executive Summary
In December 2011, EPA contracted with SRA International (SRA) to conduct a peer review of Light-Duty
Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle (FEV Report) developed by
FEVandEDAG.

The peer reviewers selected by SRA were William Joost (U.S. Department of Energy), Glenn Daehn,
Kristina Kennedy, and Tony Luscher (The Ohio State University), Douglas Richman (Kaiser Aluminum),
and Srdjan Simunovic (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). In addition, Srdjan Simunovic and members of
the OSU team reviewed various elements of the associated modeling. EPA would like to extend its
appreciation to all of the reviewers for their efforts in evaluating this report and the modeling. The
reviewers brought useful and distinctive views in response to the charge questions.

The first section of this document contains the final SRA report summarizing the peer review of the FEV
Report, including the detailed comments of each peer reviewer and a compilation of reviewer
comments according to the series of specific questions set forth in the peer review charge. The SRA
report also contains the peer reviewers' resumes, completed conflict of interest and bias questionnaires
for each reviewer, and the peer review charge letter. The second major section contains our responses
to the peer reviewers' comments. In this section, we repeat the compiled comments provided by SRA
and, after each section of comments, provide our response. We have retained the organization
reflected in SRA's compilation of the comments to aid the reader in moving from the SRA report to our
responses.

-------
TO: Cheryl Caffrey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality (OTAQ)

FROM: Brian Menard, SRA International

DATE: June 27, 2012

SU BJ ECT: Peer Review of Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover
Utility Vehicle (FEV Report)), developed by FEV and EDAG.

1. Background

In developing programs to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from light-duty highway vehicles,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) has to
evaluate the safety of lightweighted automotive designs as well as the methods and costs of proposed
technologies to achieve this design.

The 2012 study by FEV, Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility
Vehicle (FEV Report) is a continuation (e.g., Phase 2 study) of the original Phase 1 Low Development
study from Lotus Engineering. The report reviews the amount of mass reduction in the Low
Development case ("20%") from the Lotus Engineering Phase 1 study. This is done through analysis of
the assumptions for the Body-in-White (BIW), and through an up-to-date re-analysis of light weighting
options for all of the other vehicle components of which the Lotus Engineering assumptions are a part.
An in-depth cost evaluation of all technologies is included. The FEV Report consists of two parts: In the
first part, FEV's contractor, EDAG, has designed and developed the BIW structure in CAE in order to
demonstrate that it meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for Light-Duty Vehicles using
LS-DYNA. The analysis includes materials, methods, and related costs to assembly and manufacturing.
The second part of the report is an in-depth investigation of "other than BIW" vehicle systems based
upon discussions with suppliers, Lotus Phase 1 report ideas, and FEV's experience and expertise.

This report documents the peer review of the FEV Report. Section 2 of this memorandum describes the
process for selecting reviewers, administering the review process, and closing the peer review. Section
3 summarizes reviewer comments according to the series of specific questions set forth in matrix
contained in the peer review charge. The appendices to the memorandum contain the peer reviewers'
resumes, completed conflict of interest and bias questionnaires for each reviewer, and the peer review
charge letter.

2. Description of Review Process

In December 2011, OTAQ contacted SRA International to facilitate the peer review of the FEV Report.
The model and documentation were developed by FEV and EDAG.

EPA provided SRA with a short list of subject matter experts from academia and industry to serve as a
"starting point" from which to assemble a list of peer reviewer candidates. SRA selected three
independent (as defined in Sections 1.2.6 and 1.2.7 of EPA's Peer Review Handbook, Third Edition)

-------
subject matter experts to conduct the requested reviews. SRA selected subject matter experts familiar
with automotive engineering and manufacturing, automotive materials, crash simulation, and cost
assessment. The coverage of these subject areas is shown below in Table A.

Table A:
Peer Reviewer Experience and Expertise
Name
Douglas Richman
William Joost
Srdjan Simunovic
Glenn Daehn
etal.
Affiliation
Kaiser
Aluminum
US DOE
Oak Ridge
National
Laboratory
The Ohio State
University
Coverage
Automotive
materials
Y
Y
Y
Y
Bonding
forming
Y
Y
Y
Y
Manufacturing
assembly
Y
Y
/
Y
Crash
simulation
/
/
Y
/
Cost
assessment
Y
/
/
Y

To ensure the independence and impartiality of the peer review, SRA was solely responsible for
selecting the peer review panel. Appendix A of this report contains the resumes of the three peer
reviewers. A crucial element in selecting peer reviewers was to determine whether reviewers had any
actual or perceived conflicts of interest or bias that might prevent them from conducting a fair and
impartial review of the FEV Report. SRA required each reviewer to complete and sign a conflict of
interest and bias questionnaire. Appendix B of this report contains an explanation of the process and
standards for judging conflict and bias along with copies of each reviewer's signed questionnaire.

SRA provided the reviewers a copy of the most recent version of the FEV Report as well as the peer
review charge. The charge included a matrix of questions issues upon which the reviewers were asked
to comment. Reviewers were also encouraged to provide additional comments, particularly in their
areas of expertise and work experience. Appendix C of this report contains the memo to reviewers from
SRA with the peer review charge.

A teleconference between EPA, FEV, EDAG, the reviewers, and SRA was held to allow reviewers the
opportunity to raise any questions or concerns they might have about the FEV Report and associated
modeling, and to raise any other related issues with EPA and SRA, including EPA's expectations for the
reviewers' final review comments. SRA delivered the final review comments to EPA by the requested
date. These reviews, contained in Appendix D of this report, included the reviewers' response to the
specific charge questions and any additional comments they might have had. Individual teleconference
calls were held between EPA, FEV, EDAG, and two of the reviewers, Doug Richman and Srdjan
Simunovic, to elaborate on these reviewers' written comments.

3. Compilation of Review Comments

The FEV Report was reviewed by William Joost (U.S. Department of Energy), Glenn Daehn, Kristina
Kennedy, and Tony Luscher (The Ohio State University (OSU)), Douglas Richman (Kaiser Aluminum), and

-------
Srdjan Simunovic (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). In addition, Srdjan Simunovic and members of the
OSU team reviewed various elements of the associated modeling. Appendix A contains detailed
resumes for each of the reviewers. This section provides a compilation of their comments. The
complete comments may be found in Appendix D.

-------
1. ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA
SOURCES (CAE BIW and
Vehicle)
COMMENTS
Please comment on the validity of
any data sources and assumptions
embedded in the study. Such
items include material choices,
technology choices, vehicle design,
crash validation testing, and cost
assessment that could affect its
findings.
[Joost] The material selection process used in this study suggests a good understanding of the cost and manufacturing
impacts of changing between different steel, Al, Mg, and plastic/composite based materials. Generally the material
selections are appropriate for the performance, manufacturing, and cost requirements of the particular systems.
Identifying production examples of the materials in similar systems is very important for establishing credibility - the
project team did an excellent job identifying production examples of most material replacements. There are, however, a
few material selections where additional consideration may be necessary:

The transmission case subsystem (pg 269) features the use of a Sr bearing Mg alloy. Recently, Sn based alloys have been
produced and (I believe) used in production for similar applications. The use of Sn as an alloying ingredient accomplishes
many of the same goals (improved high temp creep performance, for example) at a lower cost. It may be worth
investigating these new alloys as an opportunity to reduce the cost of the lightweight transmission case subsystem. If not,
the selection of a Sr alloy is reasonable.

The feasibility of using hot rolled blanks in the body structure would be further emphasized by providing production
examples for vehicles of >200k units per year. Similarly, the use of a 7000 series Al rear bumper is questionable - a
production example for a high volume, low cost vehicle should be provided.

The use of Thixomolded Mg seat components should be reconsidered. Thixomolding does have the potential to provide
improved ductility compared to die casting, however the process is generally not well regarded in the automotive
community due to concerns over limited supply and press tonnage limits (which limit the maximum size of the
components that can be manufactured this way). If there is a production example of thixomolding for >200k unites per
year in automotive, then it should be cited in the report. If there is no example then I would suggest switching to die
casting (or super vacuum die casting) - the weight reduction and cost will likely be similar.

It's not clear how the mass savings were achieved in the wheels and tires. The report states that a 2008 Toyota Prius
wheel/tire assembly will be used in place of the stock Venza wheel - however the report also states (pg 544) that the Prius
wheel will be normalized up to the 19"x7" to maintain the original styling of the Venza. The technology employed in the
Prius wheel is not different from the stock Venza wheel so why should a scaled-up Prius wheel weigh less than the original
Venza wheel? There are also inconsistencies in the report - table F.5-18 references eliminating the spare tire wheel while
downsizing the spare tire - why would there be a tire with no wheel? Lastly, if the Prius wheel/tire is scaled up to match
the stock Venza size then the spare wheel/tire must also be scaled up - it's not clear that this happened. You are taking
significant credit for weight reduction in the wheels and tires (~2% of total vehicle weight) but it's not clear how this is
achieved.
8

-------
Many of the parts in the frame have been changes to a GF Nylon (pg 667). This may not be unreasonable, but production
examples should be provided.

[Richman]
1) NHTSA crash test data was used for validation of collision simulation models and is an appropriate source.
2) Material property data was supplied by recognized supplier associations and are correct.
3) Cost estimates for reduced mass sheet products seem to include assumption that drive unusually high material
and equipment cost. This issue leads to a technology cost effectiveness that is not representative of actual
production experience for sheet products.
[OSU - Glenn Daehn] The data and sources appear to be very good, however at the time of this review there are a few
items that are unclear.

First there some statements that are referenced with superscripts, however there is not a reference list that appears in the
document.

[OSU - Tony Luscher] The data used appears to be valid and appropriate to the tasks that are completed. Vehicle data for
the Toyota Venza was obtained by scanning the components and creating the CAD models. Material data was found from
appropriate sources and databases. These were used to create a crash test model for the vehicle and for cost estimation. A
thorough search of state-of-the-art vehicle design concepts was used as the basis of mass reduction for the various vehicle
systems.

[Simunovic] This section contains comments on validity of the data sources, material properties, and modeling
approaches used in this study. The overall methodology used by the FEV is fundamentally solid and adhere to standard
practices of the crashworthiness engineering [5]. However, an in-depth analysis of the model files reveals several areas
that may need to be addressed to fully support the findings of the study.

-------
Firstly, as a matter of the established procedures for technical documentation, I suggest that the sources for the material
properties should be clearly referenced; especially since the authors of the FEV study worked on similar projects for steel
industry consortia [6]. Similar projects on concept vehicles [7,8] also offer guidelines on the reporting. It would also be very
helpful to readers to graphically depict mechanical properties such as material stress-strain curves, failure envelopes, etc.

Secondly, the technologically important issues with the high strength metallic materials, such as Advanced High Strength
Steels (AHSS) [9], are their special processing requirements [10], reduction in ductility, higher possibility of fracture [11-14]
(especially under high strain rates [15-17]), and joining [18-22]. Many AHSSs derive their superior mechanical properties
from their tailored microstructures, which get strongly affected during welding. Active research in welding of the AHSS
shows possibilities of significant reductions of the joint strengths due to the softening processes in Heat Affected Zone
(HAZ). Therefore, the strength values for the welds in the current LD model (i.e. SIGY=1550 for MAT_SPOTWELD section in
the input files) seems very optimistic, and may need to be reduced or elaborated upon in the report. Several versions of
the reports were distributed and I may have very well missed an updated version. In case that joining discussion is indeed
restricted to one page as it appears in the current FEV document, I would suggest that weld properties and constitutive
models be given additional attention in the final report.

Third important issue that I would suggest to be addressed is modeling of failure/fracture of the high strength materials in
the LD models. Despite long research on the subject, the methods for modeling localization and failure are relatively
scarce. There is still no wide consensus on how to model failure in materials. For the FEV study, special attention should be
given to the joint areas (spot welds, laser welds) that can experience the degradation of properties due to the thermo-
mechanical cycles that they have been exposed to. A simple way of addressing the above points would be to use failure
limit strains in plasticity models that are used in the FEV models, i.e MAT_PIECEWISELINEAR_PLASTICITY. In this approach a
limit strain is assigned to material, and after that limit strain is reached in a finite element, the element is gradually
removed from the simulation. The values for the failure strains are dependent on mesh and element discretization, where
additional simulations should be conducted to correlate energy to failure to the corresponding physical failure process
zone for the given problem.
10

-------
If you find issues with data sources
and assumptions, please provide
suggestions for available data that
would improve the study.
[Joost] Two plastic technologies are very widely employed in this design: PolyOne and MuCell. It seems that the
companies who license/manufacture these technologies were used as the primary source to determine feasibility.
However they are likely to be optimistic regarding the capability of their materials. I agree that these materials are
appropriate for the indicated applications, however I feel that the credibility would be improved by including other sources
(OEMs, Tier 1) or more production examples for existing platforms. With such a large amount of weight reduction
attributed to PolyOne and MuCell, it would be beneficial to have a very strong case for capabilities.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] See above.

[OSU-Tony Luscher] None found.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[Richman] This report is a review the 2012 FEV project to identify mass-reduction opportunities for a crossover sport utility vehicle based on the 2009 Toyota
Venza. This study is a continuation of the Lotus Engineering Phase 1 Low Development (LD) study funded by the Internal Council on Sustainable Transportation
(ICCT) in 2010. Goal of the FEV project is to identify practical mass reduction technologies to achieve a 20% reduction in total vehicle mass (342 Kg) at no more
than 10% increase in consumer cost while meeting, or exceeding, all crashworthiness, performance and customer satisfaction attributes provided by the
baseline vehicle.
Body of the baseline vehicle is 31% of total vehicle mass and has a dominant influence on NVH and collision performance of the total vehicle. This project
involved extensive engineering analysis of the vehicle body. BIW and closure materials and gauges were optimization to exploit the maximum mass reduction
potential from advanced low mass automotive materials and advanced manufacturing processes. Mass reduction initiatives are identified for all vehicle
systems including engine, transmission, interior, suspension and chassis systems. Most materials, manufacturing processes and components selected for the
FEV vehicle technology package are proven, cost effective and available for use on 2017 production vehicles.
Majority of mass reduction concepts utilized are consistent with recognized industry trends. Mass reduction potential attributed to individual components
appear reasonable and consistent with industry experience with similar components. As an advanced design concept study this is an important and useful body
of work. Results of the project provide useful insight into potential vehicle mass reduction achievable with HSS and AHSS materials.
This report is a review of the methodologies employed, technologies selected and validity of findings in the FEV study. This reviewer has experience in vehicle
mass reduction engineering of body, engine and suspension systems. This review focuses on those areas of the FEV project.
[OSU - Kristina Kennedy] "Building a full vehicle model w/o the use of drawings or CAD data..." Has this method of tear-down + scanning been proven out in
industry or in other projects to understand how closely this method would correlate with actual data? Is this basically "reverse engineering" and is that an
acceptable method?

[OSU -Tony Luscher] Data sources are well documented in the report and will aid if any additional investigation is needed. Several of them were checked for
validity.

-------
[Simunovic] In this document I review the methods, data, and the FEM crash models developed in the FEV study. The models were evaluated based on the
analysis of the computational simulation results and on based on the analysis of the actual model files. I want to emphasize that the scope of my review is on
the computational simulations of the vehicle crashworthiness and on the modeling approaches employed by the FEV and its contractors. The primary source for
my review were the FEV final draft report, the crash animations generated by the FEV, and the computer simulation output files for the NCAP and the ODB
crash test configurations. Two vehicle crash models were available, the baseline and the LD model. As it will be shown in the following sections, my review was
based to a large extent on the vehicle model files. Very often in the current practice, the actual model files are not sufficiently scrutinized and are evaluated
only through the resulting computational simulations. In the case of large complex FEM models, such as car crash models, the model's configuration complexity
and its shear size can obscure the important details of the response and camouflage the sources of errors in the model. That is particularly common when the
technology envelope of the state-of-the-art is expanded, as is the case with ever-increasing sizes and complexities of the car crash models.
12

-------
2. VEHICLE DESIGN
METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR
CAE BIW and Vehicle)
COMMENTS
Please describe the extent to
which state-of-the-art design
methods have been employed and
the extent to which the associated
analysis exhibits strong technical
rigor. You are encouraged to
provide comments on the
information contained within the
unencrypted model provided by
EDAG; the technologies chosen by
FEV; and the resulting final vehicle
design.
[Joost] The report uses a (very thorough) piece-wise approach to weight reduction - each system is broken down and
weight reduction opportunities for the individual components are identified. The weight-reduced components are then
reassembled into the final vehicle. I believe that this provides a conservative estimate for the weight reduction potential of
the Venza, where a vehicle-level redesign would provide greater weight reduction. However, I am also of the opinion that
the approach used here is in line with industry practice so; while this may not yield the maximum reasonable weight
reduction, it is likely to yield a value more in-line with industry-achievable weight reduction.

It is particularly helpful (and credible) to see descriptions technologies that were considered, but abandoned due to
performance concerns (e.g. reverting to a timing belt), manufacturing capabilities, (e.g. using a MuCell manifold), and cost
(e.g. Mg oil pan).

The suspension design process lacks sufficient detail to make the cost and weight estimates credible. Considerable Al is
used to replace steel at a very minimal cost penalty. However, as the report indicates, detailed design and validation is
necessary to confirm that these changes would be viable for the Venza. For example, changing to a hollow Al control bar is
not an industry standard practice and the use of a hollow section may require significant changes to geometry in order to
meet the stiffness and strength requirements. While a hollow Al control bar is feasible, I'm not confident that it can be
substituted into the design so easily. A $0.40/kg-saved cost penalty for changing a significant number of components from
mild steel to Al seems to be an underestimate.

[Richman]
1) EDAG performed structural modeling. The EDAG organization is widely recognized as technically competent and
highly experienced in modeling of auto body structure. Modeling approach appears technically robust and logical.
2) Body structural analysis utilized industry recognized CAE, CAD and collision modeling analysis tools and protocols.
Tools used are state-of-the -art and the approach.
3) FE model was validated against physical test data for NVH and collision performance. Model correlation with
physical test results is very good. No significant discrepancies or inconsistencies have been identified in the
modeling results.
4) Based on these observation, the models would be considered valid and reliable for moderate A:B design
comparisons that are the subject of this vehicle study.
13

-------
[OSU - Glenn Daehn] The work is well done and technically rigorous. Again, we encourage making all pertinent detail
publicly available.

[OSU -Tony Luscher] The report does an excellent job of using state-of-the-art design methods. The re-engineering
process included vehicle teardown, parts scanning, and data collection of vehicle parts to build a full vehicle CAE model.
This raw STL geometry was then translated into an FE meshing tool (ANSA) to create a finite element model.

[Simunovic] The development of the LD Toyota Venza concept started with the development of the baseline FEM model
of the vehicle. The FEM model was developed by a reverse engineering process of disassembly, geometry scanning,
component analysis, material characterization and the incremental FEM model development. The turn-around time for
this process by the FEV is quite impressive. Equally impressive are the apparent quality of the FEM mesh, the definition of
joints and assembly of the overall model.

The discretization of the BIW sheet materials uses proportionately sized quadrilateral shell elements, with few triangular
elements. The mesh density is mostly uniform and without large variations in the FEM element sizes and the aspect ratios.
The BIW model has about 6% of triangular shell elements in the sheet metal which is a very small amount given the
complexities of the vehicle geometry. Figures 1-3 show the geometry and the parts variety for the baseline vehicle model.

There are no apparent geometry conflicts in the model and parts are well aligned with compatible geometries and FEM
meshes. This is essential for accurate modeling of currently the prevailing joining method for sheet metals, spot welding.
The level of geometrical detail in the model is very high and as someone who has been involved with the vehicle
crashworthiness modeling for the last twenty years, I think that the developed FEM mesh of the Venza BIW is the current
state-of-the-art. Figure 4 shows some details of the BIW FEM mesh that illustrate the prevalence of the quadrilateral shell
finite elements, constant aspect ratios and presence of the geometry details that are necessary for an adequate modeling
of the progressive structural crush.
Please comment on the methods
used to analyze the technologies
and materials selected, forming
techniques, bonding processes,
and parts integration.
[Joost] The forming, joining, and integration techniques used in the report were analyzed only by referencing production
examples or companies who produce similar products. Detailed design work would certainly include a more thorough
analysis of the manufacturing techniques however for the scope of this report I believe that the level of analysis is
appropriate.

[Richman]
1) Body: Process used to select materials, grades and gauges for the mass optimized body sub-group is technically
sound and thorough. Election of laser welding of structurally significant body panels indicates deployment of
advanced manufacturing process where appropriate.
2)Non-body: Methodology used to identify, screen and select non-body mass reduction technologies is thorough,
14

-------
detailed and highly effective. Munro Associates lead this segment of the project. Munro is recognized as being
technically competent, highly experienced, knowledgeable and creative in benchmarking and lean engineering of
automotive and non-automotive systems.
[OSU - Glenn Daehn] All is in accord with the state of the art. It is not clear how welds are represented in the FE-Model,
without dissection of the LS-DYNA input stacks.

[OSU - Tony Luscher] The Toyota body repair manual was used to identify the material grades of the major parts of the
body structure. These material grades were then validated by material coupon testing.

The MSC Nastran solver was used to solve for the bending and torsion stiffness of the body in white model. Good
correlation was achieved between physical stiffness testing and FEA stiffness results.

In the following, I first give the analysis of the baseline FEM model. The baseline FEM model is very adept and can be used
for illustration of some shortcomings of the LD model that I think need to be addressed. It is important to note that the LD
model is much more complex due to a large number of materials and gages that resulted from the computational
optimization process. This complexity and the project time constraints dramatically increase the potential for error.
Unfortunately the tools for managing such complex systems are not yet mature, making the development and the
evaluation of this complex vehicle model very challenging. Over the years, I have developed several simple programs that
can be used to debug FEM models by directly analyzing the model files. The common approach to evaluation of large FEM
models is to almost exclusively consider computational simulation results. However, these simple tools allow for
evaluations of relationships within the FEM models directly from the model input files, thereby enabling debugging of the
models independently from the simulations.
15

-------
Review of the FEM Model for the Baseline Toyota Venza

The primary material for the BIW of the baseline vehicle, 2009 Toyota Venza, was identified in the Lotus Phase 1 Report as
mild steel. Lotus Phase 1 study stated that the BIW also had about 8% of Dual Phase steel with 590 MPa designation, while
everything else was commonly used mild steel sheet material. The FEV/EDAG study showed that there was more variety to
the baseline design then originally anticipated. Table 1 lists the materials used in the BIW model (file Venza_biw_r006.k)
that were modeled using MAT_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY). Aluminum bumper was modeled using
MAT_SIMPLIFIED_JOHNSON_COOK material model in LS-DYNA. The number of material models is relatively small.

Most of the CAE tools display the FEM model based on their part identification number (ID). To verify the material model
assignment one must then verify material assignment for every part and then sort them accordingly. For large complex
models this is a very tedious process that is very error prone. More advanced CAE tools, such as HyperMesh, have options
for grouping and displaying model entities by material types and IDs. Figure 5 displays the material assignments for the
baseline BIW.

The specific assignment of the materials for the BIW and the corresponding stress-strain curves are shown in the figures
below. Most of the material models account for strain rate sensitivity of the material. For a given plastic strain, the yield
stress is calculated by interpolating stresses between two neighboring stress strain curves based on the applied strain rate.
There are established modeling recommendations for modeling strain rate sensitivity effect in crash models. The specified
stress strain curves should not intersect. Extrapolated lines from their last specified linear segment should not intersect, as
well. The material models should use plastic strain rate [23] instead of the total strain rate as the basis of the strain rate
effect calculation. This option (VP=1) was not used in the FEV models although it is highly recommended in practice.

Figures 6-10 show the main material systems for the baseline BIW model. The material assignments correspond to the
assignments in the project's report.

The stress-strain curves for different strain rates in the above figures do not intersect. Their extrapolations however have
potential for intersection at high plastic strains in Figures 7and 8. The number of the data points in Figures 9 and 10 are too
large and needs to be reduced in order to avoid the interpolation errors by the simulation program. It is obvious that
curves in Figures 9 and 10 were developed by analytical fits. Such approach can create undesirable artifacts such as an
appearance of the yield point elongation for Dual Phase steel in Figure 10. An interpolation approach with fewer points
and curves is recommended. Figure 11 illustrates the optimal piecewise linear interpolation (green curve) of the base (red)
curve in Figure 10. The interpolated curve has error of 1% of the value range with respect to the actual curve and uses only
9 points.

Next, the BIW sheet material thickness distribution is shown in Figure 12. The colors indicate symmetrical distributions in

-------
accordance with the specified thickness distribution in the project report.

In many situations, the accuracy of the crash simulation is dependent on the shell element formulation (type) used. The
basic shell element formulation (reduced integration Belytschko-Tsay, LS-DYNA type 2) is computationally very efficient
but has lower accuracy than more complex formulations such as the fully-integrated Bathe-Dvorkin shell element (LS-
DYNA type 16). Figure 12 shows the shell element formulations in the BIW model. The current crash modeling
recommendation is to use shell element type 16 when possible. The Bathe-Dvorkin shell is 3.5 times more computationally
expensive than the Belytschko-Tsay shell so that in order to strike a proper balance between the accuracy and the
computational speed element types can be mized in the model. This is especially true when large number of simulations is
conducted, as was the case for computational optimization in the FEV study. As it can be seen in Figure 16, the baseline
model employs accurate element formulation in the main structural components, while the Belytschko-Tsay formulation is
employed in the remainder of the sheet metal which is an appropriate compromise for the large scale computations.

Another important technical aspect of the crash simulations with the shell elements is the employed number of
integration points through the thickness of the shells. The default (2 points) is insufficient for the crash analyses. Three
points is also inadequate in the current simulation guidelines because it results in a very quick formation of plastic hinges
in the sheet metal during crush. A minimum of 5 through-thickness integration points is currently recommended for the
crash simulations. Therefore, modification of the model in this regard is suggested for the general release.

Another commonly overlooked formulation aspect for the shell elements is the through thickness shear factor.
Recommended value is 0.833, which was used only in bumper structures of the current model (Figure 14). Changing the
factor to 0.833 is recommended.

In summary, the baseline Venza FEM model is developed following most of the recommended development procedures
for crash models. The modifications suggested above would meet few additional recommendations that would likely
increase the robustness of the model.. The NCAP and the side MDB barrier simulation results can be compared with the
actual crash tests conducted by NHTSA. The comparison of the simulation and the NCAP test shows somewhat stiffer
response of the FEM model with respect to the test (Figure 1.18.18 in the last FEV report). The maximum and the average
accelerations in the FEM model were accordingly higher than the test results. The baseline FEM model was deemed
acceptable for the purposes of the FEV study. Another important measure of the FEM model fidelity was the crash
duration time that was 20 ms shorter for the model compared to the test. This difference is noticeable because the overall
crash duration of 100 milliseconds. However, for the objectives of the FEM study, the model's crash pulse was deemed
acceptable, which for the described project schedule seemed quite reasonable.
17

-------
Review of the Low Development Vehicle Model

The FEV engineers have used the computational optimization methods based on the response surface formulation in order
to determine the distribution of material types and grades that would maximally reduce the weight of the vehicle while
maintaining the performance and controlling the cost. The part distribution of the resulting optimized LD design FEM
model is shown in Figure 15.

It is probably misleading to refer to the resulting FEM model as "Low Development" since it is a product of numerous
computational simulations and an in-depth engineering study. The resulting inventory of the material models used in the
LD FEM model is listed in Table 2. It is evident that there are numerous duplicates as well as unused materials. It would be
prudent to purge the list of material models from the LD FEM model as they may lead to errors. Some of the
inconsistencies that were found in the current LD FEM model may very well be a result of this model redundancy.

Two model files contain most of the material models:
• Venza_master_mat_list_r006.k
• Venza_Material_Db_Opt_dk2.k

The horizontal black line in Table 2 separates the material model specifications between the two files. These two were
unchanged for the last two versions of the FEM models that were downloaded from the project download site.

Figures 16-32 below show the stress-strain curves for the materials used in the BIW of the LD FEM model.

There are obvious duplicates in the model specifications that would be prudent to eliminate and modify the model
accordingly before its public release. In addition, there are some errors in the LD FEM model specifications that need to be
corrected.

Correction Item 1:

Material ID 9 (Figure 30) has stress-strain curves for different strain rates different strain rate curves intersect which is not
acceptable from the physical perspective.

Materials with IDs 8000006, 8000007, and 8000008 have elastic properties of lightweight materials such as Aluminum and
Magnesium alloys, but they utilize yield stress functions of HSLA 350/450 steel defined in file:
Venza_frt_susp_exhaust_30ms.k.

Currently, only the material 8000006 is used in the LD FEM model, although in the previous model version material ID

-------
8000008 was also used.

Correction Item 2:

Some material assignments in the LD FEM model are inconsistent which is probably a result of too many material models.
The mapping of material IDs on the BIW FEM model reveal several unsymmetrical model assignments. The most obvious
discrepancy is marked in Figure 33. Here, where one model part is modeled using the mild steel while its corresponding
symmetrical counterpart is modeled using the HSLA 350/450 steel.

Additional unsymmetrical material assignments are pointed with arrows in Figures 34-37.

Two possible outcomes of not pairing the symmetrical components with the same material ID are illustrated in Figures 36-
37. In Figure 36 the two different parts have different material assignments, which eventually refer to different material
properties. In case of the marked parts in Figure 37, the material IDs are different but because of the repeated material
models with different IDs, they eventually refer to the same material properties.

The above inconsistencies need to be corrected before the models are released into to the open domain.

Correction Item 3:

Another area of concern is the number of through thickness integration points for the shell elements in the current LD FEM
model. As it can be seen in Figure 38, almost all shell elements have just 2 integration points through the thickness. This is
clearly inadequate from the accuracy standpoint and may be responsible for some of the issuable simulation results shown
in the following figures.

Correction Item 4:

Figure 38 shows the thickness distribution in the LD FEM model of the BIW. In general, the thickness distribution is
symmetrical with respect to the centerline of the vehicle. However, a closer inspection reveals some asymmetries in
thickness assignments.

The arrows in Figures 40-41 show the parts that do not have symmetrical assignment of the values with respect to the
centerline of the vehicle. I have not checked the extent of the differences, but it something nonetheless that needs to be
corrected.
19

-------
Concern Item 1:

The following Figures 42-45 show some results that may warrant more investigation by the project engineers. Figures 42-
43 show the deformation of the main front rails for the baseline vehicle during the NCAP test simulation. The overall
deformation is symmetrical. In the case of the LD FEM model, as shown in Figures 44-45, the deformation is markedly
different from the baseline and unsymmetrical. The cause for that may be in the unsymmetrical material assignments for
the main rails that were present in the previous LD FEM model release and the simulations may have been based on that
version. As I was only using the simulation files, I could not tell if that was actually the case. However, I strongly suggest
following up on this point as these rails are extremely important for the crash energy management.

Concern Item 2:

One of the modeling aspects that is usually not considered in conventional mild steel vehicle designs is modeling of
material fracture/failure [24]. However, in the case of the high strength materials, such as the AHSS, the material fracture
is a real possibility that needs to be included in the models. One of the easiest failure models to implement is to specify
equivalent strain threshold for the material failure. Once this threshold is reached during crash simulation it leads to
gradual element deletion, which simulates crack formation. I would suggest consideration of such a simple model
enhancement that, while not comprehensive enough for production design, is probably sufficient for the purposes of the
FEV study. The strain rate sensitivity of the material models would help with the regularization of the strain localization
and related numerical problems [25].
If you are aware of better methods
employed and documented
elsewhere to help select and
analyze advanced vehicle materials
and design engineering rigor for
2017-2020 vehicles, please suggest
how they might be used to
improve this study.
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] Everything appears to be well-done and in accord with the state of the art.

[OSU-Tony Luscher] None known.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[OSU - Kristina Kennedy] FE Meshing Tool, ANSA. Did a quick Google search and did not find this product. Am familiar with ANSYS and others, but is ANSA an
industry-standard tool? Just confirming the wide-use of such a tool out of curiosity.

[Richman] The team of FEV, EDAG and Munro is an outstanding coalition of industry experts with the unique skills and expertise necessary to meet the
objectives of this project.
20

-------
Mass reduction efforts were organized into two segments: body and non-body. Body mass reduction focused on selection of materials (steel, aluminum,
plastics and magnesium), grades and gauges. Baseline Venza body design was not changed. Non-body mass reduction efforts examined all vehicle systems for
potential cost effective mass reduction opportunities. FEV utilized technical support from two recognized, technically qualified and highly respected
engineering services organizations: EDAG and Munro and Associates.
EDAG focused on body structural engineering and cost modeling. They conducted detailed reverse engineering study the baseline Venza to establish baseline
vehicle mass and structural characteristics and develop CAE, FE and collision simulation models. Calibrated FE models were used to develop an optimized
Venza body structure. EDAG Engineering analysis is thorough and reflects the high level of vehicle engineering expertise and know-how within the EDAG
organization. Modeling and simulation technologies utilized by EDAG are state-of-the art and EDAG has recognized competencies in effectively deploying those
tools.
The EDAG work presents a realistic perspective of achievable vehicle structure mass reduction using available design optimization tools, practical engineering
materials and available manufacturing processes. EDAG cost modeling of the baseline and reduced mass vehicle structures.
Munro lead the process of identifying, analyzing, screening and selecting cost effective mass reduction opportunities in all vehicle systems. Munro is a highly
respected engineering organization specializing in benchmarking and lean product design. Munro process for achieving product mass and cost optimization is
well developed and highly effective. They utilize a creative mix of functional analysis, competitive benchmarking, cross industry comparisons, advanced
materials and manufacturing process knowledge and sound engineering analysis. This segment of the study identified a significant number of practical mass
reduction concepts in all 20 vehicle sub-groups. The majority of mass reduction technologies selected for the final design are in some current level of volume
production and appear cost effective and realistically achievable by 2017.
FEV decomposed the total vehicle into 20 sub-systems. Each sub-system was aggressively examined to identify realistically achievable and cost effective mass
reduction opportunities. Majority of mass reduction achieved (90%) is concentrated in (7) vehicle sub-systems:
Mass
Reduction
Body 68 Kg
Suspension 69
Interior 42
Brakes 41
Engine 30
Transmission 19
Frame, Mounts 17
21

-------
These 7 sub-systems account for over 90% of the cost increases and decreases in this project.
This reviewer has experience in light weighting of body, suspension and engine systems. Comments in the following sections are limited to those vehicle sub-
groups.
A significant number of creative and innovative mass reduction ideas were developed and selected for the remaining (17) sub-systems not discussed in this
report. Many of the ideas appear to be appropriate consideration as part of a total vehicle efficiency improvement effort.
Body Optimization Overview
Body Sub-system includes: Body-in-White (BIW), Closures, Hood, Doors, Lift Gate, Fenders. This sub-system is the highest mass sub-group at 529 Kg, 31% of
total vehicle mass. Body group design and material selection have a dominant influence on vehicle NVH and collision performance. For that reason,
optimization of the body structure is a major focus of this project.
Body sub-system - BIW, Closures, Bumper, Fenders
Optimization results - 71 Kg mass reduction
$230 cost increase

FEV body mass reduction 68 Kg. (21 % of total vehicle mass reduction)
Baseline Toyota Venza body elements (BIW, closures, bumpers) are predominantly a mix of mild steel (48%) and HSS (49%) with a resulting mass of 529 Kg (31%
of total Venza mass). This mix of materials represents a comprehensive use of automotive grade steels available when the Venza was originally designed.
Body related mass reductions from this baseline are indicative of improvements made possible by advances in materials technology.
Venza baseline BIW structure was used for both the Lotus "Low Development" and EDAG material optimization analysis. Both studies reduced BIW mass by
similar amounts, Lotus LD: 61 Kg, EDAG: 54 Kg. Differences between Lotus and EDAG structures include: specific material grades and gauges and joining
technology. Lotus LD structure used conventional resistance spot welding while the EDAG structure included continuous laser welding for structurally
significant joints. BIW mass for the two structures are similar:
BIW Structure Mass
Baseline 386 Kg
Lotus Venza LD 325 Kg (-15.8%)
EDAG Venza 332 Kg (-14%)
Significant difference bending and torsional stiffness between the Lotus and EDAG structures (20%) do not appear to be fully explained by the relative
difference in mass between the structures. Structural stiffness for a constant shape is dependent on material gauge and modulus and not influenced by
strength properties. Auto body stiffness can be increased by improving attachment integrity. It would be helpful to understand the influence of laser seam

-------
welding on body NVH and collision performance.
Body Optimization
Body optimization was accomplished using EDAG body mass optimization process. The calibrated Venza FEA model was used. In this process alternate
material type, grade and gauge were evaluated for NVH and collision performance. Baseline Venza body structure was not altered. Materials evaluated include
advanced high strength steels (AHSS), aluminum, magnesium, plastics. Material gauges were selected based on component part requirements (NVH, Collision)
and properties of specific materials. The body mass optimization process explored the potential of HSS, AHSS, aluminum, magnesium and plastics.
Optimized body structure content summary:
Baseline Optimized Mass
Mass Mass Reduction
BIW 386.0 Kg 324.0
Materials Change
51.0 Kg (13.2%) HSS, AHSS, Gauge
Doors 95.7
95.6
Hood 17.8 10.1

Lift Gate 15.1 7.7

Fenders 6.8 4.9

Bumpers 7.5 7.5

528.9 Kg 457.7 Kg
BIW Optimization
7.7 (43%)
7.2 (48%)
1.9 (28%)
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
71.2 Kg (13.5%)
The EDAG optimized BIW is predominantly HSS and AHSS with appropriate gauge reductions. Baseline Venza is composed of 78% mild steel and 22% HSS. This
material mix is representative of a comprehensive use of available materials at the time this Venza model was designed. The optimization process selected HSS
and AHSS for over 80% of structure.
This study provides insight into practical BIW mass reductions achievable with recent and anticipated near term future advancements in automotive steels.
23

-------
Using AHSS aggressively with resultant gauge reductions achieved an 13.2% reduction in BIW mass (3% reduction in total vehicle mass). This finding is
consistent with similar investigations on the part of OEM organizations in North America and Europe.
Aluminum was selected for the hood, lift gate and fenders. Mass reduction achieved for those components were: Hood: 43%, Lift gate: 48% and Fenders: 28%.
Selection of aluminum for these body components is consistent with OEM production experience and several independent organization studies. The magnitude
of mass reduction achieved in this body group is also consistent with production experience.
Body Modeling - Comments
The following observations are submitted in the interest of completeness and do not diminish validity of findings and conclusions of the overall project.
Body Modeling - Service Loads
Vehicle models developed in this study are valid and useful for the intended scope of this project. Models addresses overall bending and torsional stiffness,
free body modal frequencies, roof strength, and four crash test load cases. These are good indicators and cover many of the primary structural performance
concerns.
This analysis does not address what are commonly referred to as "service loads," including jacking, twist ditch, pothole impacts, 2G bumps, towing loads,
running loads, etc. Running loads are typically suspension loads for a variety of conditions to address strength, stiffness and fatigue durability of the body and
suspension attachment structures and points. Without these other considerations, the optimization process could may unrealistically reduce mass in
components that have little effect on overall body stiffness or strength, yet are important for durability.
Body Modeling - Deformable Barrier
Modeling of deformable barriers has historically been an issue. Source, nature or origination of the deformable barriers (moving and fixed) used in this project
are not explained. In the offset deformable barrier crash test load cases, overall deformations, including barrier deformations are reported. The reporting
does, however, raise a modeling concern. Barrier deformations of over 515 mm are reported for the offset tests. The IIHS deformable barrier has 540 mm
thickness of deformable material. It is not expected to compress completely. Excessive barrier deformation has the potential to change the overall
acceleration and deformation scenarios reported and influence the mass optimization process.
Body Modeling - Average Acceleration
Overall acceleration issues are not reported in a format normally used by collision development engineers. Charts of unfiltered acceleration pulses are shown
and comparisons are made by evaluation of peak accelerations. "Average accelerations" are referred to, but in this report average is the average of left and
right side peak accelerations.
Average acceleration as represented by the slope of the filtered velocity/time curve is commonly used to evaluate relative collision performance of a structure.
Common practice is to try to steepen the curve in the early portion of the crash sequence (up to perhaps 50 ms) and to try to flatten the curve in the later parts.
The logic has to do with the motions of a restrained occupant within the structure. In addition, total velocity change, including rebound, is typically reviewed.
As an example, increasing front structure strength can increase restitution and rebound, which increases the overall change in velocity, or Delta-V, and can
have adverse effects on overall occupant performance. While peak accelerations are useful, unfiltered peaks can be misleading due to the noise/vibration
effect, and at best represent only a partial analysis.

-------
Body Modeling - Stiffness in Collision Simulation
In evaluating the performance of the optimized body structure, the analysts in general considered "less deformation" of the body structure to equate to "better
performance." Less deformation may be an index of structural stiffness but is not necessarily an indication of better collision performance. Less deformation
generally equates to higher decelerations and resulting forces on the occupant. It is likewise generally desirable to efficiently use as much of the allowable free
crush space as possible, not less.
Body Modeling - Door Opening
Part of the rear impact analysis includes an analysis of rear door opening deformation and an estimate of door openability post-crash. While this is an
interesting and useful analysis, it is not explained why it is done. It is not a required aspect of the regulations. Since it is in the report, a similar analysis should
probably be done for the front door openings in the front crash test load cases. Most if not all manufacturers have an in-house requirement that front doors
must be openable following a standard front crash test.
Non-body Design Optimization
This project included a major engineering effort to identify practical mass reduction opportunities in non-body component groups. A rigorous process was
followed to identify potential mass reduction concepts. This process selected a extraordinary number of technologies that were judged to be practical, cost
effective and in volume production now or will be in production by 2017. A few of the larger mass reduction ideas are discussed in the following sections.
Non-body mass reduction ideas selected for the final FEV vehicle design resulted in a 21% reduction in non-body sub-group mass reduction. A portion of the
mass reduction achieved in this area was the result of vehicle mass reduction (engine, wheels, tires). The majority of non-body mass reductions are
independent of other reductions in vehicle mass.
Suspension
Suspension sub-system - Wheels, Tires, Shock Absorbers,
Steering Knuckles, Control Arms, Springs,...
Optimization results - 69 Kg mass reduction
$0 cost increase
Major mass reductions in this group are:
Wheels and Tires 32.8 Kg Resized to new weight
Shock absorber 14.1 New light weight design
Front Control Arm 1.9 Convert to Aluminum
Front and Rear Knuckle 12.6 Conversion to Cast Aluminum
Front and Rear Sta. Bar 7.0 Innovative Al tube concept

-------
Other 0.6
Wheels
Downsizing wheels and tires (5) for the 317 Kg (18.5%) reduction in total vehicle mass is appropriate and is a normal consideration in OEM weight reduction
programs. Wheel and tire combinations selected represent a 22% mass reduction from the reduction for these components. This magnitude of mass reduction
is potentially achievable, but must be considered somewhat aggressive.
Knuckles
Conversion of steering knuckles to cast aluminum is a proven strategy. Estimated mass reduction by conversion to aluminum is 38% of knuckle mass.
Approximately 35% of knuckles on vehicles built in North America use aluminum knuckles. Mass reduction achieved in those programs range from 35% to 45%
depending on knuckle configuration. Knuckle mass reduction assessment in this study is achievable.
Control Arms
Conversion of the front control arm to forged aluminum results in a vehicle mass reduction of 2 Kg. Baseline Venza control arm design is typical of a design
used widely throughout the industry. A significant proportion of these arms are produced in aluminum. Mass reduction estimates for conversion of this
component is typical of the reductions seen in similar production programs.
Shock Absorber, Sway Bars
Reduced mass shock absorber/strut designs and the tubular sway bars are innovative concepts. Cost reduction of $58 is attributed to the reduced mass shock
absorber concept. Production viability and cost of this ideas is not known to this reviewer.
System Cost
Total cost for mass reductions in this group is estimated to be net $0. Cost savings resulting from downsized wheels and tires ($79) and low mass shock
absorbers ($58) offset cost increases for low mass arms, knuckles and stabilizer bars.
Engine
Optimization results - 30.4 Kg mass reduction
$ 43.96 cost reduction
Main sources of engine mass reduction:
Downsizing - constant performance 10.4 Kg (2.7 L to 2.4 L)
Cylinder Block - Al Mg Hybrid, liners 7.1
Valve train - Al castings, power metal 3.7
Cooling system - plastic housings 2.6

-------
Timing Drive - Plastic covers 1.5
Other 5.1
Engine - Downsizing
Largest mass (10.4 Kg) reduction came from downsizing the engine to a smaller displacement to maintaining baseline Venza performance levels. Assessing
appropriate engine weight for a downsized engine is a complex task. Changing displacement within a basic engine achieves small incremental mass reductions.
A broader perspective was used in this study. Based on competitive engine technology assessments, an engine was selected representing mass optimization
for the 2.4 L displacement. Mass of the new engine was adjusted based on sound engineering analysis to meet packaging and performance parameters of the
baseline engine-vehicle package. This approach represents an innovative, thorough and well-engineered approach to estimating optimized engine mass
reduction resting from vehicle mass reduction.
Developing a new engine involves massive investments in design, development and manufacturing. Production engines are designed for use in a broad range
of vehicles and for a period of time spanning several vehicle design cycles. Manufacturers may not have the opportunity to provide a mass optimized engine
for a specific vehicle.
The majority of engine mass reduction ideas selected for the FEV Venza exploit recent advances in materials and/or manufacturing technologies. Many small
gains were made converting cast iron housings to cast aluminum, and cast aluminum covers and brackets to cast magnesium or plastic. Most of the engine
mass reduction ideas selected have been proven in multiple high volume applications over several years. A few engine Ideas have less proven high volume field
experience and were identified by FEV as "D" level selection candidates.
27

-------
3. VEHICLE
CRASHWORTHINESS TESTING
METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR
(CAE only)
COMMENTS
Please comment on the methods
used to analyze the vehicle body
structure's structural integrity
(NVH, etc.) and safety
crashworthiness.
[Joost] The baseline testing and comparison process (pgs. 67-128) is very thorough. The team establishes credibility in the
proposed design by performing an initial baseline comparison against the production Venza - this suggests that the
modeling techniques used can reasonably predict the performance of the lightweight design. It is unfortunate that the
deformation mode comparisons could not be made quantitative (or semi-quantitative) somehow. Comparing how the
model and test look after a crash gives an indication of deformation mode, but the comparison seems subjective. For
example, image D-28 (pg 95) seems to show slightly different failure mechanisms in the CAE model versus the real test.

The report notes that the bushing mountings were rigid in the model while they likely failed in the real vehicle. I would
expect that these failures are designed into the vehicle to support crash energy management. The results crash pulses (pg
98) for the model and test look fairly similar, but it is unfortunate that this crash energy mechanism was not captured.

The intrusion correlation for the baseline model is very good. This again adds credibility to the modeling approach used
here.

On page 386 the report states that the Mg CCB was not included in the crash or NVH analysis. Replacing a steel CCB with
Mg is likely to have a significant impact on both crash and NVH performance. The technology is viable (and has been used
on production vehicles as stated) however the crash energy management and NVH performance must be offset by adding
weight elsewhere in the vehicle. The CCB plays a role in crash and a major role in NVH so I do not think that it is
appropriate to suggest that the material replacement will have the reported results in this case. My suggestion is to leave
the CCB as steel in the weight analysis (or go back and redo the crash and NVH modeling, which I suspect is not viable).

[Richman]
1) LS-Dyna and MSC-Nastran are current and accepted tools for this kind of analysis. FEM analysis is part science and
part art. EDAG has the experienced engineers and analysts required to generate valid simulation models and
results.
2) EDAG was thorough in their analysis, load-case selections and data for evaluation
3) The handling of acceleration data from the crash test simulations is a bit unusual, and further analysis of the data
is recommended.
28

-------
[OSU -Tony Luscher] Trifilar suspension apparatus was used to find the CG and moments of inertia of the engine and
other major components. The dynamic FEA modal setup was run using NASTRAN. Vibration modes were analyzed by the
CAE model and then compared with physical test data in order to correlate the FEA model to the physical model. Five
different load case configurations with appropriate barriers were placed against the full vehicle baseline model. Models
were created with high detail and fidelity.

[Simunovic] The correlations and modifications of the baseline vehicle FEM model to the experimental results were
primarily done on the measurements of vibrational and stiffness characteristics of the BIW. Once the stiffness of the BIW
model was tuned to the experimental results, it was considered to be sufficiently accurate to form the foundation for the
crash model. The vehicle crash FEM model was then correlated to the NCAP and MDB side impact. The correlations were
primarily based on the deformation modes and the FEM model was found to be satisfactory for the purposes of the FEV
study.

Comparison of the deformation in the NCAP crash in Figures 46-49 shows very good correlation of the deformation modes.
The deformation of the subframe shown in the Figures 48-49 also shows very high fidelity of the simulated deformation
compared to the experiment.

In summary, the correlation of the baseline FEM model with the NCAP test is quite satisfactory. The correlation with the
side MDB test was not elaborated in the report. However, the side impact is perhaps the most important and limiting
design aspect for the lightweight vehicles. The side impact is almost exclusively a structural problem that does not
compound the benefits of the reduced mass, as is the case of the frontal impact. A documented correlation of the baseline
FEM model with the side impact experiment will in my opinion be a very beneficial technical addition to the FEV project
that would significantly support the findings of the technical feasibility of the lightweight opportunities in the existing
vehicle design space.
Please describe the extent to
which state-of-the-art crash
simulation testing methods have
been employed as well as the
extent to which the associated
analysis exhibits strong technical
rigor.
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[Richman]
1) CAE modeling guidelines used appear to provide a rigorous and logical technical approach to the development of
the FE and the methods of analysis.
2) Method of evaluating and comparing acceleration levels in the various crash test scenarios is a bit unusual, a more
accepted method of comparing velocity/time plots and average accelerations is suggested.
[OSU -Tony Luscher] Global vehicle deformation and vehicle crash behaviors were analyzed and compared to the
deformation modes of test photographs. Fidelity was good. A few notes on these comparisons are noted on this page in
the additional comments section.
29

-------
[Simunovic] The FEV Low Development vehicle study has been reviewed following the instructions by the US EPA. It has
been found that the FEV study followed most of the current technical guidelines and the state-of-the-art practices for
computational crash simulation and design. Several inconsistencies were found in the developed FEM models that need to
be addressed and corrected before the FEM models are released for the general use.
If you have access to FMVSS crash
setups to run the model under
different scenarios in LS-DYNA, are
you able to validate the FEV/EDAG
design and results? In addition,
please comment on the AVI files
provided.
[Joost] N/A

[OSU - Tony Luscher] This reviewer has expertise in crash simulation. However due to time constraints the model was not
run under different scenarios in LS-DYNA. No AVI files were found.
If you are aware of better methods
and tools employed and
documented elsewhere to help
validate advanced materials and
design engineering rigor for 2017-
2020 vehicles, please suggest how
they might be used to improve the
study.
[Joost] N/A

[Richman] Methods and tools were appropriate.

[OSU-Tony Luscher] None found.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[OSU - Kristina Kennedy] "Bending and torsional stiffness values did not provide acceptable performance (when replacing with HSS)". This is an "of course"
comment, right? HSS would absolutely produce worse results when replacing steel. These results were expected, correct?

[OSU -Tony Luscher] The caption on Figures 1.8.13 to 1.8.14 state that they are at 100 ms although the previous paragraph lists them as occurring at 80 ms.
The muffler deformation looks quite different in Figure 1.8.14.

Figure 1.8.33 is unclear and cannot be seen.
30

-------
4. VEHICLE
MANUFACTURING COST
METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR
(CAE BIW and Vehicle)
COMMENTS
Please comment on the methods
used to analyze the mass-reduced
vehicle body structure's
manufacturing costs.
[Joost] Overall, the costing methods used in this study seem to be very thorough. The details of the approach provide
considerable credibility to the cost estimates, however there will always be concerns regarding the accuracy of cost models
for systems where a complete, detailed engineering design has not been established. I believe that this report does a good
job of representing the cost penalties/benefits of the technologies but I would still anticipate negative response from
industry. There a few examples where I believe that the cost was underestimated or where additional data could be helpful
in corroborating the results:

The engine cost comparison suggests that the 2.4L engine will cost less than the 2.7L engine due to reduced material
content (smaller engine). The analysis goes on to say that the remaining costs (manufacturing, install, etc.) would be about
the same for both engines. This seems credible, but is it possible to compare the price of both engine types as well? It may
be possible to find prices for both of these engines from a Toyota dealer, and while price is certainly different than cost, it
would be helpful in establishing that the cost differential estimate is reasonably accurate.

Regarding the cylinder head subsystem (pg 211), the report notes that a switch from Mg to plastic for the head covers
introduces engineering challenges related to the cam phaser circuitry. While the report identifies two production examples
of this change, these are for high cost engines. It seems unlikely that the designs would achieve the quoted cost savings
given that this has only been applied to high cost engines and there are recognized difficulties in the engineering/design.

Regarding the body redesign, the estimated cost increase due to materials and manufacturing ($231.43, pg 333) for a
weight savings of 67.7kg produces a weight reduction penalty of about $3.42/kg-saved which seems appropriate for the
materials and assembly processes suggested in the report.

I don't find the cost estimates for the seats to be credible (pg 378). If it's possible to reduce the weight of the seats (which
represent a significant portion of vehicle weight) while saving significant cost, why would there be any steel seats in
production? These are "bolt on" parts that are provided to the OEMs by suppliers so this would be a relatively easy change
to make if the cost/weight trade-off shown in this report is true. The report should, at the very least, address why these
kinds of seats are not more prevalent in current vehicles.

Why is there a cost savings for the front axle hub (pg 555)? If you are proposing to scallop the hub during forging then you
will still need the same amount of input material - some of it will be removed during scalloping, but you will not get a cost
31

-------
savings. Also, it's not made explicitly clear that the current hub is forged. If you are proposing to move from a cast hub to a
forged hub then the cost will most certainly increase. If the cost savings here is due to the estimated weight savings in the
final part (i.e. pay for less material) then this indicates that the model is not correctly capturing the yield from the process.

[Richman] Body structure mass optimization was conducted by EDAG. Body structure was not altered form the baseline
structure. Mass optimization process examined an appropriate range of material types, grades and gauges. Material
properties used appear valid for the respective materials and grades. NVH and collision performance results appear
consistent and logical with no significant dis-continuities of inconsistencies. In general the process used is excellent and
the results appear realistic and valid.
Costing models were maintained by EDAG. A complete baseline vehicle cost model was developed and calibrated to the
estimated cost of the current Venza. The baseline model was used to track cost changes driven by mass reduction
technologies.
Cost estimates for mass reduction technologies are based on detailed analysis of the products, materials and process
utilized. Estimating costs for new or emerging technologies is a challenging process. Advanced technology cost estimates
are based on a combination scaling from known products if available, benchmarking from similar products, material
supplier costs, analysis of advanced manufacturing cost, and expert estimates. Labor rates and manufacturing overheads
are maintained at documented industry typical levels.
This cost tracking approach is fundamentally sound and valid. Cost estimates for new technologies are subject to validity
of cost estimates and engineering judgments in the estimate. This project included rigorous engineering assessments of all
mass reduction technology costs.
For most mass reduction technologies selected, cost estimates appear realistic and are consistent with current production
costs and prior vehicle mass reduction studies. In the area of body sheet materials there appears to be some assumptions
that result in estimated technology costs as much as 25% higher than volume production experience would suggest. This
are is discussed in more detail in this report.
Costs attributed to optimization of the body are reported as:
Mass Reduction
Cost $/Kg saved
BIW $110 $ 2.19 HSS, AHHS
Hood $ 39 $ 5.08 Aluminum
Lift Gate $ 30 $ 4.16 Aluminum
Fenders $ 22 $10.93 Aluminum

-------
Total
$210 $ 3.20
Cost increases projected for HSS and AHSS are marginally higher than have been reported in analytical studies and OEM
experience in volume production. Production vehicle studies of AHSS in auto body applications have suggested cost impact
of reduced body mass can offset a majority of the cost premiums associated with these materials.
Cost increases projected for aluminum sheet application are significantly higher than has been seen in prior studies and in
production OEM experience. The optimized body includes three aluminum components: Hood, Fenders and Lift Gate.
Mass reductions attributed to these three product areas are consistent with OEM production experience. Estimated cost
increases are significantly higher than have been seen in production experience.
Using the hood as an example, total cost of the baseline hood is estimated to be $43 while total cost of the aluminum hood
is estimated to be $93. Mass savings with the aluminum hood is 7.7 Kg resulting in a net cost per Kg mass reduction of
$6.49. Production program experience with aluminum hoods typical find a cost premium below $4.50 per Kg mass
reduction. Processing costs for a steel or aluminum hood should be similar. That similarity is reflected the EDAG cost
model. The main cost difference between hoods is in material cost. Examining the EDAG cost model it appears aluminum
sheet products were assessed a base metal cost and a grade premium. The two factors appear to be combined in the cost
model results a raw material cost substantially higher than actual market price for these materials.
EDAG cost models for auto body sheet materials (AHSS and aluminum) appear to be overstating raw material costs. A
review of the costing models and correlation with market prices for the materials and how raw material cost for sheet
products is established in the models may be appropriate.
[OSU -Tony Luscher] Mass reduction was analyzed first on a system level and then by a component level basis. Mass
reduction concepts were based upon a very comprehensive literature review of new materials and manufacturing
processes and alternative designs ideas that appear in the open literature and at trade shows. An assessment of these was
made in terms of technological readiness, fitness for use in mass production, risk, and cost. In addition there were
consultation with industry and experts.

[Simunovic] This is not my area of expertise.
Please describe the extent to
which state-of-the-art costing
methods have been employed as
well as the extent to which the
associated analysis exhibits strong
technical rigor.
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[Richman] Costing models are thorough covering all elements of total production cost (material, processing, equipment,
tooling, freight, packaging,...). Baseline cost model was calibrated to baseline vehicle cost projection. The basic model is
complete and sound.
Cost estimates for mass reduction technologies are the result of a rigorous engineering process utilizing benchmarking
data, material and component costs from suppliers and detailed analysis of manufacturing costs. Sound creative
engineering analysis was used to scale product cost to this specific vehicle application. Accuracy of new technology cost
33

-------
estimates is dependent on the knowledge, skill, experience and engineering judgment of the individuals making the
estimates. Munro Associates conducted this segment of the project. Munro is a highly respected organization with strong
qualifications in product cost analysis. It is reasonable to assume cost estimates in this study are valid estimates for the
mass reduction technologies.
One area of cost estimate concern is reduced mass sheet products. In this area, material and equipment costs attributed
to the reduced mass technologies are significantly higher than actual production experience would support. Source of the
discrepancy is not clear form the information in the project review documents.
[OSU - Tony Luscher] The impact of costs, associated with mass reduction, was evaluated using FEV's methodology and
tools as previously employed on prior powertrain analyses for EPA. Cost reduction assumptions are clearly laid out and are
reasonable. The report does a good job of realizing the inherent challenges and risks in applying any new technology, let
alone lightweight technology, to a vehicle platform. FEV describes the component interactions both positive and negative
in its recommendations.

The actual values in the EXCEL files were not checked.

[Simunovic] This is not my area of expertise.
If you are aware of better methods
and tools employed and
documented elsewhere to help
estimate costs for advanced
vehicle materials and design for
2017-2020 vehicles, please suggest
how they might be used to
improve this study.
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[Richman] Process methodology and execution used is one of the best this reviewer has seen.

[OSU-Tony Luscher] None found.

[Simunovic] This is not my area of expertise.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[Joost] The change from a cast Al engine block with cast Fe liners to a cast-over Mg/AI hybrid with PWTA coated cylinders is very interesting, but the cost
penalty estimate seems low relative to what I would expect. Previous work exploring the use of Mg intensive engines (which did not include the added
complexity of cast-in Al liners) suggests a cost penalty of $3.89 per pound saved (see
http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/lm 08/3 automotive metals-cast.pdf report B) versus this report which suggests a cost penalty of $3.51
per kilogram saved, about half as expensive. The cited study was performed on a 2.5 L engine, comparable to the Venza. The primary difference is that the
Venza study includes downsizing which would save on material costs, but I'm not confident that the savings would be as substantial as indicated in this report. It
seems that something has been underestimated.
34

-------
There are several examples where a cost savings has been calculated by reducing the size of a component, despite using more expensive material. For example
the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield subsystem shows a savings for the caliper subsystem and a modest increase in the cost of the rotor and shield. Some of the
cost savings here is due to reducing the size of the system (scaling to the 2008 Toyota Prius). However, there would still be a weight savings (albeit lower) if the
conventional cast iron materials were used and downsized to the 2008 Toyota Prius - this is the likely outcome in a real automotive environment. Given the
option to choose a more expensive, exotic, untested system that saves significant weight versus a conventional low cost system that saves less weight, it seems
like an OEM would choose the conventional solution. In this case the suggested weight savings are technically possible but would never happen in a practical
automotive environment.

[Richman] A review of cost development for reduced mass sheet product should be reviewed. Current model would lead to de-selecting some low mass
sheet based solutions due to unrepresentative cost assessment.

[OSU - Kristina Kennedy] Table 1.7.1: NVH Results Summary. The "Weight Test Condition" and "Weight BIW" are ALSO outside of limits (> 5%), but not noted
in results. Only those highlighted in red are noted as "failures". All failures (> 5%) should be called out specifically since that was their target.

[OSU -Tony Luscher] There are many typos and fragmented sentences in these sections. These should be corrected. Bookmark references do not all work.
35

-------
5. CONCLUSION AND
FINDINGS
COMMENTS
Are the study's conclusions
adequately backed up by the
methods and analytical rigor of the
study?
[Joost] Yes. I identified various areas where the analysis or report could be improved, but overall the methods used here
provide a credible and reasonable estimate of the potential for weight savings. Based on some of my earlier comments I
would expect that actual costs to be somewhat higher than predicted in this study. Additionally, real vehicles share
components across platforms so using vehicle-specific components would add additional cost. It is possible that the cost
curve would cross $0/lb-saved at a lower total weight savings than suggested here.

[Richman] Study conclusions and findings are well supported by the analytical rigor, tools used and expertise of the
organizations involved.
EDAG conducted a detailed reverse engineering process to define baseline Venza component mass and structural
performance. The process included: vehicle teardown, identification of component mass and material composition and
component scanning to create digital models of structural components. Part connections (spot weld, seam weld, laser
weld), dimensions (location, weld diameter, weld length), and characteristics were documented during scanning process.
Material property data was obtained by coupon testing part samples.
Scan data, part weight and material information were used to create a CAE model of the vehicle structure. A finite
element (FE) model was created from the CAE model using ANSA mesh software. The FE model was used to evaluate NVH
characteristics (bending, torsion, modal analysis) of the structure using NASTRAN. Model results were compared and
calibrated with analytical test results to establish the baseline analysis model. CAE crash performance simulations (LS-
DYNA) were conducted to verify model correlation with actual vehicle crash test performance in National Highway Traffic
Safety Association (NHTSA) regulatory performance testing. Model results were calibrated to actual Venza crash
performance data. The correlated crash model became the baseline crash model for the remaining load cases.
EDAG is widely recognized as highly competent and experienced in vehicle structural modeling, NVH and collision
simulation and structural engineering. LS-Dyna, MSC/Nastran and ANSA are valid and widely-used simulation tools,
commonly used and accepted within the engineering community and the industry to perform this analysis. The approach
used by EDAG to develop Venza structural models is a state-of-the art methodology utilizing proven modeling tools.
Structural models developed in this project were calibrated to physical test results of actual vehicle structures. Simulation
results appear reasonable and logical, building confidence in the fidelity of the analysis. Models have excellent correlation
to actual vehicle performance. FMVSS crash results are consistent with bending and torsional stiffness properties. There
is no apparent reason to question results of this modeling and simulation effort. These models would be expected to be
valid for comparison of design alternatives. These models would be expected to provide reliable assessments of NVH and
collision performance of the Venza structure.
36

-------
Report conclusions with regard to NVH and collision performance do not substantially overreach the capability and results
of the analysis. In some relatively minor areas, assessment to of the "optimized" structure is not fully supported by
generally recognized measures of structural performance. These few relatively uncertainties do not diminish the overall
conclusion that the modeling and simulation efforts are well done and the major conclusions are valid useable.
[OSU - Glenn Daehn] At the time of review, Section G "Conclusions and Recommendations" is unavailable. We hope that
in this section FEV will point out the most promising actions that auto makers may take to reduce mass while conserving
cost.

[OSU -Tony Luscher] The report's conclusions are based on sound engineering principals of good rigor.
Are the conclusions about the
design, development, validation,
and cost of the mass-reduced
design valid?
[Joost] Yes. As above, there is reason to believe that the true cost will be higher than predicted here, but I think this
analysis provides a useful estimate.

[Richman] Design development and validation conclusions are well supported in this study. Cost model is valid and cost
conclusions are generally realistic. There appears to be a systematic discrepancy in cost modeling of low mass sheet
products. This discrepancy has a minor impact on conclusions of this study.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] This study is carefully crafted with excellent attention to engineering detail. It is important to note
that the overall environment for vehicle design, manufacture and use is continually changing. See the "Additional
Comments" section of this document for further development of the implications of this.

[OSU - Tony Luscher] This reviewer found the overall work to be thorough and well documented. Therefore the
conclusions are well supported and validated by the engineering and modeling in the report.
Are you aware of other available
research that better evaluates and
validates the technical potential
for mass-reduced vehicles in the
2017-2020 timeframe?
[Joost] I have not seen a report as thorough as this. There are several examples of resources that provide useful
information regarding weight reduction potential such as
Cheah, L.W. Cars on a Diet: The Material and Energy Impacts of Passenger Vehicle Weight Reduction in the U.S.
Joshi, A.M. Optimizing Battery Sizing and Vehicle Lightweighting for an Extended Range Electric Vehicle
Lutsey, N. Review of technical literature and trends related to automobile mass-reduction technology

[Richman] This reviewer has monitored automotive mass reduction studies in North America and Europe for several
years. This study is the best evaluation of mass reduction opportunities and associated costs this reviewer has seen.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] There are no more comprehensive or detailed studies that we are aware of. This is an excellent
compilation of ideas for practical vehicle mass reduction and fuel efficiency improvement.
37

-------
[OSU - Tony Luscher] None found.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] The study does an excellent job within its scope. As this reviewer sees the scope, the driving question is: Can a well-engineered relatively
modern vehicle (2010 Toyota Venza) have its mass reduced by 20% or more, without significant cost penalty and while maintaining crashworthiness. The
answer to that question is a clear "YES". Further, this conclusion is backed with rigor and attention to detail. This is in my mind, very clear, well-done and
technically rigorous.

This reviewer believes that there are a few other important questions that were not asked. These include:

1) Will the proposed changes in design pose any other important risks in manufacture or use? This can include: warranty exposure, durability, increased noise,
vibration and harshness, maintenance concerns, etc., etc.

2) Will increasing regulatory constraints and/or consumer expectations require increases in vehicle mass, opposing the mass reductions provided by the
improved practices outlined in this study?

Both these issues will make vehicle light weighting more difficult than this report suggests. With respect to issue 1) there are a number of materials and design
substitutions that may produce concerns with durability, manufacturability and warranty claims. For example when substituting polymers for metals, there are
new environmental embrittlement modes that may cause failure and warranty claims. Also, if substituting aluminum for steel, multi-material connections may
cause galvanic corrosion problems. When using thinner sheets of higher strength steel, formability may be reduced and springback may be more problematic.
Both these issues may preclude the use of the stronger material with a similar design and may also increase the time and cost involved with die development.
Lastly there are always risks in any new design. For example, when using new brake designs, pad wear and squeal may be more pronounced. All of these issues
may cause a manufacturer to avoid the new technology.
There are also local constrains on material thicknesses that are outside this review methodology. For example while a roof rail may meet crash and stiffness
criteria, it may deflect excessively or permanen
thickness gauges than this study may indicate.
criteria, it may deflect excessively or permanently if a 99th percentile male pulls on it exiting a vehicle. Similarly, parking lot and hail dents may require greater
The problem of vehicle light-weighting and improved fuel economy is seen here through the lens as being an engineering problem to be solved. And in many
ways it is. However, the forces of consumer expectations and behaviors are an essential part of the problem. As an interesting anecdote, the Model T Ford had
a fuel economy of about 20 MPG, very similar to the average fuel economy of vehicles on the road today. No modern consumer would choose a Model T for
many obvious reasons. Our cars have become extensions of our living rooms with many electrical motors driving windows, mirrors, seats and complex and
costly HVAC and infotainment systems. All of these systems add weight, complexity and use power. Further increased complexity of engines to improve
emissions and increase fuel economy has increased engine mass.

-------
This study shows that with good engineering we can reduce vehicle mass of an existing vehicle by 20% with little to no increased cost or adverse consumer
reaction. Based on our current course, it is just as likely this benefit will be taken by improved mandated safety and emission features as well as improved
creature comforts.

Much can be gained through enlightened consumer behavior (assuming the average consumer wants to reduce energy use and carbon footprint). While much
of this is outside the scope of this report, in particular it would be useful if the average consumer would understand the lifecycle environmental impacts of
vehicle choice and of varied vehicle design, and would adopt a 'less is more' ethic and see their transportation systems as that, simply transportation. A more
minimalist ethic that would move against increasing vehicle size and the creep of multiple motors for seats, mirrors, windows, etc., would reduce acquisition
cost, maintenance cost and energy cost. This is in addition, of course, to the usual advice to reduce fuel consumption (limit trips, limit speed, tire pressure,
carpooling, etc. etc.) is still valuable.

It should also be noted that there are other potentially low-cost actions that can be easily adopted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce dependence
on foreign oil. One of these is widespread adoption of natural gas fuels for personal transportation. Use of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), has lower fuel cost
than gasoline, produces less pollution and greenhouse gas emission per energy used, and requires only very modest changes to conventional vehicle
architecture, with no significant increases in complexity. The cost and size of a CNG tank and the development of refueling infrastructure are the main barriers
to adoption of a technology that could have important and positive societal benefits.

This is an excellent and useful study. It is important however to recognize the limitations of purely engineering solutions. And even within the engineering
realm, there are many reasons that the implementation of the solutions in this paper study will require much effort to become part of mainstream
automobiles.

[OSU - Kristina Kennedy] With respect to measuring powertrain CG and moment of inertia, notes "oscillation as an undamped" condition. Just confirming,
this means no dynamic dampers were used in the engine room modeling? Is this realistic? Acceptable practice?
39

[Richman] Yes. Overall objectives) of the project (20% mass reduction, less than 10% cost increase) are timely and
consistent with industry interests in the short term.

Retaining the OEM designed and field proven body structure eliminates uncertainty related to evaluation of novel and un-
proven structures. This analysis clearly identifies body mass reduction achievable with new and near term future grades of
HSSand AHSS.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] Without question. The only similar study also targeted the Venza. This provides much additional
analysis and many additional ideas beyond the Lotus study.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] The major contribution of this study was to pull together and evaluate all of the current proven
concepts that are applicable to a lightweight vehicle in the 2017-2020 timeframe. It is successful in this regard.
Do the study design concepts have
critical deficiencies in its
applicability for 2017-2020 mass-
reduction feasibility for which
revisions should be made before
the report is finalized? If so,
please describe.
[Joost] No - I would not say that any deficiencies here are "critical".

[Richman] Major findings of the project appear practical for implementation by 2017-20.
Two technologies selected for inclusion in the final vehicle concept appear "speculative" for 2017-20, Co-cast
magnesium/aluminum block and MMC brake rotors. Both technologies are identified as "D" level for implementation.
Designing, developing and establishing production capacity for a new engine block is a time consuming and costly process.
Investments would be required by OEM manufactures and casting suppliers. It is not clear the level of human resources
40

-------
and capital investment required for this technology could be justified the basis of the mass reduction potential of (7 Kg).
Aluminum MMC brake rotors were selected for inclusion in the final vehicle configuration. In the judgment of this
reviewer, this technology is the most speculative technology selected for the final vehicle configuration. MMC rotors have
been in development for over 25 years. Development experience with these rotors has generally not been acceptable for
typical customer service. The minimum mass MMC rotor design selected in this project is a radical (by automotive
standards) multi piece bolted composite design with an MMC rotor disc. This design is identified as a "D" rated technology
and a mass savings of 9 Kg. The aluminum MMC portion of the mas reduced rotor assembly would be regarded as
"speculative" at this time.
Cost models used to assess low mass sheet product may have some questionable assumptions. For this project,
adjustment in the cost model is unlikely to influence he material selection process. Correction in this area would have a
greater impact on technology screening and selection to achieve mass reductions above 20%.
[OSU - Glenn Daehn] Conclusions and recommendations section is missing. This is an important opportunity to reinforce
the most important actions that automakers can take.

[Richman] No. The result of his study is a logical and cost effective advancement in the development of more efficient
passenger vehicles for the 2017-20 time frame.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] It seems apparent that vehicles are moving more and more to multi-materials construction and as
we move away from steel-based construction, joined primarily by resistance spot welds, there will be need for additional
joining technologies. Laser welding is mentioned as one possible replacement for resistance spot welds, but it is expected
that over time there will be much more use of structural adhesives, self piercing rivets, conformal joints and other joining
strategies for the BIW.
Are there any other areas outside
of the direct scope of the analysis
(e.g., vehicle performance,
durability, drive ability, noise,
vibration, and hardness) for which
the mass-reduced vehicle design is
likely to exhibit any compromise
[Joost] All of the areas listed here are somewhat concerning, but given the switch to fairly conventional materials I believe
that durability, driveability, and NVH should be not be a significant issue. Detailed analysis work in these areas would likely
require some redesign which may add cost or weight, but I don't think it would be overwhelming.

[Richman] None identified by this reviewer.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] Yes. There are many other details with respect to nuances of customer expectations, durability,

-------
from the baseline vehicle?
warranty risks and manufacturability that are discussed elsewhere in this review. This does not diminish the importance of
this great work. Just points out there are an enormous amount of detailed work required to build an automobile, and the
job is not finished.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[OSU - Kristina Kennedy] Overall, well-written and well-done...my conclusion (which they also reached) is YES, NVH WILL SUFFER when replacing steel with
HSS and will OF COURSE make the vehicle MORE STIFF.

[Simunovic] The FEV report is quite exhaustive. I would suggest that it be released in a hypertext format that can allow different navigation paths through it.
Also, the dynamic Web-based technologies can be used for effective model documentation, presentation and distribution. I would also recommend that more
details on the actual optimization process, including the objective function specification, and the final consolidation of the model, be added to the
documentation.
                                                                                                                                            42

-------
4.  References




FEV. Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle.  2012.
                                                                                           43

-------
Appendix A: Resumes of Peer Reviewers

William Joost
3300 East West Hwy Apt 534 william.joost@gmail.com Mobile: (202) 674-8900
Hyattsville, MD 20782

Education:
Working toward Ph.D. Materials Science and Engineering Est. May 2014
University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
M.S. Materials Science and Engineering May 2009
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
B.S. Materials Engineering May 2005
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), Troy, NY.

Employment Experience:
General Engineer Jan. 2010-Present
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC
- Serves as the Technology Area Development Manager for the Lightweight Materials portfolio in the
Vehicle Technologies Program (VTP). Supports research on improving properties, manufacturability &
joining, and modeling & simulation of advanced steels, aluminum alloys, and magnesium alloys for
automotive applications.
- Directs a budget of ~$10M per year supporting research in structural metals for conventional and electric
drive vehicles. Manages projects that involve teams from diverse disciplines including materials science,
mechanical engineering, computer science, and physics. Supports interaction between participants from
industry, national laboratories, and academia.
- Develops solicitation topics, coordinates proposal reviews, and manages project performance. Participates
in the formulation, justification, tracking, and execution of the Lightweight Materials budget. Manages
publication of Annual Report for the Lightweight Materials sub-program. Coordinates activities in metals
with the Office of Advanced Manufacturing, U.S Department of Energy.
- Led the light-duty vehicles portion of the 2011 VTP Advanced Materials Workshop. Used the industry-
supported results to develop new program goals, establish weight reduction targets for vehicle systems,
and draft road mapping priorities.

Manufacturing Engineer/Equipment Engineering Supervisor Apr. 2008-Dec. 2009
Heraeus Materials Technology LLC, Chandler, AZ
- Managed the Equipment Engineering Team, responsible for maintaining functionality, capability, and
uptime of ~180 pieces of capital equipment including high power, high vacuum, and precision machining
tools.
- Created a high yielding process technique for Pt-containing alloys, saving more than $500,000 per year in
refining costs
- Developed vacuum induction melting (VIM) and hot rolling processing techniques for specialty Co, Ni, and
Fe based alloys and intermetallic materials
- Introduced a scrap metal recycling process for machining chips of Co and Pt based alloys, reducing scrap
costs by more than $40,000 per month

Process Engineer/Manufacturing Engineering Production Supervisor Oct. 2005-Apr. 2008
Heraeus Materials Technology LLC, Chandler, AZ
- Managed a 16-person rolling team across four shifts
- Developed a stress/strain model of the hot rolling process which included equipment behavior and
material characteristics
- Modeled material properties as a function of alloy and ingot dimensions to automate roll schedule creation
- Applied Design of Experiments methodology in melting and hot rolling processes to identify significant
process factors and improve yields on high value sputtering targets

-------
Research Experience:
Graduate Researcher in Ph.D. program, Materials Science and Engineering Aug. 2010 - Present
University of Maryland, College Park, MD
- Exploring the microstructural-scale deformation behavior of Ti alloys using computational materials
science techniques
- Developing finite element models (ANSYS) of Ti microstructures and determining the impact of grain
interaction stresses on the deformation mechanisms during creep

Graduate Researcher in M.S. program, Materials Science and Engineering Jan. 2007-May 2009
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
- Determined sputtering recipes for optimal deposition of textured Ru films in perpendicular magnetic
recording media
- Characterized the effects of CoCrX alloy seed layers for Ru in perpendicular magnetic recording media by
X-ray diffraction, Rutherford backscattering, atomic force microscopy, and transmission electron
microscopy
- Demonstrated improved coherency at the interface of Ru films deposited on CoCrV seed layers by
calculation of Ru film strain energy

Publications and Presentations
1) Joost, W., Das, A., Alford, T.L. "Effects of varying CoCrV seed layer deposition pressure on Ru crystallinity
in perpendicular magnetic recording media" Journal of Applied Physics, 106, 073517 (2009).

2) Joost, W. "Lightweight Materials for Vehicles: Needs, Goals, and Future Technologies." Invited
presentation at the 47th Sagamore Army Materials Research Conference on Advanced Lightweight Metals
Technology, St. Michaels, MD, 06/17/2010.

3) Joost, W. "Lightweight Materials for Vehicles: Needs, Goals, and Future Technologies." Invited keynote
presentation at the 3rd Annual Advanced Lightweight Materials for Vehicles conference, Detroit, MI,
8/11/2010.

4) Joost, W. "Materials Development for Vehicle Weight Reduction and the Impacts on Energy Efficiency."
Invited keynote presentation at the Materials Science and Technology (MS&T) 2011 conference, Columbus,
OH, 10/18/2011.
45

-------
GLENN S. DAEHN

Department of Materials Science and Engineering
The Ohio State University
2041 College Road, Columbus, OH 43210
P: 614/292-6779, E: Daehn.1@osu.edu. W: osu.edu/mse/~daehn

EDUCATION:
STANFORD UNIVERSITY Palo Alto, CA
Ph.D., Materials Science & Engineering, 1988.

STANFORD UNIVERSITY Palo Alto, CA
M.S., Materials Science & Engineering, 1985.

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY Evanston, Illinois
B.S. (departmental honors), Materials Science & Engineering, 1983.
Received Gotaas Award for outstanding undergraduate research.

EXPERIENCE:
11/87-pres Professor (1996-pres), Assoc, Asst. OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, Columbus, OH
Teaching and research focus on mechanical behavior and processing of
structural materials. High velocity sheet metal forming and mechanical behavior
of composites are focus areas.

7/04-10/07 V. P. Technology EXCERA MATERIALS GROUP Worthington, OH
Co-founder (1993) developer/manufacturer ceramic composites by reactive processing.
Sabbatical in 04-05 academic year. OSU-based, technology now
commercialized by Fireline, Inc. & Rex Materials Group.

1/97-7/97 Visiting Scientist, ROCKWELL SCIENCE CENTER, Thousand Oaks, CA
Sabbatical period; engaged in manufacturing and materials performance issues.

9/83-11/87 Research Assistant, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, Palo Alto, CA
Dissertation under Oleg D. Sherby: laminated composites of superplastic
ultrahigh carbon steel and stainless steel.

SELECT PROFESSIONAL AWARDS & ACTIVITIES:
2010 - pres Executive Director; Honda-Ohio State Partnership

2010 Named Fellow ASM International

2010 - Member, Board of Trustees, ASM Materials Education Foundation.

2010- Chair, International Impulse Forming Group

2009 - pres Director, Ohio Manufacturing Institute - New organization focused on linking
industry and Ohio's research assets

2009 Innovators Award of Ohio State College of Engineering

2008- Founding Vice-Chair, International Impulse Forming Group

2007 ASM Jacquet-Lucas Award for Excellence in Metallography.
46

-------
2002-3       Served on National Research Council Committee on "Use of Lightweight
             Materials in 21st Century Army Trucks"

1996         One of 13 invited speakers at second National Academy of Engineering Frontiers
             of Engineering Meeting

1995-1997    Chair, IMS Shaping and Forming Committee

1995         Named Mars G.  Fontana Professor of Metallurgical Engineering.

1992         National Young Investigator of National Science Foundation.

1992         Army Research Office Young Investigator Award.

1992&'00, 04 Lumley Research Award of Ohio State University College of Engineering.

1992         Robert Lansing Hardy Gold Medal of IMS, recognizing outstanding promise in
             the  broad field of metallurgy.

1990         ASM Marcus A. Grossmann Young Author Award, for "Deformation of Whisker-
             Reinforced MMC's Under Changing Temperature Conditions".
SELECTED RECENT PUBLICATIONS
"Creep Behavior and Deformation Mechanisms for Nanocluster-Strengthened Ferritic Steels",
M. C. Brandes, L. Kovarik, M. Miller, G. S. Daehn and M. J. Mills, in press: Acta Materialia
(2011).

"Predictive Mechanism for Anisotropy Development in the Earth's Inner Core", D. M. Reaman,
G. S. Daehn and W. R. Panero, accepted in Earth Planetary Science Letters (2011).

"Dislocation Mediated Time-Dependent Deformation in Crystalline Solids", M. J. Mills and G. S.
Daehn, Chapter in: Computational Methods for Microstructure-Property Relationships, S. Ghosh
and D.  M. Dimiduk, editors, Springer Science, 311-363 (2011).

"Energy Field Methods and Electromagnetic Metal Forming", G. S.  Daehn, Chapter 18 in:
Intelligent Energy Field Methods and Interdisciplinary Process Innovations, Wenwu Zhang,
Editor,  CRC Press, 2011, pp. 471-504.

"Production of Low-Volume Aviation Components Using Disposable Electromagnetic Actuators"
Steven Woodward, Christian Weddeling, Glenn Daehn, Verena Psyk, Bill Carson, A. Erman
Tekkaya, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 211, Iss. 5, pp. 886-895, (2011).

"Electromagnetic Impulse Calibration of High Strength Sheet Metal Structures",  E. Iriondo, M. A.
Gutierrez, B. Gonzalez, J. L. Alcaraz and G. S. Daehn, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, 211, Iss.  5, pp. 909-915, (2011).

"Simulation and Instrumentation of Electromagnetic Compression of Steel Tubes", A. Vivek, K-H
Kim, and G. S.  Daehn, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 211, Iss. 5, pp. 840-850,
(2011).


Selected Patents and Applications
"Low Temperature Spot Impact Welding Driven Without Contact", Glenn D. Daehn and John C.
Lippold. US Patent 8084710, Issued December 27, 2011.

"Electromagnetic Actuator for Multiple Operations", Glenn S. Daehn, PCT Applicaton:
PCT/US08/61066, Filed 4/19/08.

"Driver Plate for Electromagnetic Forming of Sheet Metal", John R. Bradley and Glenn S.
Daehn, US Patent Application 2009/0090162, Published 4/9/09.
                                                                                  47

-------
"Electromagnetic Metal Forming" (Uniform Pressure Actuator), G. S. Daehn, U. S. Patent,
2,069,756, Issued 7/4/06.

"Electromagetic Formation of Fuel Cell Plates" John, R. Bradley, James G. Schroth and Glenn
S. Daehn, U.S. Patent 7,076.981, Issued 7/18/2006.

 "High Velocity Forming of Local Features Using a Projectile", G. S. Daehn,  U. S. Patent
7,000,300, Issued 2/21/06.

"5000 series alloys with improved corrosion properties and methods for their manufacture and
use", M. C. Carroll, M. J. Mills, R. G. Buchheit, G. S.  Daehn,  B. Morere, P. Kobe, and H. S.
Goodrich, US Patent Application  10/628579, published 5/13/04.


Courses Developed and Recently Taught:
Developed: Engineering 198a / "Engineering, Manufacturing and the Creation of Wealth"

Developed: MSE 605: Quantitative Introduction to Materials  Science and Engineering
MSE 581.02: Materials Science Lab II (Junior Level)

MSE 765: Mechanical Behavior of Materials

MSE 863: Time Dependent Deformation of Solids

MSE 561 Mechanical Behavior of Materials
                                                                                   48

-------
                                       Kristina Kennedy
                  7263 Fitzwilliam Drive 0 Dublin, Ohio 43017 0 614-395-3568 0 kennedy.443@osu.edu
EDUCATION
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
Master of Business Administration

UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
Bachelor of Science, Mechanical Engineering
Columbus, OH
   August 2008

 Iowa City, IA
December 2000
EXPERIENCE
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY                                           Columbus, OH
Business Development Manager, Ohio Manufacturing Institute         Aug. 2010 - Present
•    Coordinate collaborative R&D opportunities, including tracking possible opportunities,
     assembling multi-disciplinary teams, and assisting with proposal development in order to
     develop and improve the operation, visibility and effectiveness of OMI
•    Successfully secured $100K+ seed funding and developed related procedures and
     documentation in order to launch Co-Located Internship Program in March 2011 to deploy
     OSU students to industry partners as technology transfer mechanisms within commercially-
     expected time-scales.
•    Efficiently manage inquiries of potential customers of research and development services;
     develop and sustain customer satisfaction through new survey mechanism

GREIF                                                                  Delaware, OH
Regional Marketing Manager (Midwest)                            Nov. 2008 - Oct. 2009
•    Effectively managed cross functional engineering / marketing new product development team
     to ensure timely and effective roll out of earth-friendly green consumer product line.
•    Key member of competitive intelligence team for green product line in charge of seeking out
     competitor product offerings, customer base, sales strategy and sales channels in order to
     gain valuable competitive knowledge, create value added reports of findings, and make sales /
     strategy recommendations to upper management.
•    Oversaw and implemented effective go-to-market pricing strategies for all product lines based
     on deep analysis of current market indices, close analysis of raw material prices, and
     segmentation of targeted customer base.

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY                                           Columbus, OH
Assistant Director - Outreach                                     Jan. 2006 - Oct. 2008
•    Developed, managed and successfully executed all aspects of engineering outreach
     programming for the College of Engineering in order to foster educational outreach initiatives
     and expand the recruitment candidate pool.
•    In conjunction with Math and Science Departments, developed targeted retention strategy
     involving special activities, student involvement workshops, and free tutoring sessions which
     resulted in -15% increase in retention of undergraduate students.
•    Fostered relationships with corporate sponsors and community partners in order to cultivate
     funding for STEM outreach and education initiatives.

HONDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT                                   Raymond, OH
Quality Engineer III                                               Jan. 2001 - Jan. 2006
•    Co-leader of special project team which successfully and efficiently developed and rolled out
     company-wide Access database making competitive information, quality information, and
     warranty data easily and quickly accessible to over 1100 Honda associates.
•    Managed cross functional joint design and test teams in order to identify vehicle problem
     items and develop cost effective,  timely countermeasures for implementation.
                                                                                                          49

-------
                            Project Manager of special market investigation teams that saved the company over $750K in
                            future warranty costs based on successful implementation of design changes on models
                            including Acura TL and Honda Pilot.
LEADERSHIP            Society of Women Engineers, Central Ohio Section
                        •   Outreach & Education Chair                                     Jun. 2010-Present
                        •   President                                                   Jun. 2008 - Jun. 2010
                        •   Marketing / Communications Chair                              Jun. 2007 - Jun. 2008
                        •   Member                                                     Sept. 1996-Present

                        Society of Manufacturing Engineers
                        •   Executive Board Member                                   December 2011 - Present
                        •   Member                                                     Sept. 2010-Present

                        Women in Engineering Advocacy Network (WEPAN)
                        •   Communications Committee Co-Chair                            Jun. 2007 - Jun. 2008
                        •   Distinguished Service Award (Communications Committee)                    Jun. 2008

                        Engineering Education Insights Magazine
                        •   Featured Monthly Columnist                                    Aug. 2007 - Jun. 2008

                        Toastmasters,  Honda R&D Section
                        •   Vice President                                               Jan. 2005 - Dec. 2005
                                                                                                       50

-------
                                DOUGLAS A. RICHMAN
1660 Loch ridge                                                 Business: 248.352.4630X220
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302                           E-mail: doug.richman@ep.kaiseral.com


KAISER ALUMINUM FABRICATED PRODUCTS, LLC                           2002 - PRESENT
   VP - Engineering and Technology
   Lead engineering group providing engineering support to customers and Kaiser plants serving
   technically demanding automotive and industrial markets. Assist customer engineering organizations
   with  product design guidance, metallurgical engineering and design for manufacturing. Support
   customer design and development of innovative aluminum products to satisfy new end product
   requirements. Advanced process strategic planning supporting future product requirements.

   Aluminum Association
   Kaiser technical representative to the Aluminum Association and ASTM.
   Aluminum Association -   Member - Aluminum Transportation Group (ATG)
                           Board of Directors - ATG
                           Chairman - Technology Work Group (ATG)
                           Member- Product Standards and Data Committee
                           Steering Committee - Sustainability Work Group

BOSAL  INTERNATIONAL, Ann Arbor, Michigan                                       1999-01
   President North American Operations
   P & L responsibility Bosal North America:  5 plants and Tech Center. Automotive exhaust system
   manufacturing and sales in the US, Canada and Mexico.  North American sales of $100+MM
   Member, Board of Directors  - Bosal International

KAISER ALUMINUM CORPORATION
   VP & General Manager Kaiser Automotive Castings and Kaiser K-Fab Operations      1996-99
   P & L responsibility for Kaiser Foundry $18MM and K-Fab, extrusion fabrication $8MM businesses.


ALCAN ALUMINUM CORPORATION! 988-96
   VP - Alcan Automotive Castings / General Manager Altek                           1993-96
   Business development and P&L responsibility for Altek, a 50/50 Joint Venture between Alcan and
   Teksid (Fiat),sales $30MM. International commercialization of cast aluminum automotive control
   arms.

   General Manager - Automotive Castings Division- North America                    1992-93
   P&L responsibility, foundry producing automotive cylinder heads and intake manifolds.  Expanded
   product focus to automotive control arms using innovative casting process technology.

   Director - Engineering and Automotive  Business Development                      1988-91
   Responsible for automotive market strategic planning and led product and process engineering
   support group. Business grew from start-up to over $100 MM in four years.


GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Warren, Ml                                      1969-88

   Manager Engine Development Chevrolet-Pontiac-Cadillac Group
   Manager Chevrolet L-4 and V-6 Advanced Design
   Senior Development Engineer-V-8 Engine Control Systems
   Development Engineer-V-8 Truck Engine Control Systems
   Passenger Fleet Planner - Chevrolet Fuel Economy Planning
                                                                                      51

-------
   System Design Engineer- GM Transportation Systems
   Product Assurance Analyst - Engineering Staff
   Manager- Chevrolet Military Vehicle Proving Ground Operations

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS:

       MBA - University of Detroit - Finance and Operations Research
       BSME - General Motors Institute

       Registered Professional Engineer, Michigan

       Society of Automotive Engineers
             Co-Director- Light  Materials Section

       American Extruders Council

       Aluminum Association
             Aluminum Transportation Group (ATG) - Member (since 1990)
                                                 Member of the Executive Committee
                                                 Chairman - Technology Work Group
             Aluminum Products and Standards Group- Member (since 1998)
             Sustainability Work Group - Member (since 2009)


       Advanced studies / Certifications
             Ohio State Univ. (Fisher College) - Certified Lean Manager
             MIT - Lean Manufacturing / Value Stream Management
             Plante & Moran - Executive  Leadership Forum
             Goldradt Institute - Theory of Constraints Leader Certification
             TMB - Kaizen Implementation
                                                                                       52

-------
Srdjan Simunovic

Computational Engineering and Energy Sciences Group 865-771-9919
Computer Science and Mathematics Division 865-241-0381(fax)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory simunovicsBornl. gov

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Tennessee Knoxville

Education:

University of Split, Croatia Civil Engineering B.S. 1988
Carnegie Mellon University, USA Civil Engineering M.S. 1991
Carnegie Mellon University, USA Civil Engineering Ph.D. 1993

Professional Expertise:

My research expertise includes computational modeling of materials and structures, modeling of impact
and armor materials, strain rate sensitivity of materials, high velocity loading tests, polymer composite
materials manufacturing and crashworthiness, physics of fracture, and effect of size on material
properties. Current projects involve development of the next generation multi-physics code for simulation
of nuclear fuel and nuclear reactor thermomechanics problems, impact simulation of lightweight materials
for transportation, and material design optimization for impact performance.

Professional Experience:

2009 - Present Joint Faculty Appointment, University of Tennessee and ORNL.
2004 - Present Distinguished Research Staff, Computational Materials Science and Computational
Engineering and Energy Sciences Group, ORNL.
1999 - 2003 Group Leader, Computational Materials Science Group, ORNL.
1998 - 2003 Senior Research Staff, Computational Materials Science Group, ORNL.
1994 - 1998 Research Staff, Computational Materials Science Group,ORNL.
1993 - 1994 Postdoctoral Researcher, Modeling and Simulation Group, ORNL.
1990 - 1993 Graduate Researcher, Department of Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon
University, Pittsburgh, PA
1988 - 1990 Junior Lecturer, Civil Engineering Department, University of Split, Croatia

Recent Journal Publications (2006+):

1. Piro, M. H. A., Besmann,, T. M., Simunovic, S., Lewis, B. J., Thompson, W. T., Numerical
verification of equilibrium thermodynamic computations in nuclear fuel performance codes Journal of
Nuclear Materials, 414 (2011) pp. 399-407.
2. Wang, Y. L., Xu, H. B., Erdman, D. L.,Starbuck, M. J., Simunovic, S., Characterization of High-
Strain Rate Mechanical Behavior of AZ31 Magnesium Alloy Using 3D Digital Image Correlation,
Advanced Engineering Materials, 13 (2011) pp. 943-948.
3. Barai, P., Nukala, P. K. V. V., Sampath, R., and Simunovic, S., Scaling of surface roughness in
perfectly plastic disordered media. Physical Review E. 82 (2010) 056116.
4. Mishra, S.K., Deymier, P.A., Muralidharan, K., Frantziskonis, G., Pannala, S. and Simunovic, S.
53

-------
    Modeling the coupling of reaction kinetics and hydrodynamics in a collapsing cavity. Ultrasonics
    Sonochemistry, 2010, 17(1), 258-265.
5.   Nukala, P. K. V. V., Barai, P., Zapperi, S., Alava, M. J. and Simunovic, S., Fracture roughness in
    three-dimensional beam lattice systems. Physical Review E. 82 (2010) 026103.
6.   Frantziskonis, G., Muralidharan, K., Deymier, P., Simunovic, S., Nukala, P. and Pannala, S. Time-
    parallel multiscale/multiphysics framework. Journal of Computational Physics, 2009, 228(21), 8085-
    8092.
7.   Nukala, P. K. V. V., Zapperi, S., Alava, M. J. and Simunovic, S., Crack roughness in the two-
    dimensional random threshold beam model. Physical Review E. 78 (2008) 046105.
8.   Nukala, P. K. V. V., Zapperi, S., Alava, M. J. and Simunovic, S., Anomalous roughness of fracture
    surfaces in 2D fuse models. InternationalJournal of Fracture. 154 (2008) pp. 119 - 130.
9.   Mishra, S.K., Muralidharan, K., Deymier, P.A., Frantziskonis, G., Pannala, S. and Simunovic, S.
    Wavelet-Based Spatial Scaling of Coupled Reaction-Diffusion Fields. International Journal for
    Multiscale Computational Engineering, 2008, 6(4), 281-297.
10. Mishra, S.K., Muralidharan, K., Pannala, S., Simunovic, S., Daw,  C.S., Nukala, P., Fox, R., Deymier,
    P.A. and Frantziskonis, G.N. Spatiotemporal compound wavelet matrix framework for
    multiscale/multiphysics reactor simulation: Case  study of a heterogeneous reaction/diffusion system.
    International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering, 2008, 6.
11. Muralidharan, K., Mishra, S.K., Frantziskonis, G., Deymier, P.A., Nukala, P., Simunovic, S. and
    Pannala, S. Dynamic compound wavelet matrix method for multiphysics and multiscale problems.
    Physical Review E, 2008, 77(2).
Synergistic Activities:
•   US DOT FHWA sponsored projects: Development of Heavy Vehicle Models for Roadside Barriers
           o  Finite Element Models  for Semitrailer Trucks
                  •  http://thyme.ornl.gov/FHWA/TractorTrailer
           o  Single-Unit Truck Heavy Vehicle Finite Element Model
                  •  http://thvme.ornl.gov/FHWA/F800WebPage
•   US DOT NHTSA sponsored project:
           o  Parametric Finite Element Model of Sport Utility Vehicle
                  •  http ://thyme .ornl.gov/newexplorer
•   US DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy sponsored projects on lightweight
    materials technologies:
           o  High Strain  Rate Characterization of Magnesium Alloys
                  •  http: //thyme .ornl. gov/Mg_ne w
           o  Dynamic Characterization and Modeling of Advanced High Strength Steel
                  •  http://thyme.ornl.gov/ASP_Main
           o  Development of material models for composite materials, fracture, and high  strain rate
              deformation
                  •  http://thyme.ornl.gov/composites
           o  Crashworthiness of Aluminum Intensive Vehicles
                                                                                            54

-------
                  •   http ://thyme .ornl.gov/audi
           o   Steel Processing Properties and their Effect on Impact Deformation of Lightweight
               Structures
                  •   http ://thvme .ornl.gov/aisi
•   US DOE Office of Nuclear Energy:
           o   Development of new multi-physics nuclear fuel simulation code AMP
                                                                                             55

-------
Appendix B: Conflict of Interest Statements

Conflict of Interest and Bias for Peer Review
Background

Identification and management of potential conflict of interest (COI) and bias issues are vital to
the successes and credibility of any peer review consisting of external experts. The
questionnaire that follows is consistent with EPA guidance concerning peer reviews.l

Definitions

Experts in a particular field will, in many cases, have existing opinions concerning the subject of
the peer review. These opinions may be considered bias, but are not necessarily conflicts of
interest.

Bias: For a peer review, means a predisposition towards the subject matter to be discussed that
could influence the candidate's viewpoint.

Examples of bias would be situations in which a candidate:

1. Has previously expressed a position on the subject(s) under consideration by the panel; or

2. Is affiliated with an industry, governmental, public interest, or other group which has
expressed a position concerning the subject(s) under consideration by the panel.
r\
Conflict of Interest: For a peer review, as defined by the National Academy of Sciences,
includes any of the following:

1. Affiliation with an organization with financial ties directly related to the outcome;

2. Direct personal/financial investments in the sponsoring organization or related to the
subject; or

3. Direct involvement in the documents submitted to the peer review panel... that could
impair the individual's objectivity or create an unfair competitive advantage for the
individual or organization.
1 U.S. EPA (2009). Science Policy Council Peer Review Handbook. OMB (2004). Final Information Quality Bulletin for
Peer Review.

NAS (2003). "Policy and Procedures on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflict or Interest for Committees Used in
the Development of Reports" (www.nationalacademies.org/coi).
56

-------
Policy and Process

•   Candidates with COI, as defined above, will not be eligible for membership on those panels
    where their conflicts apply.

•   In general, candidates with bias, as defined above, on a particular issue will be eligible for all
    panel memberships; however, extreme biases, such as those likely to impair a candidate's
    ability to contribute to meaningful scientific discourse, will disqualify a candidate.

•   Ideally, the composition of each panel will reflect a range of bias for a particular subject,
    striving for balance.

•   Candidates who meet scientific qualifications and other eligibility criteria will be asked to
    provide written disclosure through a confidential questionnaire of all potential COI and bias
    issues during the candidate identification and selection process.

•   Candidates should be prepared, as necessary, to discuss potential COI and bias issues.

•   All bias issues related to selected panelists will be disclosed in writing in the final peer
    review record.
                                                                                         57

-------
Conflict of Interest and Bias Questionnaire

Lotus Mass-Reduction Report (Lotus 2) Peer Review

Instructions to Candidate Reviewers

1. Please check YES/NO/DON'T KNOW in response to each question.

2. If your answer is YES or DON'T KNOW, please provide a brief explanation of the
circumstances.

3. Please make a reasonable effort to answer accurately each question. For example, to the
extent a question applies to individuals (or entities) other than you (e.g., spouse,
dependents, or their employers), you should make a reasonable inquiry, such as emailing
the questions to such individuals/entities in an effort to obtain information necessary to
accurately answer the questions.

Questions

1. Are you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer, an author,
contributor, or an earlier reviewer of the document(s) being reviewed by this panel?

YES NO X DON'T KNOW
2. Do you (or you spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have current
plans to conduct or seek work related to the subject of this peer review following the
completion of this peer review panel?

YES X NO DON'T KNOW
I manage lightweight materials funding for the U.S. Department of Energy's Vehicle
Technologies Program so I am currently supporting work in the area of vehicle weight
reduction and I anticipate continued support for work in this area. I do not actually participate
in any research or development in this area, though the Department of Energy does.

3. Do you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have any known
financial stake in the outcome of the review (e.g., investment interest in a business related
to the subject of peer review)?

YES NO X DON'T KNOW
Have you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer commented,
reviewed, testified, published, made public statements, or taken positions regarding the
subject of this peer review?
58

-------
       YES X      NO                  DON'T KNOW
       As a DOE employee I often give technical talks and seminars where I discuss the importance
       of weight reduction for transportation energy reduction. I also frequently discuss the
       materials engineering details of vehicle weight reduction and express my opinions on the
       technical challenges and appropriate research targets.

    5.  Do you hold personal values or beliefs that would preclude you from conducting an
       objective, scientific evaluation of the subject of the review?

       YES         NO X               DON'T KNOW
   6.  Do you know of any reason that you might be unable to provide impartial advice or
       comments on the subject review of the panel?

       YES         NO  X              DON'T KNOW
   7.  Are you aware of any other factors that may create potential conflict of interest or bias
       issues for you as a member of the panel?

       YES         NO  X               DON'T KNOW
Acknowledgment

I declare that the disclosed information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that
no real, potential, or apparent conflict of interest or bias is known to me except as disclosed. I
further declare that I have made reasonable effort and inquiry to obtain the information needed to
answer the questions truthfully, and accurately.  I agree to inform SRA promptly of any change
in circumstances that would require me to revise the answers that I have provided.
William Joost
Name
                                                03/01/2012
Signature            ^    *                      Date
                                                                                      59

-------
Conflict of Interest and Bias Questionnaire

Lotus Mass-Reduction Report (Lotus 2) Peer Review

Instructions to Candidate Reviewers

1. Please check YES/NO/DON'T KNOW in response to each question.

2. If your answer is YES or DON'T KNOW, please provide a brief explanation of the
circumstances.

Questions

1. Are you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer, an author,
contributor, or an earlier reviewer of the document(s) being reviewed by this panel?

YES X NO DON'T KNOW
OSU has plans to do research on lightweight multi-material structures for automotive
applications.

YES NO X DON'T KNOW
4. Have you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer commented,
reviewed, testified, published, made public statements, or taken positions regarding the
subject of this peer review?

YES NO X DON'T KNOW
60

-------
    5.  Do you hold personal values or beliefs that would preclude you from conducting an
       objective, scientific evaluation of the subject of the review?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   6.  Do you know of any reason that you might be unable to provide impartial advice or
       comments on the subject review of the panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   7.  Are you aware of any other factors that may create potential conflict of interest or bias
       issues for you as a member of the panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
Acknowledgment

I declare that the disclosed information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that
no real, potential, or apparent conflict of interest or bias is known to me except as disclosed. I
further declare that I have made reasonable effort and inquiry to obtain the information needed to
answer the questions truthfully, and accurately. I agree to inform SRA promptly of any change
in circumstances that would require me to revise the answers that I have provided.
Glenn Daehn
Name
                                            2-1-12
                                            Date
                                                                                     61

-------
Conflict of Interest and Bias Questionnaire

Lotus Mass-Reduction Report (Lotus 2) Peer Review

Instructions to Candidate Reviewers

1. Please check YES/NO/DON'T KNOW in response to each question.

2. If your answer is YES or DON'T KNOW, please provide a brief explanation of the
circumstances.

Questions

1. Are you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer, an author,
contributor, or an earlier reviewer of the document(s) being reviewed by this panel?

YES X NO DON'T KNOW
The Ohio State University has plans to focus research efforts on lightweight structures for
automotive applications.

YES NO X DON'T KNOW
62

-------
   5.  Do you hold personal values or beliefs that would preclude you from conducting an
       objective, scientific evaluation of the subject of the review?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   6.  Do you know of any reason that you might be unable to provide impartial advice or
       comments on the subject review of the panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   7.  Are you aware of any other factors that may create potential conflict of interest or bias
       issues for you as a member of the panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
Acknowledgment

I declare that the disclosed information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that
no real, potential, or apparent conflict of interest or bias is known to me except as disclosed. I
further declare that I have made reasonable effort and inquiry to obtain the information needed to
answer the questions truthfully, and accurately. I agree to inform SRA promptly of any change
in circumstances that would require me to revise the answers that I have provided.
Kristina Kennedy
Name
                                               1-25-12
Signature                         Xf           Date
                                                                                     63

-------
Conflict of Interest and Bias Questionnaire

Lotus Mass-Reduction Report (Lotus 2) Peer Review

Instructions to Candidate Reviewers

1. Please check YES/NO/DON'T KNOW in response to each question.

2. If your answer is YES or DON'T KNOW, please provide a brief explanation of the
circumstances.

Questions

1. Are you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer, an author,
contributor, or an earlier reviewer of the document(s) being reviewed by this panel?

YES X NO DON'T KNOW
The Ohio State University has plans to be involved in lightweight structures research.

YES NO X DON'T KNOW
64

-------
    5.  Do you hold personal values or beliefs that would preclude you from conducting an
       objective, scientific evaluation of the subject of the review?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   6.  Do you know of any reason that you might be unable to provide impartial advice or
       comments on the subject review of the panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   7.  Are you aware of any other factors that may create potential conflict of interest or bias
       issues for you as a member of the panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
Acknowledgment

I declare that the disclosed information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that
no real, potential, or apparent conflict of interest or bias is known to me except as disclosed. I
further declare that I have made reasonable effort and inquiry to obtain the information needed to
answer the questions truthfully, and accurately. I agree to inform SRA promptly of any change
in circumstances that would require me to revise the answers that I have provided.
Anthony Luscher
Name
                                               1/27/2012
Signature   f    I   "                          Date
                                                                                     65

-------
Conflict of Interest and Bias Questionnaire

Lotus Mass-Reduction Report (Lotus 2) Peer Review

Instructions to Candidate Reviewers

1. Please check YES/NO/DON'T KNOW in response to each question.

2. If your answer is YES or DON'T KNOW, please provide a brief explanation of the
circumstances.

Questions

1. Are you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer, an author,
contributor, or an earlier reviewer of the document(s) being reviewed by this panel?

YES X NO DON'T KNOW
3. Do you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have any known
financial stake in the outcome of the review (e.g., investment interest in a business related
to the subject of peer review)?

YES X NO DON'T KNOW
4. Have you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer commented,
reviewed, testified, published, made public statements, or taken positions regarding the
subject of this peer review?

YES X NO DON'T KNOW
66

-------
   5.  Do you hold personal values or beliefs that would preclude you from conducting an
       objective, scientific evaluation of the subject of the review?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   6.  Do you know of any reason that you might be unable to provide impartial advice or
       comments on the subject review of the panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   7.  Are you aware of any other factors that may create potential conflict of interest or bias
       issues for you as a member of the panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
Acknowledgment

I declare that the disclosed information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that
no real, potential, or apparent conflict of interest or bias is known to me except as disclosed. I
further declare that I have made reasonable effort and inquiry to obtain the information needed to
answer the questions truthfully, and accurately. I agree to inform SRA promptly of any change
in circumstances that would require me to revise the answers that I have provided.
D. A. Richman
Name
                                               Feb. 14. 2012
Signature                                       Date

*** Submitted with attachment explaining "Yes" responses to questions 2, 3 and 4.
                                                                                     67

-------
To:    Brian P. Menard                                       Date:  Feb. 14,2012
       SRA International, Inc.

From:  Douglas A. Richman
       Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products, LLC

Subject:      Peer Review - Peer Review FEV Light Duty Vehicle Report

Brian,

This note is written to clarify "yes" responses on questions 2, 3 and 4 of the Conflict of Interest
survey.

My current position is Vice President of Engineering and Technology for Kaiser Aluminum
Fabricated Products, LLC.  A portion of Kaiser business (<10%) is involved in the development
of lightweight  materials and semi-finished mill  products for use in  motor vehicles. My role at
Kaiser Aluminum  involves me in this work.   It is  the  intention of Kaiser and myself, as
employee, to continue active involvement in supplying highly engineered aluminum products to
automotive industry  customers.  T  his  may  include  commenting,  reviewing, testifying,
publishing, making public statements, or taking positions on the subject matter of this review.
Both Kaiser Aluminum and I have a financial stake in the outcome of the review.

My responsibilities in Kaiser  include representing Kaiser on  the Aluminum Association -
Aluminum  Transportation  Group (ATG)  where  I  am a member  of the ATG Executive
Committee. The ATG actively develops and promotes aluminum weight reduction technologies
in a number of transportation sectors including  automotive. ATG efforts include  funding third
party  weight  reduction technology development and reporting  resultant  advancements to
customer groups, government entities and trade media.  As an ATG representative I am regularly
involved in commenting, reviewing, publishing, making public statements, and taking positions
on the subject matter of this review. The Aluminum Association and I have a financial  stake in
the outcome of the review.

From our discussion, understand that it is  often the case in peer reviews that reviewers have a
range of conflicts and  biases, and that it is critical that these conflicts and biases be disclosed. I
also understand that an independent, impartial, and expert panel should and will reflect the range
of conflicts and  biases.  I agree  to review  the materials  provided me  in the most impartial,
objective, and scientific manner possible.
Regards,
D. A. Richman
                                                                                    68

-------
Conflict of Interest and Bias Questionnaire

Lotus Mass-Reduction Report (Lotus 2) Peer Review

Instructions to Candidate Reviewers

1. Please check YES/NO/DON'T KNOW in response to each question.

2. If your answer is YES or DON'T KNOW, please provide a brief explanation of the
circumstances.

Questions

1. Are you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer, an author,
contributor, or an earlier reviewer of the document(s) being reviewed by this panel?

YES NO X DON'T KNOW
3. Do you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have any known
financial stake in the outcome of the review (e.g., investment interest in a business related
to the subject of peer review)?

YES NO X DON'T KNOW
69

-------
    5.  Do you hold personal values or beliefs that would preclude you from conducting an
       objective, scientific evaluation of the subject of the review?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   6.  Do you know of any reason that you might be unable to provide impartial advice or
       comments on the subject review of the panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   7.  Are you aware of any other factors that may create potential conflict of interest or bias
       issues for you as a member of the panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
Acknowledgment

I declare that the disclosed information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that
no real, potential, or apparent conflict of interest or bias is known to me except as disclosed. I
further declare that I have made reasonable effort and inquiry to obtain the information needed to
answer the questions truthfully, and accurately. I agree to inform SRA promptly of any change
in circumstances that would require me to revise the answers that I have provided.
Srdjan Simunovic
Name
  _   	                               2/28/2012
SigrrSture        ^~                            Date
                                                                                     70

-------
SRA
INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Honesty and Service*
Appendix C: Peer Review Charge

Charge to Peer Reviewers of
Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle

You are being asked to review and provide expert comments on both parts of the FEV report, which you
will be able to access via FEV's FTP site. This site will also provide you access to the CAE model, which
you will review to ensure that the CAE code represents the information presented in the report, and
related AVI files to allow you to review the modeling results. The written report supplies charts and
figures of the results. If you have the FMVSS crash setups, then you may choose to run the unencrypted
model in those scenarios; however, you are not required to do so. Please Note: NHTSA staff has offered
to assist you by providing FEA results or a configured input deck to relieve you from having to run the
model. Should you choose to do this, SRA and EPA will coordinate between you and NHTSA. You will also
review the design and cost portions of the model. The cost part of the project is a bottom-up approach
based on the specific vehicle systems including BIW, brakes, suspension, closures, and engine, and
accounting for details of every cost factor.

EPA is seeking your expert opinion on the technologies utilized, methodologies employed, and validity of
findings regarding the FEV report. The CAE modeling portion of the FEV report, written by EDAG, begins
by comparing the baseline Toyota Venza model crash results with the actual Venza FMVSS crash results,
and also compares the bending and torsional stiffness values. The report next presents the results of
the CAE model when Lotus Engineering Phase 1 Low Development ideas are implemented, along with
the corresponding NVH results. EDAG then takes on a new design for the BIW, utilizing its optimization
program for components development given loads and other parameters, and presents NVH data and
full vehicle crash simulation as well as manufacturing cost estimation. EDAG has not included material
71

-------
properties, forming techniques, or bonding techniques as the changes to the BIW outside of the steel
family are minor.

EPA is also seeking your expert opinion on the technologies utilized, methodologies employed and
validity of findings in areas "other than the BIW" for this mass reduced design. FEV has analyzed the
Toyota Venza in a number of systems, sub systems, and sub sub-systems and has chosen a number of
areas for mass reduction. Some of the ideas are taken directly from the Lotus Engineering Phase 1
report, and some are new. FEV presents a breakout of the mass within each system, the ideas
considered and the ideas chosen in the system, use of the technologies in industry today, and their cost
impact on vehicle production. FEV has approximately 4,000 cost spreadsheets containing details of the
costing process. Although the report includes only a summary of these spreadsheets within an
appendix, the spreadsheets themselves are available for review should you choose to do so. In addition
to performing detailed cost breakout, FEV has also contacted suppliers to verify some of the cost
estimates.

In your review of the report, EPA asks that you orient your comments, to the extent of your expertise
and experience, toward the following five areas: (1) assumptions and data sources, (2) vehicle design
methodological rigor; (3) vehicle crashworthiness testing methodological rigor (CAE only); (4) vehicle
manufacturing cost methodological rigor; and (5) conclusion and findings. You should provide your
responses in the table that is attached to this peer review charge, adding comments, as necessary, at
the end of each section of the table.

This broad span of technical areas suggests that reviewers may well have much deeper technical
expertise and experience in some areas and a working knowledge in others. As a result, the level of
detailed technical review to be given by each reviewer might vary significantly across the general
category areas. Although EPA is requesting response to the areas specified above as well as to general
issues set out in section 6 of the table, you are strongly encouraged to identify additional topics or
depart from these examples as necessary to best apply your particular area(s) of expertise in review of
the overall study.

Comments should be sufficiently clear and detailed to allow readers to thoroughly understand their
relevance to the FEV report. All materials provided to you as well as your review comments should be
treated as confidential, and should neither be released nor discussed with others outside of the
review panel. Once EPA, FEV, and EDAG have made their reports public, EPA will notify you that you
may release or discuss the peer review materials and your review comments with others.

Please deliver your final written comments to SRA International no later than Wednesday, March 29.

Should you have questions about what is required in order to complete this review or need additional
background material, please contact Brian Menard at SRA (Brian Menard@sra.com) or (434-817-4133).
If you have any questions about the EPA peer review process itself, please contact Ms. Ruth Schenk in
EPA's Quality Office, National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (schenk.ruth@epa.gov) or (734-
214-4017).
72

-------
Appendix D: Reviews
Review of Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover
Utility Vehicle (FEV Report)

William Joost
U.S. Department of Energy
1. ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCES (CAE BIW and Vehicle)
COMMENTS
Please comment on the validity of any data sources and assumptions
embedded in the study. Such items include material choices, technology
choices, vehicle design, crash validation testing, and cost assessment that
could affect its findings.
The material selection process used in this study suggests a good
understanding of the cost and manufacturing impacts of changing between
different steel, Al, Mg, and plastic/composite based materials. Generally the
material selections are appropriate for the performance, manufacturing, and
cost requirements of the particular systems. Identifying production examples of
the materials in similar systems is very important for establishing credibility -
the project team did an excellent job identifying production examples of most
material replacements. There are, however, a few material selections where
additional consideration may be necessary:

The transmission case subsystem (pg 269) features the use of a Sr bearing Mg
alloy. Recently, Sn based alloys have been produced and (I believe) used in
production for similar applications. The use of Sn as an alloying ingredient
accomplishes many of the same goals (improved high temp creep performance,
for example) at a lower cost. It may be worth investigating these new alloys as
an opportunity to reduce the cost of the lightweight transmission case
subsystem. If not, the selection of a Sr alloy is reasonable.

The feasibility of using hot rolled blanks in the body structure would be further
emphasized by providing production examples for vehicles of >200k units per
year. Similarly, the use of a 7000 series Al rear bumper is questionable - a
73

-------
                                                                       production example for a high volume, low cost vehicle should be provided.

                                                                       The use of Thixomolded Mg seat components should be reconsidered.
                                                                       Thixomolding does have the potential to provide improved ductility compared
                                                                       to die casting, however the process is generally not well regarded in the
                                                                       automotive community due to concerns over limited supply and press tonnage
                                                                       limits (which limit the maximum size of the components that can be
                                                                       manufactured this way). If there is a production example of thixomolding for
                                                                       >200k unites per year in automotive, then it should be cited in the report. If
                                                                       there is no example then I would suggest switching to die casting (or super
                                                                       vacuum die casting) - the weight reduction and cost will likely be similar.
                                                                       It's not clear how the mass savings were achieved in the wheels and tires. The
                                                                       report states that a 2008 Toyota Prius wheel/tire assembly will be used in place
                                                                       of the stock Venza wheel - however the report also states (pg 544) that the
                                                                       Prius wheel will be normalized up to the 19"x7" to maintain the original styling
                                                                       of the Venza. The technology employed in the Prius wheel is not different from
                                                                       the stock Venza wheel so why should a scaled-up Prius wheel  weigh less than
                                                                       the original Venza wheel? There are also inconsistencies in the report - table
                                                                       F.5-18 references eliminating the spare tire wheel while downsizing the spare
                                                                       tire - why would there be a tire with no wheel? Lastly, if the Prius wheel/tire is
                                                                       scaled up to match the stock Venza size then the spare wheel/tire must also be
                                                                       scaled up - it's not clear that this happened. You are taking significant credit for
                                                                       weight reduction in the wheels and tires (~2% of total vehicle  weight) but it's
                                                                       not clear how this is achieved.

                                                                       Many of the parts in the frame have been changes to a GF Nylon (pg 667). This
                                                                       may not be unreasonable, but production examples should be provided.
If you find issues with data sources and assumptions, please provide
suggestions for available data that would improve the study.
Two plastic technologies are very widely employed in this design: PolyOne and
MuCell. It seems that the companies who license/manufacture these
technologies were used as the primary source to determine feasibility.
However they are likely to be optimistic regarding the capability of their
materials. I agree that these materials are appropriate for the indicated
applications, however I feel that the credibility would be improved by including
                                                                                                                                     74

-------

other sources (OEMs, Tier 1) or more production examples for existing
platforms. With such a large amount of weight reduction attributed to PolyOne
and MuCell, it would be beneficial to have a very strong case for capabilities.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
75

It is particularly helpful (and credible) to see descriptions technologies that
were considered, but abandoned due to performance concerns (e.g. reverting
to a timing belt), manufacturing capabilities, (e.g. using a MuCell manifold), and
cost (e.g. Mg oil pan).

The suspension design process lacks sufficient detail to make the cost and
weight estimates credible. Considerable Al is used to replace steel at a very
minimal cost penalty. However, as the report indicates, detailed design and
validation is necessary to confirm that these changes would be viable for the
Venza. For example, changing to a hollow Al control bar is not an industry
standard practice and the use of a hollow section may require significant
changes to geometry in order to meet the stiffness and strength requirements.
While a hollow Al control bar is feasible, I'm not confident that it can be
substituted into the design so easily. A $0.40/kg-saved cost penalty for
changing a significant number of components from mild steel to Al seems to be
an underestimate.
76

-------
Please comment on the methods used to analyze the technologies and
materials selected, forming techniques, bonding processes, and parts
integration.
The forming, joining, and integration techniques used in the report were
analyzed only by referencing production examples or companies who produce
similar products. Detailed design work would certainly include a more thorough
analysis of the manufacturing techniques however for the scope of this report I
believe that the level of analysis is appropriate.
If you are aware of better methods employed and documented elsewhere to
help select and analyze advanced vehicle materials and design engineering
rigor for 2017-2020 vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to
improve this study.
This is not my area of expertise
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
                                                                                                                                    77

-------
3. VEHICLE CRASH WORTH I NESS TESTING METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR.
(CAE only)
COMMENTS
Please comment on the methods used to analyze the vehicle body structure's
structural integrity (NVH, etc.) and safety crashworthiness.
The baseline testing and comparison process (pgs. 67-128) is very thorough.
The team establishes credibility in the proposed design by performing an initial
baseline comparison against the production Venza - this suggests that the
modeling techniques used can reasonably predict the performance of the
lightweight design. It is unfortunate that the deformation mode comparisons
could not be made quantitative (or semi-quantitative) somehow. Comparing
how the model and test look after a crash gives an indication of deformation
mode, but the comparison seems subjective. For example, image D-28 (pg 95)
seems to show slightly different failure mechanisms in the CAE model versus
the real test.

The report notes that the bushing mountings were rigid in the model while they
likely failed in the real vehicle. I would expect that these failures are designed
into the vehicle to support crash energy management. The results crash pulses
(pg 98) for the model and test look fairly similar, but it is unfortunate that this
crash energy mechanism was not captured.

The intrusion correlation for the baseline model is very good. This again adds
credibility to the modeling approach used here.

On page 386 the report states that the Mg CCB was not included in the crash or
NVH analysis. Replacing a steel CCB with Mg is likely to have a significant
impact on both crash and NVH performance. The technology is viable (and has
been used on production vehicles as stated) however the crash energy
management and NVH performance must be offset by adding weight
elsewhere in the vehicle. The CCB plays a role in crash and a major role in NVH
so I do not think that it is appropriate to suggest that the material replacement
will have the reported results in this case. My suggestion is to leave the CCB as
steel in the weight analysis (or go back and redo the crash and NVH modeling,
which I suspect is not viable).
78

-------
Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art crash simulation testing
methods have been employed as well as the extent to which the associated
analysis exhibits strong technical rigor.
If you have access to FMVSS crash setups to run the model under different
scenarios in LS-DYNA, are you able to validate the FEV/EDAG design and
results? In addition, please comment on the AVI files provided.
If you are aware of better methods and tools employed and documented
elsewhere to help validate advanced materials and design engineering rigor
for 2017-2020 vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve
the study.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
This is not my area of expertise
N/A


79

-------
4. VEHICLE MANUFACTURING COST METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR (CAE
BIW and Vehicle)
COMMENTS
Please comment on the methods used to analyze the mass-reduced vehicle
body structure's manufacturing costs.
Overall, the costing methods used in this study seem to be very thorough. The
details of the approach provide considerable credibility to the cost estimates,
however there will always be concerns regarding the accuracy of cost models
for systems where a complete, detailed engineering design has not been
established. I believe that this report does a good job of representing the cost
penalties/benefits of the technologies but I would still anticipate negative
response from industry. There a few examples where I believe that the cost
was underestimated or where additional data could be helpful in corroborating
the results:

The engine cost comparison suggests that the 2.4L engine will cost less than the
2.7L engine due to reduced material content (smaller engine). The analysis goes
on to say that the remaining costs (manufacturing, install, etc.) would be about
the same for both engines. This seems credible, but is it possible to compare
the price of both engine types as well? It may be possible to find prices for both
of these engines from a Toyota dealer, and while price is certainly different
than cost, it would be helpful in establishing that the cost differential estimate
is reasonably accurate.

Regarding the cylinder head subsystem (pg 211), the report notes that a switch
from Mg to plastic for the head covers introduces engineering challenges
related to the cam phaser circuitry. While the report identifies two production
examples of this change, these are for high cost engines. It seems unlikely that
the designs would achieve the quoted cost savings given that this has only been
applied to high cost engines and there are recognized difficulties in the
engineering/design.

Regarding the body redesign, the estimated cost increase due to materials and
manufacturing ($231.43, pg 333) for a weight savings of 67.7kg produces a
weight reduction penalty of about $3.42/kg-saved which seems appropriate for
80

-------
                                                                       the materials and assembly processes suggested in the report.

                                                                       I don't find the cost estimates for the seats to be credible (pg 378). If it's
                                                                       possible to reduce the weight of the seats (which represent a significant
                                                                       portion of vehicle weight) while saving significant cost, why would there be any
                                                                       steel seats in production? These are "bolt on" parts that are provided to the
                                                                       OEMs by suppliers so this would be a relatively easy change to make if the
                                                                       cost/weight trade-off shown  in this report is true. The report should, at the
                                                                       very least, address why these kinds of seats are not more prevalent in current
                                                                       vehicles.

                                                                       Why is there a cost savings for the front axle hub (pg 555)? If you are proposing
                                                                       to scallop the hub during forging then you will still need the same amount of
                                                                       input material - some of it will  be removed during scalloping, but you will not
                                                                       get a cost savings. Also, it's not made explicitly clear that the current hub  is
                                                                       forged. If you are proposing to  move from a cast hub to a forged hub then the
                                                                       cost will most certainly increase. If the cost savings here is due to the estimated
                                                                       weight savings in the final part  (i.e. pay for less material) then this indicates
                                                                       that the model is not correctly capturing the yield from the process.
Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art costing methods have
been employed as well as the extent to which the associated analysis exhibits
strong technical rigor.
This is not my area of expertise
If you are aware of better methods and tools employed and documented
elsewhere to help estimate costs for advanced vehicle materials and design
for 2017-2020 vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve
this study.
This is not my area of expertise
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
The change from a cast Al engine block with cast Fe liners to a cast-over Mg/AI hybrid with PWTA coated cylinders is very interesting, but the cost penalty
estimate seems low relative to what I would expect. Previous work exploring the use of Mg intensive engines (which did not include the added complexity of
cast-in Al liners) suggests a cost penalty of $3.89 per pound saved (see http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/lm 08/3  automotive metals-
cast, pdf report B) versus this report which suggests a cost penalty of $3.51 per kilogram saved, about half as expensive. The cited study was performed on a
2.5 L engine, comparable to the Venza. The primary difference is that the Venza study includes downsizing which would save on material costs, but I'm not
                                                                                                                                      81

-------
confident that the savings would be as substantial as indicated in this report. It seems that something has been underestimated.

There are several examples where a cost savings has been calculated by reducing the size of a component, despite using more expensive material. For example
the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield subsystem shows a savings for the caliper subsystem and a modest increase in the cost of the rotor and shield. Some of the
cost savings here is due to reducing the size of the system (scaling to the 2008 Toyota Prius). However, there would still be a weight savings (albeit lower) if the
conventional cast iron materials were used and downsized to the 2008 Toyota Prius - this is the likely outcome in a real automotive environment. Given the
option to choose a more expensive, exotic, untested system that saves significant weight versus a conventional low cost system that saves less weight, it seems
like an OEM would choose the conventional solution. In this case the suggested weight savings are technically possible but would never happen in a practical
automotive environment.
                                                                                                                                    82

-------
5. CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS
Are the study's conclusions adequately backed up by the methods and
analytical rigor of the study?
Are the conclusions about the design, development, validation, and cost of
the mass-reduced design valid?
Are you aware of other available research that better evaluates and validates
the technical potential for mass-reduced vehicles in the 2017-2020
timeframe?
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
COMMENTS
Yes. 1 identified various areas where the analysis or report could be improved,
but overall the methods used here provide a credible and reasonable estimate
of the potential for weight savings. Based on some of my earlier comments 1
would expect that actual costs to be somewhat higher than predicted in this
study. Additionally, real vehicles share components across platforms so using
vehicle-specific components would add additional cost. It is possible that the
cost curve would cross $0/lb-saved at a lower total weight savings than
suggested here.
Yes. As above, there is reason to believe that the true cost will be higher than
predicted here, but 1 think this analysis provides a useful estimate.
1 have not seen a report as thorough as this. There are several examples of
resources that provide useful information regarding weight reduction potential
such as
Cheah, LW. Cars on a Diet: The Material and Energy Impacts of Passenger
Vehicle Weight Reduction in the U.S.
Joshi, A.M. Optimizing Battery Sizing and Vehicle Lightweighting for an
Extended Range Electric Vehicle
Lutsey, N. Review of technical literature and trends related to automobile
mass-reduction technology

83

-------
6. OTHER POTENTIAL AREAS FOR COMMENT
Has the study made substantial improvements over previous available works
in the ability to understand the feasibility of 2017-2020 mass-reduction
technology for light-duty vehicles? If so, please describe.
Do the study design concepts have critical deficiencies in its applicability for
2017-2020 mass-reduction feasibility for which revisions should be made
before the report is finalized? If so, please describe.
Are there fundamentally different lightweight vehicle design technologies
that you expect to be much more common (either in addition to or instead
of) than the one Lotus has assessed for the 2017-2020 timeframe (Low
Development)?
Are there any other areas outside of the direct scope of the analysis (e.g.,
vehicle performance, durability, drive ability, noise, vibration, and hardness)
for which the mass-reduced vehicle design is likely to exhibit any compromise
from the baseline vehicle?
COMMENTS
Yes. Other studies have reviewed the mass saving potential of various
technologies individually, or imagined the impact of combining many
technologies. However 1 am not aware of a design study that takes an existing
vehicle and assesses each piece with the thoroughness used here.
No - 1 would not say that any deficiencies here are "critical"
Not in the 2017-2020 time frame. Switching to an advanced steel dominant
body with a few instances of Mg and Al seems appropriate for the time frame.
The considerable use of lightweight plastics is also in line with my expectations
for available technology in this time frame.
All of the areas listed here are somewhat concerning, but given the switch to
fairly conventional materials 1 believe that durability, driveability, and NVH
should be not be a significant issue. Detailed analysis work in these areas would
likely require some redesign which may add cost or weight, but 1 don't think it
would be overwhelming.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
84

-------
The Ohio State University

Kristina Kennedy's General Comments-

(1) "Building a full vehicle model w/o the use of drawings or CAD data..." -^ Has this method of
tear-down + scanning been proven out in industry or in other projects to understand how
closely this method would correlate with actual data? Is this basically "reverse engineering"
and is that an acceptable method?
(2) FE Meshing Tool, ANSA -^ Did a quick Google search and did not find this product. Am
familiar with ANSYS and others, but is ANSA an industry-standard tool? Just confirming the
wide-use of such a tool out of curiosity.
(3) "Bending and torsional stiffness values did not provide acceptable performance (when
replacing with HSS)" -^ This is an "of course" comment, right? HSS would absolutely produce
worse results when replacing steel. These results were expected, correct?
(4) Table 1.7.1: NVH Results Summary -^ The "Weight Test Condition" and "Weight BIW" are
ALSO outside of limits (> 5%), but not noted in results. Only those highlighted in red are
noted as "failures". All failures (> 5%) should be called out specifically since that was their
target.
(5) With respect to measuring powertrain CG and moment of inertia, notes "oscillation as an
undamped" condition -^ Just confirming, this means no dynamic dampers were used in the
engine room modeling? Is this realistic? Acceptable practice?
(6) Overall, well-written and well-done...my conclusion (which they also reached) is YES, NVH
WILL SUFFER when replacing steel with HSS and will OF COURSE make the vehicle MORE
STIFF.
85

First there some statements that are referenced with superscripts,
however there is not a reference list that appears in the document.

Second, this report does an excellent job of documenting at a high-level
that the finite element analysis is carried out properly, showing
agreement with masses, stiffness and crash signatures of baseline
vehicles. However, it is important that all of the details be also available
to the public, such as the detailed material geometry (mesh files), stress-
strain flow-laws used for the materials, weld locations (more than a
figure), models used for weld behavior and so on. This can be done by
reference or by making the LS-DYNA models public. It is not clear at time
of review how this will be done, but it would be a great service to make
all this granular detail available. Similar statements can be made
regarding the detail for components and materials in the costing models.
Tony Luscher's comments
The data used appears to be valid and appropriate to the tasks that are
completed. Vehicle data for the Toyota Venza was obtained by scanning
the components and creating the CAD models. Material data was found
from appropriate sources and databases. These were used to create a
crash test model for the vehicle and for cost estimation. A thorough
search of state-of-the-art vehicle design concepts was used as the basis
of mass reduction for the various vehicle systems.
86

-------
If you find issues with data sources and assumptions, please provide suggestions for
available data that would improve the study.
Glenn Daehn's comments
See above.
Tony Luscher's comments
None found.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Tony Luscher's comments
Data sources are well documented in the report and will aid if any additional investigation is needed. Several of them were checked for validity.
                                                                                                                                  87

The MSC Nastran solver was used to solve for the bending and torsion
stiffness of the body in white model. Good correlation was achieved
between physical stiffness testing and FEA stiffness results.
If you are aware of better methods employed and documented elsewhere to help
select and analyze advanced vehicle materials and design engineering rigor for
2017-2020 vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve this study.
Glenn Daehn's comments
Everything appears to be well-done and in accord with the state of the
art.
Tony Luscher's comments
None known.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
88

-------
3. VEHICLE CRASHWORTHINESS TESTING METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR. (CAE
only)
COMMENTS
Please comment on the methods used to analyze the vehicle body structure's
structural integrity (NVH, etc.) and safety crashworthiness.
Tony Luscher's comments
Trifilar suspension apparatus was used to find the CG and moments of
inertia of the engine and other major components. The dynamic FEA
modal setup was run using NASTRAN. Vibration modes were analyzed by
the CAE model and then compared with physical test data in order to
correlate the FEA model to the physical model. Five different load case
configurations with appropriate barriers were placed against the full
vehicle baseline model. Models were created with high detail and fidelity
Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art crash simulation testing
methods have been employed as well as the extent to which the associated analysis
exhibits strong technical rigor.
Tony Luscher's comments
Global vehicle deformation and vehicle crash behaviors were analyzed
and compared to the deformation modes of test photographs. Fidelity
was good. A few notes on these comparisons are noted on this page in
the additional comments section.
If you have access to FMVSS crash setups to run the model under different
scenarios in LS-DYNA, are you able to validate the FEV/EDAG design and results? In
addition, please comment on the AVI files provided.
Tony Luscher's comments
This reviewer has expertise in crash simulation. However due to time
constraints the model was not run under different scenarios in LS-DYNA.
No AVI files were found.
If you are aware of better methods and tools employed and documented elsewhere
to help validate advanced materials and design engineering rigor for 2017-2020
vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve the study.
Tony Luscher's comments
None found.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Tony Luscher's comments
The caption on Figures 1.8.13 to 1.8.14 state that they are at 100 ms
although the previous paragraph lists them as occurring at 80 ms. The
muffler deformation looks quite different in Figure 1.8.14.

Figure 1.8.33 is unclear and cannot be seen.
89

-------
4. VEHICLE MANUFACTURING COST METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR (CAE BIW and
Vehicle)
COMMENTS
Please comment on the methods used to analyze the mass-reduced vehicle body
structure's manufacturing costs.
Tony Luscher's comments
Mass reduction was analyzed first on a system level and then by a
component level basis. Mass reduction concepts were based upon a very
comprehensive literature review of new materials and manufacturing
processes and alternative designs ideas that appear in the open literature
and at trade shows. An assessment of these was made in terms of
technological readiness, fitness for use in mass production, risk, and cost.
In addition there were consultation with industry and experts.

These were found to be very thorough.
Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art costing methods have been
employed as well as the extent to which the associated analysis exhibits strong
technical rigor.
Tony Luscher's comments
The impact of costs, associated with mass reduction, was evaluated using
FEV's methodology and tools as previously employed on prior powertrain
analyses for EPA. Cost reduction assumptions are clearly laid out and are
reasonable. The report does a good job of realizing the inherent
challenges and risks in applying any new technology, let alone lightweight
technology, to a vehicle platform. FEV describes the component
interactions both positive and negative in its recommendations.

The actual values in the EXCEL files were not checked.
If you are aware of better methods and tools employed and documented elsewhere
to help estimate costs for advanced vehicle materials and design for 2017-2020
vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve this study.
Tony Luscher's comments
None found.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Tony Luscher's comments
There are many typos and fragmented sentences in these sections. These should be corrected. Bookmark references do not all work.
90

-------
5. CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS
COMMENTS
Are the study's conclusions adequately backed up by the methods and analytical
rigor of the study?
Glenn Daehn's comments
At the time of review, Section G "Conclusions and Recommendations" is
unavailable. We hope that in this section FEV will point out the most
promising actions that auto makers may take to reduce mass while
conserving cost.
Tony Luscher's comments
The report's conclusions are based on sound engineering principals of
good rigor.
Are the conclusions about the design, development, validation, and cost of the
mass-reduced design valid?
Glenn Daehn's comments
This study is carefully crafted with excellent attention to engineering
detail. It is important to note that the overall environment for vehicle
design, manufacture and use is continually changing. See the "Additional
Comments" section of this document for further development of the
implications of this.
Tony Luscher's comments
This reviewer found the overall work to be thorough and well
documented. Therefore the conclusions are well supported and validated
by the engineering and modeling in the report.
Are you aware of other available research that better evaluates and validates the
technical potential for mass-reduced vehicles in the 2017-2020 timeframe?
Glenn Daehn's comments
There are no more comprehensive or detailed studies that we are aware
of. This is an excellent compilation of ideas for practical vehicle mass
reduction and fuel efficiency improvement.
Tony Luscher's comments
None found.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Glenn Daehn's comments
The study does an excellent job within its scope. As this reviewer sees
the scope, the driving question is: Can a well-engineered relatively
modern vehicle (2010 Toyota Venza) have its mass reduced by 20% or
more, without significant cost penalty and while maintaining
91

-------
crashworthiness. The answer to that question is a clear "YES".  Further,
this conclusion is backed with rigor and attention to detail. This is in my
mind, very clear, well-done and technically rigorous.

This reviewer believes that there are a few other important questions
that were not asked. These include:

1) Will the proposed changes in design pose any other important  risks in
manufacture or use? This can include: warranty exposure, durability,
increased noise, vibration and harshness, maintenance concerns,  etc.,
etc.

2) Will increasing regulatory constraints and/or consumer expectations
require increases in vehicle mass, opposing the mass reductions provided
by the improved practices outlined in this study?

Both these issues will make vehicle light weighting more difficult than this
report suggests. With respect to issue 1) there are a  number of materials
and design substitutions that may produce concerns with durability,
manufacturability and warranty claims. For example when substituting
polymers for metals, there are new environmental embrittlement modes
that may cause failure and warranty claims. Also, if substituting
aluminum for steel, multi-material connections may cause galvanic
corrosion problems. When using thinner sheets of higher strength steel,
formability may be reduced and springback may be more problematic.
Both these issues may preclude the use of the stronger material with a
similar design and may also increase the time and cost involved with die
development. Lastly there are always risks in any new design.  For
example, when using new brake designs, pad wear and squeal may  be
more pronounced.  All of these issues may  cause a manufacturer to avoid
the new technology.

There are also local constrains  on material thicknesses that are outside
this review methodology.  For example while a roof rail may meet crash
                                                         92

-------
and stiffness criteria, it may deflect excessively or permanently if a 99th
percentile male pulls on it exiting a vehicle. Similarly, parking lot and hail
dents may require greater thickness gauges than this study may indicate.

The problem of vehicle light-weighting and improved fuel economy is
seen here through the lens as being an engineering problem to be solved.
And in many ways it is. However, the forces of consumer expectations
and behaviors are an essential part of the problem. As an interesting
anecdote, the Model T Ford had a fuel economy of about 20 MPG, very
similar to the average fuel economy of vehicles on the road today.  No
modern consumer would choose a  Model T for many obvious reasons.
Our cars have become extensions of our living rooms with many electrical
motors driving windows, mirrors, seats and complex and costly HVAC and
infotainment systems. All of these  systems add weight, complexity and
use power. Further increased complexity of engines to improve
emissions and increase fuel economy has increased engine mass.

This study shows that with good engineering we can reduce vehicle mass
of an existing vehicle by 20% with little to no increased cost or adverse
consumer reaction. Based on our current course, it is just as likely this
benefit will be taken by improved mandated safety and emission features
as well as improved creature comforts.

Much can be gained through enlightened consumer behavior (assuming
the average consumer wants to reduce energy use and carbon footprint).
While much of this is outside the scope of this report, in particular it
would be useful if the average consumer would understand the lifecycle
environmental impacts of vehicle choice and of varied vehicle design, and
would adopt a  'less is more' ethic and see their transportation systems as
that, simply transportation. A more minimalist ethic that would move
against increasing vehicle size and the creep of multiple motors for seats,
mirrors, windows, etc., would reduce acquisition cost, maintenance cost
and energy cost.  This is in addition, of course, to the usual advice to
reduce fuel consumption (limit trips, limit speed, tire pressure,
                                                         93

-------
carpooling, etc. etc.) is still valuable.

It should also be noted that there are other potentially low-cost actions
that can be easily adopted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
reduce dependence on foreign oil. One of these is widespread adoption
of natural gas fuels for personal transportation.  Use of Compressed
Natural Gas (CNG), has lower fuel cost than gasoline, produces less
pollution and greenhouse gas emission per energy used, and requires
only very modest changes to  conventional vehicle architecture, with no
significant increases in complexity. The cost and size of a CNG tank and
the development of refueling infrastructure are the main barriers to
adoption of a technology that could have important and positive societal
benefits.

This is an excellent and useful study.  It is important however to recognize
the limitations of purely engineering solutions. And even within the
engineering realm, there are  many reasons that the implementation of
the solutions in this paper study will require much effort to become part
of mainstream automobiles.
                                                          94

-------
6. OTHER POTENTIAL AREAS FOR COMMENT
COMMENTS
Has the study made substantial improvements over previous available works in the
ability to understand the feasibility of 2017-2020 mass-reduction technology for
light-duty vehicles? If so, please describe.
Glenn Daehn's comments
Without question. The only similar study also targeted the Venza. This
provides much additional analysis and many additional ideas beyond the
Lotus study.
Tony Luscher's comments
The major contribution of this study was to pull together and evaluate all
of the current proven concepts that are applicable to a lightweight
vehicle in the 2017-2020 timeframe. It is successful in this regard.
Do the study design concepts have critical deficiencies in its applicability for 2017-
2020 mass-reduction feasibility for which revisions should be made before the
report is finalized? If so, please describe.
Glenn Daehn's comments
Conclusions and recommendations section is missing. This is an
important opportunity to reinforce the most important actions that
automakers can take.

The report still lacks the ability to trace some technical details all the way
back to the source. This is described previously.
Are there fundamentally different lightweight vehicle design technologies that you
expect to be much more common (either in addition to or instead of) than the one
Lotus has assessed for the 2017-2020 timeframe (Low Development)?
Glenn Daehn's comments
It seems apparent that vehicles are moving more and more to multi-
materials construction and as we move away from steel-based
construction, joined primarily by resistance spot welds, there will be need
for additional joining technologies. Laser welding is mentioned as one
possible replacement for resistance spot welds, but it is expected that
over time there will be much more use of structural adhesives, self
piercing rivets, conformal joints and other joining strategies for the BIW.
Are there any other areas outside of the direct scope of the analysis (e.g., vehicle
performance, durability, drive ability, noise, vibration, and hardness) for which the
mass-reduced vehicle design is likely to exhibit any compromise from the baseline
vehicle?
Glenn Daehn's comments
Yes. There are many other details with respect to nuances of customer
expectations, durability, warranty risks and manufacturability that are
discussed elsewhere in this review. This does not diminish the
importance of this great work. Just points out there are an enormous
amount of detailed work required to build an automobile, and the job is
95

-------
                                                                       not finished.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
                                                                                                                             96

-------
Review of FEV Engineering Study:

"Light-Duty Vehicle Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis
- Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle "

By: Douglas Richman (Kaiser Aluminum and the Aluminum Association)

1.0 Introduction

This report is a review the 2012 FEV project to identify mass-reduction opportunities for
a crossover sport utility vehicle based on the 2009 Toyota Venza. This study is a
continuation of the Lotus Engineering Phase 1 Low Development (LD) study funded by
the Internal Council on Sustainable Transportation (ICCT) in 2010. Goal of the FEV
project is to identify practical mass reduction technologies to achieve a 20% reduction in
total vehicle mass (342 Kg) at no more than 10% increase in consumer cost while
meeting, or exceeding, all crashworthiness, performance and customer satisfaction
attributes provided by the baseline vehicle.

Body of the baseline vehicle is 31% of total vehicle mass and has a dominant influence
on NVH and collision performance of the total vehicle. This project involved extensive
engineering analysis of the vehicle body. BIW and closure materials and gauges were
optimization to exploit the maximum mass reduction potential from advanced low mass
automotive materials and advanced manufacturing processes. Mass reduction
initiatives are identified for all vehicle systems including engine, transmission, interior,
suspension and chassis systems. Most materials, manufacturing processes and
components selected for the FEV vehicle technology package are proven, cost effective
and available for use on 2017 production vehicles.

Majority of mass reduction concepts utilized are consistent with recognized industry
trends. Mass reduction potential attributed to individual components appear reasonable
and consistent with industry experience with similar components. As an advanced
design concept study this is an important and useful body of work. Results of the
project provide useful insight into potential vehicle mass reduction achievable with HSS
and AHSS materials.

This report is a review of the methodologies employed, technologies selected and
validity of findings in the FEV study. This reviewer has experience in vehicle mass
reduction engineering of body, engine and suspension systems. This review focuses on
those areas of the FEV project.
97

-------
2.0   FEV Project Summary

      Mass reduction technologies selected in this project achieve:

                   Mass reduction    317 Kg (18.5%)

                   Cost impact      $92 (reduction)
                        FEV/EDAG Venza Mass Reduction

                                by Vehicle System
                                        Misc
                             Exhaust1!6  6 22220
                    r    ,    .. _  7  °             Suspension
                    Frame Mounting
                         17        ^^m  •h^.      69

                    Transmission
                        19
                                                      BIW, Closures
                                                          68

                                                      Mass reduction in Kg.
                              FEV/EDAG Venza
                         Mass Reduction by Vehicle System

Vehicle  content is decomposed into  20  vehicle  sub-groups.    Mass  reduction
opportunities are identified in all 20 sub-groups.   Over 90% of the mass reduction
achieved is concentrated  in 7 vehicle systems.  Within each of these sub-systems a
relatively short  list of  mass  reduction technologies generated the  majority  of mass
reductions achieved.  Over 95%  of all cost variances (increases and decreases) result
from the technology changes  in the same 7 vehicle sub-groups. Key sub-groups are:

                        Body
                        Suspension
                        Interior
                        Brakes
                        Engine
                        Transmission
                        Frame  / Mounting
                                                                           98

-------
1.1 Mass Reduction Methodology

Mass reduction efforts were organized into two segments: body and non-body. Body
mass reduction focused on selection of materials (steel, aluminum, plastics and
magnesium), grades and gauges. Baseline Venza body design was not changed. Non-
body mass reduction efforts examined all vehicle systems for potential cost effective
mass reduction opportunities. FEV utilized technical support from two recognized,
technically qualified and highly respected engineering services organizations: EDAG
and Munro and Associates.
EDAG focused on body structural engineering and cost modeling. They conducted
detailed reverse engineering study the baseline Venza to establish baseline vehicle
mass and structural characteristics and develop CAE, FE and collision simulation
models. Calibrated FE models were used to develop an optimized Venza body
structure. EDAG Engineering analysis is thorough and reflects the high level of vehicle
engineering expertise and know-how within the EDAG organization. Modeling and
simulation technologies utilized by EDAG are state-of-the art and EDAG has recognized
competencies in effectively deploying those tools.
The EDAG work presents a realistic perspective of achievable vehicle structure mass
reduction using available design optimization tools, practical engineering materials and
available manufacturing processes. EDAG cost modeling of the baseline and reduced
mass vehicle structures.
Munro lead the process of identifying, analyzing, screening and selecting cost effective
mass reduction opportunities in all vehicle systems. Munro is a highly respected
engineering organization specializing in benchmarking and lean product design. Munro
process for achieving product mass and cost optimization is well developed and highly
effective. They utilize a creative mix of functional analysis, competitive benchmarking,
cross industry comparisons, advanced materials and manufacturing process knowledge
and sound engineering analysis. This segment of the study identified a significant
number of practical mass reduction concepts in all 20 vehicle sub-groups. The majority
of mass reduction technologies selected for the final design are in some current level of
volume production and appear cost effective and realistically achievable by 2017.

1.2 Cost Analysis Methodology

Costing models were maintained by EDAG. A complete baseline vehicle cost model
was developed and calibrated to the estimated cost of the current Venza. The baseline
model was used to track cost changes driven by mass reduction technologies.

Cost estimates for mass reduction technologies are based on detailed analysis of the
products, materials and process utilized. Estimating costs for new or emerging
technologies is a challenging process. Advanced technology cost estimates are based
on a combination scaling from known products if available, benchmarking from similar
products, material supplier costs, analysis of advanced manufacturing cost, and expert
estimates. Labor rates and manufacturing overheads are maintained at documented
industry typical levels.
99

-------
This cost tracking approach is fundamentally sound and valid. Cost estimates for new
technologies are subject to validity of cost estimates and engineering judgments in the
estimate. This project included rigorous engineering assessments of all mass reduction
technology costs.

For most mass reduction technologies selected, cost estimates appear realistic and are
consistent with current production costs and prior vehicle mass reduction studies. In the
area of body sheet materials there appears to be some assumptions that result in
estimated technology costs as much as 25% higher than volume production experience
would suggest. This are is discussed in more detail in this report.

2.0 Baseline Vehicle Model - Body

EDAG conducted a detailed reverse engineering process to define baseline Venza
component mass and structural performance. The process included: vehicle teardown,
identification of component mass and material composition and component scanning to
create digital models of structural components. Part connections (spot weld, seam
weld, laser weld), dimensions (location, weld diameter, weld length), and characteristics
were documented during scanning process. Material property data was obtained by
coupon testing part samples.

Scan data, part weight and material information were used to create a CAE model of the
vehicle structure. A finite element (FE) model was created from the CAE model using
ANSA mesh software. The FE model was used to evaluate NVH characteristics
(bending, torsion, modal analysis) of the structure using NASTRAN. Model results were
compared and calibrated with analytical test results to establish the baseline analysis
model. CAE crash performance simulations (LS-DYNA) were conducted to verify model
correlation with actual vehicle crash test performance in National Highway Traffic Safety
Association (NHTSA) regulatory performance testing. Model results were calibrated to
actual Venza crash performance data. The correlated crash model became the
baseline crash model for the remaining load cases.

EDAG is widely recognized as highly competent and experienced in vehicle structural
modeling, NVH and collision simulation and structural engineering. LS-Dyna,
MSC/Nastran and ANSA are valid and widely-used simulation tools, commonly used
and accepted within the engineering community and the industry to perform this
analysis. The approach used by EDAG to develop Venza structural models is a state-
of-the art methodology utilizing proven modeling tools.

Structural models developed in this project were calibrated to physical test results of
actual vehicle structures. Simulation results appear reasonable and logical, building
confidence in the fidelity of the analysis. Models have excellent correlation to actual
vehicle performance. FMVSS crash results are consistent with bending and torsional
stiffness properties. There is no apparent reason to question results of this modeling
and simulation effort. These models would be expected to be valid for comparison of
100

-------
design alternatives.  These models would be expected to provide reliable assessments
of NVH and collision performance of the Venza structure.

Report conclusions with regard to NVH and collision performance do not substantially
overreach the capability and results of the analysis.  In some  relatively minor areas,
assessment to of the "optimized" structure is not fully supported by generally recognized
measures of structural performance.  These few relatively uncertainties do not diminish
the overall conclusion that the modeling and simulation efforts  are well done and the
major conclusions are valid useable.

2.1    Lotus "Low Development" Structure

This project included evaluation of the Lotus Engineering  "Low Development" Toyota
Venza reduced weight structure.  Lotus low-development design  used the baseline
Venza structure with "optimized" deployment of advanced  high strength steels.  Lotus
optimization process selected AHSS grades and gauges based on a load path analysis
derived from a Lotus developed FEA model of the Venza structure.

EDAG baseline modal  analysis model was  used to  evaluate Lotus selected material
grades and gauges.  Modal analysis results and corresponding  weight reduction were
comparable, but the bending and torsional stiffness values did not provide acceptable
performance.   Torsional stiffness is 20.4% less, and bending stiffness is 20.0% less
than the 5%  target performance established by  EDAG. Further crash validations of
Lotus Engineering's study were not conducted,  since it did not meet the NVH targeted
performance.
                                                                            101

-------
3.0   Mass Reduction

FEV decomposed  the total vehicle  into 20  sub-systems.   Each  sub-system was
aggressively examined to  identify  realistically achievable  and cost effective  mass
reduction opportunities. Majority of  mass reduction achieved (90%) is concentrated in
(7) vehicle sub-systems:
                            Mass
                          Reduction
            Body              68 Kg
            Suspension        69
            Interior            42
            Brakes            41
            Engine            30
            Transmission      19
            Frame, Mounts    17

These 7 sub-systems account for over 90% of the cost increases and decreases  in this
project.

This reviewer  has experience in  light weighting  of  body,  suspension and engine
systems. Comments in the following sections are limited to those vehicle sub-groups.

A significant number of creative and innovative mass reduction ideas were developed
and selected for the remaining (17)  sub-systems not discussed in this report.  Many of
the ideas appear to be appropriate consideration  as part of a total vehicle efficiency
improvement effort.
3.1    Body Optimization Overview

Body Sub-system includes: Body-in-White  (BIW), Closures,  Hood, Doors, Lift Gate,
Fenders.  This sub-system is the highest  mass sub-group at 529 Kg, 31% of total
vehicle mass.  Body group  design and material selection have a dominant influence on
vehicle  NVH and collision  performance.  For that reason, optimization  of the body
structure is a major focus of this project.

      Body sub-system -       BIW, Closures, Bumper, Fenders

      Optimization results -     71 Kg mass reduction
                              $230 cost increase

FEV body  mass reduction 68 Kg. (21 % of total vehicle mass reduction)

Baseline Toyota Venza body elements (BIW,  closures, bumpers) are predominantly a
mix of mild steel (48%) and HSS (49%) with a resulting mass  of 529 Kg (31%  of total
Venza mass).   This mix of materials  represents a comprehensive use of automotive
grade steels available when the Venza was originally designed.
                                                                           102

-------
Body related mass reductions from this baseline are indicative of improvements made
possible by advances in materials technology.

Venza  baseline BIW structure was used for both  the Lotus "Low  Development" and
EDAG  material optimization analysis.   Both studies  reduced BIW mass by similar
amounts, Lotus LD: 61  Kg, EDAG: 54 Kg.  Differences  between Lotus and EDAG
structures include: specific material grades and  gauges and joining  technology.  Lotus
LD  structure  used conventional  resistance  spot welding  while  the  EDAG structure
included  continuous laser welding for structurally significant joints.  BIW mass for the
two structures are similar:

         BIW Structure Mass
            Baseline          386 Kg
            Lotus Venza LD    325 Kg (-15.8%)
            EDAG Venza      332 Kg (-14 %)

Significant  difference bending  and torsional stiffness  between the Lotus and EDAG
structures (20%) do  not appear to be fully explained by the relative  difference in mass
between  the  structures.   Structural stiffness for a constant  shape is  dependent on
material gauge and modulus  and not  influenced by strength properties.  Auto  body
stiffness  can  be increased  by improving attachment integrity.  It would be helpful  to
understand the influence  of laser  seam  welding  on  body  NVH  and  collision
performance.
                                                                           103

-------
3.1 Body Optimization

Body optimization was accomplished using EDAG body mass optimization process.
The calibrated Venza FEA model was used. In this process alternate material type,
grade and gauge were evaluated for NVH and collision performance. Baseline Venza
body structure was not altered. Materials evaluated include advanced high strength
steels (AHSS), aluminum, magnesium, plastics. Material gauges were selected based
on component part requirements (NVH, Collision) and properties of specific materials.
The body mass optimization process explored the potential of HSS, AHSS, aluminum,
magnesium and plastics.
Optimized body structure content summary:
Baseline Optimized
Mass Mass
Mass
Reduction
Materials Change
BIW
Doors
Hood
Lift Gate
Fenders
Bumpers
386.0 Kg
95.7
17.8
15.1
6.8
7.5
324.0
95.6
10.1
7.7
4.9
7.5
51.0 Kg (13.2%) HSS, AHSS, Gauge

7.7 (43%) Aluminum

7.2 (48%) Aluminum

1.9(28%) Aluminum

528.9 Kg 457.7 Kg 71.2 Kg (13.5%)

3.1.1 BIW Optimization
The EDAG optimized BIW is predominantly HSS and AHSS with appropriate gauge
reductions. Baseline Venza is composed of 78% mild steel and 22% HSS. This
material mix is representative of a comprehensive use of available materials at the time
this Venza model was designed. The optimization process selected HSS and AHSS for
over 80% of structure.
This study provides insight into practical BIW mass reductions achievable with recent
and anticipated near term future advancements in automotive steels. Using AHSS
aggressively with resultant gauge reductions achieved an 13.2% reduction in BIW mass
(3% reduction in total vehicle mass). This finding is consistent with similar investigations
on the part of OEM organizations in North America and Europe.
Aluminum was selected for the hood, lift gate and fenders. Mass reduction achieved for
those components were: Hood: 43%, Lift gate: 48% and Fenders: 28%. Selection of
aluminum for these body components is consistent with OEM production experience and
several independent organization studies. The magnitude of mass reduction achieved
in this body group is also consistent with production experience.
104

-------
3.1.2  Body Optimization - Costs

      Costs attributed to optimization of the body are reported as:

                                    Mass Reduction
                               Cost   $/Kg saved

            BIW              $110     $ 2.19    HSS, AHHS

            Hood             $  39     $ 5.08    Aluminum

            Lift Gate           $  30     $4.16    Aluminum

            Fenders           $  22     $10.93    Aluminum

                  Total        $210     $ 3.20

Cost increases projected for HSS and AHSS  are  marginally  higher than have been
reported in analytical studies and OEM experience in volume  production.  Production
vehicle studies of AHSS in  auto body applications have  suggested cost impact  of
reduced body mass can offset a  majority of the cost premiums associated with these
materials.

Cost increases projected for aluminum sheet  application are significantly higher than
has been seen in prior studies and in production OEM experience. The optimized body
includes three aluminum components: Hood, Fenders and Lift  Gate.  Mass reductions
attributed to these three product areas are  consistent with OEM production experience.
Estimated cost increases are significantly  higher than have been seen  in production
experience.

Using the  hood as an example, total cost of the baseline hood is estimated to be $43
while total cost of the aluminum  hood is estimated  to be $93.  Mass savings with the
aluminum  hood is 7.7  Kg  resulting  in a  net  cost  per Kg mass reduction of $6.49.
Production program experience with aluminum  hoods typical find a cost premium below
$4.50 per Kg mass reduction. Processing costs for a steel or aluminum hood should be
similar.  That similarity  is reflected the EDAG  cost model.   The main cost difference
between  hoods is in material  cost.  Examining  the  EDAG  cost  model it appears
aluminum sheet products were assessed a  base metal cost and a grade premium.  The
two factors appear  to  be  combined in the cost model results a  raw  material cost
substantially higher than actual market price for these materials.

EDAG cost models for auto body sheet materials (AHSS and aluminum) appear to be
overstating raw material costs. A review of  the costing models and correlation with
market prices for the materials and how raw material cost for sheet products is
established in the models may be appropriate.
                                                                           105

-------
3.1.3 Body Modeling - Comments

The following observations are submitted in the interest of completeness and do not
diminish validity of findings and conclusions of the overall project.

Body Modeling - Service Loads
Vehicle models developed in this study are valid and useful for the intended scope of
this project. Models addresses overall bending and torsional stiffness, free body modal
frequencies, roof strength, and four crash test load cases. These are good indicators
and cover many of the primary structural performance concerns.
This analysis does not address what are commonly referred to as "service loads,"
including jacking, twist ditch, pothole impacts, 2G bumps, towing loads, running loads,
etc. Running loads are typically suspension loads for a variety of conditions to address
strength, stiffness and fatigue durability of the body and suspension attachment
structures and points. Without these other considerations, the optimization process
could may unrealistically reduce mass in components that have little effect on overall
body stiffness or strength, yet are important for durability.
Body Modeling - Deformable Barrier
Modeling of deformable barriers has historically been an issue. Source, nature or
origination of the deformable barriers (moving and fixed) used in this project are not
explained. In the offset deformable barrier crash test load cases, overall deformations,
including barrier deformations are reported. The reporting does, however, raise a
modeling concern. Barrier deformations of over 515 mm are reported for the offset
tests. The IIHS deformable barrier has 540 mm thickness of deformable material. It is
not expected to compress completely. Excessive barrier deformation has the potential
to change the overall acceleration and deformation scenarios reported and influence the
mass optimization process.
Body Modeling - Average Acceleration
Overall acceleration issues are not reported in a format normally used by collision
development engineers. Charts of unfiltered acceleration pulses are shown and
comparisons are made by evaluation of peak accelerations. "Average accelerations"
are referred to, but in this report average is the average of left and right side peak
accelerations.
Average acceleration as represented by the slope of the filtered velocity/time curve is
commonly used to evaluate relative collision performance of a structure. Common
practice is to try to steepen the curve in the early portion of the crash sequence (up to
perhaps 50 ms) and to try to flatten the curve in the later parts. The logic has to do with
the motions of a restrained occupant within the structure. In addition, total velocity
change, including rebound, is typically reviewed. As an example, increasing front
structure strength can increase restitution and rebound, which increases the overall
change in velocity, or Delta-V, and can have adverse effects on overall occupant
performance. While peak accelerations are useful, unfiltered peaks can be misleading
due to the noise/vibration effect, and at best represent only a partial analysis.
106

This project included a major engineering effort to identify practical mass reduction
opportunities in non-body component groups. A rigorous process was followed to
identify potential mass reduction concepts. This process selected a extraordinary
number of technologies that were judged to be practical, cost effective and in volume
production now or will be in production by 2017. A few of the larger mass reduction
ideas are discussed in the following sections.

Non-body mass reduction ideas selected for the final FEV vehicle design resulted in a
21% reduction in non-body sub-group mass reduction. A portion of the mass reduction
achieved in this area was the result of vehicle mass reduction (engine, wheels, tires).
The majority of non-body mass reductions are independent of other reductions in
vehicle mass.
3.2.1 Suspension

Suspension sub-system - Wheels, Tires, Shock Absorbers,
Steering Knuckles, Control Arms, Springs,

Optimization results - 69 Kg mass reduction
$0 cost increase

Major mass reductions in this group are:

Wheels and Tires 32.8 Kg Resized to new weight
Shock absorber 14.1 New light weight design
Front Control Arm 1.9 Convert to Aluminum
107

-------
      Front and Rear Knuckle   12.6        Conversion to Cast Aluminum
      Front and Rear Sta. Bar    7.0        Innovative Al tube concept
      Other                    0.6

Wheels

Downsizing wheels and tires (5) for the 317 Kg (18.5%) reduction in total vehicle mass
is appropriate and is a normal consideration in OEM weight reduction programs. Wheel
and tire  combinations selected represent a 22% mass  reduction from the reduction for
these components.  This magnitude of mass  reduction is potentially achievable, but
must be considered somewhat aggressive.

Knuckles

Conversion of steering knuckles to cast aluminum is a proven strategy.  Estimated mass
reduction by conversion to aluminum is 38% of knuckle mass.  Approximately 35% of
knuckles on vehicles built in  North America use aluminum knuckles.  Mass reduction
achieved  in  those programs  range  from  35% to  45%  depending  on  knuckle
configuration.  Knuckle mass reduction assessment in this study is achievable.

Control Arms

Conversion of the front control arm  to forged aluminum  results  in  a vehicle mass
reduction of 2 Kg.  Baseline Venza  control arm design is typical of a design used widely
throughout the industry.   A significant proportion of these  arms are produced  in
aluminum.  Mass reduction estimates for conversion of this component is typical of the
reductions seen in similar production programs.

Shock Absorber Sway Bars

Reduced mass shock absorber/strut designs and the tubular sway  bars are innovative
concepts.   Cost reduction of $58  is attributed  to the  reduced mass  shock absorber
concept.  Production viability and cost of this ideas is not known to this reviewer.
System Cost

Total  cost for mass reductions  in this group is estimated to be net $0.  Cost savings
resulting from downsized wheels and tires ($79) and low mass shock  absorbers ($58)
offset cost increases for low mass arms, knuckles and stabilizer bars.
3.2.2  Engine

      Optimization results -     30.4 Kg mass reduction
                              $ 43.96 cost reduction
                                                                           108

-------
Main sources of engine mass reduction:
Downsizing - constant performance 10.4 Kg (2.7 L to 2.4 L)
Cylinder Block - Al Mg Hybrid, liners 7.1
Valve train - Al castings, power metal 3.7
Cooling system - plastic housings 2.6
Timing Drive - Plastic covers 1.5
Other 5.1

Engine - Downsizing

Largest mass (10.4 Kg) reduction came from downsizing the engine to a smaller
displacement to maintaining baseline Venza performance levels. Assessing appropriate
engine weight for a downsized engine is a complex task. Changing displacement within
a basic engine achieves small incremental mass reductions. A broader perspective was
used in this study. Based on competitive engine technology assessments, an engine
was selected representing mass optimization for the 2.4 L displacement. Mass of the
new engine was adjusted based on sound engineering analysis to meet packaging and
performance parameters of the baseline engine-vehicle package. This approach
represents an innovative, thorough and well-engineered approach to estimating
optimized engine mass reduction resting from vehicle mass reduction.

Developing a new engine involves massive investments in design, development and
manufacturing. Production engines are designed for use in a broad range of vehicles
and for a period of time spanning several vehicle design cycles. Manufacturers may not
have the opportunity to provide a mass optimized engine for a specific vehicle.

The majority of engine mass reduction ideas selected for the FEV Venza exploit recent
advances in materials and/or manufacturing technologies. Many small gains were
made converting cast iron housings to cast aluminum, and cast aluminum covers and
brackets to cast magnesium or plastic. Most of the engine mass reduction ideas
selected have been proven in multiple high volume applications over several years. A
few engine Ideas have less proven high volume field experience and were identified by
FEV as "D" level selection candidates.

Cylinder Block

Cylinder block mass reductions were achieved by utilizing a hybrid design with
magnesium outer jacket die cast over an aluminum core structure. This process is in
limited production in Europe. Considering engineering, manufacturing and investment
issues associated with this technology, FEV identifies this as "D" (difficult) technology
for 2017 availability.

Cylinder Liners

Parent metal (aluminum) cylinder liners were selected for mass reduction. FEV
selected a steel plasma coating process to achieve required bore wear characteristics.
109

-------
While this process has been used in low volume applications for over 10 years it has not
been  demonstrated high volume  production levels.  FEV  identifies  this as a  "D"
technology for 2017 production.
                                                                           no

-------
1. ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCES (CAE BIW and Vehicle)
Please comment on the validity of any data sources and assumptions embedded in
the study. Such items include material choices, technology choices, vehicle design,
crash validation testing, and cost assessment that could affect its findings.
If you find issues with data sources and assumptions, please provide suggestions for
available data that would improve the study.
COMMENTS
1) NHTSA crash test data was used for validation of collision simulation
models and is an appropriate source.
2) Material property data was supplied by recognized supplier
associations and are correct.
3) Cost estimates for reduced mass sheet products seem to include
assumption that drive unusually high material and equipment cost.
This issue leads to a technology cost effectiveness that is not
representative of actual production experience for sheet products.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Ill

-------
2. VEHICLE DESIGN METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR (CAE BIW and Vehicle)
COMMENTS
Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art design methods have been
employed and the extent to which the associated analysis exhibits strong technical
rigor. You are encouraged to provide comments on the information contained
within the unencrypted model provided by EDAG; the technologies chosen by FEV;
and the resulting final vehicle design.
1) EDAG performed structural modeling. The EDAG organization is
widely recognized as technically competent and highly experienced in
modeling of auto body structure. Modeling approach appears
technically robust and logical.
2) Body structural analysis utilized industry recognized CAE, CAD and
collision modeling analysis tools and protocols. Tools used are state-
of-the -art and the approach.
3) FE model was validated against physical test data for NVH and
collision performance. Model correlation with physical test results is
very good. No significant discrepancies or inconsistencies have been
identified in the modeling results.
4) Based on these observation, the models would be considered valid
and reliable for moderate A:B design comparisons that are the
subject of this vehicle study.
Please comment on the methods used to analyze the technologies and materials
selected, forming techniques, bonding processes, and parts integration.
1) Body: Process used to select materials, grades and gauges for the
mass optimized body sub-group is technically sound and thorough.
Election of laser welding of structurally significant body panels
indicates deployment of advanced manufacturing process where
appropriate.
2) Non-body: Methodology used to identify, screen and select non-
body mass reduction technologies is thorough, detailed and highly
effective. Munro Associates lead this segment of the project. Munro
is recognized as being technically competent, highly experienced,
knowledgeable and creative in benchmarking and lean engineering of
automotive and non-automotive systems.
If you are aware of better methods employed and documented elsewhere to help
select and analyze advanced vehicle materials and design engineering rigor for
2017-2020 vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve this study.
112

-------
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

The team of FEV, EDAG and Munro is an outstanding coalition of industry experts with the unique skills and expertise necessary to meet the objectives of this
project.
                                                                                                                                    113

-------
3. VEHICLE CRASHWORTHINESS TESTING METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR. (CAE
only)
COMMENTS
Please comment on the methods used to analyze the vehicle body structure's
structural integrity (NVH, etc.) and safety crashworthiness.
1) LS-Dyna and MSC-Nastran are current and accepted tools for this kind
of analysis. FEM analysis is part science and part art. EDAGhasthe
experienced engineers and analysts required to generate valid
simulation models and results.
2) EDAG was thorough in their analysis, load-case selections and data
for evaluation
3) The handling of acceleration data from the crash test simulations is a
bit unusual, and further analysis of the data is recommended.
Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art crash simulation testing
methods have been employed as well as the extent to which the associated analysis
exhibits strong technical rigor.
1) CAE modeling guidelines used appear to provide a rigorous and
logical technical approach to the development of the FE and the
methods of analysis.
2) Method of evaluating and comparing acceleration levels in the
various crash test scenarios is a bit unusual, a more accepted method
of comparing velocity/time plots and average accelerations is
suggested.
If you have access to FMVSS crash setups to run the model under different
scenarios in LS-DYNA, are you able to validate the FEV/EDAG design and results? In
addition, please comment on the AVI files provided.
If you are aware of better methods and tools employed and documented elsewhere
to help validate advanced materials and design engineering rigor for 2017-2020
vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve the study.
Methods and tools were appropriate.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
114

-------
4. VEHICLE MANUFACTURING COST METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR (CAE BIW and
Vehicle)
COMMENTS
Please comment on the methods used to analyze the mass-reduced vehicle body
structure's manufacturing costs.
Body structure mass optimization was conducted by EDAG. Body
structure was not altered form the baseline structure. Mass optimization
process examined an appropriate range of material types, grades and
gauges. Material properties used appear valid for the respective
materials and grades. NVH and collision performance results appear
consistent and logical with no significant dis-continuities of
inconsistencies. In general the process used is excellent and the results
appear realistic and valid.
Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art costing methods have been
employed as well as the extent to which the associated analysis exhibits strong
technical rigor.
Costing models are thorough covering all elements of total production
cost (material, processing, equipment, tooling, freight, packaging,...).
Baseline cost model was calibrated to baseline vehicle cost projection.
The basic model is complete and sound.

Cost estimates for mass reduction technologies are the result of a
rigorous engineering process utilizing benchmarking data, material and
component costs from suppliers and detailed analysis of manufacturing
costs. Sound creative engineering analysis was used to scale product cost
to this specific vehicle application. Accuracy of new technology cost
estimates is dependent on the knowledge, skill, experience and
engineering judgment of the individuals making the estimates. Munro
Associates conducted this segment of the project. Munro is a highly
respected organization with strong qualifications in product cost analysis.
It is reasonable to assume cost estimates in this study are valid estimates
for the mass reduction technologies.

One area of cost estimate concern is reduced mass sheet products. In
this area, material and equipment costs attributed to the reduced mass
technologies are significantly higher than actual production experience
would support. Source of the discrepancy is not clear form the
115

-------
                                                                          information in the project review documents.
If you are aware of better methods and tools employed and documented elsewhere
to help estimate costs for advanced vehicle materials and design for 2017-2020
vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve this study.
Process methodology and execution used is one of the best this reviewer
has seen.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

A review of cost development for reduced mass sheet product should be reviewed.  Current model would lead to de-selecting some low mass sheet based
solutions due to unrepresentative cost assessment.
                                                                                                                                116

-------
5. CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS
Are the study's conclusions adequately backed up by the methods and analytical
rigor of the study?
Are the conclusions about the design, development, validation, and cost of the
mass-reduced design valid?
Are you aware of other available research that better evaluates and validates the
technical potential for mass-reduced vehicles in the 2017-2020 timeframe?
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
COMMENTS
Study conclusions and findings are well supported by the analytical rigor,
tools used and expertise of the organizations involved.
Design development and validation conclusions are well supported in this
study. Cost model is valid and cost conclusions are generally realistic.
There appears to be a systematic discrepancy in cost modeling of low
mass sheet products. This discrepancy has a minor impact on conclusions
of this study.
This reviewer has monitored automotive mass reduction studies in North
America and Europe for several years. This study is the best evaluation of
mass reduction opportunities and associated costs this reviewer has
seen.

117

Retaining the OEM designed and field proven body structure eliminates
uncertainty related to evaluation of novel and un-proven structures. This
analysis clearly identifies body mass reduction achievable with new and
near term future grades of HSS and AHSS.

An exhaustive list of non-body mass reduction concepts are evaluated in
this study. Some of these technologies are well known and understood in
the industry, other are new, creative and innovative. Each technology is
reviewed from an engineering and cost perspective and scaled to the
specific application. The technology selection process was analytical,
rigorous and un-biased. Majority of technologies selected are
appropriate for the mass reduction and cost objectives of the project.
This information provides helpful information to industry engineers
considering mass reduction alternatives for other vehicle programs.
Do the study design concepts have critical deficiencies in its applicability for 2017-
2020 mass-reduction feasibility for which revisions should be made before the
report is finalized? If so, please describe.
Major findings of the project appear practical for implementation by
2017-20.

Two technologies selected for inclusion in the final vehicle concept
appear "speculative" for 2017-20, Co-cast magnesium/aluminum block
and MMC brake rotors. Both technologies are identified as "D" level for
implementation.

Designing, developing and establishing production capacity for a new
engine block is a time consuming and costly process. Investments would
be required by OEM manufactures and casting suppliers. It is not clear
the level of human resources and capital investment required for this
118

-------

Are there fundamentally different lightweight vehicle design technologies that you
expect to be much more common (either in addition to or instead of) than the one
Lotus has assessed for the 2017-2020 timeframe (Low Development)?
Are there any other areas outside of the direct scope of the analysis (e.g., vehicle
performance, durability, drive ability, noise, vibration, and hardness) for which the
mass-reduced vehicle design is likely to exhibit any compromise from the baseline
vehicle?
technology could be justified the basis of the mass reduction potential of
(7 Kg).
Aluminum MMC brake rotors were selected for inclusion in the final
vehicle configuration. In the judgment of this reviewer, this technology is
the most speculative technology selected for the final vehicle
configuration. MMC rotors have been in development for over 25 years.
Development experience with these rotors has generally not been
acceptable for typical customer service. The minimum mass MMC rotor
design selected in this project is a radical (by automotive standards) multi
piece bolted composite design with an MMC rotor disc. This design is
identified as a "D" rated technology and a mass savings of 9 Kg. The
aluminum MMC portion of the mas reduced rotor assembly would be
regarded as "speculative" at this time.
Cost models used to assess low mass sheet product may have some
questionable assumptions. For this project, adjustment in the cost model
is unlikely to influence he material selection process. Correction in this
area would have a greater impact on technology screening and selection
to achieve mass reductions above 20%.
No. The result of his study is a logical and cost effective advancement in
the development of more efficient passenger vehicles for the 2017-20
timeframe.
None identified by this reviewer.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
119

-------
Review of Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis -
Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle (FEV Report)

simunovics @ornl.gov

Summary

This document is a review of the reports, computational models and simulations by the FEV
and its contractors on the design of a lightweight midsize crossover utility vehicle. The FEV
study is an extension of the previous study titled "An Assessment of Mass Reduction
Opportunities for a 2017 - 2020 Model Year Vehicle Program" (Lotus Phase 1 Study}.
Starting from the research findings and the vehicle used in that study, FEV engineers have
developed a lightweight vehicle concept that utilizes designs, materials and manufacturing
processes that are regarded to be technologically and commercially feasible for the 2017-
2020 car model year. This design is termed as the "Low Development" concept as it
assumes that the technologies needed for this design are sufficiently mature and that they
not encompass any unresolved fundamental technology barriers. Overall, the main
developments and general findings of the FEV study are sound when viewed from the
perspective of crashworthiness modeling and the underlying formulations and practices
employed. However, I have identified several issues with the developed models that in my
opinion have to be addressed before the final conclusions and the models are released into
the open domain. Given the scrutiny that the study and the vehicle models are expected to
undergo after they are released to the general public, it is important that these issues are
resolved as much as possible so that they do not distract from otherwise sound technical
results.
1.

This document provides expert review of the 2012 study by FEV, Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-
Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle (FEV Report}. The FEV
Study study builds on the previous 2010 Lotus project [1] that developed two lightweight
conceptual designs of the existing vehicle, 2009 Toyota Venza. The first design, referred to
as the "Low Development" vehicle, was based on the materials and technologies that were
deemed feasible for 2017 production. Its estimated reduction in mass compared to the
baseline production vehicle was 21%.

The FEV study under review documents the design process with a goal of 20% mass
reduction corresponding to the Low Development (LD} case ("20%"} as specified in the
Lotus Engineering Phase 1 study. The weight reduction is pursued through analysis of the
Body-in-White (BIW}, and through an up-to-date re-analysis of light weighting options for
all of the other vehicle components. The FEV study includes an in-depth cost assessment of
all the light weighting technologies. However, this subject matter is not in my core
120

-------
expertise area, so that I have not attempted a comprehensive review, except for few
general opinions that were a result of engineering intuition.

The FEV study consists of two parts: In the first part, FEV's contractor, design and
engineering company EDAG, has designed and developed a reduced-weight BIW structure
using computer Aided Engineering (CAE}. The objective was to demonstrate that a
lightweight design modification of an existing vehicle has a strong potential to meet the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS] for Light-Duty Vehicles. The study was
conducted in the virtual domain, using the Finite Element Method (FEM} [2,3]
computational tools. The BIW models were developed using the state-of-the-art
measurement and CAE tools. The simulations were conducted using computer codes MSC
NASTRAN and LS-DYNA [4]. The research and development investigated application of
new high-strength materials, new manufacturing and assembly methods for the BIW as it
provides most potential for vehicle weight reduction. The second part of the report is an in-
depth investigation and design of lightweight "other than BIW" vehicle systems. The
resulting design is based upon discussions with suppliers, Lotus Phase 1 report ideas, and
FEV's experience and expertise in the subject matter.

In this document I review the methods, data, and the FEM crash models developed in the
FEV study. The models were evaluated based on the analysis of the computational
simulation results and on based on the analysis of the actual model files. I want to
emphasize that the scope of my review is on the computational simulations of the vehicle
crashworthiness and on the modeling approaches employed by the FEV and its contractors.
The primary source for my review were the FEV final draft report, the crash animations
generated by the FEV, and the computer simulation output files for the NCAP and the ODB
crash test configurations. Two vehicle crash models were available, the baseline and the LD
model. As it will be shown in the following sections, my review was based to a large extent
on the vehicle model files. Very often in the current practice, the actual model files are not
sufficiently scrutinized and are evaluated only through the resulting computational
simulations. In the case of large complex FEM models, such as car crash models, the
model's configuration complexity and its shear size can obscure the important details of
the response and camouflage the sources of errors in the model. That is particularly
common when the technology envelope of the state-of-the-art is expanded, as is the case
with ever-increasing sizes and complexities of the car crash models.
2. Methodology of the Review

The review of the 2012 study by FEV, Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis
- Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle was conducted in order to provide specific opinions on
the following aspects of the study as charged by the EPA: (1} assumptions and data
sources; (2} vehicle design methodological rigor; (3} vehicle crashworthiness testing
methodological rigor-CAE only; (4} vehicle manufacturing cost methodological rigor; (5}
conclusion and findings; and (6} other comments. Each of the subjects is further split into
sub-topics as needed. As noted above, I do not extensively comment on item (4} as it is not
121

-------
in my field of expertise. The following sections follow the outline of the EPA charge
questions.

3. Assumptions and Data Sources

This section contains comments on validity of the data sources, material properties, and
modeling approaches used in this study. The overall methodology used by the FEV is
fundamentally solid and adhere to standard practices of the crashworthiness engineering
[5]. However, an in-depth analysis of the model files reveals several areas that may need to
be addressed to fully support the findings of the study.

Firstly, as a matter of the established procedures for technical documentation, I suggest
that the sources for the material properties should be clearly referenced; especially since
the authors of the FEV study worked on similar projects for steel industry consortia [6].
Similar projects on concept vehicles [7,8] also offer guidelines on the reporting. It would
also be very helpful to readers to graphically depict mechanical properties such as material
stress-strain curves, failure envelopes, etc.

Secondly, the technologically important issues with the high strength metallic materials,
such as Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS] [9], are their special processing
requirements [10], reduction in ductility, higher possibility of fracture [11-14] (especially
under high strain rates [15-17]}, and joining [18-22]. Many AHSSs derive their superior
mechanical properties from their tailored microstructures, which get strongly affected
during welding. Active research in welding of the AHSS shows possibilities of significant
reductions of the joint strengths due to the softening processes in Heat Affected Zone
(HAZ). Therefore, the strength values for the welds in the current LD model (i.e. SIGY=1550
for MAT_SPOTWELD section in the input files] seems very optimistic, and may need to be
reduced or elaborated upon in the report. Several versions of the reports were distributed
and I may have very well missed an updated version. In case that joining discussion is
indeed restricted to one page as it appears in the current FEV document, I would suggest
that weld properties and constitutive models be given additional attention in the final
report.

Third important issue that I would suggest to be addressed is modeling of failure/fracture
of the high strength materials in the LD models. Despite long research on the subject, the
methods for modeling localization and failure are relatively scarce. There is still no wide
consensus on how to model failure in materials. For the FEV study, special attention should
be given to the joint areas (spot welds, laser welds] that can experience the degradation of
properties due to the thermo-mechanical cycles that they have been exposed to. A simple
way of addressing the above points would be to use failure limit strains in plasticity models
that are used in the FEV models, i.e MAT_PIECEWISELINEAR_PLASTICITY. In this approach
a limit strain is assigned to material, and after that limit strain is reached in a finite
element, the element is gradually removed from the simulation. The values for the failure
strains are dependent on mesh and element discretization, where additional simulations
122

-------
should be conducted to correlate energy to failure to the corresponding physical failure
process zone for the given problem.
4. Vehicle Design Methodological Rigor

The development of the LD Toyota Venza concept started with the development of the
baseline FEM model of the vehicle. The FEM model was developed by a reverse engineering
process of disassembly, geometry scanning, component analysis, material characterization
and the incremental FEM model development. The turn-around time for this process by the
FEV is quite impressive. Equally impressive are the apparent quality of the FEM mesh, the
definition of joints and assembly of the overall model.

The discretization of the BIW sheet materials uses proportionately sized quadrilateral shell
elements, with few triangular elements.  The mesh density is mostly uniform and without
large variations in the FEM element sizes and the aspect ratios. The BIW model has about
6% of triangular shell elements in the sheet metal which is a very small amount given the
complexities of the vehicle geometry. Figures 1-3 show the geometry and the parts variety
for the  baseline vehicle model.
   Figure 1. Baseline Vehicle Model and Expanded Parts. Colors denote different parts.
                                                                             123

-------
         Figure 2. Baseline Body in White Model. Colors denote different parts.
     Figure 3. Baseline Vehicle, Unsprung Components. Colors denote different parts.
There are no apparent geometry conflicts in the model and parts are well aligned with
compatible geometries and FEM meshes. This is essential for accurate modeling of
currently the prevailing joining method for sheet metals, spot welding. The level of
geometrical detail in the model is very high and as someone who has been involved with
the vehicle crashworthiness modeling for the last twenty years, I think that the developed
FEM mesh of the Venza BIW is the current state-of-the-art. Figure 4 shows some details of
the BIW FEM mesh that illustrate the prevalence of the quadrilateral shell finite elements,
constant aspect ratios and presence of the geometry details that are necessary for an
adequate modeling of the progressive structural crush.
                                                                              124

-------
Bi
Figure 4. Mesh Detail and Quality.
In the following, I first give the analysis of the baseline FEM model. The baseline FEM
model is very adept and can be used for illustration of some shortcomings of the LD model
that I think need to be addressed. It is important to note that the LD model is much more
complex due to a large number of materials and gages that resulted from the computational
optimization process. This complexity and the project time constraints dramatically
increase the potential for error. Unfortunately the tools for managing such complex
systems are not yet mature, making the development and the evaluation of this complex
vehicle model very challenging. Over the years, I have developed several simple programs
that can be used to debug FEM models by directly analyzing the model files. The common
approach to evaluation of large FEM models is to almost exclusively consider
computational simulation results. However, these simple tools allow for evaluations of
relationships within the FEM models directly from the model input files, thereby enabling
debugging of the models independently from the simulations.

Review of the FEM Model for the Baseline Toyota Venza

The primary material for the BIW of the baseline vehicle, 2009 Toyota Venza, was
identified in the Lotus Phase 1 Report as mild steel. Lotus Phase 1 study stated that the BIW
also had about 8% of Dual Phase steel with 590 MPa designation, while everything else was
commonly used mild steel sheet material. The FEV/EDAG study showed that there was
more variety to the baseline design then originally anticipated. Table 1 lists the materials
used in the BIW model (file Venza_biw_r006.k] that were modeled using
MAT_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY). Aluminum bumper was modeled using
MAT_SIMPLIFIED_JOHNSON_COOK material model in LS-DYNA. The number of material
models is relatively small.
Table 1. Baseline Model, Piecewise Linear Plasticity Material Models.
Material ID
Load Curve ID
Material Title in Model
125

-------
10001
10002
10003
10004
10005
10006
10007
10008
10010
10011
10012
10013
10019
10022
10023
10024
10025
10027
10028
10029
25203
27001
4100001
4100002
4100004
100017
100034
100167
280090
280090
100143
100200
100101
100500
100300
1000700
100600
0
0
31
108
109
100233
55028
55000
1012
27001
0
0
0
MILD 140-270
DP 350-600
BH 210-340
BH 260-370
BH 280-400
HSLA 350-450
HSLA 490-600
HF 1050-1500
Q&T5160523MPA
SF 570/640
DP 700-1000
MS 1250-1500
Fuel tank strap
Radiator fan module
Exhaust















Exhaust pipe Steel-25KSI
Exhaust muffler STEEL 120KSI
DP 500-800
MS 950-1200
HF1300
Al_alloy_wheel




Windshield_Backlite_Glass
Steel-coil spring
Steel_suspension-hight
steel-lingage 273 Mpa

strength

Most of the CAE tools display the FEM model based on their part identification number
(ID}. To verify the material model assignment one must then verify material assignment for
every part and then sort them accordingly. For large complex models this is a very tedious
process that is very error prone. More advanced CAE tools, such as HyperMesh, have
options for grouping and displaying model entities by material types and IDs. Figure 5
displays the material assignments for the baseline BIW.
                                                                             126

-------
Figure 5. BIW Baseline Model. Colors denote different sheet materials.
The specific assignment of the materials for the BIW and the corresponding stress-strain
curves are shown in the figures below. Most of the material models account for strain rate
sensitivity of the material. For a given plastic strain, the yield stress is calculated by
interpolating stresses between two neighboring stress strain curves based on the applied
strain rate. There are established modeling recommendations for modeling strain rate
sensitivity effect in crash models. The specified stress strain curves should not intersect.
Extrapolated lines from their last specified linear segment should not intersect, as well. The
material models should use plastic strain rate [23] instead of the total strain rate as the
basis of the strain rate effect calculation. This option (VP=1) was not used in the FEV
models although it is highly recommended in practice.

Figures 6-10 show the main material systems for the baseline BIW model. The material
assignments correspond to the assignments in the project's report.
IF148-278 uith SK 8.881/5 •
IF140-278 uith 3R . I/sec •
i-a/d Hith 5R 58/sec •
IF148-278 Hith SR 106/sec -
IF148-S78 uith SR 6088/sec
.1 8.15 8.2 8.25 8.3 8.35 8.1
127

-------
Figure 6. Material ID 10001, Table ID 100017.
                                               BP358-68B uith SR .885/sec •
                                                 DP350-G80 uith SR .I/sec •
                                                 DP350-BBO with 5R IB/sec •
                                                BP35B-6BB Kith !
                                                DP35B-6BB "Mi. SR 588'sfir
                                     B.I         B.15
                                    Plastic Strain [L/L]
Figure 7. Material ID 10002, Table ID 100034.
                                                      uith SR ,8B5/sec
                                                  358-458 uith SR . I/sec
                                               HSLH=58-450 uit
                                               K_L..35B-"l5BHittr5R IBB/sec
                                                          SR 588/sec
                                                      uith SR 1888/seo
                                 8.1       8.15

                                    Plastic Strain [L/L]
Figure 8. Material ID 10006, Table ID 100143.
                                                                             128

-------
10201, HSLR438-688 tilth SR B.HB4/sec
10202, HSLR49G-688 'r'th SR I/sec
18233, HSLfl498-Ca8 with SR 10/sec
.1.020-1, HS'.r^MO-GOO with SR 100/sec
10205, HSLH490-600 Hith SR 250/sec
.82 8.83 8.01 8.05 8.06 8.07

Plastic Strain [L/Ll
Figure 9. Material ID 10007, Table ID 100200.
B.4 B.5 B.G
Plastic Strain [L/L]
Figure 10. Material ID 10012, Table ID 1000700.

The stress-strain curves for different strain rates in the above figures do not intersect.
Their extrapolations however have potential for intersection at high plastic strains in
Figures 7and 8. The number of the data points in Figures 9 and 10 are too large and needs
to be reduced in order to avoid the interpolation errors by the simulation program. It is
obvious that curves in Figures 9 and 10 were developed by analytical fits. Such approach
can create undesirable artifacts such as an appearance of the yield point elongation for
Dual Phase steel in Figure 10. An interpolation approach with fewer points and curves is
recommended. Figure 11 illustrates the optimal piecewise linear interpolation (green
curve] of the base (red] curve in Figure 10. The interpolated curve has error of 1% of the
value range with respect to the actual curve and uses only 9 points.
129

-------
                        .1   a.2   a.3   a,
-------
(LS-DYNA type 16}. Figure 12 shows the shell element formulations in the BIW model. The
current crash modeling recommendation is to use shell element type 16 when possible. The
Bathe-Dvorkin shell is 3.5 times more computationally expensive than the Belytschko-Tsay
shell so that in order to strike a proper balance between the accuracy and the
computational speed element types can be mized in the model. This is especially true when
large number of simulations is conducted, as was the case for computational optimization
in the FEV study. As it can be seen in Figure 16, the baseline model employs accurate
element formulation in the main structural components, while the Belytschko-Tsay
formulation is employed in the remainder of the sheet metal which is an appropriate
compromise for the large scale computations.
 Figure 12. Baseline Model. Shell Element Formulation, Belytshcko-Tsay (red, ELFORM=2)
                      and Bathe-Dvorkin (green, ELFORM=16).
Another important technical aspect of the crash simulations with the shell elements is the
employed number of integration points through the thickness of the shells. The default (2
points] is insufficient for the crash analyses. Three points is also inadequate in the current
simulation guidelines because it results in a very quick formation of plastic hinges in the
sheet metal during crush. A minimum of 5 through-thickness integration points is currently
recommended for the crash simulations. Therefore, modification of the model in this
regard is suggested for the general release.
                                                                             131
-------
 Figure 13. Baseline Model. Shell element through thickness integration points, 3 (red] and
                                   5 (green}.

Another commonly overlooked formulation aspect for the shell elements is the through
thickness shear factor. Recommended value is 0.833, which was used only in bumper
structures of the current model (Figure 14}. Changing the factor to 0.833 is recommended.

            Figure 14. Baseline Model. Shear Factor, 1 (green}, 0.833 (red}.
In summary, the baseline Venza FEM model is developed following most of the
recommended development procedures for crash models. The modifications suggested
above would meet few additional recommendations that would likely increase the
robustness of the model.. The NCAP and the side MDB barrier simulation results can be
compared with the actual crash tests conducted by NHTSA. The comparison of the
simulation and the NCAP test shows somewhat stiffer response of the FEM model with
respect to the test (Figure 1.18.18 in the last FEV report}. The maximum and the average
accelerations in the FEM model were accordingly higher than the test results. The baseline
FEM model was deemed acceptable for the purposes of the FEV study. Another important
measure of the FEM model fidelity was the crash duration time that was 20 ms shorter for
                                                                            132
-------
the model compared to the test. This difference is noticeable because the overall crash
duration of 100 milliseconds. However, for the objectives of the FEM study, the model's
crash pulse was deemed acceptable, which for the described project schedule seemed quite
reasonable.

Review of the Low Development Vehicle Model

The FEV engineers have used the computational optimization methods based on the
response surface formulation in order to determine the distribution of material types and
grades that would maximally reduce the weight of the vehicle while maintaining the
performance and controlling the cost. The part distribution of the resulting optimized LD
design FEM model is shown in Figure 15.
        Figure 15. Low Development Design Model. Colors denote different parts.

It is probably misleading to refer to the resulting FEM model as "Low Development" since it
is a product of numerous computational simulations and an in-depth engineering study.
The resulting inventory of the material models used in the LD FEM model is listed in Table
2. It is evident that there are numerous duplicates as well as unused materials. It would be
prudent to purge the list of material models from the LD FEM model as they may lead to
errors. Some of the inconsistencies that were found in the current LD FEM model may very
well be a result of this model redundancy.

Two model files contain most of the material models:
   •  Venza_master_mat_list_r006.k
   •  Venza_Material_Db_Opt_dk2.k
The horizontal  black line in Table 2 separates the material model specifications between
the two files. These two were unchanged for the last two versions of the FEM models that
were downloaded from the project download site.

      Table 2. Low Development Model, Piecewise Linear Plasticity Material Models.
                                                                             133
-------
Material ID
10001
10002
10003
10004
10005
10006
10007
10008
10010
10011
10012
10013
10019
10022
10024
10025
10027
10028
10029
15203
25203
27001
110001
110002
110003
110004
110005
110007
110008
110010
110011
110012
110027
110028
110029
127001
210001
210004
210006
210007
210010
Load Curve ID
100017
100034
100167
280090
280090
100143
100200
100101
100500
100300
1000700
100600
0
0
108
109
100233
55028
55000
1012
1012
27001
100017
100034
100167
280090
280090
100200
100101
100500
100300
1000700
100233
55028
55000
27001
100017
280090
100143
100200
100500
Material Name
MILD 140-270
DP 350-600
BH 210-340
BH 260-370
BH 280-400
HSLA 350-450
HSLA 490-600
HF 1050-1500
Q&T5160523MPA
SF 570/640
DP 700-1000
MS 1250-1500
Fuel tank strap
Radiator fan module
Exhaust pipe Steel-25KSI
Exhaust muffler STEEL 120KSI
DP 500-800
MS 950-1200
HF1300
Al_alloy_wheel
Al_alloy_wheel
Windshield_Backlite_Glass
MILD 140-270 : ORIGINAL DENSITY
DP 350-600
BH 210-340 : ORIGINAL DENSITY
BH 260-370
BH 280-400
HSLA 490-600 : ORIGINAL DENSITY
HF 1050-1500
Q&T5160523MPA
SF 570/640
DP 700-1000
DP 500-800
MS 950-1200
HF1300
Windshield_Backlite_Glass
MILD 140-270 : 20%down
BH 260-370
HSLA 350-450 : 20%down
HSLA 490-600 :20%down
Q&T 5160 523MPA : 20%down
134
-------
Material ID
210011
210023
210024
210025
310001
310003
310004
310005
310006
310007

310010
310011
310013
310022
325203
410001
410003
410005
510001
610001
710001
710002
810001
810002
810006
810007
810012
910012
4100001
4100002
4100004
14100001
14100002
14100004
1
2
3
4
5
6
Load Curve ID
100300
31
108
109
100017
100167
280090
280090
100143
100200

100500
100300
100600
0
1012
100017
100167
280090
100017
100017
100017
100034
100017
100034
100143
100200
1000700
1000700
0
0
0
0
0
0
10000101
10000228
10000139
10000177
10000177
10000049
Material Name
SF 570/640 : 20%down
Exhaust
Exhaust pipe Steel-25KSI
Exhaust muffler STEEL 120KSI
MILD 140-270 : ORIGINAL DENSITY
BH 210-340 : ORIGINAL DENSITY
BH 260-370 : ORIGINAL DENSITY
BH 280-400 : ORIGINAL DENSITY
HSLA 350-450 : ORIGINAL DENSITY
HSLA 490-600 : ORIGINAL DENSITY
Q&T 5160 523MPA : ORIGINAL
DENSITY
SF 570/640 : ORIGINAL DENSITY
MS 1250-1500 : ORIGINAL DENSITY
Radiator fan module
Al_alloy_wheel
MILD 140-270 : FOR_ITER_201_03
BH 210-340 : FOR_ITER_201_03
BH 280-400 : FOR_ITER_201_03
MILD 140-270 : FOR_ITER_201_03
MILD 140-270 : FOR_ITER_201_03
MILD 140-270 : FOR_ITER_201_03
DP 350-600 : FOR_ITER_201_03
MILD 140-270 : FOR_ITER_201_03
DP 350-600 : FOR_ITER_201_03
HSLA 350-450 : FOR_ITER_201_03
HSLA 490-600 : FOR_ITER_201_03
DP 700-1000 : FOR_ITER_201_03
DP 700-1000 : FOR_ITER_201_03
Steel-coil spring
Steel_suspension-high strength
steel-lingage 273 Mpa
Steel-coil spring
Steel_suspension-high strength
steel-lingage 273 Mpa
MILD 140/270
IF140/270
BH 210/340
BH 260/370
BH 280/400
DP300/500
135
-------
Material ID
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
700010
8000006
8000007
8000008
Load Curve ID
10000132
10000107
10000183
10000036
10000144
10000084
10000150
0
10000156
10000114
10000200
10000207
10000077
10000187
10000208
10000126
10000078
10000164
10000163
10000076
10000036
29
28
29
Material Name
HSLA 350/450
DP 350/600
HSLA 420/500
FB 450/600
HSLA 490/600
TWIP 500/980
DP 500/800
HSLA 550/650
SF 570/640
TRIP 600/980
DP 700/1000
CP 800/1000
MS 950/1200
CP 1000/1200
CP 1050/1470
HF 1050-1500
MS 1150-1400
MS 1250-1500
Q&T5160523MPA
HF1300
FB 450/600 : FOR_ITER_201_03
AL_aa5182_novelis
AL_AA6451_Novelis
Magnesium_MG60
Figures 16-32 below show the stress-strain curves for the materials used in the BIW of the
LD FEM model.
                                                                              136
-------
                                     IF148-278 with SR B.881/S
                                      IF14B-278 Mith SR .I/sec
                                                  SR 50/sec
                                     IF148-278 Hith SR IBB/sec
                                    IF14B-27B with SR 68B8/sec
     8.85
             8.1
                     8.15     8.2      8.25
                       Plastic Strain [L/L]
                                              8.3
                                                      8.35
                                                               8.1
Figure 16. Material ID 10001, Table ID 100017.
                                    DP358-68B uith SR .BBS/sec —I—
                                      DP35B-6BB Hith SR .I/sec   X
                                      DP358-688 Hith SR IB/sec —*—
                                     BP358-6B8 HithSJ^JLUHf i.0** D
                                     BP358-6B8jl**lfSR 588 'sr.r
           8.B5
                        B.I           8.15
                       Plastic Strain [L/L]
                                                  B.2
                                                               8.25
Figure 17. Material ID 10002, Table ID 100034.
                                                                                137
-------
                                                  DEFIHE.CURVE.1B95
                                                  DEFIHE.CURVE.ie96
                                                  DEFINE.CURVE.l
                                                  DEFINE.
r-,  17BB
                               0.1           0,6
                              Plastic Strain [L/L]
        Figure 18. Material ID 10008, Table ID 100101.
   658
                                                   uith SR  .BBS/se
                                             LFI35B-'I5B uith SR .1/se
                                           HSLH°58-45B Hith i
                                          HSLH359-150 Hith SR 5BB/EB
                                                 5B uith SR IBBB/se
               B.B5
                           B.I
                                     8.15
                                                B.2
                                                          8.25
                                                                     8.3
                              Plastic Strain [L/L]
          Figure 19. Material 10006, Table ID 100143.
                                                                                     138
-------
„  558 -
             8.05
                      B.I
                             8.15      8.2      8.25
                               Plastic Strain [L/L]
                                                      8.3
                                                              8.35
                                                                      8.1
          Figure 20. Material 10003, Table ID  100167.
                                    1B201, HSLB49B-600 uith SR Q.B04/sec
                                       10282, H3LH-190-600 "til SR I/sec
                                      1B2B3, HSLfl19B-EaU Hith SR IB/sec
                                     10284, HSI..1H9B-6B8 Hith SR IBB/sec
                                     1B2H5, riSLH498-6B8 uith SR 258/sec
   758
           B.B1
                  8.B2
                         0.03   U.04
                                     B.B5
                                            0.00   0.07
                                                               8.89
                                                                      8.1
                               Plastic Strain [L/L]
        Figure 21. Material ID 10007, Table ID 100200.
                                                                                       139
-------
                                                DP7BB-1BBB 8.8B5/S
                                                  DP780-1080 B.l/s
                                                  np'B! -i-Ub IB./s
                                                 Di-700-ioeo IBO./S
                                                  70B-100B 5B8./S
I
8
I
                  0,05
                              B.I         B.15

                             Plastic Strain [L/L]
                                                       8.2
                                                                   B.25
        Figure 22. Material ID 10027, Table ID 100233.
   16BB i-
                                                DP7BB-1008 B.BOl/s
                                                  up/ua-ioua B.I/S
                                                   BP78B-1BBB
                             Plastic Strain [L/L]
       Figure 23. Material ID 10012, Table ID 1000700.
                                                                                   140
-------
0.9
0.3
B.5
B.4
1180 i-
          0,05
                  B.I
                         B.15     8.2     B.25
                          Plastic Strain [L/L]
                                                 B.3
                                                         B.35
                                                                 0.4
       Figure 24. Material ID 6, Table ID 10000049.
                                       DP35B-BBB uith SR .BBS/sec
                                         DP35B-6Be nith SR .I/sec
                                         DP35B-6BO uith SR IB/sec
                                        DP35B-60B Hit
               B.B5
                            B.I          8.15
                           Plastic Strain [L/L]
                                                    0.2
                                                                8.25
       Figure 25. Material ID 8, Table ID 10000107.
                                                                                 141
-------
                                                 DEFIHE.CURVE.1B95
                                                 DEFIHE.CURVE.ie96
                                                 DEFINE.CURVE.l
                                                 DEFINE.
r-,  17BB
                               0.1          0,6

                              Plastic Strain [L/L]
          Figure 26. Material 22, Table ID 10000126.
   BBS
                                                a uith SR .BB5/S
                                            LH35B-45B Hith SR ,1/s
                                          HSLfl"5B-15fl
               0.05
                          B.I        B.15        8.2

                             Plastic Strain [L/L]
                                                         B.25
                                                                   0.3
          Figure 27. Material ID 7, Table ID 10000132
                                                                                    142
-------
„  558 -
             8.05
                     B.I
                            8.15     8.2     8.25
                             Plastic Strain [L/L]
                                                    8.3
                                                           8.35
                                                                    8.1
         Figure 28. Material ID 3, Table ID 10000139.
   12BB i-
                                                Dpyee-ieee e.ees/s
                                                  UP70B-1UUU B.l/s
                                                  np'e: -i_6b 18./s
                                                 DK7BB-188B 188./s
                                                   788-1888 588./s
                  8.05
                               8.1          8.15

                              Plastic Strain [L/L]
                                                       0.2
                                                                   0.25
              Figure 29. Material ID 13,10000150.
                                                                                    143
-------
558
                                              HSLH 128/580 87.8/s
                                             H5LH 120/380 218.8/s
                                            HSLH420/50G 526.6B9/
          02    0.01   0.06    0.88   0.1   0.12    8.11   0.16   0.18   8.2
                           Plastic Strain [L/L]
            Figure 30. Material ID 9, 10000183.
                             0.06      0.08      B.l
                           Plastic Strain [L/L]
                                                         0.12      0.14
                  Figure 31. Material ID 14.
                                                                                   144
-------
             rn 5BB '
                           8.85
                                     8.1        8.15

                                    Plastic Strain [L/L]
                                                        B.2
                                                                  8.25
                    Figure 32. Material ID 8000006, Curve ID 29.
There are obvious duplicates in the model specifications that would be prudent to
eliminate and modify the model accordingly before its public release. In addition, there are
some errors in the LD FEM model specifications that need to be corrected.

Correction Item 1:

Material ID 9 (Figure 30} has stress-strain curves for different strain rates different strain
rate curves intersect which is not acceptable from the physical perspective.

Materials with IDs 8000006, 8000007, and 8000008 have elastic properties of lightweight
materials such as Aluminum and Magnesium alloys, but they utilize yield stress functions of
HSLA 350/450 steel defined in file: Venza_frt_susp_exhaust_30ms.k.
Currently, only the material 8000006 is used in the LD FEM model, although in the
previous model version material ID 8000008 was also used.
Correction Item 2:

Some material assignments in the LD FEM model are inconsistent which is probably a
result of too many material models. The mapping of material IDs on the BIW FEM model
reveal several unsymmetrical model assignments. The most obvious discrepancy is marked
in Figure 33. Here, where one model part is modeled using the mild steel while its
corresponding symmetrical counterpart is modeled using the HSLA 350/450 steel.
                                                                               145
-------
   Figure 33. Low Development Model. Colors denote different material models. Arrows
 point to part 12151 (material ID 1006 - HSLA 350/450} and part 12101 (material ID 1001
                                  -Mild Steel}.

Additional unsymmetrical material assignments are pointed with arrows in Figures 34-37.
   Figure 34. Low Development Model. Colors denote different material models. Arrows
              point to parts with unsymmetrical material ID assignments.
                                                                            146
-------
   Figure 35. Low Development Model. Colors denote different material models. Arrows
              point to parts with unsymmetrical material ID assignments..

Two possible outcomes of not pairing the symmetrical components with the same material
ID are illustrated in Figures 36-37. In Figure 36 the two different parts have different
material assignments, which eventually refer to different material properties. In case of the
marked parts in Figure 37, the material IDs are different but because of the repeated
material models with different IDs, they eventually refer to the same material properties.
                                                                               147
-------
   Figure 36. Low Development Model. Colors denote different material models. Arrows
   point to part 17313 (material ID 8 - DP 350/600} and part 17363 (material ID 6 - DP
                                   300/500}.
   Figure 37. Low Development Model. Colors denote different material models. Arrows
 point to part 11710 (material ID 10006 - HSLA 350-450} and part 11760 (material ID 7 -
                                 HSLA 350/450}.

The above inconsistencies need to be corrected before the models are released into to the
open domain.

Correction Item 3:

Another area of concern is the number of through thickness integration points for the shell
elements in the current LD FEM model. As it can be seen in Figure 38, almost all shell
elements have just 2 integration points through the thickness. This is clearly inadequate
from the accuracy standpoint and may be responsible for some of the issuable simulation
results shown in the following figures.
                                                                             148
-------
     Figure 38. Low Development Model. Colors denote number of through thickness
              integration points in shells, 2 (red], 3 (green] and 5 (yellow}.
Correction Item 4:

Figure 38 shows the thickness distribution in the LD FEM model of the BIW. In general, the
thickness distribution is symmetrical with respect to the centerline of the vehicle. However,
a closer inspection reveals some asymmetries in thickness assignments.
   Figure 39. Low Development Model. Colors denote thickness of the sheet materials.
                                                                              149
-------
The arrows in Figures 40-41 show the parts that do not have symmetrical assignment of
the values with respect to the centerline of the vehicle. I have not checked the extent of the
differences, but it something nonetheless that needs to be corrected.
   Figure 40. Low Development Model. Colors denote thickness of the sheet materials.
                Arrows point to unsymmetrical thickness assignments.
   Figure 41. Low Development Model. Colors denote thickness of the sheet materials.
                Arrows point to unsymmetrical thickness assignments.
                                                                             150
-------
Concern Item 1:

The following Figures 42-45 show some results that may warrant more investigation by
the project engineers. Figures 42-43 show the deformation of the main front rails for the
baseline vehicle during the NCAP test simulation. The overall deformation is symmetrical.
In the case of the LD FEM model, as shown in Figures 44-45, the deformation is markedly
different from the baseline and unsymmetrical. The cause for that may be in the
unsymmetrical material assignments for the main rails that were present in the previous
LD FEM model release and the simulations may have been based on that version. As I was
only using the simulation files, I could not tell if that was actually the case. However, I
strongly suggest following up on this point as these rails are extremely important for the
crash energy management.
                                                       (b)
                  (c)                                    (d)
 Figure 42. Baseline Model. Side view of the deformation sequence of the main rails for the
                               NCAP test simulation.
                                                                              151
-------
                     (a)
(b)
                     (c)                                     (d)
Figure 43. Baseline Model. Top view of the deformation sequence of the main rails for the
                               NCAP test simulation.
                     (a)
                     (c)
                                                                               152
-------
  Figure 44. Low Development Model. Side view of the deformation sequence of the main
                          rails for the NCAP test simulation.
                     (c)                                   (d)
  Figure 45. Low Development Model. Top view of the deformation sequence of the main
                          rails for the NCAP test simulation.
Concern Item 2:

One of the modeling aspects that is usually not considered in conventional mild steel
vehicle designs is modeling of material fracture/failure [24]. However, in the case of the
high strength materials, such as the AHSS, the material fracture is a real possibility that
needs to be included in the models. One of the easiest failure models to implement is to
specify equivalent strain threshold for the material failure. Once this threshold is reached
during crash simulation it leads to gradual element deletion, which simulates crack
formation. I would suggest consideration of such a simple model enhancement that, while
not comprehensive enough for production design, is probably sufficient for the purposes of
                                                                              153
-------
the FEV study. The strain rate sensitivity of the material models would help with the
regularization of the strain localization and related numerical problems [25].
5. Vehicle Crashworthiness Testing Methodological Rigor

The correlations and modifications of the baseline vehicle FEM model to the experimental
results were primarily done on the measurements of vibrational and stiffness
characteristics of the BIW. Once the stiffness of the BIW model was tuned to the
experimental results, it was considered to be sufficiently accurate to form the foundation
for the crash model. The vehicle crash FEM model was then correlated to the NCAP and
MDB side impact. The correlations were primarily based on the deformation modes and the
FEM model was found to be satisfactory for the purposes of the FEV study.

Comparison of the deformation in the NCAP crash in Figures 46-49 shows very good
correlation of the deformation modes. The deformation of the subframe shown in the
Figures 48-49 also shows very high fidelity of the simulated deformation compared to the
experiment.
                        Time  0.011    Frame #
              41         Time  0.041    Frame #      75         Time   0.075
                  (3)                                   (4)
                 Figure 46. Vehicle side kinematics during NCAP test
                                                                            154
-------
Figure 47. Baseline Model. Vehicle side kinematics during NCAP test
        (3)                                   W
      Figure 48. Vehicle subframe deformation for NCAP test
                                                                   155
-------
                                 Venza fr_usncap_56kph intial run based
                                 Tlme= 0.077499
         r
         Figure 49. Baseline Model. Vehicle subframe deformation for NCAP test

In summary, the correlation of the baseline FEM model with the NCAP test is quite
satisfactory. The correlation with the side MDB test was not elaborated in the report.
However, the side impact is perhaps the most important and limiting design aspect for the
lightweight vehicles. The side impact is almost exclusively a structural problem that does
not compound the benefits of the reduced mass, as is the case of the frontal impact. A
documented correlation of the baseline FEM model with the side impact experiment will in
my opinion be a very beneficial technical addition to the FEV project that would
significantly support the findings of the technical feasibility of the lightweight
opportunities in the existing vehicle design space.
6. Other Comments

The FEV report is quite exhaustive. I would suggest that it be released in a hypertext format
that can allow different navigation paths through it. Also, the dynamic Web-based
technologies can be used for effective model documentation, presentation and distribution.
I would also recommend that more details on the actual optimization process, including the
objective function specification, and the final consolidation of the model, be added to the
documentation.
7. Conclusions
                                                                               156
-------
The FEV Low Development vehicle study has been reviewed following the instructions by
the US EPA. It has been found that the FEV study followed most of the current technical
guidelines and the state-of-the-art practices for computational crash simulation and design.
Several inconsistencies were found in the developed FEM models that need to be addressed
and corrected before the FEM models are released for the general use.
References

   1. An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017-2020 Model Year
      Vehicle Program, Lotus Engineering Inc., Rev 006A, 2010.
   2. T. Belytschko, T., Liu, W.-K., Moran, B., "Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and
      Structures", Wiley 2000.
   3. M.A. Crisfield, Non-linear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures, Vol. 2
      Advanced Topics, Willey, 1997.
   4. "LS-DYNA Keyword User's Manual", Livermore Software Technology Corporation
      (LSTC], version 971, 2010.
   5. "Vehicle crashworthiness and occupant protection", American Iron and Steel
      Institute, Priya, Prasad and Belwafa, Jamel E., Eds. 2004.
   6. Future Steel Vehicle, Final Engineering Report, World Steel Association,
      www.worldautosteel.org, 2011.
   7. UltraLight Steel Auto Body Final Report, American Iron and Steel Institute, 1998.
   8. ULSAB Program Phase 2 Final Report to the Ultra Light Steel Auto Body Consortium,
      Porsche Engineering Services, Inc., 1998.
   9. Advanced High Strength Steel (AHSS}: Application Guidelines, World Steel
      Association, www.worldautosteel.org, 2009.
   10. H. Lim, M.G. Lee, J.H. Sung, J.H. Kim, R.H. Wagoner, Time-dependent springback of
      advanced high strength steels, International Journal of Plasticity, v 29, pp 42-59,
      2012.
   11. G. Chen, M.F. Shi, T.Tyan, Fracture Modeling of AHSS in Component Crush, SAE Int. J.
      Mater. Manuf., v 4, n 1, p 1-9, 2011.
   12. H.-C. Shih, M.F. Shi, D. Zeng, Z.C. Xia, Development of Empirical Shear Fracture
      Criterion for AHSS, SAE Int. J. Mater. Manuf., v 3, n 1, p 670-675, 2010.
   13. M.S. Walp, A. Wurm, J.F. Siekirk III, A.K. Desai, Shear Fracture in Advanced High
      Strength Steels, SAE Publication 2006-01-1433, SAE International, 2006.
   14. H. Zhu, X. Zhu, A Mixed-Mode Fracture Criterion for AHSS, Cracking Prediction at
      Large Strain, SAE Int. J. Mater. Manuf., v 4, n 1, p 10-26, 2011.
   15. H. Hooputra, H. Gese, H. Dell, H. Werner, A comprehensive failure model for
      crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions, International Journal of
      Crashworthiness, v 9, n 5, p 449-464 2004.
   16. A. Haufe, M. Feucht, F.  Neukamm, The Challenge to Predict Material Failure in
      Crashworthiness Applications: Simulation of Producibility to Serviceability, S.
      Hiermaier (ed.}, Predictive Modeling of Dynamic Processes, pp 67-88, DOI
      10.1007/978-1-4419-0727-1 4, Springer, 2009.
                                                                               157
-------
17. A. Haufe, F. Neukamm, M. Feucht, T. Borvall, A comparison of recent damage and
   failure models for steel materials in crashworthiness application in LS-DYNA. In:
   llth International LS-DYNA Users Conference 2010, Detroit, MI, USA, 2010.
18. An Investigation of Resistance Welding Performance of Advanced High-Strength
   Steels, Auto/Steel Partnership, 2010.
19. N. Farabi, D.L. Chen, Y. Zhou, Tensile Properties and Work Hardening Behavior of
   Laser-Welded Dual-Phase Steel Joints, Journal of Materials Engineering and
   Performance, v 21, n 2, p 222-230, 2012.
20. J. Ha, H. Huh, Y.-D. An, and C. Park, Compatible finite element modelling of laser
   welded region for crash analysis of autobody assemblies, Materials Research
   Innovations, v 15, suppl 1, p S412-S-416, 2011.
21. M. S. Xia, M. L. Kuntz, Z. L. Tian and Y. Zhou, Failure study on laser welds of dual
   phase steel in formability testing. Science and Technology of Welding and Joining, v
   13, n 4, pp 378-387, 2008.
22. S. Sommer, F. Klokkers, Modelling of the deformation and fracture behaviour of
   laser welds for crash simulation, 7th European LS-DYNA Conference 2009.
   Proceedings, Salzburg, Austria, 2009.
23. S. Simunovic, P. Nukala, J. Fekete, D. Meuleman, M. Milititsky, Modeling of Strain Rate
   Effects in Automotive Impact, SAE Technical Paper 2003-01-1383,
   doi:10.4271/2003-01-1383, 2003.
24. J. LeMaitre, J., Handbook of Materials Behavior Models, Elsevier, 2001.
25. A. Needleman, Material rate dependence and mesh sensitivity in localization
   problems,  Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering v 67, pp 69-85,
   1988.
                                                                           158
-------
[insert date]

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:      EPA Response to Comments on the peer review of Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction
              and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle (FEV Report)

FROM:        Cheryl Caffrey, Assessment and Standards Division
              Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The FEV Report was reviewed by William Joost (U.S. Department of Energy), Glenn Daehn, Kristina
Kennedy, and Tony Luscher (The Ohio State University (OSU)), Douglas Richman (Kaiser Aluminum), and
Srdjan Simunovic (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). In addition, Srdjan Simunovic and members of the
OSU Team reviewed various elements of the associated modeling.

This memo includes a compilation of comments prepared by SRA International and responses and
actions in response to those comments from EPA.
                                                                                        159
-------
    1.  ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA
       SOURCES (CAE BIW and
       Vehicle)
                                                 COMMENTS
Please comment on the validity of
any data sources and assumptions
embedded in the study. Such
items include material choices,
technology choices, vehicle design,
crash validation testing, and cost
assessment that could affect its
findings.
[Joost] The material selection process used in this study suggests a good understanding of the cost and manufacturing
impacts of changing between different steel, Al, Mg, and plastic/composite based materials. Generally the material
selections are appropriate for the performance, manufacturing, and cost requirements of the particular systems.
Identifying production examples of the materials in similar systems is very  important for establishing credibility - the
project team did an excellent job identifying production examples of most  material replacements. There are, however, a
few material selections where additional consideration may be necessary:

The transmission case subsystem (pg 269) features the use of a Sr bearing  Mg alloy. Recently, Sn based alloys have been
produced and (I believe) used in production for similar applications. The use of Sn as an alloying ingredient accomplishes
many of the same goals (improved high temp creep performance, for example) at a lower cost. It may be worth
investigating these new alloys as an opportunity to reduce the cost of the lightweight transmission case subsystem. If not,
the selection of a Sr alloy is reasonable.

The feasibility of using hot rolled blanks in the body structure would be further emphasized by providing production
examples for vehicles of >200k units per year.  Similarly, the use of a 7000 series Al rear bumper is questionable - a
production example for a high volume, low cost vehicle should be provided.

The use of Thixomolded Mg seat components  should be reconsidered. Thixomolding does have the potential to provide
improved ductility compared to die casting, however the process is generally not well regarded in the automotive
community due to concerns over limited supply and press tonnage limits (which limit the maximum size of the
components that can be manufactured this way). If there is a production example of thixomolding for >200k unites per
year in automotive, then it should be cited in the report. If there is no example then I would suggest switching to die
casting (or super vacuum die casting) - the weight reduction  and cost will likely be similar.

It's not clear how the mass savings were achieved in the wheels and tires. The report states that a 2008 Toyota Prius
wheel/tire assembly will be used in place of the stock Venza wheel - however the report also  states (pg 544) that the Prius
wheel will be normalized up to the 19"x7" to maintain the original  styling of the Venza. The technology employed in the
Prius wheel is not different from the stock Venza wheel so why should a scaled-up Prius wheel weigh less than the original
Venza wheel? There are also inconsistencies in the report - table F.5-18 references eliminating the spare tire wheel while
downsizing the spare tire-why would there be a tire with  no wheel? Lastly, if the  Prius wheel/tire is scaled up to  match
                                                                                                                                     160
-------
the stock Venza size then the spare wheel/tire must also be scaled up - it's not clear that this happened. You are taking
significant credit for weight reduction in the wheels and tires (~2% of total vehicle weight) but it's not clear how this is
achieved.

Many of the parts in the frame have been changes to a GF Nylon (pg 667). This may not be unreasonable, but production
examples should be provided.

[Richman]
    1)  NHTSA crash test data was used for validation of collision simulation models and is an appropriate source.
    2)  Material property data was supplied by recognized supplier associations and are correct.
    3)  Cost estimates for reduced mass sheet products seem to include assumption that drive unusually high material and
       equipment  cost. This issue leads to a technology cost effectiveness that is not representative of actual production
       experience  for sheet products.
[OSU - Glenn Daehn] The data and sources appear to be very good, however at the time of this review there are a few
items that are unclear.

First there some statements that are referenced with superscripts, however there is not a reference list that appears in the
document.

Second, this report  does an excellent job of documenting at a high-level that the finite element analysis is carried out
properly, showing agreement with masses, stiffness and crash signatures of baseline vehicles. However, it is important
that all of the details be also available to the public, such as the detailed material geometry (mesh files), stress-strain flow-
laws used for the materials, weld locations (more than a figure), models used for weld behavior and so on. This can be
done by reference or by making the LS-DYNA models public.  It is not clear at time of review how this will be done, but it
would be a great service to make all this granular detail available. Similar statements can be made regarding the detail for
components and materials in the costing models.

[OSU - Tony Luscher] The data used appears to be valid and appropriate to the tasks that are completed. Vehicle data for
the Toyota Venza was obtained by scanning the components and creating the CAD models. Material data was found from
appropriate sources and databases. These were used to create a crash test model for the vehicle and for cost estimation. A
thorough search of  state-of-the-art vehicle design concepts was used as the basis of mass reduction for the various vehicle
systems.
                                                                                                    161
-------
[Simunovic] This section contains comments on validity of the data sources, material properties, and modeling
approaches used in this study. The overall methodology used by the FEV is fundamentally solid and adhere to standard
practices of the crashworthiness engineering [5]. However, an in-depth analysis of the model files reveals several areas
that may need to be addressed to fully support the findings of the study.

Firstly, as a matter of the established procedures for technical documentation, I suggest that the sources for the material
properties should be clearly referenced; especially since the authors of the FEV study worked on similar projects for steel
industry consortia [6]. Similar projects on concept vehicles [7,8] also offer guidelines on the reporting. It would also be very
helpful to readers to graphically depict mechanical properties such as material stress-strain curves, failure envelopes, etc.

Secondly, the technologically important issues with the high strength metallic materials, such as Advanced High Strength
Steels (AHSS) [9], are their special processing requirements [10], reduction in ductility, higher possibility of fracture [11-14]
(especially under high strain rates [15-17]), and joining [18-22]. Many AHSSs derive their superior mechanical properties
from their tailored microstructures, which get strongly affected during welding. Active research in welding of the AHSS
shows possibilities of significant reductions of the joint strengths due to the softening processes in Heat Affected Zone
(HAZ). Therefore, the strength values for the welds in the  current LD model (i.e. SIGY=1550 for MAT_SPOTWELD section in
the input files) seems very optimistic, and may need to be reduced or elaborated upon in the report. Several versions of
the reports were distributed and  I may have very well missed an updated version. In case that joining discussion is indeed
restricted to one page as it appears in the current FEV document, I would suggest that weld properties and constitutive
models be given additional attention in the final report.

Third important issue that I would suggest to be addressed is modeling of failure/fracture of the high strength materials in
the LD models. Despite long research on the subject, the methods for modeling localization and failure are relatively
scarce. There is still no wide consensus on how to model failure in materials. For the FEV study, special attention should be
given to the joint areas (spot welds, laser welds) that can experience the degradation of properties due to the thermo-
mechanical cycles that they have  been  exposed to. A simple way of addressing the above points would be to use failure
limit strains in plasticity models that are used in the FEV models, i.e MAT_PIECEWISELINEAR_PLASTICITY. In this approach a
limit strain  is assigned to material, and  after that limit strain is reached in a finite element, the element is gradually
removed from the simulation. The values for the failure strains are dependent on mesh and element discretization, where
additional simulations should be conducted to correlate energy to failure to the corresponding physical failure process
zone for the given problem.
                                                                                                      162
-------
If you find issues with data sources
and assumptions, please provide
suggestions for available data that
would improve the study.
[Joost] Two plastic technologies are very widely employed in this design: PolyOne and MuCell. It seems that the
companies who license/manufacture these technologies were used as the primary source to determine feasibility.
However they are likely to be optimistic regarding the capability of their materials. I agree that these materials are
appropriate for the indicated applications, however I feel that the credibility would be improved by including other sources
                                 (OEMs, Tier 1) or more production examples for existing platforms. With such a large amount of weight reduction
                                 attributed to PolyOne and MuCell, it would be beneficial to have a very strong case for capabilities.

                                 [OSU - Glenn Daehn] See above.

                                 [OSU-Tony Luscher] None found.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[Richman]  This report is a review the 2012 FEV project to identify mass-reduction opportunities for a crossover sport utility vehicle based on the 2009 Toyota
Venza. This study is a continuation of the Lotus Engineering Phase 1 Low Development (LD) study funded by the Internal Council on Sustainable Transportation
(ICCT) in 2010. Goal of the FEV project is to identify practical mass reduction technologies to achieve a 20% reduction in total vehicle mass (342 Kg) at no more
than 10% increase in consumer cost while meeting, or exceeding, all crashworthiness, performance and customer  satisfaction  attributes provided by the
baseline vehicle.
Body of the baseline vehicle is 31% of total vehicle  mass and has a dominant influence on NVH and collision performance of the total vehicle. This project
involved extensive engineering analysis of the vehicle body. BIW and closure materials and gauges were optimization to exploit the maximum mass reduction
potential from advanced low mass automotive materials and advanced manufacturing processes. Mass reduction  initiatives are identified for all  vehicle
systems including engine, transmission,  interior, suspension and chassis systems.  Most materials, manufacturing processes and components selected for the
FEV vehicle technology package are proven, cost effective and available for use on 2017 production vehicles.
Majority of mass  reduction concepts utilized  are consistent with recognized industry trends. Mass reduction potential attributed to individual components
appear reasonable and consistent with industry experience with similar components. As an advanced design concept study this is an important and useful body
of work. Results of the project provide useful insight into potential vehicle mass reduction achievable with HSS and AHSS materials.
This report is a review of the methodologies employed, technologies selected and validity of findings in the FEV study.  This reviewer has experience in vehicle
mass reduction engineering of body, engine and suspension systems. This review focuses on those areas of the FEV project.
[OSU - Kristina  Kennedy]  "Building a full vehicle model w/o the use of drawings or CAD  data..."  Has this method of tear-down + scanning been proven out in
industry or in other projects to understand how closely this method would correlate with actual data? Is this basically "reverse engineering" and is that an
acceptable method?
                                                                                                                                     163
-------
[OSU - Tony Luscher] Data sources are well documented in the report and will aid if any additional investigation is needed. Several of them were checked for
validity.

[Simunovic] In this document I review the methods, data, and the FEM crash models developed in the FEV study. The models were evaluated based on the
analysis of the computational simulation results and on based on the analysis of the actual model files. I want to emphasize that the scope of my review is on
the computational simulations of the vehicle crashworthiness and on the modeling approaches employed by the FEV and its contractors. The primary source for
my review were the FEV final draft report, the crash animations generated by the FEV, and the computer simulation output files for the NCAP and the ODB
crash test configurations. Two vehicle crash models were available, the baseline and the LD model. As it will be shown in the following sections, my review was
based to a large extent on the vehicle model files. Very often in the current practice, the actual  model files are not sufficiently scrutinized and are evaluated
only through the resulting computational simulations.  In the case of large complex FEM models, such as car crash models, the model's configuration complexity
and its shear size can obscure the important details of  the response and camouflage the sources of errors in the model. That is particularly common when the
technology envelope of the state-of-the-art is expanded, as is the case with ever-increasing sizes and complexities of the car crash models.
                                                                                                                                    164
-------
    2.  VEHICLE DESIGN
       METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR
       CAE BIW and Vehicle)
                                                  COMMENTS
Please describe the extent to
which state-of-the-art design
methods have been employed and
the extent to which the associated
analysis exhibits strong technical
rigor. You are encouraged to
provide comments on the
information contained within the
unencrypted model provided by
EDAG; the technologies chosen by
FEV; and the resulting final vehicle
design.
[Joost] The report uses a (very thorough) piece-wise approach to weight reduction - each system is broken down and
weight reduction opportunities for the individual components are identified. The weight-reduced components are then
reassembled into the final vehicle. I believe that this provides a conservative estimate for the weight reduction potential of
the Venza, where a vehicle-level redesign would provide greater weight reduction. However, I am also of the opinion that
the approach used here is in line with industry practice so; while this may not yield the maximum reasonable weight
reduction, it is likely to yield a value more in-line with industry-achievable weight reduction.

It is particularly helpful (and credible) to see descriptions technologies that were considered, but abandoned due to
performance concerns (e.g. reverting to a timing belt), manufacturing capabilities, (e.g. using a MuCell manifold), and cost
(e.g. Mg oil pan).

The suspension design process lacks sufficient detail to make the cost and weight estimates credible. Considerable Al is
used to replace steel at a very minimal cost penalty. However, as the report indicates, detailed design and validation is
necessary to confirm that these changes would be viable for the Venza. For example, changing to a hollow Al control bar is
not an industry standard practice and the use of a  hollow section may require significant changes to geometry in order to
meet the stiffness and strength requirements. While a hollow Al control bar is feasible,  I'm not confident that it can be
substituted into the design so easily.  A $0.40/kg-saved cost penalty for changing a significant number of components from
mild steel to Al seems to be an underestimate.

[Richman]
    1)  EDAG performed structural modeling. The EDAG organization is widely recognized as technically competent and
       highly experienced in modeling of auto body structure.  Modeling approach appears technically robust and logical.
    2)  Body structural analysis utilized industry recognized CAE, CAD and collision modeling analysis tools and protocols.
       Tools used are state-of-the -art and the approach.
    3)  FE model was validated against physical test data for NVH and collision performance.  Model correlation with
       physical test results is very good. No significant discrepancies or inconsistencies have  been identified  in the
       modeling results.
    4)  Based on these observation, the models would be considered valid and reliable for moderate A:B design
                                                                                                                                      165
-------
                                        comparisons that are the subject of this vehicle study.

                                 [OSU - Glenn Daehn]  The work is well done and technically rigorous. Again, we encourage making all pertinent detail
                                 publicly available.

                                 [OSU -Tony Luscher]  The report does an excellent job of using state-of-the-art design methods. The re-engineering
                                 process included vehicle teardown, parts scanning, and data collection of vehicle parts to build a full vehicle CAE model.
                                 This raw STL geometry was then translated into an FE meshing tool (ANSA) to create a finite element model.

                                 [Simunovic]  The development of the LD Toyota Venza concept started with the development of the baseline FEM model
                                 of the vehicle. The FEM model was developed by a reverse engineering process of disassembly, geometry scanning,
                                 component analysis, material characterization and the incremental FEM model development. The turn-around time for
                                 this process by the FEV is quite impressive. Equally impressive are the apparent quality of the FEM mesh, the definition of
                                 joints and assembly of the overall model.

                                 The discretization of the BIW sheet materials uses proportionately sized quadrilateral shell elements, with few triangular
                                 elements. The mesh density is mostly uniform and without large variations in the  FEM element sizes and the aspect ratios.
                                 The BIW model has about 6% of triangular shell elements in the sheet metal which is a very small amount given the
                                 complexities of the vehicle geometry. Figures 1-3 show the geometry and the parts variety for the baseline vehicle model.

                                 There are no apparent geometry conflicts in the model and  parts are well aligned with compatible geometries and FEM
                                 meshes. This is essential for accurate modeling of currently the prevailing joining method for sheet metals, spot welding.
                                 The level of geometrical detail in the model is very high and as someone who has been involved with the vehicle
                                 crashworthiness modeling for the last twenty years, I think that the developed  FEM mesh of the Venza BIW is the current
                                 state-of-the-art. Figure 4 shows some details of the BIW FEM mesh that illustrate the prevalence of the quadrilateral shell
                                 finite elements, constant aspect ratios and presence of the geometry details that are necessary for an adequate modeling
                                 of the progressive structural crush.
Please comment on the methods
used to analyze the technologies
and materials selected, forming
techniques, bonding processes,
and parts integration.
[Joost] The forming, joining, and integration techniques used in the report were analyzed only by referencing production
examples or companies who produce similar products. Detailed design work would certainly include a more thorough
analysis of the manufacturing techniques however for the scope of this report I believe that the level of analysis is
appropriate.
                                                                                                                                    166
-------
[Richman]
    1)  Body: Process used to select materials, grades and gauges for the mass optimized body sub-group is technically
       sound and thorough.  Election of laser welding of structurally significant body panels indicates deployment of
       advanced manufacturing process where appropriate.
    2)  Non-body: Methodology used to identify, screen and select non-body mass reduction technologies is thorough,
       detailed and highly effective.  Munro Associates lead this segment of the project.  Munro is recognized as being
       technically competent, highly experienced, knowledgeable and creative in benchmarking and lean engineering of
       automotive and non-automotive systems.
[OSU - Glenn Daehn] All is in accord with the state of the art. It is not clear how welds are represented in the FE-Model,
without dissection of the LS-DYNA input stacks.

[OSU - Tony Luscher] The Toyota body repair manual was used to identify the material grades of the major parts of the
body structure. These material grades were then validated by material coupon testing.

The MSC Nastran solver was used to solve for the bending and torsion stiffness of the body in white model. Good
correlation was achieved between physical stiffness testing and FEA stiffness results.

[Simunovic]  The development of the LD Toyota Venza concept started with  the development of the baseline FEM model
of the vehicle. The FEM model was developed by a reverse engineering process of disassembly, geometry scanning,
component analysis, material characterization and the incremental FEM model development. The turn-around time for
this process by the FEV is quite impressive. Equally impressive are the apparent quality of the FEM mesh, the definition of
joints and assembly of the overall model.

The discretization of the BIW sheet materials uses proportionately sized quadrilateral shell elements, with few triangular
elements. The mesh density is mostly uniform and without large variations in the FEM element sizes and the aspect ratios.
The BIW model has about 6% of triangular shell elements in the sheet metal  which is a very small amount given the
complexities of the vehicle geometry. Figures 1-3 show the geometry and the parts variety for the baseline vehicle model.

In the following, I first give the analysis of the baseline FEM model. The baseline FEM model is very  adept and can be used
for illustration of some shortcomings of the LD model that I think need to be addressed. It is important to note that the LD
model is much more complex due to a large number of materials and gages that resulted from the computational
optimization process. This complexity and the project time constraints dramatically increase the potential for error.
Unfortunately the tools for managing such complex systems are not yet mature, making the development and the
                                                                                                   167
-------
evaluation of this complex vehicle model very challenging. Over the years, I have developed several simple programs that
can be used to debug FEM models by directly analyzing the model files. The common approach to evaluation of large FEM
models is to almost exclusively consider computational simulation results. However, these simple tools allow for
evaluations of relationships within the FEM models directly from the model input files, thereby enabling debugging of the
models independently from the simulations.
Review of the FEM Model for the Baseline Toyota Venza

The primary material for the BIW of the baseline vehicle, 2009 Toyota Venza, was identified in the Lotus Phase 1 Report as
mild steel. Lotus Phase 1 study stated that the BIW also had about 8% of Dual Phase steel with 590 MPa designation, while
everything else was commonly used mild steel sheet material. The FEV/EDAG study showed that there was more variety to
the baseline design then originally anticipated. Table 1 lists the materials used in the BIW model (file Venza_biw_r006.k)
that were modeled using MAT_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY). Aluminum bumper was modeled using
MAT_SIMPLIFIED_JOHNSON_COOK material model in LS-DYNA. The number of material models is relatively small.

Most of the CAE tools display the FEM model based on their part identification number (ID). To verify the material model
assignment one must then verify material assignment for every part and then sort them accordingly. For large complex
models this is a very tedious process that is very error prone. More advanced CAE tools, such as HyperMesh, have options
for grouping and displaying model entities by material types and IDs. Figure 5 displays the material assignments for the
baseline BIW.

The specific assignment of the materials for the BIW and the corresponding stress-strain curves are shown in the figures
below. Most of the material models account for strain rate sensitivity of the material. For a given plastic strain, the yield
stress is calculated by interpolating stresses between two neighboring stress strain curves based on the applied strain rate.
There are established modeling recommendations for modeling strain rate sensitivity effect in crash models. The specified
stress strain curves should not intersect. Extrapolated lines from their last specified linear segment should not intersect, as
well. The material models should use plastic strain rate  [23] instead of the total strain rate as the basis of the strain rate
effect calculation. This option (VP=1) was not used in the FEV models although it is highly recommended in practice.

Figures 6-10 show the main material systems for the baseline BIW model. The material assignments correspond to the
assignments in the project's report.

The stress-strain curves for different strain  rates in the above figures do not intersect. Their extrapolations however have
                                                                                                    168
-------
potential for intersection at high plastic strains in Figures 7and 8. The number of the data points in Figures 9 and 10 are too
large and needs to be reduced in order to avoid the interpolation errors by the simulation program. It is obvious that
curves in Figures 9 and 10 were developed by analytical fits. Such approach can create undesirable artifacts such as an
appearance of the yield point elongation for Dual Phase steel in Figure 10. An interpolation approach with fewer points
and curves is recommended. Figure 11 illustrates the optimal piecewise linear interpolation (green curve) of the base (red)
curve in Figure 10. The interpolated curve has error of 1% of the value range with respect to the actual curve and uses only
9 points.

Next, the BIW sheet material thickness distribution is shown in Figure 12. The colors indicate symmetrical distributions in
accordance with the specified thickness distribution in the project report.

In many situations, the accuracy of the crash simulation is dependent on the shell element formulation (type) used. The
basic shell element formulation (reduced integration Belytschko-Tsay, LS-DYNA type 2) is computationally very efficient
but has lower accuracy than more complex formulations such as the fully-integrated Bathe-Dvorkin shell element (LS-
DYNA type 16). Figure 12 shows the shell element formulations in the BIW model. The current crash modeling
recommendation is to use shell element type 16 when possible. The Bathe-Dvorkin shell is 3.5 times more computationally
expensive than the Belytschko-Tsay shell so that in order to  strike a proper balance  between the accuracy and the
computational speed element types can be mized in the model. This is especially true when large number of simulations is
conducted, as was the case for computational optimization in the FEV study. As it can be seen in Figure 16, the baseline
model employs accurate element formulation in the main structural components, while the Belytschko-Tsay formulation is
employed in the remainder of the sheet metal which is an appropriate compromise for the large scale computations.

Another important technical aspect of the crash simulations with the shell elements is the employed number  of
integration points through the thickness of the shells. The default (2 points) is insufficient for the crash analyses. Three
points is also inadequate in the current simulation guidelines because it results in a very quick formation of plastic hinges
in the sheet metal during crush. A minimum of 5 through-thickness  integration points is currently recommended for the
crash simulations. Therefore,  modification of the model in this regard is suggested for the general release.

Another commonly overlooked formulation aspect for the shell elements is the through thickness shear factor.
Recommended value is 0.833, which was used only in bumper structures of the current model (Figure 14). Changing the
factor to 0.833 is recommended.

In summary, the baseline Venza FEM model is developed following most of the recommended development procedures
for crash models. The modifications suggested above would meet few additional recommendations that would likely
                                                                                                    169
-------
increase the robustness of the model.. The NCAP and the side MDB barrier simulation results can be compared with the
actual crash tests conducted by NHTSA. The comparison of the simulation and the NCAP test shows somewhat stiffer
response of the FEM model with respect to the test (Figure 1.18.18 in the last FEV report). The maximum and the average
accelerations in the FEM model were accordingly higher than the test results. The baseline FEM model was deemed
acceptable for the purposes of the FEV study. Another important measure of the FEM model fidelity was the crash
duration time that was 20 ms shorter for the model compared to the test. This difference is noticeable because the overall
crash duration of 100 milliseconds. However, for the objectives of the FEM study, the model's crash pulse was deemed
acceptable, which for the described project schedule seemed quite reasonable.


Review of the Low Development Vehicle Model

The FEV engineers have used the computational optimization methods based on the response surface formulation in order
to determine the distribution of material types and grades that would maximally reduce the weight of the vehicle while
maintaining the performance and controlling the cost. The part distribution of the resulting optimized LD design FEM
model is shown in Figure 15.

It is probably misleading to refer to the resulting FEM model as "Low Development" since it is a product of numerous
computational simulations and an in-depth engineering study. The resulting inventory of the material models used in the
LD FEM model is listed in Table 2. It is evident that there are numerous duplicates as well as unused materials. It would be
prudent to purge the list of material models from the LD FEM model as they may lead to errors. Some of the
inconsistencies that were found in the current LD FEM model may very well be a result of this model redundancy.

Two model files contain most of the material models:
    •   Venza_master_mat_list_r006.k
    •   Venza_Material_Db_Opt_dk2.k

The horizontal black line in Table 2 separates the material model specifications between the two files. These two were
unchanged for the last two versions of the FEM models that were downloaded from the project download site.

Figures 16-32 below show the stress-strain curves for the materials used in the BIW of the LD FEM model.

There are obvious duplicates in the model specifications that would  be prudent to eliminate and modify the model
accordingly before its public release. In addition, there are some errors in the LD FEM model specifications that need to be
                                                                                                 170
-------
corrected.

Correction Item 1:

Material ID 9 (Figure 30) has stress-strain curves for different strain rates different strain rate curves intersect which is not
acceptable from the physical perspective.

Materials with IDs 8000006, 8000007, and 8000008 have elastic properties of lightweight materials such as Aluminum and
Magnesium alloys, but they utilize yield stress functions of HSLA 350/450 steel defined in file:
Venza_frt_susp_exhaust_30ms.k.

Currently, only the material 8000006 is used in the LD FEM model, although in the previous model version material ID
8000008 was also used.

Correction Item 2:

Some material assignments in the LD FEM model are inconsistent which is probably a result of too many material models.
The mapping of material IDs on the BIW FEM model reveal several unsymmetrical model assignments. The most obvious
discrepancy is marked in Figure 33. Here, where one model part is modeled using the mild steel while its corresponding
symmetrical counterpart is modeled using the HSLA 350/450 steel.

Additional unsymmetrical  material assignments are pointed with arrows in Figures 34-37.

Two possible outcomes of not pairing the symmetrical components with the same material ID are illustrated in Figures 36-
37. In Figure 36 the two different parts have different material assignments, which eventually refer to different  material
properties. In case of the marked parts in Figure 37, the material IDs are different but because of the repeated material
models with different IDs,  they eventually refer to the same material properties.

The above inconsistencies need to be corrected before the models are released into to the open domain.

Correction Item 3:

Another area of concern is the number of through thickness integration points for the shell elements in the current LD FEM
model. As it can be seen in Figure 38, almost all shell elements have just 2 integration points through the thickness. This is
                                                                                                    171
-------
clearly inadequate from the accuracy standpoint and may be responsible for some of the issuable simulation results shown
in the following figures.

Correction Item 4:

Figure 38 shows the thickness distribution in the LD FEM model of the BIW. In general, the thickness distribution is
symmetrical with respect to the centerline of the vehicle. However, a closer inspection reveals some asymmetries in
thickness assignments.

The arrows in Figures 40-41 show the parts that do not have symmetrical assignment of the values with respect to the
centerline of the vehicle. I have not checked the  extent of the differences,  but it something nonetheless that needs to be
corrected.

Concern Item 1:

The following Figures 42-45 show some results that may warrant more investigation by the project engineers. Figures 42-
43 show the deformation of the main front rails for the baseline vehicle during the NCAP test simulation. The overall
deformation is symmetrical. In the case of the LD FEM model, as shown in  Figures 44-45, the deformation is markedly
different from the baseline and unsymmetrical. The cause for that may be  in the unsymmetrical material assignments for
the main rails that were present in the previous LD FEM model release and the simulations may have been based on that
version. As I was only using the simulation files, I could not tell if that was actually the case. However, I strongly suggest
following up on this point as these rails are extremely important for the crash energy management.

Concern Item 2:

One of the modeling aspects that is usually not considered in conventional mild steel vehicle designs is modeling of
material fracture/failure [24]. However, in the case of the high strength materials, such as the AHSS, the material fracture
is a real possibility that needs to be included in the models. One of the easiest failure models to implement is to specify
equivalent strain threshold for the material failure. Once this threshold is reached during crash simulation it leads to
gradual element deletion, which simulates crack formation. I would suggest consideration of such a simple model
enhancement that, while not comprehensive enough for production design, is probably  sufficient for the purposes of the
FEV study. The strain rate sensitivity of the material models would help with the regularization of the strain localization
and related numerical problems [25].
                                                                                                    172
-------
If you are aware of better methods
employed and documented
elsewhere to help select and
analyze advanced vehicle materials
and design engineering rigor for
2017-2020 vehicles, please suggest
how they might be used to
improve this study.
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] Everything appears to be well-done and in accord with the state of the art.

[OSU-Tony Luscher] None known.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[OSU - Kristina Kennedy] FE Meshing Tool, ANSA. Did a quick Google search and did not find this product. Am familiar with ANSYS and others, but is ANSA an
industry-standard tool? Just confirming the wide-use of such a tool out of curiosity.

[Richman] The team of FEV, EDAG and Munro is an outstanding coalition of industry experts with the unique skills and expertise necessary to meet the
objectives of this project.
Mass reduction efforts were organized into two segments: body and non-body.  Body mass reduction focused on selection of materials (steel, aluminum,
plastics and magnesium), grades and gauges. Baseline Venza body design was not changed. Non-body mass reduction efforts examined all vehicle systems for
potential cost effective mass  reduction opportunities.  FEV utilized technical support  from  two recognized, technically qualified and  highly respected
engineering services organizations: EDAG and Munro and Associates.
EDAG focused on body structural engineering and cost modeling. They conducted detailed reverse engineering study the baseline Venza to establish baseline
vehicle mass  and structural characteristics and develop CAE, FE and collision simulation models.  Calibrated FE models were used to develop an optimized
Venza body structure.  EDAG Engineering analysis is thorough and reflects the  high level of vehicle engineering expertise and  know-how  within the EDAG
organization.  Modeling and simulation technologies utilized by EDAG are state-of-the art and EDAG has recognized competencies in effectively deploying those
tools.
The EDAG work presents a realistic perspective of achievable vehicle structure mass reduction using available design optimization tools, practical engineering
materials and available manufacturing processes. EDAG cost modeling of the baseline and reduced mass vehicle structures.
Munro lead the process of identifying, analyzing, screening and selecting cost effective mass reduction opportunities in all vehicle systems. Munro is a highly
respected engineering organization specializing in benchmarking and lean product design.  Munro process for achieving product mass and cost optimization is
well  developed and highly effective.  They utilize a creative mix of functional  analysis,  competitive benchmarking,  cross industry comparisons, advanced
materials and manufacturing process knowledge and sound engineering analysis. This segment of the study identified  a significant number  of practical mass
reduction concepts in all 20 vehicle sub-groups. The majority of mass reduction technologies selected for the final design are in some current level of volume
                                                                                                                                     173
-------
production and appear cost effective and realistically achievable by 2017.
FEV decomposed the total vehicle into 20 sub-systems.  Each sub-system was aggressively examined to identify realistically achievable and cost effective mass
reduction opportunities. Majority of mass reduction achieved (90%) is concentrated in (7) vehicle sub-systems:
                                Mass
                               Reduction
              Body          68 Kg
              Suspension    69
              Interior        42
              Brakes         41
              Engine         30
              Transmission   19
              Frame, Mounts 17

These 7 sub-systems account for over 90% of the cost increases and decreases in this project.
This reviewer has experience in light weighting of body, suspension  and engine systems.  Comments in the following sections are limited to those vehicle sub-
groups.
A significant number of creative and innovative mass reduction ideas were developed and selected for the remaining (17) sub-systems not discussed in this
report. Many of the ideas appear to be appropriate consideration as part of a total vehicle efficiency improvement effort.
Body Optimization Overview
Body Sub-system includes: Body-in-White (BIW),  Closures, Hood, Doors, Lift Gate, Fenders. This sub-system is the highest mass sub-group at 529 Kg, 31% of
total vehicle mass.   Body group design and material selection have  a  dominant influence on vehicle NVH and collision  performance.   For that reason,
optimization of the body structure is a major focus of this project.
       Body sub-system -     BIW, Closures, Bumper, Fenders
       Optimization results -   71 Kg mass reduction
                             $230 cost increase
                                                                                                                                     174
-------
FEV body mass reduction 68 Kg. (21 % of total vehicle mass reduction)
Baseline Toyota Venza body elements (BIW, closures, bumpers) are predominantly a mix of mild steel (48%) and HSS (49%) with a resulting mass of 529 Kg (31%
of total Venza mass).  This mix of materials represents a comprehensive use of automotive grade steels available when the Venza was originally designed.
Body related mass reductions from this baseline are indicative of improvements made possible by advances in materials technology.
Venza baseline BIW structure was used for both the Lotus "Low Development" and EDAG material optimization analysis.  Both studies reduced BIW mass by
similar amounts, Lotus  LD: 61 Kg, EDAG: 54 Kg.   Differences between Lotus and EDAG  structures include: specific material grades and gauges and joining
technology.  Lotus LD  structure  used conventional resistance spot welding while the  EDAG structure included continuous  laser welding  for structurally
significant joints. BIW mass for the two structures are similar:
              BIW Structure Mass
              Baseline
386 Kg
              Lotus Venza LD 325 Kg (-15.8%)
              EDAG Venza
332 Kg (-14 %)
Significant difference bending and torsional stiffness between the Lotus  and EDAG structures  (20%)  do not appear to  be fully explained by the relative
difference in mass between the structures.  Structural  stiffness for a constant shape is dependent on material gauge and modulus and not influenced by
strength properties. Auto body stiffness can be increased by improving attachment integrity.  It would be helpful to understand the influence of laser seam
welding on body NVH and collision performance.
Body Optimization
Body optimization was accomplished  using EDAG body mass optimization process.  The calibrated Venza FEA model was used.   In this process alternate
material type, grade and gauge were evaluated for NVH and collision performance.  Baseline Venza body structure was not altered. Materials evaluated include
advanced high strength steels (AHSS), aluminum, magnesium, plastics.  Material gauges were selected based on component part requirements (NVH, Collision)
and properties of specific materials. The body mass optimization process explored the potential of HSS, AHSS, aluminum, magnesium and plastics.
Optimized body structure content summary:
              Baseline   Optimized   Mass
              Mass      Mass       Reduction
                 Materials Change
       BIW   386.0 Kg  324.0
  51.0 Kg (13.2%)     HSS, AHSS, Gauge
                                                                                                                                   175
-------
       Doors   95.7
95.6
       Hood   17.8      10.1


       Lift Gate  15.1       7.7


       Fenders   6.8       4.9


       Bumpers    7.5     7.5


             528.9 Kg   457.7 Kg
BIW Optimization
              7.7 (43%)
              7.2 (48%)
              1.9 (28%)
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
             71.2 Kg (13.5%)
The EDAG optimized BIW is predominantly HSS and AHSS with appropriate gauge reductions.  Baseline Venza is composed of 78% mild steel and 22% HSS. This
material mix is representative of a comprehensive use of available materials at the time this Venza model was designed. The optimization process selected HSS
and AHSS for over 80% of structure.
This study provides insight into practical  BIW mass reductions achievable with recent and anticipated near term future advancements in automotive steels.
Using AHSS  aggressively with  resultant gauge reductions achieved an 13.2% reduction in BIW mass (3%  reduction in total vehicle  mass).  This finding is
consistent with similar investigations on the part of OEM organizations in North America and Europe.
Aluminum was selected for the hood, lift gate and fenders.  Mass reduction achieved for those components were: Hood: 43%, Lift gate: 48% and Fenders: 28%.
Selection of aluminum for these body components is consistent with OEM production experience and several independent organization studies. The magnitude
of mass reduction achieved in this body group is also consistent with production experience.
Body Modeling - Comments
The following observations are submitted  in the interest of completeness and do not diminish validity of findings and conclusions of the overall project.
Body Modeling - Service Loads
Vehicle models developed in this study are valid and useful for the intended scope of this project.  Models addresses overall bending and torsional stiffness,
free body modal frequencies, roof strength, and four crash test load cases. These are good indicators and cover many of the primary structural performance
concerns.
                                                                                                                                   176
-------
This  analysis does not address what are commonly referred to as "service loads/' including jacking, twist ditch, pothole impacts, 2G bumps, towing loads,
running loads, etc. Running loads are typically suspension loads for a variety of conditions to address strength, stiffness and fatigue durability of the body and
suspension attachment  structures and points.   Without these  other  considerations, the  optimization process could may unrealistically  reduce mass  in
components that have little effect on overall body stiffness or strength, yet are important for durability.
Body Modeling - Deformable Barrier
Modeling of deformable barriers has historically been an issue.  Source, nature or origination of the deformable barriers (moving and fixed) used in this project
are not explained.  In the offset deformable barrier crash test load cases, overall deformations, including barrier deformations are reported.  The reporting
does, however, raise a modeling concern.  Barrier deformations of over 515  mm are reported for the offset tests. The  IIHS deformable barrier has 540 mm
thickness of deformable material.  It  is not expected to compress completely.   Excessive barrier  deformation has the  potential to  change the overall
acceleration and deformation scenarios reported and influence the mass optimization process.
Body Modeling - Average Acceleration
Overall acceleration issues are not reported in a format normally used by collision development engineers. Charts of unfiltered acceleration pulses are shown
and comparisons are made by evaluation of peak accelerations. "Average accelerations" are referred to, but in this report average is the average of  left and
right side peak accelerations.
Average acceleration as represented by the slope of the filtered velocity/time curve is commonly used to evaluate relative collision performance of a structure.
Common practice is to try to steepen the curve in the early portion of the crash sequence (up to perhaps 50 ms) and to try to flatten the curve in the later parts.
The logic has to do with the motions of a restrained occupant within the structure. In addition, total velocity change, including rebound, is typically reviewed.
As an example, increasing front structure strength can increase restitution and rebound, which increases the overall change in velocity,  or Delta-V, and can
have adverse effects on overall occupant performance.  While peak accelerations are useful, unfiltered peaks can be misleading due to the  noise/vibration
effect, and at best represent only a partial analysis.
Body Modeling - Stiffness in Collision Simulation
In evaluating the performance of the optimized body structure, the analysts in general considered "less deformation" of the body structure to equate to "better
performance."  Less deformation may be an index of structural stiffness but  is not necessarily an indication of better collision performance. Less deformation
generally equates to higher decelerations and resulting forces on the occupant. It is likewise generally desirable to efficiently use as much of the allowable free
crush space as possible, not less.
Body Modeling - Door Opening
Part of the rear impact analysis includes an analysis of rear door opening deformation and an estimate of door openability post-crash.  While this is an
interesting and useful analysis, it is not explained why it is done.  It is not a required aspect of the regulations. Since it is in the report, a similar analysis should
probably be done for the front door openings in the front crash test load cases.  Most if not all manufacturers have an in-house requirement that front doors
must be openable following a standard front crash test.


                                                                                                                                       177
-------
Non-body Design Optimization
This project included a major engineering effort to identify practical mass reduction opportunities in non-body component groups.  A rigorous process was
followed to identify potential  mass reduction concepts. This process selected a extraordinary number of technologies that were judged to be practical, cost
effective and in volume production now or will be in production by 2017.  A few of the larger mass reduction ideas are discussed in the following sections.
Non-body mass reduction ideas selected for the final FEV vehicle design  resulted in a 21% reduction in non-body sub-group mass reduction. A portion of the
mass  reduction achieved in  this area was the result of vehicle mass  reduction (engine, wheels, tires).  The majority of non-body mass reductions  are
independent of other reductions in vehicle mass.
Suspension
       Suspension sub-system -       Wheels, Tires, Shock Absorbers,
                                    Steering Knuckles, Control Arms, Springs,...
       Optimization results -         69 Kg mass reduction
                                    $0 cost increase
       Major mass reductions in this group are:
       Wheels and Tires       32.8 Kg Resized to new weight
       Shock absorber        14.1    New light weight design
       Front Control Arm      1.9    Convert to Aluminum
       Front and Rear Knuckle 12.6    Conversion to Cast Aluminum
       Front and Rear Sta. Bar  7.0    Innovative Al tube concept
       Other                  0.6
Wheels
Downsizing wheels and tires (5) for the 317 Kg (18.5%) reduction in total vehicle mass is appropriate and is a normal consideration in OEM weight reduction
programs. Wheel and tire combinations selected represent a 22% mass reduction from the reduction for these components.  This magnitude of mass reduction
is potentially achievable, but must be considered somewhat aggressive.
Knuckles
Conversion of steering knuckles to cast aluminum is a  proven strategy.  Estimated mass  reduction by conversion to aluminum is  38% of knuckle mass.
Approximately 35% of knuckles on vehicles built in North America use aluminum knuckles.  Mass reduction achieved in those programs range from 35% to 45%

                                                                                                                                    178
-------
depending on knuckle configuration.  Knuckle mass reduction assessment in this study is achievable.
Control Arms
Conversion of the front control arm to forged aluminum results in a vehicle mass reduction of 2 Kg.  Baseline Venza control arm design is typical of a design
used widely throughout the industry.  A significant proportion of these arms are produced in aluminum.  Mass reduction estimates for conversion of this
component is typical of the reductions seen in similar production programs.
Shock Absorber. Sway Bars
Reduced mass shock absorber/strut designs and the tubular sway bars are innovative concepts.  Cost reduction of $58 is attributed to the reduced mass shock
absorber concept. Production viability and cost of this ideas is not known to this reviewer.
System Cost
Total cost for mass reductions in this group is estimated to be net $0.  Cost savings resulting from downsized wheels and tires ($79) and low mass shock
absorbers ($58) offset cost increases for low mass arms, knuckles and stabilizer bars.
Engine
       Optimization  results -   30.4 Kg mass reduction
                             $ 43.96 cost reduction
Main sources of engine mass reduction:
       Downsizing - constant performance    10.4 Kg (2.7 L to 2.4 L)
       Cylinder Block - Al Mg Hybrid, liners     7.1
       Valve train - Al castings, power metal    3.7
       Cooling system - plastic housings        2.6
       Timing Drive-Plastic covers            1.5
       Other                                5.1
Engine - Downsizing
Largest mass (10.4 Kg) reduction came from downsizing the engine to a smaller displacement to maintaining baseline Venza performance levels. Assessing
appropriate engine weight for a downsized engine is a complex task. Changing displacement within a basic engine achieves small incremental mass reductions.
A broader perspective was used in this study.  Based on competitive engine technology assessments, an engine was selected representing mass optimization
for the 2.4 L displacement. Mass of the new engine was adjusted based on sound engineering analysis to meet packaging and performance parameters of the

                                                                                                                                    179
-------
baseline engine-vehicle package.  This approach  represents an innovative, thorough and well-engineered approach to  estimating optimized  engine mass
reduction resting from vehicle mass reduction.
Developing a new engine involves massive investments in design, development and manufacturing. Production engines are designed for use in a broad range
of vehicles and for a period of time spanning several vehicle design cycles.  Manufacturers may not have the opportunity to provide a mass optimized engine
for a specific vehicle.
The majority of engine mass reduction ideas selected for the FEV Venza exploit recent advances in materials and/or manufacturing technologies.  Many small
gains were  made converting cast iron housings to cast aluminum, and cast aluminum covers and  brackets to cast magnesium or plastic.  Most of the engine
mass reduction ideas selected have been proven in multiple high volume applications over several years. A few engine Ideas have less proven high volume field
experience and were identified by FEV as "D" level selection candidates.
                                                                                                                                    180
-------
   3.  VEHICLE
       CRASHWORTHINESS
       TESTING
       METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR
       (CAE only)
                                                 COMMENTS
Please comment on the methods
used to analyze the vehicle body
structure's structural integrity
(NVH, etc.) and safety
crashworthiness.
[Joost] The baseline testing and comparison process (pgs. 67-128) is very thorough. The team establishes credibility in the
proposed design by performing an initial baseline comparison against the production Venza - this suggests that the
modeling techniques used can reasonably predict the performance of the lightweight design. It is unfortunate that the
deformation mode comparisons could not be made quantitative (or semi-quantitative) somehow. Comparing how the
model and test look after a crash gives an indication of deformation mode, but the comparison seems subjective. For
example, image D-28 (pg 95) seems to show slightly different failure mechanisms in the CAE model versus the real test.

The report notes that the bushing mountings were rigid in the model while they likely failed  in the real vehicle. I would
expect that these failures are designed into the vehicle to support crash energy management. The results crash pulses (pg
98) for the model and test look fairly similar, but it is unfortunate that this crash energy mechanism was not captured.

The intrusion correlation for the baseline model is very good. This again adds credibility to the modeling approach used
here.

On page 386 the report states that the Mg CCB was not included in the crash or NVH analysis. Replacing a steel CCB with
Mg is  likely to have a significant impact on both crash and NVH performance. The technology is viable (and has been used
on production vehicles as stated) however the crash energy management and NVH performance must be offset by adding
weight elsewhere in the vehicle. The CCB plays a role in crash and a major role in NVH so I do not think that it is
appropriate to suggest that the material replacement will have the reported results in this case. My suggestion is to leave
the CCB as steel in the weight analysis (or go back and redo the crash and NVH modeling, which I suspect is not viable).

[Richman]
   1)  LS-Dyna and MSC-Nastran are current and accepted tools for this kind of analysis. FEM analysis is part science and
       part art. EDAG has the experienced engineers and analysts required to generate valid simulation models and
       results.
   2)  EDAG was thorough in their analysis, load-case selections and data for evaluation
                                                                                                                                   181
-------
                                    3)  The handling of acceleration data from the crash test simulations is a bit unusual, and further analysis of the data is
                                        recommended.

                                 [OSU -Tony Luscher] Trifilar suspension apparatus was used to find the CG and moments of inertia of the engine and
                                 other major components. The dynamic FEA modal setup was run using NASTRAN. Vibration modes were analyzed by the
                                 CAE model and then compared with physical test data in order to correlate the FEA model to the physical model. Five
                                 different load case configurations with appropriate barriers were placed against the full vehicle baseline model. Models
                                 were created with high detail and fidelity.

                                 [Simunovic] The correlations and modifications of the baseline vehicle FEM model to the experimental results were
                                 primarily done on the measurements of vibrational and stiffness characteristics of the BIW. Once the stiffness of the BIW
                                 model was tuned to the experimental  results,  it was considered to be sufficiently accurate to form the foundation for the
                                 crash model. The vehicle crash FEM model was then correlated to the NCAP and MDB side impact. The correlations were
                                 primarily based on the deformation modes and the FEM model was found to be satisfactory for the purposes of the FEV
                                 study.

                                 Comparison of the deformation in the NCAP crash in Figures 46-49 shows very good correlation of the deformation modes.
                                 The deformation of the subframe shown in the Figures 48-49 also shows very high fidelity of the simulated deformation
                                 compared to the experiment.

                                 In summary, the correlation of the baseline FEM model with the NCAP test is quite satisfactory. The correlation with the
                                 side MDB test was not elaborated in the report.  However, the side impact is perhaps the most important and limiting
                                 design aspect for the lightweight vehicles. The side impact is almost exclusively a structural  problem that does  not
                                 compound the benefits of the reduced mass, as  is the case of the frontal impact. A documented correlation of the baseline
                                 FEM model with the side impact experiment will in my opinion be a very beneficial technical addition to the FEV project
                                 that would significantly support the findings of the technical feasibility of the lightweight opportunities in the existing
                                 vehicle design space.
Please describe the extent to
which state-of-the-art crash
simulation testing methods have
been employed as well as the
extent to which the associated
analysis exhibits strong technical
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[Richman]
    1)  CAE modeling guidelines used appear to provide a rigorous and logical technical approach to the development of
       the FE and the methods of analysis.
                                                                                                                                    182
-------
rigor.
    2)  Method of evaluating and comparing acceleration levels in the various crash test scenarios is a bit unusual, a more
       accepted method of comparing velocity/time plots and average accelerations is suggested.
[OSU -Tony Luscher] Global  vehicle deformation and vehicle crash behaviors were analyzed and compared to the
deformation modes of test photographs. Fidelity was good. A few notes on these comparisons are noted on this page in
the additional comments section.

[Simunovic] The FEV Low Development vehicle study has been reviewed following the instructions by the US EPA. It has
been found that the  FEV study followed most of the current technical guidelines and the state-of-the-art practices for
computational crash simulation and design. Several inconsistencies were  found in the developed FEM models that need to
be addressed and corrected before the FEM models are released for the general use.
If you have access to FMVSS crash
setups to run the model under
different scenarios in LS-DYNA, are
you able to validate the FEV/EDAG
design and results? In addition,
please comment on the AVI files
provided.
[Joost] N/A

[OSU -Tony Luscher] This reviewer has expertise in crash simulation. However due to time constraints the model was not
run under different scenarios in LS-DYNA. No AVI files were found.
If you are aware of better methods
and tools employed and
documented elsewhere to help
validate advanced materials and
design engineering rigor for 2017-
2020 vehicles, please suggest how
they might be used to improve the
study.
[Joost] N/A

[Richman]  Methods and tools were appropriate.

[OSU-Tony Luscher] None found.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[OSU - Kristina Kennedy] "Bending and torsional stiffness values did not provide acceptable performance (when replacing with HSS)". This is an "of course"
comment, right?  HSS would absolutely produce worse results when replacing steel.  These results were expected, correct?

[OSU -Tony Luscher] The caption on Figures 1.8.13 to 1.8.14 state that they are at 100 ms although the previous paragraph lists them as occurring at 80 ms.
The muffler deformation looks quite different in Figure 1.8.14.
                                                                                                                                   183
-------
Figure 1.8.33 is unclear and cannot be seen.
                                                                                                                                     184
-------
   4.  VEHICLE
       MANUFACTURING COST
       METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR
       (CAE BIW and Vehicle)
                                                  COMMENTS
Please comment on the methods
used to analyze the mass-reduced
vehicle body structure's
manufacturing costs.
[Joost] Overall, the costing methods used in this study seem to be very thorough. The details of the approach provide
considerable credibility to the cost estimates, however there will always be concerns regarding the accuracy of cost models
for systems where a complete, detailed engineering design has not been established. I believe that this report does a good
job of representing the cost penalties/benefits of the technologies but I would still anticipate negative response from
industry. There a few examples where I believe that the cost was underestimated or where additional data could be helpful
in corroborating the results:

The engine cost comparison suggests that the 2.4L engine will cost less than the 2.7L engine due to reduced material
content (smaller engine). The analysis goes on to say that the remaining costs (manufacturing, install, etc.) would be about
the same for both engines. This seems credible, but is it possible to compare the price of both engine types as well?  It may
be possible to find prices for both of these engines from a Toyota dealer, and while price is certainly different than cost, it
would be helpful in establishing that the cost differential estimate is reasonably accurate.

Regarding the cylinder head subsystem (pg 211), the report notes that a switch from Mg to plastic for the head covers
introduces engineering challenges related to the cam phaser circuitry. While the report identifies  two production examples
of this change, these are for high cost engines. It seems unlikely that the designs would achieve the quoted cost savings
given that this  has only been applied to high cost engines and there are recognized difficulties in the engineering/design.

Regarding the body redesign, the  estimated cost increase due to materials and manufacturing ($231.43, pg 333) for a
weight savings of 67.7kg produces a weight reduction penalty of about $3.42/kg-saved which seems appropriate for the
materials and assembly processes suggested in the report.

I don't find the cost estimates for the seats to be credible (pg 378). If it's possible to reduce the weight of the seats (which
represent a significant portion of vehicle weight) while saving significant cost, why would there be any steel seats in
production? These  are "bolt on" parts that are provided to the OEMs by suppliers so this would be a relatively easy change
to make if the cost/weight trade-off shown in this report is true. The report should, at the very least,  address why these
kinds of seats are not more prevalent in current vehicles.
                                                                                                                                      185
-------
Why is there a cost savings for the front axle hub (pg 555)? If you are proposing to scallop the hub during forging then you
will still need the same amount of input material - some of it will be removed during scalloping, but you will not get a cost
savings. Also,  it's not made explicitly clear that the current hub is forged. If you are proposing to move from a cast hub to a
forged hub then the cost will most certainly increase. If the cost savings here is due to the estimated weight savings in the
final part (i.e. pay for less material) then this indicates that the model is not correctly capturing the yield from the process.

[Richman] Body structure mass optimization was conducted by EDAG.  Body structure was not altered form the baseline
structure. Mass optimization process examined an appropriate range of material types, grades and gauges.  Material
properties used appear valid for the respective materials and grades. NVH and collision performance results appear
consistent and logical with no significant dis-continuities of inconsistencies.  In general the process used is excellent and
the results appear realistic and valid.
Costing models were maintained by EDAG. A complete baseline vehicle cost model was developed and calibrated to the
estimated cost of the current Venza.  The baseline model was  used to  track cost changes driven  by mass reduction
technologies.
Cost estimates for mass reduction technologies are based on  detailed  analysis of the products, materials and  process
utilized.  Estimating costs for new or emerging technologies is a challenging process. Advanced technology cost estimates
are based on a combination scaling from known products  if available,  benchmarking from similar products, material
supplier costs, analysis of advanced manufacturing cost, and expert estimates. Labor rates  and manufacturing overheads
are maintained at documented industry typical levels.
This cost tracking approach is fundamentally sound and valid.  Cost estimates for new technologies are subject to validity
of cost estimates and engineering judgments in the estimate. This  project included rigorous  engineering assessments of all
mass reduction technology costs.
For most mass reduction technologies selected, cost estimates appear realistic and are consistent with current production
costs and prior vehicle mass reduction studies.  In the area of body sheet materials there appears to be some assumptions
that result in  estimated technology costs as much as 25% higher than volume production experience would suggest.  This
are is discussed in more detail in this report.
       Costs attributed to optimization of the body are reported as:
                                            Mass Reduction
                                     Cost     $/Kg saved
              BIW                  $110     $ 2.19        HSS, AHHS
                                                                                                    186
-------



Hood
Lift Gate
Fenders
$ 39
$ 30
$ 22
$ 5.08
$ 4.16
$10.93
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
                        Total       $ 210    $ 3.20
Cost increases projected for HSS and AHSS are marginally higher than have been reported in analytical studies and OEM
experience in volume production. Production vehicle studies of AHSS in auto body applications have suggested cost impact
of reduced body mass can offset a majority of the cost premiums associated with these materials.
Cost increases projected for aluminum sheet application are significantly higher than has been seen in prior studies and in
production OEM experience. The optimized body includes three aluminum components: Hood, Fenders and Lift Gate.
Mass reductions attributed to these three product areas are consistent with OEM production experience. Estimated cost
increases are significantly higher than have been seen in production experience.
Using the hood as an example, total cost of the baseline hood is estimated to be $43 while total cost of the aluminum hood
is estimated  to be $93. Mass savings with the aluminum hood  is 7.7 Kg resulting in  a net cost per Kg mass reduction of
$6.49.  Production program  experience with aluminum hoods typical find a cost premium  below $4.50 per Kg mass
reduction. Processing costs for a steel or aluminum hood  should be similar.  That similarity is reflected the EDAG cost
model. The main cost difference between hoods is in material cost.  Examining the EDAG cost model it appears aluminum
sheet products were assessed a base metal cost and a grade premium. The two factors appear to be combined in the cost
model results a raw material cost substantially higher than actual market price for these materials.
EDAG cost models for auto body sheet materials (AHSS and aluminum) appear to be overstating raw material costs.  A
review of the costing models and correlation with market prices for the materials and how raw material cost for sheet
products is established in the models may be appropriate.
[OSU -Tony Luscher] Mass reduction was analyzed first on  a system  level and then by a component level basis. Mass
reduction concepts were based upon a very comprehensive literature review of new materials and manufacturing
processes and alternative designs ideas that appear in the open literature and at trade shows. An assessment of these was
made in terms of technological readiness, fitness for use in mass production, risk, and cost. In addition there were
consultation  with industry and experts.

[Simunovic]  This is not my area of expertise.
                                                                                                   187
-------
Please describe the extent to
which state-of-the-art costing
methods have been employed as
well as the extent to which the
associated analysis exhibits strong
technical rigor.
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[Richman]  Costing models are thorough covering all elements of total production cost (material, processing, equipment,
tooling, freight, packaging,...). Baseline cost model was calibrated to baseline vehicle cost projection. The basic model is
complete and sound.
Cost estimates for mass reduction technologies are the result of a rigorous engineering process utilizing benchmarking
data, material and component costs from suppliers and detailed analysis of manufacturing costs. Sound creative
engineering analysis was used to scale product cost to this specific vehicle application. Accuracy of new technology cost
estimates is dependent on the knowledge, skill, experience and engineering judgment of the individuals making the
estimates.  Munro Associates conducted this segment of the project.  Munro is a highly respected organization with strong
qualifications in product cost analysis. It is reasonable to assume cost estimates in this study are valid estimates for the
mass reduction technologies.
One area of cost estimate concern is reduced mass sheet products. In this area, material and equipment costs attributed
to the reduced mass technologies are significantly  higher than actual production experience would support.  Source of the
discrepancy is not clear form the information in the project review documents.
[OSU - Tony Luscher]  The impact of costs, associated with mass reduction, was evaluated using FEV's methodology and
tools as previously employed on prior powertrain analyses for EPA. Cost reduction assumptions are clearly laid out and are
reasonable. The report does a good job of realizing the inherent challenges and risks in applying any new technology, let
alone lightweight technology, to a vehicle platform.  FEV describes the component interactions both positive and negative
in its recommendations.

The actual values in the EXCEL files were not checked.

[Simunovic] This is not my area of expertise.
If you are aware of better methods
and tools employed and
documented elsewhere to help
estimate costs for advanced
vehicle materials and design for
2017-2020 vehicles, please suggest
how they might be used to
improve this study.
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[Richman]  Process methodology and execution used is one of the best this reviewer has seen.

[OSU-Tony Luscher]  None found.

[Simunovic] This is not my area of expertise.
                                                                                                                                     188
-------
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[Joost] The change from a cast Al engine block with cast Fe liners to a cast-over Mg/AI hybrid with PWTA coated cylinders is very interesting, but the cost
penalty estimate seems low relative to what I would expect. Previous work exploring the use of Mg intensive engines (which did not include the added
complexity of cast-in Al liners) suggests a cost penalty of $3.89 per pound saved (see
http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/lm 08/3 automotive  metals-cast.pdf report B) versus this report which suggests a cost penalty of $3.51
per kilogram saved, about half as expensive. The cited study was performed on a 2.5 L engine, comparable to the Venza. The primary difference is that the
Venza study includes downsizing which would save on material costs, but I'm not confident that the savings would be as substantial as indicated in this report. It
seems that something has been underestimated.

There are several examples where a cost savings has been calculated by reducing the size of a component, despite using more expensive material. For example
the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield subsystem shows a savings for the caliper subsystem and a modest increase in the cost of the rotor and shield. Some of the
cost savings here is due to reducing the size of the system (scaling to the 2008 Toyota Prius). However, there would still be a weight savings (albeit lower) if the
conventional cast iron materials were used and downsized to the 2008 Toyota Prius - this is the likely outcome in a real automotive environment. Given the
option to choose a more expensive, exotic, untested system that saves significant weight versus a conventional low cost system that saves less weight, it seems
like an OEM would choose the conventional solution. In this case the suggested weight savings are technically possible but would never happen in a practical
automotive environment.

[Richman]  A review of cost development for reduced mass sheet product should be reviewed.  Current model would lead to de-selecting some low mass
sheet based solutions due to unrepresentative cost assessment.

[OSU - Kristina Kennedy]  Table 1.7.1: NVH Results Summary. The "Weight Test Condition" and "Weight BIW" are ALSO outside of limits (> 5%), but not noted
in results.  Only those highlighted in red are noted as "failures". All failures (> 5%) should be called out specifically since that was their target.

[OSU -Tony Luscher] There are many typos and fragmented sentences in these sections. These should be corrected. Bookmark references do not all work.
                                                                                                                                    189
-------
    5.  CONCLUSION AND
       FINDINGS
                                                 COMMENTS
Are the study's conclusions
adequately backed up by the
methods and analytical rigor of the
study?
[Joost] Yes. I identified various areas where the analysis or report could be improved, but overall the methods used here
provide a credible and reasonable estimate of the potential for weight savings. Based on some of my earlier comments I
would expect that actual costs to be somewhat higher than predicted in this study. Additionally, real vehicles share
components across platforms so using vehicle-specific components would add additional cost. It is possible that the cost
curve would cross $0/lb-saved at a lower total weight savings than suggested  here.

[Richman]  Study conclusions and findings are well supported by the analytical rigor, tools used and expertise of the
organizations involved.
EDAG conducted  a detailed  reverse engineering process to  define  baseline Venza  component mass and structural
performance.  The process included: vehicle teardown, identification of component mass and material composition and
component scanning to  create digital models of structural components. Part connections  (spot weld,  seam weld,  laser
weld), dimensions (location, weld diameter, weld  length), and characteristics were documented during scanning process.
Material property data was obtained by coupon testing part samples.
Scan data,  part weight and material information were  used to create a CAE model  of the vehicle structure.  A finite
element (FE) model was created from the CAE model using ANSA mesh software. The FE model was used to evaluate NVH
characteristics  (bending, torsion,  modal analysis)  of the structure  using NASTRAN. Model results were compared and
calibrated with analytical test results to establish the baseline analysis model. CAE crash performance simulations (LS-
DYNA) were conducted to verify model correlation with actual vehicle crash test performance in National Highway Traffic
Safety  Association (NHTSA)  regulatory performance testing.   Model results were  calibrated to  actual Venza  crash
performance data. The correlated crash model became the baseline crash model for the remaining load cases.
EDAG is  widely recognized as highly competent and experienced in vehicle structural  modeling,  NVH  and collision
simulation  and structural engineering.  LS-Dyna, MSC/Nastran and ANSA  are valid and widely-used  simulation tools,
commonly  used and accepted within the engineering community and the industry  to perform this analysis. The approach
used by EDAG to develop Venza structural models is a state-of-the art methodology utilizing proven modeling tools.
Structural models  developed in this project were calibrated to physical test results of actual vehicle structures.  Simulation
results appear  reasonable and logical, building confidence in the fidelity of the analysis. Models have excellent correlation
to actual  vehicle performance.  FMVSS crash results are consistent with bending and torsional stiffness properties. There
is no apparent reason to question results of this modeling and simulation effort.  These models would be expected to  be
                                                                                                                                    190
-------
                                 valid for comparison of design alternatives. These models would be expected to provide reliable assessments of NVH and
                                 collision performance of the Venza structure.

                                 Report conclusions with regard to NVH and collision performance do not substantially overreach the capability and results
                                 of the analysis.  In some relatively minor areas, assessment to of the "optimized" structure is not fully supported by
                                 generally recognized measures of structural performance.  These few relatively uncertainties do not diminish the overall
                                 conclusion that the modeling and simulation efforts are well done and the major conclusions are valid useable.
                                 [OSU - Glenn Daehn] At the time of review, Section G "Conclusions and Recommendations" is unavailable. We hope that
                                 in this section FEV will point out the most promising actions that auto makers may take to reduce mass while conserving
                                 cost.

                                 [OSU - Tony Luscher] The report's conclusions are based on sound engineering principals of good rigor.
Are the conclusions about the
design, development, validation,
and cost of the mass-reduced
design valid?
[Joost] Yes. As above, there is reason to believe that the true cost will be higher than predicted here, but I think this
analysis provides a useful estimate.

[Richman]  Design development and validation conclusions are well supported in this study. Cost model is valid and cost
conclusions are generally realistic. There appears to be a systematic discrepancy in cost modeling of low mass sheet
products. This discrepancy has a minor impact on conclusions of this study.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] This study is carefully crafted with excellent attention to engineering detail.  It is important to note
that the overall environment for vehicle design, manufacture and use is continually changing. See the "Additional
Comments" section of this document for further development of the implications of this.

[OSU - Tony Luscher] This reviewer found the overall work to be thorough and well documented. Therefore the
conclusions are well supported and validated by the engineering and modeling in the report.
Are you aware of other available
research that better evaluates and
validates the technical potential
for mass-reduced vehicles in the
2017-2020 timeframe?
[Joost] I have not seen a report as thorough as this. There are several examples of resources that provide useful
information regarding weight reduction potential such as
Cheah, L.W. Cars on a Diet: The Material and Energy Impacts of Passenger Vehicle Weight Reduction in the U.S.
Joshi, A.M. Optimizing Battery Sizing and Vehicle Lightweighting for an Extended Range Electric Vehicle
Lutsey, N.  Review of technical literature and trends related to automobile mass-reduction technology

[Richman] This reviewer has monitored automotive mass reduction studies in North America and Europe for several
                                                                                                                                     191
-------
                                 years. This study is the best evaluation of mass reduction opportunities and associated costs this reviewer has seen.

                                 [OSU - Glenn Daehn] There are no more comprehensive or detailed studies that we are aware of. This is an excellent
                                 compilation of ideas for practical vehicle mass reduction and fuel efficiency improvement.

                                 [OSU - Tony Luscher] None found.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] The study does an excellent job within its scope. As this reviewer sees the scope, the driving question is: Can a well-engineered relatively
modern vehicle (2010 Toyota Venza) have its mass reduced by 20% or more, without significant cost penalty and while maintaining crashworthiness.  The
answer to that question is a clear "YES".  Further, this conclusion is backed with rigor and attention to detail. This is in my mind, very clear, well-done and
technically rigorous.

This reviewer believes that there are a few other important questions that were not asked. These include:

1) Will the proposed changes in design pose any other important risks in manufacture or use?  This can  include: warranty exposure, durability, increased noise,
vibration and harshness, maintenance concerns, etc., etc.

2) Will increasing regulatory constraints and/or consumer expectations require increases in vehicle mass, opposing the mass reductions provided by the
improved practices outlined in this study?

Both these issues will make vehicle light weighting more difficult than this report suggests. With respect to issue 1) there are a number of materials and design
substitutions that may produce concerns with durability, manufacturability and warranty claims. For example when substituting polymers for metals, there are
new environmental embrittlement modes that may cause failure and warranty claims. Also, if substituting aluminum for steel, multi-material connections may
cause galvanic corrosion problems. When using thinner sheets of higher strength steel, formability may be reduced and springback may be more problematic.
Both these issues may preclude the use of the stronger material with a similar design and may also increase the time and cost involved with die development.
Lastly there are always risks in any new design. For example, when using new brake designs, pad wear and squeal may be more pronounced. All of these issues
may cause a manufacturer to avoid the new technology.

There are also local constrains on material thicknesses that are outside this review methodology.  For example while a roof rail may meet crash and stiffness
criteria, it may deflect excessively or permanently if a 99th percentile male pulls on it exiting a vehicle. Similarly, parking  lot and hail dents may require greater
thickness gauges than this study may indicate.
The problem of vehicle light-weighting and improved fuel economy is seen here through the lens as being an engineering problem to be solved. And in many
                                                                                                                                     192
-------
ways it is.  However, the forces of consumer expectations and behaviors are an essential part of the problem.  As an interesting anecdote, the Model T Ford had
a fuel economy of about 20 MPG, very similar to the average fuel economy of vehicles on the road today. No modern consumer would choose a Model T for
many obvious reasons. Our cars have become extensions of our living rooms with many electrical motors driving windows, mirrors, seats and complex and
costly HVAC and infotainment systems. All of these systems add weight, complexity and use power.  Further increased complexity of engines to improve
emissions and increase fuel economy has increased engine mass.

This study shows that with good engineering we can reduce vehicle mass of an existing vehicle by 20% with little to no increased cost or adverse consumer
reaction. Based on our current course, it is just as likely this benefit will be taken by improved mandated safety and emission features as well as improved
creature comforts.

Much can be gained through enlightened consumer behavior (assuming the average consumer wants to reduce energy use and carbon footprint).  While much
of this is outside the scope of this report, in particular it would be useful if the average consumer would understand the lifecycle environmental impacts of
vehicle choice and of varied vehicle design, and would adopt a 'less is more' ethic and see their transportation systems as that, simply transportation. A more
minimalist ethic that would move against increasing vehicle size and the creep of multiple motors for seats, mirrors, windows, etc., would reduce acquisition
cost, maintenance cost and energy cost. This is in addition, of course, to the usual advice to reduce fuel consumption (limit trips, limit speed, tire pressure,
carpooling, etc. etc.) is still valuable.

It should also be noted that there are other potentially low-cost actions that can be easily adopted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce dependence
on foreign oil.  One of these is widespread adoption of natural gas fuels for personal transportation.  Use of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), has lower fuel cost
than gasoline, produces less pollution and greenhouse gas emission per energy used, and requires only very modest changes to conventional vehicle
architecture, with  no significant increases in complexity. The cost and size of a CNG tank and the development of refueling infrastructure are the main barriers
to adoption of a technology that could have important and positive societal benefits.

This is an excellent and useful study. It is important however to recognize the limitations of purely engineering solutions. And even within the engineering
realm, there are many reasons that the implementation of the solutions in this paper study will require much effort to become part of mainstream
automobiles.

[OSU - Kristina Kennedy]  With respect to measuring powertrain CG and moment of inertia, notes "oscillation as an undamped" condition. Just confirming,
this means no dynamic dampers were  used in the engine room modeling? Is this realistic? Acceptable practice?
                                                                                                                                    193
-------
   6.  OTHER POTENTIAL AREAS
       FOR COMMENT
                                                  COMMENTS
Has the study made substantial
improvements over previous
available works in the ability to
understand the feasibility of 2017-
2020 mass-reduction technology
for light-duty vehicles?  If so,
please describe.
[Joost] Yes. Other studies have reviewed the mass saving potential of various technologies individually, or imagined the
impact of combining many technologies. However I am not aware of a design study that takes an existing vehicle and
assesses each piece with the thoroughness used here.

[Richman]  Yes. Overall objectives) of the project (20% mass reduction, less than 10% cost increase) are timely and
consistent with industry interests in the short term.

Retaining the OEM designed and field proven body structure eliminates uncertainty related to evaluation of novel  and un-
proven structures. This analysis clearly identifies body mass reduction achievable with new and near term future grades of
HSS and AHSS.

An exhaustive list of non-body mass reduction concepts are evaluated in this study.  Some of these technologies are well
known and understood in the industry, other are new, creative and innovative.  Each technology is reviewed from an
engineering and cost perspective and scaled to the specific application.  The technology selection process was analytical,
rigorous and un-biased.  Majority of technologies selected are appropriate for the mass reduction and cost objectives of
the project. This information provides helpful information to industry engineers considering mass reduction alternatives
for other vehicle programs.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn]  Without question. The only similar study also targeted the Venza.  This provides much additional
analysis and many additional ideas beyond the Lotus study.

[OSU -Glenn Daehn]  The major contribution of this study was to pull together and evaluate all of the current proven
concepts that are applicable to a lightweight vehicle in the 2017-2020 timeframe. It  is successful in this regard.
Do the study design concepts have
critical deficiencies in its
applicability for 2017-2020 mass-
reduction feasibility for which
revisions should be made before
the report is finalized?  If so,
[Joost] No - I would not say that any deficiencies here are "critical".

[Richman] Major findings of the project appear practical for implementation by 2017-20.
Two technologies selected for inclusion in the final vehicle concept appear "speculative" for 2017-20, Co-cast
magnesium/aluminum block and MMC brake rotors. Both technologies are identified as "D" level for implementation.
                                                                                                                                     194
-------
please describe.
Designing, developing and establishing production capacity for a new engine block is a time consuming and costly process.
Investments would be required by OEM manufactures and casting suppliers. It is not clear the level of human resources
and capital investment required for this technology could be justified the basis of the mass reduction potential of (7 Kg).
Aluminum MMC brake rotors were selected for inclusion in the final vehicle configuration. In the judgment of this
reviewer, this technology is the most speculative technology selected for the final vehicle configuration.  MMC rotors have
been in development for over 25 years. Development experience with these rotors has generally not been acceptable for
typical customer service. The minimum mass MMC rotor design selected in this project is a radical (by automotive
standards) multi piece bolted composite design with an MMC rotor disc. This design is identified as a "D" rated technology
and a mass savings of 9 Kg. The aluminum MMC portion of the mas reduced rotor assembly would be regarded as
"speculative" at this time.
Cost models used to assess low mass sheet product may have some questionable assumptions. For this project,
adjustment in the cost model is unlikely to influence he material selection process.  Correction in this area would have a
greater impact on technology screening and selection to achieve mass reductions above 20%.
[OSU -Glenn Daehn] Conclusions and recommendations section is missing. This is an important opportunity to reinforce
the most important actions that automakers can take.

The report still lacks the ability to trace some technical details all the way back to the source. This is described previously.
Are there fundamentally different
lightweight vehicle design
technologies that you expect to be
much more common (either in
addition to or instead of) than the
one Lotus has assessed for the
2017-2020 timeframe (Low
Development)?
[Joost] Not in the 2017-2020 time frame. Switching to an advanced steel dominant body with a few instances of Mg and Al
seems appropriate for the time frame. The considerable use of lightweight plastics is also in line with my expectations for
available technology in this time frame.

[Richman] No. The result of his study is a logical and cost effective advancement in the development of more efficient
passenger vehicles for the 2017-20 time frame.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] It seems apparent that vehicles are moving more and more to multi-materials construction and as
we move away from steel-based construction, joined primarily by resistance spot welds, there will be need for additional
joining technologies.  Laser welding is mentioned as one possible replacement for resistance spot welds, but it is expected
that  over time there will be much  more use of structural adhesives, self piercing rivets, conformal joints and other joining
strategies for the BIW.
Are there any other areas outside
of the direct scope of the analysis
[Joost] All of the areas listed here are somewhat concerning, but given the switch to fairly conventional materials I believe
that durability, driveability, and NVH should be not be a significant issue. Detailed analysis work in these areas would likely
                                                                                                                                    195
-------
(e.g., vehicle performance,
durability, drive ability, noise,
vibration, and hardness) for which
the mass-reduced vehicle design is
likely to exhibit any compromise
from the baseline vehicle?
require some redesign which may add cost or weight, but I don't think it would be overwhelming.

[Richman]  None identified by this reviewer.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] Yes. There are many other details with respect to nuances of customer expectations, durability,
warranty risks and manufacturability that are discussed elsewhere in this review. This does not diminish the importance of
this great work. Just points out there are an enormous amount of detailed work required to build an automobile, and the
job is not finished.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[OSU - Kristina Kennedy] Overall, well-written and well-done...my conclusion (which they also reached) is YES, NVH WILL SUFFER when replacing steel with
HSS and will OF COURSE make the vehicle MORE STIFF.

[Simunovic] The FEV report is quite exhaustive. I would suggest that it be released in a hypertext format that can allow different navigation paths through it.
Also, the dynamic Web-based technologies can be used for effective model documentation, presentation and distribution. I would also recommend that more
details on the actual optimization process, including the objective function specification, and the final consolidation of the model, be added to the
documentation.
                                                                                                                                    196
-------
I//
Peer Review Responses to "Light-Duty Vehicle
 Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize
    Crossover Utility Vehicle (FEV Report)

                      Prepared for
               Assessment and Standards Division
             Office of Transportation and Air Quality
              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                   Prepared byFEV, Inc.
                   4554 Glenmeade Lane
                 Auburn hills, Ml 48326-1766
            EPA Contract Number: EP-C-12-014 WAO-3

                     August 9, 2012
-------
Peer Review Responses to "Light-Duty Vehicle
 Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize
     Crossover Utility Vehicle (FEV Report)"
                    Table of Contents
  I.  Peer Review of the Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover
      Utility Vehicle (FEV Report), Conducted by SRA International              p. 4
      1. Background                                       p. 4
      2. Description of Review Process                            p. 5
      3. Compilation of Review Comments                          p. 5
      4. References                                       p. 55
                                                     Draft 2
-------
                               Executive Summary
In December 2011, EPA contracted with SRA International (SRA) to conduct a peer review of Light-Duty
Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle (FEV Report) developed by
FEVandEDAG.

The peer reviewers selected by SRA were William Joost (U.S. Department of Energy), Glenn Daehn,
David Emerling, Kristina  Kennedy,  and Tony Luscher (The  Ohio State University), Douglas Richman
(Kaiser Aluminum), and Srdjan Simunovic (Oak Ridge National Laboratory).  In addition, Srdjan Simunovic
and members of the OSU team reviewed various elements of the associated modeling. EPA would like
to extend its  appreciation to all of the reviewers for their efforts in evaluating this report and the
modeling. The reviewers brought useful and distinctive views in response to the charge questions.

The first section of this document contains the final SRA report summarizing the peer review of the FEV
Report,  including the  detailed  comments of each  peer  reviewer and a compilation  of  reviewer
comments according to the series of specific questions set forth  in the peer review charge. After each
section of comments, we provide our response.  We have retained the organization reflected in SRA's
compilation of the comments to aid the reader in moving from the SRA report to our responses.
                                                                                     Draft 3
-------
TO:           Cheryl Caffrey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air
              Quality (OTAQ)

FROM:        Brian Menard, SRA International

DATE:         April 26, 2012

SUBJECT:      Peer Review of Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover
              Utility Vehicle (FEV Report)), developed by FEV and EDAG.


1.  Background

In developing programs to reduce greenhouse gas  (GHG) emissions from light-duty highway vehicles,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) has to
evaluate the safety of light weighted automotive designs as well as the methods and costs of proposed
technologies to achieve this design.

The 2012 study by FEV, Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility
Vehicle (FEV Report)  is a continuation (i.e., Phase 2 study) of the original Phase 1 Low Development
study from  Lotus  Engineering.   The  report reviews the  amount  of mass reduction in the Low
Development case ("20%") from the Lotus Engineering Phase 1 study.  This is done through analysis of
the assumptions for the Body-in-White (BIW), and through an up-to-date re-analysis of light weighting
options for all of the other vehicle components of which the Lotus Engineering assumptions are a part.
An in-depth cost evaluation of all technologies is included.  The FEV Report consists of two parts:  In the
first  part,  FEV's  contractor, EDAG, has designed and developed the BIW structure in CAE in order to
demonstrate that it meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for Light-Duty Vehicles using
LS-DYNA.  The analysis includes materials, methods, and related costs to assembly and manufacturing.
The second part of the report is an in-depth investigation of "other than BIW" vehicle systems based
upon discussions with suppliers, Lotus Phase 1 report ideas, and FEV's experience and expertise.

This report documents the  peer review of the FEV Report. Section 2 of this memorandum describes the
process for selecting reviewers, administering the review process, and closing the peer review. Section
3 summarizes reviewer comments according to the series of specific questions set forth in matrix
contained  in the peer review charge.  The appendices to the memorandum contain the peer reviewers'
resumes, completed conflict of interest and bias questionnaires for each reviewer, and the peer review
charge letter.

2.  Description of Review Process

In December 2011, OTAQ contacted SRA International  to facilitate the peer review of the FEV Report.
The model and documentation were developed by FEV and EDAG.

EPA provided SRA with a short list of subject matter experts from academia and  industry to serve as a
"starting  point" from which to assemble a  list of peer reviewer candidates.   SRA selected three
independent (as defined in Sections 1.2.6 and  1.2.7 of  EPA's Peer Review Handbook, Third Edition)
                                                                                      Draft 4
-------
subject matter experts to conduct the requested reviews.  SRA selected subject matter experts familiar
with automotive engineering and manufacturing, automotive materials,  crash simulation, and cost
assessment.  The coverage of these subject areas is shown below in Table A.
                                          Table A:
                            Peer Reviewer Experience and Expertise
Name
Douglas Richman
William Joost
Srdjan Simunovic
Glenn Daehn
et al.
Affiliation
Kaiser
Aluminum
US DOE
Oak Ridge
National
Laboratory
The Ohio State
University
Coverage
Automotive
materials
Y
Y
Y
Y
Bonding
forming
Y
Y
Y
Y
Manufacturing
assembly
Y
Y
/
Y
Crash
simulation
/
/
Y
Y
Cost
assessment
Y
/
/
Y





To ensure the independence  and impartiality of the peer review, SRA was solely responsible for
selecting the  peer review panel.  A crucial  element in selecting peer reviewers was to determine
whether reviewers had any actual or perceived conflicts of interest or bias that might prevent them
from conducting a fair and impartial review of the FEV Report.  SRA required each reviewer to complete
and sign a conflict of interest and bias questionnaire.

SRA provided  the reviewers a copy of the most recent version of the FEV Report as well as the peer
review charge. The charge included a matrix of questions issues upon which the reviewers were asked
to comment.  Reviewers were also encouraged to provide additional comments, particularly in their
areas of expertise and work experience.

A teleconference between EPA,  FEV, EDAG, the reviewers, and SRA was held to allow reviewers the
opportunity to raise any questions or concerns they might have about the FEV Report and associated
modeling, and to raise any other related issues with EPA and SRA, including EPA's expectations for the
reviewers' final review comments.
3.  Compilation of Review Comments

The FEV Report was reviewed by William Joost (U.S. Department of  Energy),  Glenn Daehn, David
Emerling, Kristina  Kennedy, and Tony Luscher (The Ohio State  University (OSU)),  Douglas Richman
(Kaiser Aluminum), and Srdjan Simunovic (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). In addition, Srdjan Simunovic
and members of the OSU team reviewed various elements of the associated modeling.
                                                                                     Draft 5
-------
    1.  ASSUMPTIONS AND
       DATA SOURCES (CAE
       BIW and Vehicle)
                           COMMENTS
                    RESPONSE
Please comment on the
validity of any data sources
and assumptions embedded in
the study. Such items include
material choices, technology
choices, vehicle design, crash
validation testing,  and cost
assessment that could affect
its findings.
[Joost] The material selection process used in this study suggests a
good understanding of the cost and manufacturing impacts of changing
between different steel, Al, Mg, and plastic/composite based materials.
Generally the material selections are appropriate for the performance,
manufacturing, and cost requirements of the  particular systems.
Identifying production examples of the materials in similar systems is
very important for establishing credibility - the project team did an
excellent job identifying production examples of most material
replacements.

There are, however, a few material selections where additional
consideration may be necessary:

The transmission case subsystem (pg. 269) features the use of a Sr
bearing Mg alloy. Recently, Sn-based alloys have been produced and (I
believe) used in production for similar applications. The use of Sn as an
alloying ingredient accomplishes many of the  same goals (improved high
temp creep performance, for example) at a lower cost. It may be worth
investigating these new alloys as an opportunity to reduce the cost of
the lightweight transmission case subsystem.  If not, the selection of a Sr
alloy is reasonable.
Thank you.
                                                                                               In our study, converting the Case assembly from
                                                                                               aluminum to AJ 62 magnesium was based on the
                                                                                               functional capabilities of the material.

                                                                                               AJ 62 is a powertrain material that brings the gearbox
                                                                                               stability and uniformity into a production scenario. It
                                                                                               is paramount to the life cycle of a gearbox that creep
                                                                                               deformation is kept to a minimum. This product has
                                                                                               proven itself in many production transmission
                                                                                               applications.  There are other potential variants with
                                                                                               numerous element additions, such as Sn (tin) coming
                                                                                               to the market today and others in the future and we
                                                                                               will look at them as they come out of research for
                                                                                               light-weight and low-cost material alternatives.
                                                                                                                                         Draft 6
-------
The feasibility of using hot rolled blanks in the body structure would be
further emphasized by providing production examples for vehicles of
>200k units per year. Similarly, the use of a 7000 series Al rear bumper is
questionable - a production example for a high volume, low cost vehicle
should be provided.
The use of Thixomolded Mg seat components should be reconsidered.
Thixomolding does have the potential to provide improved ductility
compared to die casting; however the process is generally not well
regarded in the automotive community due to concerns over limited
supply and press tonnage limits (which limit the maximum size of the
components that can be manufactured this way). If there is a production
example of Thixomolding for >200k unites per year in automotive, then
it should be cited in the report. If there is no example then I would
suggest switching to die casting (or super vacuum die casting) - the
weight reduction and cost will likely be similar.
The use of hot rolled blanks is now being explored by
various OEMs. However, the base material used in the
process is a common material and is used throughout
the industry. The use of the 7000 series Al rear
bumper is the production material used by Toyota in
the Venza. Therefore, we chose not to change it for
this study.
The boundary conditions for this study were to take
into account that the proposed weight reduction idea
was to be production ready by 2017. Thixomold is in
current production and is a proven technology. In
report section F.4B.4.5 there is an example of a
prototype back frame showing the weight savings.
Other industries use the Thixomolding process, such
as Panasonic that uses it to manufacture their 36" TV
consoles face. The Venza seat frame fits well into the
size limits of the Thixomold size perimeters. The
following pictures below of a seat frame in production
will be added to the report. The model or OEM
cannot be disclosed due to confidentiality.
                                                                                                           Draft 7
-------
It's not clear how the mass savings were achieved in the wheels and
tires. The report states that a 2008 Toyota Prius wheel/tire assembly will
be used in place of the stock Venza wheel - however the report also
states (pg. 544) that the Prius wheel will be normalized up to the 19"x7"
to maintain the original styling of the Venza. The technology employed
in the Prius wheel is not different from the stock Venza wheel so why
should a scaled-up Prius wheel weigh less than the original Venza
wheel? There are also inconsistencies in the report - table F.5-18
references eliminating the spare tire wheel while downsizing the spare
tire - why would there be a tire with no wheel? Lastly, if the Prius
wheel/tire is scaled up to match the stock Venza size then the spare
wheel/tire must also be scaled up -  it's not clear that this happened.
You are taking significant credit for weight reduction in the wheels and
tires (~2% of total vehicle weight) but it's not clear how this is achieved.
The fact the Venza and Prius both share aluminum
cast wheels with a spoke design does not reflect the
differences that may exist in design methodology for
ensuring strength, stiffness and load capacity. The
width, thickness and ribbing / webbing methodology
in forming the wheels would allow for a similar visual
appearance while achieving a different designed
component mass. It will require having CAD models or
prints of both wheels to fully analyze all physical
differences to identify where the mass differences are
generated from after the components are scaled to
the same relative size for comparison.

Yes there is a discrepancy in the table cited showing a
previous idea that was not ultimately pursued in the
final solution. It should be removed.

Yes the spare tire/wheel assembly from the Prius was
also a scaled replacement for the Venza and was
scaled up due to the two units being basically the
same  type of design but of different size. A minimal
mass savings of only 2kgs was achieved (1kg in each
the tire and wheel).

By referring to table 10.3.h below, it can be seen that
similar vehicle platforms scaled up to the Venza
vehicle weight allowing for opportunities for their tire
and wheel systems to show reduction in mass as well.
This confirms the baseline design of Venza is not
optimized for weight efficiency in  comparison to these
three  vehicle systems being scaled by gross vehicle
weight. Of these three vehicle platforms, Prius is the
lightest one being chosen for the study optimization.
                                                                                                             Draft 8
-------
Low Mass Tire & Wheel Systems
The following Table 10.3.h. summarizes low mass production tire & wheel systems. The Prius
was selected as the basis for tires and wheels. The mass values were normalized to the Venza
mass to define the Low Development baseline.
Table 10. 3. h.: Low Mass Tire & Wheel Systems
2009 Toyota Venza 2.7
FWD

P215/55R19 Al Alloy

Weigh! '40.
65
Curb Mass 1705
Ntxmalized to 17DO kg Curb Mass 140.17
2008 Toyota Prius 1.5
Base

PI85i'65R15 Al Alloy

69.226
1349.1
87.48
2003 Citroen C5 2.0 HDi 2008 Kia Carens 2.0 CRDI
Exclusive Active

P'9f SfRI? Steel P2I5,'55R16 Al Alloy

70.714 90.13
'3426 1852.8
89.80 92.68
Table 10. 5. 4. a.: Low Development Tires & Wheels

Tires & Wheels
Road Tire & Wheel
Front
Whcel[19 x 6.5]
Tire[P225''60R19]
Valves
RH Wheel & Tire assy
Bali Searing hub cover
Rear

Qty
1

1
•
1
1
1
1
2
Baseline Mass
(2009 Toyota Venza)
144.541
120.989
60.249
15,300
14.380
0.036
30.010
0.023
60.740
New Mat. Cost LOW mass ca
(2008 Toyota Prius) Impact <-„„„, >mhlrl»e
108.896 25% Lower 0.96 cast aluminum w
87 344 0 95 Tne primary diffe
43672 095 the appropiistent
' the Priu* "-he=l "
8.600 0.93
13.200 0.98
O.C36 1.00 2°°9J
21.876 0.95 ^m
C.C23 1 .00
43.672 0.95
st Al wheel (Included in low and high development)
currently in production and several in the Venza price range use lower mass
heel designs. These are shown in Figure 10.4.1.x. along with the Venza wheel.
rence was the depth and number of the spokes. The example vehicles indicate
ss of this design for the study vehicle. Applying the ablation casting technique to
ould result in an estimated wheel mass of 8.6 kg.
oyota Venza Wheel ^^^~^"-'
3 kg (Aiiy,) 190*7.5 2008 Toyota Prius Wheel l'G|*^]
6 852 kg (Alov) 15 0>6.0 ^f ^fcofl
Upsized lo 16 x 7.6 - 9.6 kg
2005 BMW 320i Wheel
7 992 kg (Alloy! 16.0x7.0
UJ Upsized to 1 9 x 7.5 - 9.7 kg
HR^H
2008 Mercedes S Class Wheel "jft^fc
3.314 kg (Alloy* 17.0x8.0
Up»z
-------
Many of the parts in the frame have been changes to a GF Nylon (pg.
667). This may not be unreasonable, but production examples should be
provided.
[Richman]
    1)  NHTSA crash test data was used for validation of collision
       simulation models and is an appropriate source.
    2)  Material property data was supplied by recognized supplier
       associations and are correct.
    3)  Cost estimates for reduced mass sheet products seem to
       include assumption that drive unusually high material and
       equipment cost. This issue leads to a technology cost
       effectiveness that is not representative of actual production
       experience for sheet products.
Added production example in section F.8.3.3: This idea
has been implemented in current production. The
2012 Chevy Cruze with the 1.4L turbocharged engine
and 6-speed automatic transmissions has plastic
engine mounts.
As mentioned in report section F.4A.11: The vehicle
closure aluminum cost in the EDAG portion in the
report reflected the revised material cost for sheet
aluminum. The cost was reduced from $4.83/kg in the
initial draft of the report to $4.46/kg in the final
report. This value is consistent with the cost utilized
for sheet aluminum in the NHTSA paper and at this
level the peer reviewer felt, that while it was on the
high end of the cost scale, it was within explainable /
acceptable limits. Additionally, to further attempt to
clarify this the cost estimates for reduced mass sheet
products is made up of many factors including
manufacturing CO2 emissions, material price (based
on the blank size, not the actual part), labor cost,
energy cost, equipment cost, tooling, building,
maintenance and overhead.  However, while all of
                                                                                                           Draft 10
-------
[OSU]
Glenn Daehn
The data and sources appear to be very good; however at the time of
this review there are a few items that are unclear.

First there some statements that are referenced with superscripts,
however there is not a reference list that appears in the document.

Second, this  report does an excellent job of documenting at a high-level
that the finite element analysis is carried out properly, showing
agreement with masses, stiffness and crash signatures of baseline
vehicles. However, it is important that all of the details be also available
to the public, such as the detailed material geometry  (mesh files), stress-
strain flow-laws used for the materials, weld locations (more than a
figure), models used for weld behavior and so on. This can be done by
reference or by making the LS-DYNA models public. It is not clear at
time of review how this will be done, but it would be  a great service to
make all this granular detail available. Similar statements can be made
regarding the detail for components and materials in  the costing
models.

Tony Luscher
The data used appears to be valid and appropriate to the tasks that are
completed. Vehicle data for the Toyota Venza was obtained by scanning
the components and creating the CAD models. Material data was found
                                                                  these factors were utilized when determining the cost
                                                                  of the optimized vs. the baseline, the major factor
                                                                  driving the increase was the aluminum vs. steel
                                                                  material cost related to the blank size
The material and weld data is available in the publicly
accessible FEA models (baseline and optimized
model). The stress-strain curves are included in the
report Appendix for reference.

As explained in report section D.10.1.
The welds in the model are represented as follows:
- Spot welds are represented as solid hexa elements
based on LS-DYNA mesh independent weld elements.
- Adhesives are represented as continuous solid hexa
elements using surface to surface contact.
- Laser welds are represented as continuous hexa solid
elements.
                                                                                                           Draft 11
-------
from appropriate sources and databases. These were used to create a
crash test model for the vehicle and for cost estimation. A thorough
search of state-of-the-art vehicle design concepts was used as the basis
of mass reduction for the various vehicle systems.

[Simunovic] This section contains comments on validity of the data
sources, material properties, and modeling approaches used in this
study. The overall methodology used by the FEV is fundamentally solid
and adhere to standard practices of the crashworthiness engineering
[5]. However, an in-depth analysis of the model files reveals several
areas that may need to be addressed to fully support the findings of the
study.

Firstly, as a matter of the established procedures for technical
documentation, I suggest that the sources for the material properties
should be clearly referenced; especially since the authors of the FEV
study worked on similar projects for steel industry consortia [6]. Similar
projects on concept vehicles [7, 8] also offer guidelines on the reporting.
It would also be very helpful to readers to graphically depict mechanical
properties such as material stress-strain curves, failure envelopes, etc.

Secondly, the technologically important issues with the high strength
metallic materials, such as Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS) [9], are
their special processing requirements [10],  reduction in ductility, higher
possibility of fracture [11-14] (especially under high strain rates [15-17]),
and joining [18-22]. Many AHSSs derive their superior mechanical
properties from their tailored microstructures, which get strongly
affected during welding. Active research in welding of the AHSS shows
possibilities of significant reductions of the joint strengths due to the
softening processes in Heat Affected Zone (HAZ). Therefore, the
strength values for the welds in the current LD model (i.e. SIGY=1550 for
MAT_SPOTWELD section in the input files) seems very optimistic, and
may need to be reduced or elaborated upon in the report. Several
versions of the reports were distributed and I  may have very well missed
an updated version. In case that joining discussion is indeed restricted to
one page as it appears in the current FEV document, I would suggest
In the final report references, material properties and
stress vs. strain curves for the materials used are
included.
As explained in report section D.10.1. Additionally,
The suggestion has been reviewed and considering the
parent sheet material fracture/failure behavior, the
failure option "major in plane strain at failure"
(EPSMAJ)  of LS-DYNA MAT  123
MODIFIED_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY_RATE has
now been used in the model for materials above
350MPa Yield Stress which are considered High
Strength Steels and have less total elongation. LS-
DYNA computes the plastic strain in all elements at
each time step. When the plastic strain exceeds the
failure criterion in an element, that element is eroded,
i.e., removed from the finite element model.
                                                                                                             Draft 12
-------
that weld properties and constitutive models be given additional
attention in the final report.

Third important issue that I would suggest to be addressed is modeling
of failure/fracture of the high strength materials in the LD models.
Despite long research on the subject, the methods for modeling
localization and failure are relatively scarce. There is still no wide
consensus on how to model failure in materials. For the FEV study,
special attention should be given to the joint areas (spot welds, laser
welds) that can experience the degradation of properties due to the
thermo-mechanical cycles that they have been exposed to. A simple way
of addressing the above points would be to use failure limit strains in
plasticity models that are used in the FEV models, i.e.,
MAT_PIECEWISELINEAR_PLASTIQTY. In this approach a limit strain is
assigned to material, and after that limit strain  is reached in a finite
element, the element is gradually removed from the simulation. The
values for the failure strains are dependent on  mesh and element
discretization, where additional simulations should be conducted to
correlate energy to failure to the corresponding physical failure process
zone for the given problem.
                                                                                                             Draft 13
-------
If you find issues with data
sources and assumptions,
please provide suggestions for
available data that would
improve the study.
[Joost] Two plastic technologies are very widely employed in this
design: PolyOne and MuCell. It seems that the companies who
license/manufacture these technologies were used as the primary
source to determine feasibility. However they are likely to be optimistic
regarding the capability of their materials. I agree that these materials
are appropriate for the indicated applications; however I feel that the
credibility would be improved by including other sources (OEMs, Tier 1)
or more production examples for existing platforms. With such a large
amount of weight reduction attributed to PolyOne and MuCell, it would
be beneficial to have a very strong case for capabilities.

[Richman]

[OSU]
Glenn Daehn
                             See above.
                             Tony Luscher
                             None found.
MuCell - As stated on pgs. 371 and 372, the process is
currently used by major OEMs such as Audi, Ford,
BMW, and VW. On pages 373 through 376 are actual
parts and the reduction that they yielded from VW,
Ford, and Mercedes Benz.

PolyOne - section on pg. 377 talks about the possibility
of up a 30% weight reduction and the conservative
approach we took of 10%. PolyOne Corporation
provided generic feedback and advice regarding the
amount of weight  reduction feasible for plastic parts.
These CFA application guidelines included
considerations for a respective part's material,
geometry, and application.  In general, a 10% weight
reduction was applied to parts for which a CFA was
used. Higher mass reduction may be possible for many
components, but would require a detailed analysis on
the component and its use in order to safely apply
such savings. Instead, a conservative estimate was
applied based on PolyOne's expertise where parts'
properties would not be adversely affected. For parts
with a non-Class "A" surface finish,  a weight reduction
in the 20-30% range is possible.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
[OSU]
Kristina Kennedy
"Building a full vehicle model w/o the use of drawings or CAD data..." Has this method of tear-down +
scanning been proven out in industry or in other projects to understand how closely this method would
correlate with actual data? Is this basically "reverse engineering" and is that an acceptable method?
Tony Luscher
                                                                 This would be considered the best way to establish a
                                                                 model if the CAD information were not available.  This
                                                                 technique of white light scanning is used by many of
                                                                 the automotive OEMs to compare actual component
                                                                 information to CAD information and if needed to
                                                                 actual create CAD data. This technique is highly
                                                                 valued for any reverse engineering project in the
                                                                 industry and with the advanced CAE modeling
                                                                 capabilities and tools available in the market  can
                                                                 produce highly correlated models.


                                                                                                           Draft 14
-------
Data sources are well documented in the report and will aid if any additional investigation is needed.
Several of them were checked for validity.

[Simunovic]
In this document I review the methods, data, and the FEM crash models developed in the FEV study. The
models were evaluated based on the analysis of the computational simulation results and on based on
the analysis of the actual model files. I want to emphasize that the scope of my review is on the
computational simulations of the vehicle crashworthiness and on the modeling approaches employed by
the FEV and its contractors. The primary source for my review were the FEV final draft report, the crash
animations generated by the FEV, and the computer simulation output files for the NCAP and the ODB
crash test configurations. Two vehicle crash models were available, the baseline and the LD model. As it
will be shown in the following sections, my review was based to a large extent on the vehicle model files.
Very often in the current practice, the actual model files are not sufficiently scrutinized and are
evaluated only through the resulting computational simulations. In the case of large complex FEM
models, such as car crash models, the model's configuration complexity and its sheer size can obscure
the important details of the response and camouflage the sources of errors in the model. That is
particularly common when the technology envelope of the state-of-the-art is expanded, as is the case
with  ever-increasing  sizes and complexities of the car crash models.
                                                                                                                                       Draft 15
-------
    2.  VEHICLE DESIGN
       METHODOLOGICAL
       RIGOR CAEBIW and
       Vehicle)
                             COMMENTS
RESPONSE
Please describe the extent
to which state-of-the-art
design methods have been
employed and the extent to
which the associated
analysis exhibits strong
technical rigor.  You are
encouraged to provide
comments on the
information contained
within the unencrypted
model provided by EDAG;
the technologies chosen by
FEV; and the resulting final
vehicle design.
[Joost] The report uses a (very thorough) piece-wise approach to weight
reduction - each system is broken down and weight reduction opportunities
for the individual components are identified. The weight-reduced
components are then reassembled into the final vehicle. I believe that this
provides a conservative estimate for the weight reduction potential of the
Venza, where a vehicle-level redesign would provide greater weight
reduction. However, I am also of the opinion that the approach used here is
in  line with industry practice so; while this may not yield the maximum
reasonable weight reduction, it is likely to yield a value more in-line with
industry-achievable weight reduction.

It is particularly helpful (and credible) to see descriptions technologies that
were considered, but abandoned due to performance concerns (e.g.,
reverting to a timing belt), manufacturing capabilities, (e.g., using a MuCell
manifold), and cost (e.g., Mg oil pan).

The suspension design process lacks sufficient detail to make the cost and
weight estimates credible. Considerable Al is used to replace steel at a very
minimal cost penalty. However, as the report indicates, detailed design and
validation is necessary to confirm that these changes would be viable for the
Venza. For example, changing to a hollow Al control bar is not an industry
standard practice and the use of a hollow section may require significant
changes to geometry in order to meet the stiffness and strength
requirements. While a hollow Al control bar is feasible, I'm not confident
that it can be substituted into the design so easily. A $0.40/kg-saved cost
penalty for changing a significant number of components from mild steel to
Al  seems to be an underestimate.

[Richman]
    1)  EDAG performed structural modeling. The EDAG organization is
       widely recognized as technically competent and  highly experienced
       in modeling of auto body structure.  Modeling approach appears
                                                                                                 After further discussions and investigation it was
                                                                                                 decided to move forward with a variation to the
                                                                                                 first solution proposed. Since no high volume
                                                                                                 production examples could be readily found for the
                                                                                                 hollow Al design it was decided to keep the hollow
                                                                                                 configuration but utilize the material choice of steel
                                                                                                 instead. This still allows for an adequate weight
                                                                                                 savings while using a common design choice found
                                                                                                 in most European and many domestic vehicle
                                                                                                 applications currently being produced.  This
                                                                                                 reduced the previous mass savings by 2.61kgs and
                                                                                                 decreased the associated cost by $10.83.
                                                                                                                                         Draft 16
-------
       technically robust and logical.
    2)  Body structural analysis utilized industry recognized CAE, CAD and
       collision modeling analysis tools and protocols.  Tools used are
       state-of-the-art and the approach.
    3)  FE model was validated against physical test data for NVH and
       collision performance. Model correlation with physical test results is
       very good. No significant discrepancies or inconsistencies have been
       identified in the modeling results.
    4)   Based on these observations, the models would be considered valid
       and reliable for moderate A:B design comparisons that are the
       subject of this vehicle study.

[OSU]
Glenn DaehnThe work is well done and technically rigorous. Again, we
encourage making all pertinent detail publicly available.

Tony Luscher
The report does an excellent job of using state-of-the-art design methods.
The re-engineering process included vehicle teardown, parts scanning, and
data collection of vehicle parts to build a full vehicle CAE model. This raw STL
geometry was then translated into an FE meshing tool (ANSA) to create a
finite element model.

[Simunovic]  The development of the LD Toyota Venza concept started with
the development of the baseline FEM model of the vehicle. The FEM model
was developed by a reverse engineering process of disassembly, geometry
scanning, component analysis, material characterization and the incremental
FEM model development. The turn-around time for this process by the FEV is
quite impressive. Equally impressive are the apparent quality of the FEM
mesh, the definition of joints and assembly of the overall model.

The discretization of the BIW sheet materials uses proportionately sized
quadrilateral shell elements, with few triangular elements. The mesh density
is mostly uniform and without large variations in the FEM element sizes and
the aspect ratios. The BIW model has about 6% of triangular shell elements
in the sheet metal, which is a very small amount given the complexities of
                                                                                                             Draft 17
-------
                           the vehicle geometry. Figures 1-3 show the geometry and the parts variety
                           for the baseline vehicle model.

                           There are no apparent geometry conflicts in the model and parts are well
                           aligned with compatible geometries and FEM meshes. This is essential for
                           accurate modeling of currently the prevailing joining method for sheet
                           metals, spot welding. The level of geometrical detail in the model is very high
                           and as someone who has been involved with the vehicle crashworthiness
                           modeling for the last twenty years, I think that the developed FEM mesh of
                           the Venza BIW is the current state-of-the-art. Figure 4 shows some details of
                           the BIW FEM mesh that illustrate the prevalence of the quadrilateral shell
                           finite elements, constant aspect ratios and presence of the geometry details
                           that are necessary for an adequate modeling of the progressive structural
                           crush.
Please comment on the
methods used to analyze
the technologies and
materials selected, forming
techniques, bonding
processes, and parts
integration.
[Joost] The forming, joining, and integration techniques used in the report
were analyzed only by referencing production examples or companies who
produce similar products. Detailed design work would certainly include a
more thorough analysis of the manufacturing techniques however for the
scope of this report I believe that the level of analysis is appropriate.

[Richman]
    1)  Body: Process used to select materials, grades  and gauges for the
       mass optimized body sub-group is technically sound and thorough.
       Election of laser welding of structurally significant body panels
       indicates deployment of advanced manufacturing process where
       appropriate.
    2)  Non-body: Methodology used to identify, screen and select non-
       body mass reduction technologies is thorough, detailed and highly
       effective.  Munro Associates lead this segment of the project.
       Munro is recognized as being technically competent, highly
       experienced, knowledgeable, and creative in benchmarking and lean
       engineering of automotive and non-automotive systems.
                           [OSU]
To clarify in the report the following will be added :

The welds in the model are represented as follows:
- Spot welds are represented as solid hexa elements
based on LS-Dyna mesh independent weld
elements.
- Adhesives are represented as continuous solid
hexa elements using surface to surface contact.
- Laser welds are represented as continuous hexa
solid elements.


                                       Draft 18
-------
Glenn Daehn
All is in accord with the state of the art.  It is not clear how welds are
represented in the FE-Model, without dissection of the LS-DYNA input stacks.
Tony Luscher
The Toyota body repair manual was used to identify the material grades of
the major parts of the body structure. These material grades were then
validated by material coupon testing.

The MSC Nastran solver was used to solve for the bending and torsion
stiffness of the body in white model. Good correlation was achieved
between physical stiffness testing and FEA stiffness results.

[Simunovic]  The development of the LD Toyota Venza concept started with
the development of the baseline FEM model of the vehicle. The FEM model
was developed by a reverse engineering process of disassembly, geometry
scanning, component analysis, material characterization and the incremental
FEM model development. The turn-around time for this process by the FEV is
quite impressive. Equally impressive are the apparent quality of the FEM
mesh, the definition of joints and assembly of the overall model.

The discretization of the BIW sheet materials uses proportionately sized
quadrilateral shell elements, with few triangular elements. The mesh density
is mostly uniform and without large variations in the FEM element sizes and
the aspect ratios. The BIW model has about 6% of triangular shell elements
in the sheet metal which  a very small amount is given the complexities of the
vehicle geometry. Figures 1-3 show the geometry and the parts variety for
the baseline vehicle model.
As explained in report section D.10.1. Welding
Property:
The spot welds on the structure are used with mesh
independent hexa solid weld element of LS-DYNA.
The mechanical properties use SOOMPa Yield Stress
which represents the average level strength of the
baseline material and candidate material of the
optimized structure.
                                                                                                            Draft 19
-------
In the following, I first give the analysis of the baseline FEM model. The
baseline FEM model is very adept and can be used for illustration of some
shortcomings of the LD model that I think need to be addressed. It is
important to note that the LD model is much more complex due to a large
number of materials and gages that resulted from the computational
optimization process. This complexity and the project time constraints
dramatically increase the potential for error. Unfortunately the tools for
managing such complex systems are not yet mature, making the
development and the evaluation of this complex vehicle model very
challenging. Over the years, I have developed several simple programs that
can be used to debug FEM models by directly analyzing the model files. The
common  approach to evaluation of large FEM models is to almost exclusively
consider computational simulation results. However, these simple tools
allow for  evaluations of relationships within the FEM models directly from
the model input files, thereby enabling debugging of the models
independently from the simulations.

Review of the FEM Model for the Baseline Toyota Venza

The primary material for the BIW of the baseline vehicle, 2009 Toyota Venza,
was identified in the Lotus Phase 1 Report as mild steel. Lotus Phase 1 study
stated that the BIW also had about 8% of Dual Phase steel with 590 MPa
designation, while everything else was commonly used  mild steel sheet
material.  The FEV/EDAG study showed that there was more variety to the
baseline design than originally anticipated. Table 1 lists the materials used in
the BIW model (file Venza_biw_r006.k) that were modeled using
MAT_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY). Aluminum bumper was modeled
using MAT_SIMPLIFIEDJOHNSON_COOK material model in LS-DYNA. The
number of material models is relatively small.

Most of the CAE tools display the FEM model based  on their part
identification number  (ID). To verify the material model assignment one
must then verify material assignment for every part  and then sort them
accordingly. For large complex models this is a very tedious process that is
very error prone. More advanced CAE tools, such as  HyperMesh, have
The referenced shortcomings, the material ID 9
which showed an intersecting strain rate curve, the
unsymmetrical model assignment, the number of
through thickness integration points for the shell
elements, and thickness distribution which showed
some asymmetries have all been corrected in the
final paper.
                                                                                                           Draft 20
-------
options for grouping and displaying model entities by material types and IDs.
Figure 5 displays the material assignments for the baseline BIW.

The specific assignment of the materials for the BIW and the corresponding
stress-strain curves are shown in the figures below. Most of the material
models account for strain rate sensitivity of the material. For a given plastic
strain, the yield stress is calculated by interpolating stresses between two
neighboring stress strain curves based on the applied strain rate. There are
established modeling recommendations for modeling strain rate sensitivity
effect in crash models. The specified stress strain curves should not intersect.
Extrapolated lines from their last specified linear segment should not
intersect, as well. The material  models should use plastic strain rate [23]
instead of the total strain rate as the basis of the strain rate effect
calculation. This option (VP=1) was not used in the FEV models although it is
highly recommended in practice.

Figures 6-10 show the main material systems for the baseline BIW model.
The material assignments correspond to the assignments in the project's
report.

The stress-strain curves for different strain  rates in the above figures do not
intersect. Their extrapolations however have potential for intersection at
high plastic strains in Figures 7and 8. The number of the data points in
Figures 9 and 10 are too large and needs to be reduced in order to avoid the
interpolation errors by the simulation program. It is obvious that curves in
Figures 9 and 10 were developed by analytical fits. Such approach can create
undesirable artifacts such as an appearance of the yield point elongation for
Dual Phase steel in Figure 10. An interpolation approach with fewer points
and curves is recommended. Figure 11 illustrates the optimal piecewise
linear interpolation (green curve) of the base (red) curve in Figure 10. The
interpolated curve has error of 1% of the value range with respect to the
actual curve and uses only 9 points.

Next, the BIW sheet material thickness distribution is shown in Figure 12. The
colors indicate symmetrical distributions in accordance with the specified
thickness distribution in the project report.
In the final paper the material models did use
plastic strain rate as the basis of the strain rate
effect calculation. The option (VP=1) was used in
the final FEV models.
The stress vs. strain curves used in this report came
from "WorldAutoSteel" and, as such, no attempt
was made to manipulate the curves in any manner.
The curves were used as received and the algorithm
within LS DYNA used the data  in the analysis.
                                                                                                                Draft 21
-------
In many situations, the accuracy of the crash simulation is dependent on the
shell element formulation (type) used. The basic shell element formulation
(reduced integration Belytschko-Tsay, LS-DYNAtype 2)  is computationally
very efficient but has lower accuracy than more complex formulations such
as the fully-integrated Bathe-Dvorkin shell element (LS-DYNA type 16). Figure
12 shows the shell element formulations in the BIW model. The current crash
modeling recommendation is to use shell element type 16 when possible.
The Bathe-Dvorkin shell is 3.5 times more computationally expensive than
the Belytschko-Tsay shell so that in order to strike a proper balance between
the accuracy and the computational speed element types can be mixed in
the model. This is especially true when large number of simulations is
conducted, as was the case for computational optimization in the FEV study.
As it can be seen in Figure 16, the baseline model employs accurate element
formulation in the main structural components, while the Belytschko-Tsay
formulation is employed in the remainder of the sheet  metal which is an
appropriate compromise for the large scale computations.

Another important technical aspect of the crash simulations with the shell
elements is the employed number of integration points through the
thickness of the shells. The default (2 points) is insufficient for the crash
analyses. Three points is also inadequate in  the current simulation guidelines
because it results in a very quick formation of plastic hinges in the sheet
metal during crush. A minimum of 5 through-thickness  integration points is
currently recommended for the crash simulations. Therefore,  modification of
the model in this regard is suggested for the general release.

Another commonly overlooked formulation aspect for the shell elements is
the through thickness shear factor. Recommended value is 0.833, which was
used only in bumper structures of the current model (Figure 14). Changing
the factor to 0.833 is recommended.

In summary,  the baseline Venza FEM model is developed following most of
the recommended development procedures for crash models. The
modifications suggested above would meet few additional recommendations
that would likely increase the robustness of the model. The NCAP and the
In the final report the fully-integrated Bathe-
Dvorkin shell element (LS-DYNA Type-16) was used
for the element formulation in the BIW model for
the major load path parts.
    As explained in report section D.10.1.

    •   Integration Points
       The integration point through the thickness
       of the sheet metal in this BIW model is used
       with 5-point integration option for major
       load path parts.
    •   Transverse Shear Scale Factor
       The shear correction factor which is
       commonly used for shell element for
       isotropic material type has a value assigned
       of 0.833.
As explained in report section D.10.3.2. In analyzing
the comparison between the FE model and actual

                                       Draft 22
-------
side MDB barrier simulation results can be compared with the actual crash
tests conducted by NHTSA. The comparison of the simulation and the NCAP
test shows somewhat stiffer response of the FEM model with respect to the
test (Figure 1.18.18 in the last FEV report). The maximum and the average
accelerations in the FEM model were accordingly higher than the test results.
The baseline FEM model was deemed acceptable for the purposes of the FEV
study. Another important measure of the FEM model fidelity was the crash
duration time that was 20 ms shorter for the model compared to the test.
This difference is noticeable because the overall crash duration of 100
milliseconds. However, for the objectives of the FEM study, the model's
crash pulse was deemed acceptable, which for the described project
schedule seemed quite reasonable.
test results the side structure deformation contour
is in part dependent on structural interactions
between space holders such as seat belt retractors,
seat structure, door trim panels, seat cushions, etc.

In the FEA model there are major differences from
the actual  vehicle test conditions such as seat
structure model, retractor assembly at B-Pillar
lower along with there are no space holders like
trim panels, seat cushions, etc. Therefore the load
carrying path between side structure, seat and
tunnel block in the FEA model is not the same as in
the actual  test.

With these differences the intrusion levels seen are
generally found  to be larger than the actual test
results. The NHTSA test utilized for the comparison
was NHTSA Test No. MB5128 for 2009 Toyota Venza
38.5MPH MDB side impact, which provided the
intrusion numbers used in the comparison with the
baseline model. The intrusions in the area of the
"B" pillar mid-levels (Level 2 ~ Level 4) come out
larger than the actual test. However, the upper and
lower pivot spots (Level 1 & Level 5) show fairly
good comparison. For example, in Level 1, side
rocker level, shows 133.7 mm which is similar to the
test level of 134 mm and level 5, roof rail, shows 6.0
mm which is also similar to the test result of 12.0
mm of intrusion. However, it is felt these
differences are more than adequately explained by
the lack of actual components in the FE model. The
scope of the program did not include attempting to
                                                                                                            Draft 23
-------
Review of the Low Development Vehicle Model

The FEV engineers have used the computational optimization methods based
on the response surface formulation in order to determine the distribution
of material types and grades that would maximally reduce the weight of the
vehicle while maintaining the performance and controlling the cost. The part
distribution of the resulting optimized LD design FEM model is shown in
Figure 15.

It is probably misleading to refer to the resulting FEM model as "Low
Development" since it is a product of numerous computational simulations
and an in-depth engineering study. The resulting inventory of the material
models used in the LD FEM model is listed in Table 2. It is evident that there
are numerous duplicates as well as unused materials. It would be prudent to
purge the list of material models from the LD FEM model as they may lead to
errors. Some of the  inconsistencies that were found in the current LD FEM
model may very well be a result of this model redundancy.

Two model files contain most of the material models:
    •   Venza_master_mat_list_r006.k
    •   Venza_Material_Db_Opt_dk2.k

The horizontal black line in Table  2 separates the material model
specifications between the two files. These two were unchanged for the last
two versions of the  FEM models that were downloaded from the project
download site.
                                                                     correlate the intrusion values and the numbers seen
                                                                     demonstrates a reasonable tendency and therefore
                                                                     considered as acceptable.

                                                                     Since the baseline model was found to trend as
                                                                     expected when compared with actual test results
                                                                     this level of intrusion was established as the base
                                                                     and used to compare further iteration of the
                                                                     models.
The material ID's shown in the two model files is a
result of including all the potential material
selections used in the project. The initial file
included the Material ID, Load Curve ID and
Material Names for all of the potential materials
that were considered while the second file included
a shortened list of these materials that was actually
considered in the optimization process.  The
reassignment of Material ID's, and Load  Curve
Numbers for the optimized model was done to
assist in the optimization process.
                                                                                                            Draft 24
-------
Figures 16-32 below show the stress-strain curves for the materials used in
the BIW of the LD FEM model.

There are obvious duplicates in the model specifications that would be
prudent to eliminate and modify the model accordingly before its public
release. In addition, there are some errors in the LD FEM model
specifications that need to be corrected.
Correction Item 1:

Material ID 9 (Figure 30) has stress-strain curves for different strain rates
different strain rate curves intersect which is not acceptable from the
physical perspective.

Materials with IDs 8000006,  8000007, and 8000008 have elastic properties
of lightweight materials such as Aluminum and Magnesium alloys, but they
utilize yield stress functions of HSLA 350/450 steel defined in file:
Venza_frt_susp_exhaust_30ms.k.

Currently, only the material 8000006 is used in the LD FEM model, although
in the previous model version material ID 8000008 was also used.

Correction Item 2:

Some material assignments in the LD FEM model are inconsistent, which is
probably a result of too many material models. The mapping  of material IDs
on the BIW FEM model reveal several unsymmetrical model assignments.
The most obvious discrepancy is marked in Figure 33. Here, where one
model part is modeled using the mild steel while its corresponding
symmetrical counterpart is modeled using the HSLA 350/450 steel.

Additional unsymmetrical material assignments are pointed with arrows in
To Correction Item 1:
The strain rate curve shown intersecting has been
corrected in the final FE model.
To Correction Item 2:
The inconsistencies and the unsymmetrical model
assignments have been corrected and implemented
in the final FE model.
                                                                                                             Draft 25
-------
Figures 34-37.

Two possible outcomes of not pairing the symmetrical components with the
same material ID are illustrated in Figures 36-37. In Figure 36 the two
different parts have different material assignments, which eventually refer to
different material properties. In case of the marked parts in Figure 37, the
material IDs are different but because of the repeated material models with
different IDs, they eventually refer to the same material properties.

The above inconsistencies need to be corrected before the models are
released into to the open domain.

Correction Item 3:

Another area of concern is the number of through thickness integration
points for the shell  elements in the current LD FEM model. As it can be seen
in Figure 38, almost all shell  elements have just 2 integration points through
the thickness. This is clearly  inadequate from the accuracy standpoint and
may be responsible for some of the issuable simulation results shown in the
following figures.
Correction Item 4:

Figure 38 shows the thickness distribution in the LD FEM model of the BIW.
In general, the thickness distribution is symmetrical with respect to the
centerline of the vehicle. However, a closer inspection reveals some
asymmetries in thickness assignments.

The arrows in Figures 40-41 show the parts that do not have symmetrical
assignment of the values with respect to the centerline of the vehicle. I have
not checked the extent of the differences, but it something nonetheless that
needs to be corrected.
To Correction Item 3:
The number of integration points through the
thickness of the sheet metal is a very important
technical aspect of the crash simulations and the
shell elements. The default number (2 points) of
integration points is considered insufficient for most
crash analyses. Therefore in the final models 5
through-thickness integration points, which is the
current accepted practice, was selected and used
for all of the major load path parts.
RE: Correction Item 4:
As explained in report section F.4A.10:
The material thickness distribution and material
selection in the final models have been corrected
and the parts now have symmetrical assignment of
the values with respect to the centerline of the
vehicle.
                                                                                                              Draft 26
-------
Concern Item 1:

The following Figures 42-45 show some results that may warrant more
investigation by the project engineers. Figures 42-43 show the deformation
of the main front rails for the baseline vehicle during the NCAP test
simulation. The overall deformation is symmetrical. In the case of the LD FEM
model, as shown  in Figures 44-45, the deformation is markedly different
from the baseline and unsymmetrical. The cause for that may be in the
unsymmetrical material assignments for the main rails that were present in
the previous LD FEM model release and the simulations may have been
based on that version. As I was only using the simulation files,  I could not tell
if that was actually the case. However, I strongly suggest following up on this
point as these rails are extremely important for the crash energy
management.
Concern Item 2:

One of the modeling aspects that is usually not considered in conventional
mild steel vehicle designs is modeling of material fracture/failure [24].
However, in the case of the high strength materials, such as the AHSS, the
material fracture is a real possibility that needs to be included in the models.
Answer for Concern Item 1:
The non-symmetrical deformation mode behavior is
due to the packaging differences on left and right
shock tower areas.  It is worth noting that the
engine compartment packaging is not symmetrical
in the base vehicle. The methodology used to
determine acceptability of the revised structure was
the comparison of the intrusion values and the
resulting pulse. The deformation of the structure
was not one of the factors reviewed or used in
determining acceptability of the revised structure.
It was beyond the scope of this project to perform a
complete analysis of the structure and the various
structural members. The areas that were reviewed
were dash intrusion and pulse and the results of
both of these areas were considered acceptable in
both the baseline and the optimized model so no
further investigation into the rail deformation
shapes was undertaken.  However, it is agreed that
if this  project was done at an OEM leading to
putting these changes into production a complete
analysis of the rails would have to be performed.
Answer for Concern Item 2:
The suggestion has been reviewed and considering
the parent sheet material fracture/failure behavior,
the failure option "major in plane strain at failure"
(EPSMAJ) ofLS-DYNAMAT 123
                                                                                                             Draft 27
-------
                           One of the easiest failure models to implement is to specify equivalent strain
                           threshold for the material failure. Once this threshold is reached during crash
                           simulation it leads to gradual element deletion, which simulates crack
                           formation. I would suggest consideration of such a simple model
                           enhancement that, while not comprehensive enough for production design,
                           is probably sufficient for the purposes of the FEV study. The strain rate
                           sensitivity of the material models would help with the regularization of the
                           strain localization and related numerical problems [25].
                                                                      MODIFIED_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY_RATE
                                                                      has now been used in the model for materials
                                                                      above 350MPa Yield Stress which are considered
                                                                      High Strength Steels and have less total elongation.
                                                                      LS-DYNA computes the plastic strain in all elements
                                                                      at each time step. When the plastic strain exceeds
                                                                      the failure criterion in an element, that element is
                                                                      eroded, i.e., removed from the finite element
                                                                      model.
If you are aware of better
methods employed and
documented elsewhere to
help select and analyze
advanced vehicle materials
and design engineering rigor
for 2017-2020 vehicles,
please suggest how they
might be used to improve
this study.
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[Richman]

[OSU]
Glenn Daehn
Everything appears to be well-done and in accord with the state of the art.

Tony Luscher
None known.
                           [Simunovic]
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
[OSU]
Kristina Kennedy
FE Meshing Tool, ANSA. Did a quick Google search and did not find this product. Am familiar with ANSYS
and others, but is ANSA an industry-standard tool? Just confirming the wide-use of such a tool out of
curiosity.
[Richman]
This analysis does not address what are commonly referred to as "service loads," including jacking, twist
ditch, pothole impacts, 2G bumps, towing loads, running loads, etc.  Running loads are typically suspension
                                                                      ANSA is used by EDAG along with many of the OEMs
                                                                      and is recognized software throughout the Industry
                                                                      for FE modeling.
                                                                     The analysis of "service loads," while considered
                                                                     extremely important, was not part of the original

                                                                                                            Draft 28
-------
loads for a variety  of conditions to  address  strength,  stiffness and fatigue durability of the body and
suspension attachment  structures and  points.   Without these other  considerations, the optimization
process could may  unrealistically reduce  mass in components that have  little effect  on overall body
stiffness or strength, yet are important for durability.
Modeling  of deformable barriers has historically been an  issue.   Source, nature or origination of the
deformable barriers (moving and fixed) used in this project are not explained.  In the offset deformable
barrier crash test  load cases,  overall deformations,  including barrier deformations are reported.  The
reporting does, however, raise a modeling concern. Barrier deformations of over 515 mm are reported for
the offset tests.  The IIHS deformable barrier has 540 mm thickness of deformable material.   It is not
expected to compress completely.  Excessive barrier deformation has the potential to change the overall
acceleration and deformation scenarios reported and influence the mass optimization process.
scope of this project. The initial scope of this
project was to verify the body weight reduction
levels shown in the original Lotus Engineering
Report (and subsequent Lotus revisions to the
report). This investigation was performed through
the development of NVH and crash model load
cases. Upon completion of that investigation, the
project then included investigation into additional
weight saving opportunities utilizing the same
methodology used to verify the findings in the Lotus
Engineering Report. These load cases were the
basis for validating all the additional weight
reduction opportunities identified throughout the
material optimization studies.
The barriers utilized in the CAE studies are
commercially available. These are:
Front Offset Barrier: LSTC.ODB.Solid 2009 version
Side FMVSS 214 Barrier Impact: LSTC 2007 version
Rear Impact FMVSS 301: LSTC 2007 version
The deformation of the barrier was not unexpected
with the maximum deformation localized in areas as
can be seen in the picture below.  Our review of the
crash event does not indicate any concerns in the
barrier performance.
                                                                                                                                          Draft 29
-------
In evaluating the performance of the optimized body structure, the analysts in general considered "less
deformation" of the body structure to equate to "better performance." Less deformation may be an index
of structural stiffness but is not necessarily an indication of better collision performance. Less deformation
generally equates to higher  decelerations and resulting forces on the occupant.  It is likewise generally
desirable to efficiently use  as much of the allowable free crush space as possible, not less.
Part of the rear impact analysis includes an analysis of rear door opening deformation and an estimate of
door openability post-crash. While this is an interesting and useful analysis, it is not explained why it is
done.  It is not a required aspect  of the regulations.  Since it is in the report, a similar analysis should
probably be  done for the front door  openings  in the  front crash test load cases.   Most  if not  all
The statements declaring less deformation are not
necessarily indicators of better collision
performance or that it is generally desirable to use
as much of the allowable free crush space as
possible, as both are true.  However, structural
strength and reduction in cabin intrusion are also
key indicators of vehicle performance and occupant
safety. Without having all of the interior data and
the passive and active restraint system information
for the crash models, it was determined for this
study that the crash pulse,  intrusion numbers, and
deformation modes / appearance would be used to
establish baseline values and that all future
iterations would be compared to these parameters
in an attempt to judge whether the performance of
the various iterations were similar in nature to the
established baseline. Therefore, these values were
felt to be in the acceptable range.
For the rear crash event the acceptance criteria was
established as similar fuel tank performance.  The
fuel tank integrity was analyzed by its plastic strain
plot with no significant risk of fuel system damage
being seen as the maximum strain amount was less
than 20% of the plastic strain for the entire fuel
                                                                                                                                           Draft 30
-------
manufacturers have an in-house requirement that front doors must be openable following a standard front
crash test.
tank system. To further help understand the
damageability resulting in the rear crash event, the
rear portion of the vehicle was divided into four
zones and the deformation  of these zones were
reviewed. While the ability to open the rear the is
not a regulatory requirement the rear door
aperture opening does provide an indication into
the structural performance  of the rear of the
vehicle and it was felt that if the this opening was
also maintained this would  provide further evidence
that the fuel tank integrity was in fact being
maintained.

As explained in report section D.10.4.4.
There was no NHSTA rear crash to compare to so
EDAG established the baseline from the rear crash
of the baseline model. The  acceptance criteria
established for the rear crash was no damage to the
fuel tank. Additionally, to support the conclusion
that the tank maintained its integrity throughout
the rear crash event, the rear was divided into 4
zones and the amount of deformation of each zone
was reviewed to support the fuel tank integrity
requirement.
                                                                                                                                        Draft 31
-------
    3. VEHICLE
    CRASHWORTHINESS
    TESTING
    METHODOLOGICAL
    RIGOR (CAE only)
                            COMMENTS
                  RESPONSE
Please comment on the
methods used to analyze the
vehicle body structure's
structural integrity (NVH, etc.
and safety crashworthiness.
[Joost] The baseline testing and comparison process (pgs. 67-128) is very
thorough. The team establishes credibility in the proposed design by
performing an initial baseline comparison against the production Venza -
this suggests that the modeling techniques used can reasonably predict the
performance of the lightweight design. It is unfortunate that the
deformation mode comparisons could not be made quantitative (or semi-
quantitative) somehow. Comparing how the model and test look after a
crash gives an indication of deformation mode, but the comparison seems
subjective. For example, image D-28 (pg. 95) seems to show slightly
different failure mechanisms in the CAE model versus the real test.

The report notes that the bushing mountings were rigid in the model while
they likely failed in the real vehicle. I would expect that these failures are
designed into the vehicle to support crash  energy management. The  results
crash pulses (pg. 98) for the model and test look fairly similar, but it is
unfortunate that this crash energy mechanism was not captured.

The intrusion correlation for the baseline model is very good. This again
adds credibility to the modeling approach used here.
The scope of this project did not include modeling
all of the necessary components required to build a
fully functional and correlated crash model.
Rather, the original intent was to validate the Lotus
Engineering study and provide additional weight
reduction opportunities. The strategy employed to
accomplish this was to develop a correlated NVH
model, static and dynamic modes, and from that
model build a crash model. The results of the crash
model would then be compared to the actual crash
test to ensure the results looked similar. However,
there was no attempt to analyze the differences
and to correlate the results. For this project, the
results of the baseline CAE crash model would be
used to compare all future model results.

The bushings are modeled as rigid solid elements;
however, the mount attachments (generalized spot
weld) are modeled with the appropriate failure
time constraints (TFAIL option of LS-DYNA). This
same technique was used to compare the results of
all of the model iterations.
                                                                                                                                       Draft 32
-------
On page 386 the report states that the Mg CCB was not included in the
crash or NVH analysis. Replacing a steel CCB with Mg is likely to have a
significant impact on both crash and NVH performance. The technology is
viable (and has been used on production vehicles as stated) however the
crash energy management and NVH performance must be offset by adding
weight elsewhere in the vehicle. The CCB plays a role in crash and a major
role in NVH so I do not think that it is appropriate to suggest that the
material replacement will have the reported results in this case. My
suggestion is to leave the CCB as steel in the weight analysis (or go back and
redo the crash and NVH modeling, which I suspect  is not viable).
Some general assumptions were initially applied to
convert the CCB from steel to magnesium. In
particular, the gauge of the material was doubled
to account for the reduced strength magnesium
exhibits compared to steel. Magnesium's yield
strength is in the 200-275 MPa range depending on
the alloy used. A common steel used for a
CCB is HSLA 420, which exhibits a yield strength of
around 420-550 MPa. For the rough assumptions in
this analysis, the increase in thickness of the
magnesium CCB would increase its moment of
inertia, thereby  making up for the relatively low
strength of magnesium compared to steel. In order
to validate this, mathematical modeling would
need to be conducted based on the testing
requirements for the CCB. Such an engineering
analysis was beyond the scope of this  study. In  light
of this, the benchmarking results were cross-
referenced. The Dodge Caliber's magnesium beam
is 5.6 kg and the BMW X5's is 5.8 kg. In reality, the
magnesium CCB will take a much different shape
than the baseline steel one as illustrated in the
pictures in the previous sections. It was determined
that using the mass of existing magnesium CCBs
would be a secure approach  as opposed to the
mass that resulted using the thickness increase
assumptions. Therefore, an average of these two
numbers was used for the Venza's redesigned CCB
resulting in a final mass of 5.7 kg, saving
approximately 4 kg versus the baseline steel beam.
The magnesium  CCB was not considered in the
NVH or crash analyses performed.

The NVH analysis provided in the  report does not
include the Cross Car Beam (CCB). The dynamic
and static modes did not include "bolted" on parts
                                                                                                          Draft 33
-------
[Richman]
    1)  LS-Dyna and MSC-Nastran are current and accepted tools for this
       kind of analysis. FEM analysis is part science and part art. EDAG
       has the experienced engineers and analysts required to generate
       valid simulation models and results.
    2)  EDAG was thorough in their analysis, load-case selections and data
       for evaluation
    3)  The handling of acceleration data from the crash test simulations is
       a bit unusual, and further analysis of the data is recommended.

[OSU]
Tony Luscher
Trifilar suspension apparatus was used to find the CG and moments of
inertia of the engine and other major components. The dynamic FEA modal
setup was run using NASTRAN. Vibration modes were analyzed by the CAE
model and then compared with physical test data in order to correlate the
FEA model to the physical model. Five different load case configurations
with appropriate barriers were placed against the full vehicle baseline
model. Models were created with high detail and fidelity.

[Simunovic] The correlations and modifications of the baseline vehicle FEM
model to the experimental results were primarily done on the
measurements of vibrational and stiffness characteristics of the BIW. Once
/ components. Rather, the configuration was the
same as actually tested in the NVH Lab. While it is
true that the CCB plays a significant role in vehicle
level NVH model separation strategy, it was not
considered in the BIW structure analysis.

The crash models, on the other hand, did include
the CCB and it was modeled in steel. Once again
based on the scope of the project and using the
crash models for comparison it was felt the use of a
steel CCB would result in a realistic comparison of
the body performance during major crash events.
                                                                                                            Draft 34
-------
                            the stiffness of the BIW model was tuned to the experimental results, it was
                            considered to be sufficiently accurate to form the foundation for the crash
                            model. The vehicle crash FEM model was then correlated to the NCAP and
                            MDB side impact. The correlations were primarily based on the deformation
                            modes and the FEM model was found to be satisfactory for the purposes of
                            the FEV study.

                            Comparison of the deformation in the NCAP crash in Figures 46-49 shows
                            very good  correlation of the deformation modes. The deformation of the
                            subframe shown in the Figures 48-49 also shows very high fidelity of the
                            simulated  deformation compared to the experiment.

                            In summary, the correlation of the baseline FEM model with the NCAP test
                            is quite satisfactory. The correlation with the side MDB test was not
                            elaborated in  the report. However, the side impact is perhaps the most
                            important and limiting design aspect for the lightweight vehicles. The side
                            impact is almost exclusively a structural problem that does not compound
                            the benefits of the reduced mass, as is the case of the frontal impact. A
                            documented correlation of the baseline FEM model with the side impact
                            experiment will in my opinion be a very beneficial technical addition to the
                            FEV project that would significantly support the findings of the technical
                            feasibility of the lightweight opportunities in the existing vehicle design
                            space.
                                                                     As explained on page 24 of this report in section
                                                                     "Please comment on the methods used to analyze
                                                                     the technologies and materials selected, forming
                                                                     techniques, bonding processes, and parts
                                                                     integration." Response to [Simunovic] comment.
Please describe the extent to
which state-of-the-art crash
simulation testing methods
have been employed as well
as the extent to which the
associated analysis exhibits
strong technical rigor.
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[Richman]
    1)  CAE modeling guidelines used appear to provide a rigorous and
       logical technical approach to the development of the FE and the
       methods of analysis.
    2)  Method of evaluating and comparing acceleration levels in the
       various crash test scenarios is a  bit unusual; a more accepted
       method of comparing velocity/time plots and average accelerations
       is suggested.

[OSU]
Tony Luscher
The scope of the project was not based on
evaluating acceleration levels or velocity/time plots
in the various crash test scenarios, but rather
comparing intrusion values between the EDAG
baseline model and optimized model.  Early on the
decision was made to judge the performance of
revised structure primarily based on intrusion

                                      Draft 35
-------
                            Global vehicle deformation and vehicle crash behaviors were analyzed and
                            compared to the deformation modes of test photographs. Fidelity was
                            good. A few notes on these comparisons are noted on this page in the
                            additional comments section.

                            [Simunovic] The FEV Low Development vehicle study has been reviewed
                            following the instructions by the US EPA. It has been found that the FEV
                            study followed most of the current technical guidelines and the state-of-
                            the-art practices for computational crash simulation and design. Several
                            inconsistencies were found in the developed  FEM models that need to be
                            addressed and corrected before the FEM models are released for the
                            general use.
                                                                    values since we could not reasonable assess injury
                                                                    criteria without having additional interior/ restrain
                                                                    system information.


                                                                    The inconsistencies that were highlighted during
                                                                    the review have been corrected. The
                                                                    recommendations are incorporated into the final
                                                                    report.
If you have access to FMVSS
crash setups to run the model
under different scenarios in
LS-DYNA, are you able to
validate the FEV/EDAG design
and results?  In addition,
please comment on the AVI
files provided.
[Joost] N/A

[Richman]

[OSU]
Tony Luscher
This reviewer has expertise in crash simulation. However due to time
constraints the model was not run under different scenarios in LS-DYNA. No
AVI files were found.
If you are aware of better
methods and tools employed
and documented elsewhere
to help validate advanced
materials and design
engineering rigor for 2017-
2020 vehicles, please suggest
how they might be used to
improve the study.
[Joost] N/A

[Richman]
Methods and tools were appropriate.
[OSU]
Tony Luscher
None found.
                                                                                                                                      Draft 36
-------
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[OSU]

Kristina Kennedy
"Bending and torsional stiffness values did not provide acceptable performance (when replacing with HSS)".
This is an "of course" comment, right? HSS would absolutely produce worse results when replacing steel.
These results were expected, correct?
Tony Luscher
The caption on Figures 1.8.13 to 1.8.14 state that they are at 100 Ms although the previous paragraph lists
them as occurring at 80 Ms. The muffler deformation looks quite different in Figure 1.8.14.

Figure 1.8.33 is unclear and cannot be seen.
The bending and torsional values were deemed
acceptable in the model. The project was based on
developing a correlated NVH baseline model and
from this model all future iterations needed to be
within 5%. These models reflect this. The
difference in stiffness values seen between the
baseline and the optimized model is a function of
the optimization parameters, to be within 5%, then
the impact of using HSS.  Replacing mild steel with
HSS does not affect the modulus of elasticity of
structure. Through additional design iterations or
changes in the optimization parameters the
performance of the structure could have been
maintained with the use of HSS materials.
The frontal impact analyses were run for 80 Ms.
The captions were corrected in the final report.
Global vehicle deformation and vehicle crash
behaviors were analyzed and compared to the
deformation modes of the photographs of the
actual test. Figures 1.8.9 to 1.8.14 show different
views of the comparative deformation mode at 80
Ms (end of crash). From the comparison of the
deformation modes, it can be observed the EDAG
baseline model shows similar deformation modes.
While the deformation is not identical to what is
                                                                                                                                       Draft 37
-------
seen in the photographs, it was felt the baseline
model did represent a reasonable comparison to
the actual test and was acceptable for the baseline
and for use in all future comparisons.
                                       Draft 38
-------
   4.  VEHICLE
       MANUFACTURING
       COST
       METHODOLOGICAL
       RIGOR (CAEBIW and
       Vehicle)
                              COMMENTS
RESPONSE
Please comment on the
methods used to analyze the
mass-reduced vehicle body
structure's manufacturing
costs.
[Joost] Overall, the costing methods used in this study seem to be very
thorough. The details of the approach provide considerable credibility to the
cost estimates, however there will always be concerns regarding the accuracy
of cost models for systems where a complete,  detailed engineering design has
not been established. I believe that this report does a good job of
representing the cost penalties/benefits of the technologies but I would still
anticipate negative response from industry. There a few examples where I
believe that the cost was underestimated or where additional data could be
helpful in corroborating the results:

The engine  cost comparison suggests that the  2.4L engine will cost less than
the 2.71 engine due to reduced material content (smaller engine). The analysis
goes on to say that the remaining costs (manufacturing, install, etc.) would be
about the same for both engines. This seems credible, but is it possible to
compare the price of both engine types as well? It may be possible to find
prices for both of these engines from a Toyota dealer, and while price is
certainly different than cost, it would be helpful in establishing that the cost
differential  estimate is reasonably accurate.
                             Regarding the cylinder head subsystem (pg. 211), the report notes that a
                             switch from Mg to plastic for the head covers introduces engineering
                             challenges related to the cam phaser circuitry. While the report identifies two
                                                                                                    Engine assembly service costs were collected from 3
                                                                                                    different sources for both engines.

                                                                                                    Average 2.71 service cost = $10,763

                                                                                                    Average 2.4L service cost = $9,023

                                                                                                    These costs were scaled based on historical cost data,
                                                                                                    resulting in estimated savings of $230. The
                                                                                                    magnitude of savings using this method seems to
                                                                                                    include other factors. For this reason FEV chose to
                                                                                                    use the material content method as stated in the
                                                                                                    white paper.
                                                                        Included in the plastic cam cover cost and mass build
                                                                        up are bolt-on aluminum housing that integrates the
                                                                        phaser control valve and plumbing circuitry.  The
                                                                                                                                           Draft 39
-------
production examples of this change, these are for high cost engines. It seems
unlikely that the designs would achieve the quoted cost savings given that this
has only been applied to high cost engines and there are recognized
difficulties in the engineering/design.

Regarding the body redesign, the estimated cost increase due to materials
and manufacturing ($231.43, pg. 333) for a weight savings of 67.7kg produces
a weight reduction penalty of about $3.42/kg-saved which seems appropriate
for the materials and assembly processes suggested in the report.

I don't find the cost estimates for the seats to be credible (pg. 378). If it's
possible to reduce the weight of the seats (which represent a significant
portion of vehicle weight) while saving significant cost, why would there be
any steel seats in production? These are  "bolt on" parts that are provided to
the OEMs  by suppliers so this would be a relatively easy change to make if the
cost/weight trade-off shown in this report is true. The report should, at the
very least, address why these kinds of seats are not more prevalent in current
vehicles.
plastic cam cover would seal around the bolt-on
housing.  With detailed design work, an alternative
would be a cylinder head with integrated control
valve housing.
There are magnesium and plastic seat frames in some
production vehicles today. Some seat suppliers have
been reluctant to the changeover due to a few
different reasons; they might have their own
stamping facility and assembly equipment that has
been paid for through many years of seat production,
so to change over would be too costly. Or the cost
fluctuation of plastic and Mg and other lightweight
materials are too volatile: Mg was over $6 per kg in
2008, as low as $2.1 in 2007, and today it's at $3.1.
Also some seat suppliers are not concerned with
weight over cost. Companies like Ford are now pulling
seat design in-house to get better control over the
design and build of more light-weight seats. As new
seat suppliers emerge with proven light-weight seat
technologies and manufacturing processes, the
thought process will change. In the Venza study,
steel-to-mag seat frames were a considerable  cost
increase: for the front drivers and passengers seat
frames the cost per kg was in increase of $1.53 per kg
and an average $9 cost increase per front seat. With
other added weight saving ideas, the cost was
brought down  to show an overall seat cost and weight
savings. Carry over seat construction is another
reason that new technologies are not being used. The
cost of design and testing can add considerable costs.
So, with all of the issues combined, who would
                                                                                                              Draft 40
-------
Why is there a cost savings for the front axle hub (pg. 555)? If you are
proposing to scallop the hub during forging then you will still need the same
amount of input material - some of it will be removed during scalloping, but
you will not get a cost savings. Also, it's not made explicitly clear that the
current hub is forged. If you are proposing to move from a cast hub to a
forged hub then the cost will most certainly increase. If the cost savings here
is due to the estimated weight savings in the final part (i.e., pay for less
material) then this indicates that the model is not correctly capturing the yield
from the process.

[Richman]
Body structure mass optimization was conducted  by EDAG.  Body structure
was not altered form the baseline structure. Mass optimization process
examined an appropriate range of material types, grades and gauges.
Material properties used appear valid for the respective materials and grades.
NVH and collision performance results appear consistent and logical with no
significant dis-continuities of inconsistencies. In general the process used is
excellent and the results appear realistic and valid.

[OSU]
Tony Luscher
Mass reduction was analyzed first on a system level and then by a component
level basis. Mass reduction concepts were based upon a very comprehensive
literature review of new materials and manufacturing processes and
alternative designs ideas that appear in the open literature and at trade
shows. An assessment of these was made in terms of technological readiness,
fitness for use in mass production, risk, and cost. In addition there were
                                                                        change? The OEMs have to drive change, and as
                                                                        weight becomes more of an issue to them, they will
                                                                        drive change to the suppliers.
Change statement in report section F.6.4.1

The assumption is the hub is forged in scallop feature
without additional scalloping process. Scalloped hubs
(Image F.6-3) allow for material mass savings with no
cost impact, since the material is removed during the
forging process.
                                                                                                              Draft 41
-------
                             consultation with industry and experts.

                             [Simunovic] This is not my area of expertise.
Please describe the extent to
which state-of-the-art costing
methods have been employed
as well as the extent to which
the associated analysis
exhibits strong technical rigor.
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[Richman]
Costing models are thorough covering all elements of total production cost
(material, processing, equipment, tooling, freight, packaging ...). Baseline cost
model was calibrated to baseline vehicle cost projection. The basic model is
complete and sound.

Cost estimates for mass reduction technologies are the result of a rigorous
engineering process utilizing benchmarking data, material and component
costs from suppliers and detailed analysis of manufacturing costs. Sound
creative engineering analysis was used to scale product cost to this specific
vehicle application. Accuracy of new technology cost estimates is dependent
on the knowledge, skill, experience and engineering judgment of the
individuals making the estimates.  Munro Associates conducted this segment
of the project. Munro is a highly respected organization with strong
qualifications in product cost analysis. It is reasonable to assume cost
estimates in this study are valid estimates for the mass reduction
technologies.

One area of cost estimate concern is reduced mass sheet products. In this
area, material and equipment costs  attributed to the reduced mass
technologies are significantly higher than actual  production experience would
support. Source of the discrepancy  is not clear form the information in the
project review documents.
                             [OSU]
                             Tony Luscher
                             The impact of costs, associated with mass reduction, was evaluated using
                             FEV's methodology and tools as previously employed on prior powertrain
Vehicle Closure Al cost: The vehicle closure aluminum
cost in the final EDAG report reflected the revised
material cost for sheet aluminum. The cost was
reduced from $4.83/kg in the initial  draft of the
report to $4.46/kg in the final report. This value is
consistent with the cost utilized for sheet aluminum
in the NHTSA paper and (at this level the peer
reviewer felt), while it was on the high end of the cost
scale, was within explainable / acceptable limits.
                                                                                                                                            Draft 42
-------
                            analyses for EPA. Cost reduction assumptions are clearly laid out and are
                            reasonable. The report does a good job of realizing the inherent challenges
                            and risks in applying any new technology, let alone lightweight technology, to
                            a vehicle platform.  FEV describes the component interactions both positive
                            and negative in its recommendations.

                            The actual values  in the EXCEL files were not checked.

                            [Simunovic] This  is not my area of expertise.
If you are aware of better
methods and tools employed
and documented elsewhere
to help estimate costs for
advanced vehicle materials
and design for 2017-2020
vehicles, please suggest how
they might be used to
improve this study.
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[Richman]
Process methodology and execution used is one of the best this reviewer has
seen.
[OSU]
Tony Luscher
None found.

[Simunovic] This is not my area of expertise.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[Joost] The change from a cast Al engine block with cast Fe liners to a cast-over Mg/AI hybrid with PWTA
coated cylinders is very interesting, but the cost penalty estimate seems low relative to what I would expect.
Previous work exploring the use of Mg intensive engines (which did not include the added complexity of cast-
in Al liners) suggests a cost penalty of $3.89 per pound saved (see
http://wwwl.eere.energv.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/lm 08/3 automotive metals-cast.pdf report B) versus
this report which suggests a cost penalty of $3.51 per kilogram saved, about half as expensive. The cited study
was performed on a 2.5 L engine, comparable to  the Venza. The primary difference is that the Venza study
includes downsizing which would save on material costs, but I'm not confident that the savings would be as
substantial as indicated in this report. It seems that something has been underestimated.
                                                                       The Magnesium Powertrain Cast Components Project
                                                                       is a jointly sponsored effort by the US Department of
                                                                       Energy and the US Council for Automotive Research
                                                                       to determine the feasibility and practicality of
                                                                       producing a magnesium-intensive engine.
                                                                       Participants in the study include Ford, GM, and
                                                                       Chrysler as well as a variety of automotive suppliers.

                                                                       FEV consulted with Bob R. Powell to understand the
                                                                       preliminary results of the MPCCP project.  Project
                                                                       completion  and final report are not expected until the
                                                                       fall of 2012.

                                                                       The cost increased slightly more due to FEV
                                                                       underestimated the cost of the inclusion of all -

                                                                                                             Draft 43
-------
aluminum fasteners. Based on MPCCP meeting with
DOE project representative, the following changes
were made in our assumptions to line up with MPCCP
study:

       1. 7% scrap factor was added for Mg die
       casting process (MPCCP die casting data)

       2. 5% scrap factor  added for over-molding
difficulty

        3. Mg cylinder block cost/kg was recalculated
assuming  spray in  cylinder liners  on  the  base
aluminum engine  block  (MPCCP  Assumption). After
the changes were  implemented, engine block $/kg
changed  to  a $5.207  cost  hit,  whereas prior peer
review the $/kg was a $4.063 cost hit. MPCCP study
did not include cylinder liners weight impact in their
cylinder block calculation. By taking out the cylinder
liner weight save, the Cylinder Block $/kg (Mg engine
block only) after peer review = $8.08 cost hit,  MPCCP
Mg engine block $/kg = $3.89/lb*2.205 = $8.58 cost
increase.
                                      Draft 44
-------
There are several examples where a cost savings has been calculated by reducing the size of a component,
despite using more expensive material. For example the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield subsystem shows a
savings for the caliper subsystem and a modest increase in the cost of the rotor and shield. Some of the cost
savings here is due to reducing the size of the system (scaling to the 2008 Toyota Prius). However, there would
still be a weight savings (albeit lower) if the conventional cast iron materials were used and downsized to the
2008 Toyota Prius - this is the likely outcome in a real automotive environment. Given the option to choose a
more expensive, exotic, untested system that saves significant weight versus a conventional low cost system
that saves less weight, it seems like an OEM would choose the conventional solution. In this case the
suggested weight savings are technically possible but would never happen in a practical automotive
environment.
[OSU]
Kristina Kennedy
Table 1.7.1: NVH Results Summary. The "Weight Test Condition" and "Weight BIW" are ALSO outside of limits
(> 5%), but not noted in results. Only those highlighted in red are noted as "failures". All failures (> 5%)
should be called out specifically since that was their target.
Tony Luscher
There are many typos and fragmented sentences in these sections. These should be corrected. Bookmark
The proposed changes of possible AI/MMC have been
changed back to a cast iron material due to the
application not being previously validated in  high-
volume production but instead in only lower volume
vehicle applications.  The caliper were not changed to
an exotic material but were instead changed from
cast iron to a cast Al. A material that has been
utilized in this specific vehicle application for decades
and has been  mass produced by nearly all OEM
manufacturers in one model or another.
The categories of "Weight Test Condition" and
"Weight BIW" do not represent performance
categories of the structure, but rather provide the
mass of the structure being tested along with the
mass of the BIW. The NVH testing includes the BIW
weight and all fixed glass. The value shown for
"Weight Test Condition and Weight BIW" was
provided for reference only. The 5% limit was used
for establishing the acceptability of the structure
when comparing the NVH performance level of the
structure for the multiple material iterations. The 5%
limit was used in judging the NVH performance of the
structure for both static and dynamic modes. The
rational for the 5% target was based on the typical
range of variability seen in testing multiple structures
of the same design.
                                                                                                                                         Draft 45
-------
references do not all work.
Corrected in Report
                                                                                                                                             Draft 46
-------
    5.  CONCLUSION AND
       FINDINGS
                             COMMENTS
RESPONSE
Are the study's conclusions
adequately backed up by the
methods and analytical rigor
of the study?
[Joost] Yes. I identified various areas where the analysis or report could be
improved, but overall the methods used here provide a credible and
reasonable estimate of the potential for weight savings. Based on some of
my earlier comments I would expect that actual costs to be somewhat higher
than predicted in this study.  Additionally, real vehicles share components
across platforms so using vehicle-specific components would add additional
cost. It is possible that the cost curve would cross $0/lb-saved at a lower
total weight savings than suggested here.

[Richman]
Study conclusions and findings are well supported by the analytical rigor,
tools used and expertise of the organizations involved.

[OSU]
Glenn Daehn
At the time of review, Section G "Conclusions and Recommendations" is
unavailable. We hope that in this section FEV will point out the most
promising actions that auto makers may take to reduce mass while
conserving cost.
Tony Luscher
The report's conclusions are based on sound engineering principals of good
rigor.
                                                                                                 Added in report section G
Are the conclusions about
the design, development,
validation, and cost of the
mass-reduced design valid?
[Joost] Yes. As above, there is reason to believe that the true cost will be
higher than predicted here, but I think this analysis provides a useful
estimate.

[Richman]
Design development and validation conclusions are well supported in this
study. Cost model is valid and cost conclusions are generally realistic.  There
appears to be a systematic discrepancy in  cost modeling of low mass sheet
products. This discrepancy has a minor impact on conclusions of this study.
                                                                                                                                        Draft 47
-------
                            [OSU]
                            Glenn Daehn
                            This study is carefully crafted with excellent attention to engineering detail.
                            It is important to note that the overall environment for vehicle design,
                            manufacture and use is continually changing. See the "Additional
                            Comments" section of this document for further development of the
                            implications of this.

                            Tony Luscher
                            This reviewer found the overall work to be thorough and well  documented.
                            Therefore the conclusions are well supported and validated by the
                            engineering and modeling in the report.
Are you aware of other
available research that
better evaluates and
validates the technical
potential for mass-reduced
vehicles in the 2017-2020
timeframe?
[Joost] I have not seen a report as thorough as this. There are several
examples of resources that provide useful information regarding weight
reduction potential such as
Cheah, LW. Cars on a Diet: The Material and Energy Impacts of Passenger
Vehicle Weight Reduction in the U.S.
Joshi, A.M. Optimizing Battery Sizing and Vehicle Light weighting for an
Extended Range Electric Vehicle
Lutsey, N. Review of technical literature and trends related to automobile
mass-reduction technology

[Richman]
This reviewer has monitored automotive mass reduction studies in North
America and Europe for several years.  This study is the best evaluation of
mass reduction opportunities and associated costs this reviewer has seen.

[OSU]
Glenn Daehn
                           There are no more comprehensive or detailed studies that we are aware of.
                           This is an excellent compilation of ideas for practical vehicle mass reduction
                           and fuel efficiency improvement.

                           Tony Luscher
                           None found.
                                                                                                                                        Draft 48
-------
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[OSU]
Glenn Daehn
The study does an excellent job within its scope. As this reviewer sees the scope, the driving question is:
Can a well-engineered relatively modern vehicle (2010 Toyota Venza) have its mass reduced by 20% or
more, without significant cost penalty and while maintaining crashworthiness. The answer to that question
is a clear "YES".  Further, this conclusion is backed with  rigor and attention to detail. This is in my mind,
very clear, well-done and technically rigorous.

This reviewer believes that there are a few other important questions that were not asked. These include:

1) Will the proposed changes in design pose any other important risks in manufacture or use? This can
include: warranty exposure, durability, increased noise, vibration and harshness, maintenance concerns,
etc., etc.

2) Will increasing regulatory constraints and/or consumer expectations require increases in vehicle mass,
opposing the mass reductions provided by the improved practices outlined in  this study?

Both these issues will make vehicle light weighting more difficult than this report suggests.  With respect to
issue 1)  there are a number of materials and design  substitutions that may produce concerns with
durability, manufacturability and warranty claims. For example when substituting polymers for metals,
there are new environmental embrittlement modes that may cause failure and warranty claims. Also, if
substituting aluminum for steel, multi-material connections may cause galvanic corrosion problems. When
using thinner sheets of higher strength steel, formability may be reduced and  springback may be more
problematic. Both these issues may preclude the use of the stronger material with a similar design and may
also increase the time and cost  involved with die development. Lastly there are always risks in any new
design.  For example, when using new brake designs, pad wear and squeal may be more pronounced. All of
these issues  may cause a manufacturer to avoid the new technology.

There are also local constrains on material thicknesses that are outside this review methodology. For
example while a roof rail may meet crash and stiffness criteria, it may deflect excessively or permanently if
a 99th percentile male pulls on it exiting a vehicle.  Similarly, parking lot and hail dents may require greater
thickness gauges than this study may indicate.
The problem of vehicle light-weighting and improved fuel economy is seen here through the lens as being
The statement will be found in report section C.I
No impact to vehicle mass. This is outside the scope
of this study.
                                                                                                                                         Draft 49
-------
an engineering problem to be solved. And in many ways it is. However, the forces of consumer
expectations and behaviors are an essential part of the problem. As an interesting anecdote, the Model T
Ford had a fuel economy of about 20 MPG, very similar to the average fuel economy of vehicles on the road
today.  No modern consumer would choose a Model T for many obvious reasons.  Our cars have become
extensions of our living rooms with many electrical motors driving windows, mirrors, seats and complex and
costly HVAC and infotainment systems. All of these systems add weight, complexity and use power.
Further increased complexity of engines to improve emissions and increase fuel economy  has increased
engine mass.

This study shows that with good engineering we can reduce vehicle mass of an existing vehicle by 20% with
little to no increased cost or adverse consumer reaction.  Based on our current course, it is just as likely this
benefit will be taken by improved mandated safety and emission features as well as improved creature
comforts.

Much can be gained through enlightened consumer behavior (assuming the average consumer wants to
reduce energy use and carbon footprint). While much of this is outside the scope of this report, in
particular it would be useful if the average consumer would understand the lifecycle environmental impacts
of vehicle choice and of varied vehicle design, and would adopt a 'less is more' ethic and see their
transportation systems as that, simply transportation. A more minimalist ethic that would move against
increasing vehicle size and the creep of multiple motors for seats, mirrors, windows, etc., would reduce
acquisition cost, maintenance cost and energy cost.  This is in addition, of course, to the usual advice to
reduce fuel consumption (limit trips, limit speed, tire pressure, carpooling, etc. etc.) is still valuable.

It should also be noted that there are other potentially low-cost actions that can be easily  adopted to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce dependence on foreign oil. One of these is widespread
adoption of natural gas fuels for personal transportation. Use of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), has lower
fuel cost than gasoline, produces less pollution and greenhouse gas emission per energy used, and requires
only very modest changes to conventional vehicle architecture, with no significant increases in complexity.
The cost and size of a CNG tank and the development of refueling infrastructure are the main barriers to
adoption of a technology that could have important and positive societal benefits.

This is an excellent and useful study. It is important however to recognize the limitations of purely
engineering solutions. And even within the engineering realm, there are  many reasons that the
implementation of the solutions in this paper study will require much effort to become part of mainstream
automobiles.
                                                                                                                                       Draft 50
-------
Kristina Kennedy
With respect to measuring powertrain CG and moment of inertia, notes "oscillation as an undamped"
condition. Just confirming, this means no dynamic dampers were used in the engine room modeling? Is
this realistic? Acceptable practice?
The entire powertrain-engine assembly is treated
as a rigid body and this is reflected in the FE
modeling.  The influence of dynamic damping is not
considered critical when comparing models for this
analysis. Therefore, this approach was considered
acceptable.
                                                                                                                                       Draft 51
-------
    6.  OTHER POTENTIAL
       AREAS FOR
       COMMENT
                              COMMENTS
RESPONSE
Has the study made
substantial improvements
over previous available
works in the ability to
understand the feasibility
of 2017-2020 mass-
reduction technology for
light-duty vehicles? If so,
please describe.
[Joost] Yes. Other studies have reviewed the mass saving potential of various
technologies individually, or imagined the impact of combining many
technologies. However I am not aware of a design study that takes an existing
vehicle and assesses each piece with the thoroughness used here.

[Richman]
Yes.  Overall objectives) of the project (20% mass reduction, less than 10% cost
increase) are timely and consistent with industry interests in the short term.

Retaining the OEM  designed and field proven body structure eliminates
uncertainty related to evaluation of novel and un-proven structures.  This
analysis clearly identifies body mass reduction achievable with new and near
term future grades  of HSS and AHSS.

An exhaustive list of non-body mass reduction concepts are evaluated in this
study. Some of these technologies are well known and understood in the
industry, other are  new, creative and innovative.  Each technology is reviewed
from an engineering and cost perspective and scaled to the specific application.
The technology selection process was analytical, rigorous and un-biased.
Majority of technologies selected are appropriate for the mass reduction and
cost objectives of the project.  This information  provides helpful  information to
industry engineers considering mass reduction alternatives for other vehicle
programs.

[OSU]
Glenn Daehn
                          Without question.  The only similar study also targeted the Venza. This
                          provides much additional analysis and many additional ideas beyond the Lotus
                          study.

                          Tony Luscher
                                                                                                                                        Draft 52
-------
                          The major contribution of this study was to pull together and evaluate all of
                          the current proven concepts that are applicable to a lightweight vehicle in the
                          2017-2020 timeframe. It is successful in this regard.
Do the study design
concepts have critical
deficiencies in its
applicability for 2017-2020
mass-reduction feasibility
for which revisions should
be made before the report
is finalized?  If so, please
describe.
[Joost] No - I would not say that any deficiencies here are "critical".
Major findings of the project appear practical for implementation by 2017-20.

[Richman]
Major findings of the project appear practical for implementation by 2017-20.

Two technologies selected for inclusion in the final vehicle concept appear
"speculative" for 2017-20: Co-cast magnesium/aluminum block and MMC
brake rotors.  Both technologies are identified as "D" level for implementation.

Designing, developing and establishing production capacity for a new engine
block is a time consuming and costly process.  Investments would be required
by OEM manufactures and casting suppliers.  It is not clear the level of human
resources and capital investment required for this technology could be justified
the basis  of the mass reduction  potential of (7 Kg).

Aluminum MMC brake rotors were selected for inclusion in the final vehicle
configuration. In the judgment  of this reviewer, this technology is the most
speculative technology selected for the final vehicle configuration. MMC
rotors have been in development for over 25 years. Development experience
with these rotors has generally  not been acceptable for typical customer
service. The minimum mass MMC rotor design selected in this project is a
radical (by automotive standards) multi piece bolted composite design with an
MMC rotor disc.  This design is identified as a "D" rated technology and a mass
savings of 9 Kg. The aluminum MMC portion of the mas reduced rotor
assembly would be regarded as  "speculative" at this time.

Cost models used to assess low  mass sheet product may have some
questionable assumptions.  For  this project, adjustment in the cost model is
unlikely to influence he material selection process. Correction in this area
                                                                                                  This is a reasonable concern as justification would
                                                                                                  likely have to assume this technology and
                                                                                                  investment would benefit future engines and
                                                                                                  provide a strategic advantage for the OEM willing
                                                                                                  to take the investment risk.
                                                                                                  The proposed changes of a possible AI/MMC rotor
                                                                                                  have been changed back to a cast iron material due
                                                                                                  to the application not being previously validated in
                                                                                                  high-volume production, but instead in only lower
                                                                                                  volume vehicle applications. Given more time and
                                                                                                  high volume manufacturing development beyond
                                                                                                  2017, this technology could be considered again for
                                                                                                  future applications as it continues its development.
                                                                                                                                         Draft 53
-------
                         would have a greater impact on technology screening and selection to achieve
                         mass reductions above 20%.
                         [OSU]
                         Glenn Daehn
                         Conclusions and recommendations section is missing. This is an important
                         opportunity to reinforce the most important actions that automakers can take.

                         The report still lacks the ability to trace some technical details all the way back
                         to the source.  This is described previously.
                                                                                                 Add in report section G
                                                                       Updated in report
Are there fundamentally
different lightweight
vehicle design
technologies that you
expect to be much more
common (either in
addition to or instead of)
than the one Lotus has
assessed for the 2017-
2020 timeframe (Low
Development)?
[Joost] Not in the 2017-2020 time frame. Switching to an advanced steel
dominant body with a few instances of Mg and Al seems appropriate for the
time frame. The considerable use of lightweight plastics is also in line with my
expectations for available technology in this time frame.

[Richman]
No. The result of his study is a logical and cost effective advancement in the
development of more efficient passenger vehicles for the 2017-20 time frames.

 [OSU]
Glenn Daehn
It seems apparent that vehicles are moving more and more to multi-materials
construction and as we move away from steel-based construction, joined
primarily by resistance spot welds, there will be need for additional joining
technologies. Laser welding is mentioned as one possible replacement for
resistance spot welds, but it is expected that over time there will be much
more use of structural adhesives, self-piercing rivets, conformal joints and
other joining strategies for the BIW.
                                                                                                                                       Draft 54
-------
Are there any other areas
outside of the direct scope
of the analysis (e.g.,
vehicle performance,
durability, drive ability,
noise, vibration, and
hardness) for which the
mass-reduced vehicle
design is likely to exhibit
any compromise from the
baseline vehicle?
[Joost] All of the areas listed here are somewhat concerning, but given the
switch to fairly conventional materials I  believe that durability, drivability, and
NVH should be not be a significant issue. Detailed analysis work in these areas
would likely require some redesign which may add cost or weight, but I don't
think it would be overwhelming.

[Richman]
None identified by this reviewer.

[OSU]
Glenn Daehn
Yes.  There are many other details with  respect to nuances of customer
expectations, durability, warranty risks and manufacturability that are
discussed elsewhere in this review. This does not diminish the importance of
this great work. Just points out there are an enormous amount of detailed
work required to build an automobile, and the job is not finished.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[OSU]
Kristina Kennedy
Overall, well-written and well-done...my conclusion (which they also reached) is YES, NVH WILL SUFFER
when replacing steel with HSS and will OF COURSE make the vehicle MORE STIFF.

[Simunovic]
The FEV report is quite exhaustive. I would suggest that it be released in a hypertext format that can allow
different navigation paths through  it. Also, the dynamic Web-based technologies can be used for effective
model documentation, presentation and distribution. I would also recommend that more details on the
actual optimization process, including the objective function specification, and the final consolidation of the
model, be added to the documentation.
                                                                        Links for all reference material are captured
                                                                        throughout the report. They are not hyperlinked.
                                                                        All cost sheets are in a folder structure at EPA
                                                                        website.
                                                                                                                                         Draft 55
-------
4.  References




FEV. Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle. 2012.
-------
                           Analysis Report Review

Report Title:      Light-Duty  Vehicle  Mass Reduction and Cost
                     Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle
Report Number:  07-069-303
   This Analysis Report has been reviewed and complies with the quality assurance procedures of
   FEV, Inc.

   Q The Analysis Report is adequate for delivery to the customer.

(Signature)
Print
Title:
Name: Patrick Hupperich
Vice President
Date:
^^^^ '
(Signature)
Print Name: Greg Kolwich
Title: Manager, Value Engineering
Date: 02/1 4/20 12
          Munro
           &
          Associates, Inc.
   QUALITY RECORD Doc. # T-04-09  Rev. B  Date: 02/08/08
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                  Summary Page 1
Project: Light-Duty Vehicle Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis
Task:   EPA Contract EP-C-07-069 WAS-3
Project #: 07-069-303
Date:     02/14/12
Client:   United Stated Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Cheryl Caffrey	
Subject/Objectives:  The  primary objective  of this contract is  continue  the  design
concepts of the 2010  ICCT report of the Low Development concept vehicle with 20%
vehicle  mass reduction along with other recent relevant studies. The  contractor  should
continue the work started on ICCT's research building on the original assessments to
prove concept, cost effectiveness and feasibility, manufacturability and crashworthiness
that can, at minimum, meet the performance functions (as defined in Scope of Work) of
the original baseline vehicle (2009 Venza) while controlling for both variable and in-
direct cost to maintain affordability (as defined in cost section of SOW). Specifically, the
contractor shall use advanced  design, material  and manufacturing processes that will
likely be available in  the time  frame of the 2017 model year  and beyond for the Low
Development concept vehicle  to  optimize  and  develop  an  engineering design with
sufficient details  such that computer  modeling  can  be performed to demonstrate
crashworthiness of the vehicle concept in addition to detailed incremental cost estimate
for the  design, including both  detailed  direct (piece) and indirect cost estimates. The
Contractor  shall assist EPA in discussions with other parties and agencies on this study
and document it in the 2017+ NPRM and final rule if necessary.
Method/Solution: Engineering expertise and state-of-art computer modeling, employed
on selected vehicle subsystems, was utilized to generate potential mass reduction ideas for
a production stock 2010 Toyota Venza. The target vehicle mass reduction was 20% or
approximately  340kg.   Selected  advanced,   alternative,  designs,   materials  and
manufacturing  processes  were  based upon a  comprehensive literature  review and
consultation with industry and experts.

In addition to  mass-reduction calculations the impact  of costs,  associated with mass
reduction, were also evaluated using FEV's detailed and transparent costing methodology
and tools. These are the same tools  and processed FEV employed on prior powertrain
analyses for EPA
-------
                                                     Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                  March 30, 2012
                                                               Summary Page 2
Summary/Results: Revision Date 03/25/2012
Calculated Vehicle Mass Reduction: 316.78 kg
Percent Vehicle Mass Reduction: 18.51% (1711kg Baseline Vehicle Mass)
Calculated Cost Impact for Mass Reduction: $ 92.04 Decrease
Average Cost Per Kilogram: $0.29 Save/Kilogram
Notes:
   (1) Mass reduction ideas require packaging, function and performance validation on
      an application by application basis.
   (2) Mass reduction ideas are developed on a subsystem by subsystem basis. As a
      result the synergistic affect relative to vehicle performance and potential
      degradation was not evaluated.
   (3) Costs presented are direct manufacturing costs
   (4) Costs do not include indirect cost factors (e.g. OEM SG&A, ED&T, Tooling,  etc.)
   (5) Costs are calculated using an established set of boundary conditions (e.g. mass
      production volumes, competitive market place, mature technology, etc.)
   (6) Mass reduction ideas are	
Conclusions/Recommendations:
   (1) Establish development plan to validate all the proposed technologies
   (2) Perhaps this can be a joint effort between the private and public sector.	
-------
                                                  Analysis Report BAV 07-069-303
                                                              March 30, 2012
                                                                    Page 1
   Light-Duty Vehicle Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize
                        Crossover Utility Vehicle

                       Analysis Report BAV 07-069-303 (3/3)
                                             ^^f

             DRAFT VERSION - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
                              Prepared for:
                              Cheryl Caffrey
              United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
                            2000 Traverwood Dr.
                            Ann Arbor, Ml 48105
                             Submitted by:

                              Greg Kolwich
                                 FEV, Inc.
                           4554 Glenmeade Lane
                           Auburn Hills, Ml 48326
                       Phone: (248) 373-6000 ext. 2411
                           Email: kolwich(S)fev.com
                              March 30, 2012
       Munro
        &
       Associates, Inc.
QUALITY RECORD Doc. # T-04-09  Rev. B  Date: 02/08/08
-------
                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                              March 30, 2012
                                                                   Page 2
                                Contents

Section                                                             Page
A.   Executive Summary                                             31
B.   Introduction                                                     35
  B.1    Project Overview                                              35
     B.1.1    Background for Studying Mass-Reduction                        35
     B.1.2    Mass-Reduction Evaluation - Phase 1, Background Information      36
     B.1.3    Mass-Reduction Evaluation - Phase 2, Purpose and Objectives      38
     B.1.4    Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis Process Overview              40
C.   Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis Assumptions               41
  C.1    Mass-Reduction Analysis Assumptions                          41
  C.2    Cost Analysis Assumptions                                     43
D.   Mass Reduction Analysis Methodology                         47
  D.1    Overview of Methodology                                       47
  D.2    Project Task One - Non Body-In-White Systems Mass-Reduction and
  Cost Analysis                                                       48
     D.2.1    Baseline Vehicle Finger Printing                                48
     D.2.2    Mass-Reduction Idea Generation                               50
     D.2.3    Preliminary Mass-Reduction and Cost Estimates                  53
     D.2.4    Mass-Reduction and Cost Optimization Process                  55
     D.2.5    Detailed Mass-Reduction Feasibility and Cost Analysis             61
  D.3    Project Task Two - Body-In-White Systems Mass-Reduction and
  Cost Analysis                                                       63
     D.3.1    Introduction                                                63
  D.4    Body System CAE Evaluation Process                           64
  D.5   Vehicle Teardown                                             65
  D.6   Vehicle Scanning                                              67
  D.7    Initial FE Model                                               68
     D.7.1    Material Data                                               69
-------
                                                   Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                March 30, 2012
                                                                     Page 3
  D.7.2    FE Modeling from Scan Data                                     69
D.8    FEA Model Validation—Baseline NVH Model                         72
  D.8.1    Model Statistics                                                 73
     D.8.1.1    Static Bending Stiffness                                     74
     D.8.1.2    Static Torsion Stiffness                                     74
     D.8.1.3    Modal Frequency                                          75
  D.8.2    FE Model Validation                                             75
  D.8.3    Step I: NVH Test Setup                                          76
     D.8.3.1    . Static Bending Stiffness Test Setup                         76
     D.8.3.2    Static Torsional Stiffness Test Setup                         78
     D.8.3.3    Dynamic Modal Test Setup                                 79
  D.8.4    Step II: Construction and Correlation of NVH Model                  80
  D.8.5    NVH Correlation Summary                                       80
  D.8.6    Step III: EDAG CAE Baseline Model                               81
D.9    Lotus Results Validation                                           82
D.10   Baseline Crash Model                                             85
  D.10.1   Model Building                                                  86
     D.10.1.1   Major System for Full Vehicle Model                        86
     D.10.1.2   Mass Validation                                            88
  D.10.2   Powertrain Mass & Inertia Calibration Test                         88
     D.10.2.1   Measuring Powertrain CG & Moment of Inertia              88
  Baseline Crash Model Set-up                                             90
  D.10.3   Baseline Crash Model Evaluation                                 92
     D.10.3.1   I. FMVSS 208—35 MPH Flat Frontal Crash (US NCAP)      92
       D.10.3.1.1  Model Setup                                            92
       D.10.3.1.2  Deformation Mode Comparison                           93
       D.10.3.1.3  Body Pulse Comparison                                  96
       Figure D-20: Location of vehicle pulse measurement                     97
       Figure D-21: Body Pulse: CAE Baseline Model vs. Test                  98
       D. 10.3.1.4  Dynamic Crush and Intrusions                             98
-------
                                                    Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                 March 30, 2012
                                                                      Page 4
         Image D-32: Initial Crush Space                                      99
       D.10.3.2   II. FMVSS 214—38.5MPH MDB Side Impact               101
         D. 10.3.2.1  Model Setup                                          101
         D.10.3.2.2  Deformation Mode Comparison                          102
         Image D-34: Side Impact: Pre-Crash                                 102
         D.10.3.2.3  Intrusion Comparison                                   104
     D.10.4   Baseline Crash Results                                        105
       D.10.4.1   I. FMVSS 208—35 MPH Flat Frontal Crash (US NCAP)     106
       D.10.4.2   II. Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB Frontal Crash (Euro
       NCAP/IIHS)                                                      106
         D. 10.4.2.1  Model Setup                                          106
         D. 10.4.2.2  Deformation Mode                                     107
         D.10.4.2.3  Body Pulse, Dynamic Crush, and Intrusion                 109
       D.10.4.3   III. FMVSS 214—38.5 MPH MDB Side Impact              114
       D.10.4.4   IV. FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB Rear Impact               114
         D. 10.4.4.1  Model Setup                                          114
         D. 10.4.4.2  Deformation Mode                                     115
         D. 10.4.4.3  Fuel Tank Integration                                   118
         D. 10.4.4.4  Structural Deformation                                 119
       D.10.4.5   V. FMVSS 216a Roof Crush Resistance                     121
         D. 10.4.5.1  Model Setup                                          121
         D. 10.4.5.2  Deformation Mode                                     122
         D. 10.4.5.3  Structural Strength                                     123
E.   Cost Analysis Methodology                                      126
  E.1    Overview of Costing Methodology                                126
  E.2    Teardown, Process Mapping, and Costing                         126
     E.2.1    Cost Methodology Fundamentals                                126
     E.2.2    Serial and Parallel Manufacturing Operations and Processes        129
  E.3    Cost Model Overview                                            132
  E.4    Indirect OEM Costs                                              134
-------
                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                              March 30, 2012
                                                                    Page 5
E.5    Costing Databases                                              135
  E.5.1    Database Overview                                           135
  E.5.2    Material Database                                            135
     E.5.2.1     Overview                                               135
     E.5.2.2     Material Selection Process                                135
     E.5.2.3     Pricing Sources and Considerations                        136
     E.5.2.4     In-process Scrap                                         137
     E.5.2.5     Purchase Parts - Commodity Parts                        138
  E.5.3    Labor Database                                              139
     E.5.3.1     Overview                                               139
     E.5.3.2     Direct Versus Total Labor, Wage Versus Rate              140
     E.5.3.3     Contributors to Labor Rate and Labor Rate Equation       140
     E.5.4.1     Overview                                               142
     E.5.4.2     Manufacturing Overhead Rate Contributors and
     Calculations                                                      143
     E.5.4.3     Acquiring Manufacturing Overhead Data                  144
  E.5.5    Mark-up (Scrap, SG&A, Profit, ED&T)                           146
     E.5.5.1     Overview                                               146
     E.5.5.2     Mark-up Rate Contributors and Calculations               147
     E.5.5.3     Assigning Mark-up Rates                                 150
  E.5.6    Packaging Database                                          150
     E.5.6.1     Overview                                               150
     E.5.6.2     Types of Packaging and Selection Process                  151
     E.5.6.3     Support for Costs in Packaging Database                   151
E.6    Shipping Costs                                                 152
E.7    Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary Worksheet        152
  E.7.1    Overview                                                    152
  E.7.2    Main Sections of Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary
  Worksheet                                                          153
E.8    Marketplace Validation                                          159
E.9    Cost Model Analysis Templates                                  159
-------
                                                    Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                March 30, 2012
                                                                      Page 6

     E.9.1    Subsystem, System and Vehicle Cost Model Analysis Templates    159
  E.10   Differential Tooling Cost Analysis                                160
     E.10.1   Differential Tooling Cost Analysis Overview                       160
     E.10.2   Differential Tooling Cost Analysis Methodology                    161
  E.11   Cost Curve - % Mass Reduction vs. Cost per Kilogram             164
     E.11.1   Cost Curve Development Overview                             164
     E.11.2   Cost Curve Development Overview                             164
F.   Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Results                      166
                                                \
  F.1  Vehicle Results Summary                                          166
     F.1.1    Assumptions                                                 166
     F.1.2    Baseline Vehicle Mass                                        167
     F.1.3    Vehicle Cost Summary                                        168
     F.1.4    Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing Cost                       171
  F.2  Engine System                                                   174
     F.2.1    Engine Assembly Downsize (2.4L)                              176
       F.2.1.1    Subsystem Content Overview                             176
       F.2.1.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology              176
       F.2.1.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          177
       F.2.1.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          177
       F.2.1.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                         178
       F.2.1.6    Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                 179
     F.2.2    Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem               180
       F.2.2.1    Subsystem Content Overview                             180
       F.2.2.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology              181
       F.2.2.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          183
       F.2.2.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          183
       F.2.2.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                         184
       F.2.2.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                           186
     F.2.3    Crank Drive Subsystem                                       186
       F.2.3.1    Subsystem Content Overview                             186
-------
                                                Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                             March 30, 2012
                                                                  Page 7
  F.2.3.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               187
  F.2.3.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          188
  F.2.3.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          189
  F.2.3.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          190
  F.2.3.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            193
F.2.4    Counter Balance Subsystem                                    193
  F.2.4.1    Subsystem Content Overview                              193
  F.2.4.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               194
  F.2.4.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          195
  F.2.4.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          195
  F.2.4.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          196
  F.2.4.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            196
F.2.5    Cylinder Block Subsystem                                       196
  F.2.5.1    Subsystem Content Overview                              196
  F.2.5.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               197
  F.2.5.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          198
  F.2.5.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          199
  F.2.5.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          201
    F.2.5.5.1  Cylinder Block                                          202
    F.2.5.5.2  Cylinder Liner                                          205
    F.2.5.5.3  Crankcase Adapter                                       205
  F.2.5.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            206
F.2.6    Cylinder Head Subsystem                                       207
  F.2.6.1    Subsystem Content Overview                              207
  F.2.6.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               208
  F.2.6.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          209
  F.2.6.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          209
  F.2.6.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          210
  F.2.6.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            212
F.2.7    Valvetrain Subsystem                                          213
-------
                                                Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                            March 30, 2012
                                                                  PageS
  F.2.7.1    Subsystem Content Overview                             213
  F.2.7.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology              213
  F.2.7.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          214
  F.2.7.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          215
  F.2.7.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                         217
  F.2.7.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                           220
F.2.8    Timing Drive Subsystem                                       221
  F.2.8.1    Subsystem Content Overview                             221
  F.2.8.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology              222
  F.2.8.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          223
  F.2.8.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          224
  F.2.8.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                         225
  F.2.8.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                           228
F.2.9    Accessory Drive Subsystem                                    228
  F.2.9.1    Subsystem Content Overview                             228
F.2.10   Air Intake Subsystem                                          229
  F.2.10.1   Subsystem Content Overview                             229
  F.2.10.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology              230
  F.2.10.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          231
  F.2.10.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          231
  F.2.10.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                         232
  F.2.10.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                           235
F.2.11   Fuel Induction Subsystem                                      236
  F.2.11.1   Subsystem Content Overview                             236
  F.2.11.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology              236
  F.2.11.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          237
  F.2.11.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          238
  F.2.11.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                         238
  F.2.11.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                           239
F.2.12   Exhaust Subsystem                                           240
-------
                                                Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                             March 30, 2012
                                                                  Page 9
  F.2.12.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              240
  F.2.12.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               240
F.2.13   Lubrication Subsystem                                         241
  F.2.13.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              241
  F.2.13.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               242
  F.2.13.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           243
  F.2.13.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          243
  F.2.13.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          244
                                            X
  F.2.13.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            246
F.2.14   Cooling Subsystem                                            247
  F.2.14.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              247
  F.2.14.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               247
  F.2.14.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           248
F.2.14.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                249
  F.2.14.4   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          250
  F.2.14.5   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            251
F.2.15   Induction Air Charging Subsystem                               252
F.2.16   Exhaust Gas Re-circulation                                     252
F.2.17   Breather Subsystem                                            252
  F.2.17.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              252
  F.2.17.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               253
  F.2.17.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           254
  F.2.17.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          254
  F.2.17.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          254
  F.2.17.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            255
F.2.18   Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Elec. Subsystem           256
  F.2.18.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              256
  F.2.18.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               256
  F.2.18.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           257
  F.2.18.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          257
-------
                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                               March 30, 2012
                                                                   Page 10
     F.2.18.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          258
     F.2.18.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            258
  F.2.19  Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.)               259
     F.2.19.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              259
     F.2.19.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               260
     F.2.19.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          261
     F.2.19.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          261
     F.2.19.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          262
                                              X
     F.2.19.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            263
F.3   Transmission System                                              264
  F.3.1    External Components                                          266
     F.3.1.1     Subsystem Content Overview                              266
  F.3.2    Case Subsystem                                              266
     F.3.2.1     Subsystem Content Overview                              266
     F.3.2.2     Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               268
     F.3.2.3     Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          268
     F.3.2.4     Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          268
     F.3.2.5     Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          269
     F.3.2.6     Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates                  269
  F.3.3    Gear Train Subsystem                                         270
     F.3.3.1     Subsystem Content Overview                              270
     F.3.3.2     Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               271
     F.3.3.3     Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          271
     F.3.3.4     Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Used                271
     F.3.3.5     Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          272
     F.3.3.6     Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates                  273
  F.3.4    Internal Clutch Subsystem                                      274
     F.3.4.1     Subsystem Content Overview                              274
  F.3.5    Launch Clutch Subsystem                                      274
     F.3.5.1     Subsystem Content Overview                              274
-------
                                                Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                             March 30, 2012
                                                                 Page 11

  F.3.5.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               275
  F.3.5.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           276
  F.3.5.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           276
  F.3.5.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          276
  F.3.5.6    Preliminary Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates       277
F.3.6    Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem                                  278
  F.3.6.1    Subsystem Content Overview                              278
  F.3.6.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               279
  F.3.6.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           279
  F.3.6.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           279
  F.3.6.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          280
  F.3.6.6    Preliminary Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates       281
F.3.7    Mechanical Controls  Subsystem                                 282
F.3.8    Electrical Controls Subsystem                                   282
F.3.9    Parking Mechanism Subsystem                                  282
F.3.10   Misc. Subsystem                                              282
F.3.11   Electric Motor & Controls Subsystem                             282
F.3.12   Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem                     282
  F.3.12.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              282
  F.3.12.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               283
  F.3.12.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           284
  F.3.12.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           284
  F.3.12.5   Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas                          284
  F.3.12.6   Preliminary Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates       285
  F.3.12.7   Total Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates            286
F.4A.2 Lightweight Design Optimization Process                           289
F.4A.3 Gauge and Grade Optimization Model                              289
F.4A.4  Gauge and Grade Optimization Response Surface                  291
F.4A.5  Gauge and Grade Optimization Results                            292
F.4A.6   Alternative Joining Technology                                   292
-------
                                                    Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                 March 30, 2012
                                                                     Page 12

     F.4A.7  Alternative Materials                                           292
     F.4A.8  Alternative Manufacturing Technology                            294
     F.4A.9  Geometry Change                                             296
     F.4A.10  Optimized Body Structure                                      297
     F.4A.11  Optimized Results                                            300
       F.4A.11.1 NVH Performance Results                                 301
       F.4A.11.2 Crash Performance Results                                301
         F.4A. 11.2.1 FMVSS 208—35 MPH flat frontal crash (US NCAP)        302
         F.4A.11.2.2 Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB Frontal Crash (Euro
         NCAP/IIHS)                                                     308
         Figure 1.9.26—Body Pulse Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized          311
         F.3.12.7.1  Dynamic Crush                                        311
         F.4A. 11.2.3  Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB Frontal Crash (Euro
         NCAP/IIHS) 314
         F.4A. 11.2.4  FMVSS 214—38.5 MPH MDB side impact               317
         F.4A.11.2.5  FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB Rear Impact                321
         F.4A.11.2.6  FMVSS 216a—Roof Crush Resistance                   326
     F.4A.11 Cost Impact                                                  329
     F.4A. 12 Summary                                                     333
     F.4A.13  Future Trends and Recommendation                            333
F.4B  Body System Group B                                          335
     F.4B.1   Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem                      336
     F.4B.1.1    Subsystem Content Overview                                 336
     F.4B.1.2    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                              337
     F.4B.1.3    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                346
     F.4B.1.4    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                              347
     F.4B.1.5    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates                        349
     F.4B.2   Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)                       350
     F.4B.2.1    Subsystem Content Overview                                 350
     F.4B.2.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                    350
     F.4B.2.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                              351
-------
                                                     Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                  March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 13

  F.4B.2.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                 351
  F.4B.2.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                                352
  F.4B.2.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates                         352
  F.4B.3   Sealing Subsystem                                               353
  F.4B.3.1   Subsystem Content Overview                                    353
  F.4B.3.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                     354
  F.4B.3.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                                 355
  F.4B.3.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                 355
  F.4B.3.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                                356
  F.4B.3.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates                         358
  F.4B.4   Seating Subsystem                                               359
  F.4B.4.1   Subsystem Content Overview                                    359
  F.4B.4.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                     359
  F.4B.4.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                                 363
  F.4B.4.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                 363
  F.4B.4.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                                364
  F.4B.4.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates                         374
F.4B.5   Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem                            378
  F.4B.5.1   Subsystem Content Overview                                    378
  F.4B.5.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                     379
  F.4B.5.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                                 381
  F.4B.5.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                 385
  F.4B.5.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                                385
  F.4B.5.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results                           387
F.4B.6   Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem                             388
  F.4B.6.1   Subsystem Content Overview                                    388
  F.4B.6.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                     389
  F.4B.6.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                                 391
  F.4B.6.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                 396
  F.4B.6.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                                397
  F.4B.6.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results                           398
-------
                                                      Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                   March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 14

F.4C  Body Structure Group C                                         400
  F.4C.1   Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem                         402
     F.4C.1.1   Subsystem Content Overview                                   402
     F.4C.1.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                    402
     F.4C.1.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                               404
     F.4C.1.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                405
     F.4C.1.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                               406
     F.4C.1.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates                        406
  F.4C.2   Rear View Mirrors Subsystem                                      407
     F.4C.2.1   Subsystem Content Overview                                   407
     F.4C.2.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                    408
     F.4C.2.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                               409
     F.4C.2.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                409
     F.4C.2.5   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected                   409
     F.4C.2.6   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts and Cost Impacts           410
  F.4C.3   Front End Module Subsystem                                      410
                                                 F
     F.4C.3.1   Subsystem Content Overview                                   410
     F.4C.3.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                    412
     F.4C.3.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                               412
     F.4C.3.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                412
     F.4C.3.5   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected                   413
     F.4C.3.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                                 413
  F.4C.4   Rear End Module Subsystem                                      414
     F.4C.4.1   Subsystem Content Overview                                   414
     F.4C.4.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                    415
     F.4C.4.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                               415
     F.4C.4.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                416
     F.4C.4.5   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected                   416
     F.4C.4.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                                 416
F.4D  Body System Group D                                           419
-------
                                                    Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                 March 30, 2012
                                                                     Page 15
F.4D.1   Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem                  421
  F.4D.1.1    Subsystem Content Overview                                   421
  F.4D.1.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                    422
  F.4D.1.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                               424
  F.4D.1.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                426
  F.4D.1.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                               427
  F.4D.1.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results                          428
F.4D.2   Handles, Locks, Latches & Mechanisms Subsystem.                  430
  F.4D.2.1    Subsystem Content Overview                                   430
  F.4D.2.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                    432
  F.4D.2.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                               432
  F.4D.2.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                434
  F.4D.2.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                               434
  F.4D.2.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                                 435
F.4D.3   Rear Hatch Lift Assembly Subsystem                               435
  F.4D.3.1    Subsystem Content Overview                                   435
  F.4D.3.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                    436
  F.4D.3.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                               436
  F.4D.3.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                437
  F.4D.3.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                               437
  F.4D.3.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                                 437
F.4D.4   Wipers and Washers Subsystem                                   438
  F.4D.4.1    Subsystem Content Overview                                   438
  F.4D.4.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                    440
  F.4D.4.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                442
  F.4D.4.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                               443
  F.4D.4.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                                 443
F.4E Body System Group A                                               445
  F.4E.1 Subsystem Content Overview                                      445
     F.4E.1.1 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                 446
     F.4E.1.2 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                             446
-------
                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                               March 30, 2012
                                                                   Page 16
     F.4E.1.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered            446
     F.4E.1.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected               447
     F.4E.1.5  Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            447
  F.4E.2 Front End Subsystem                                            448
     F.4E.2.1  Subsystem Content Overview                               448
     F.4E.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                 449
     F.4E.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                            449
     F.4E.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered            449
     F.4E.2.5 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected               450
     F.4E.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                              450
F.5   Suspension System                                                451
  F.5.1    Front Suspension Subsystem                                   453
     F.5.1.1     Subsystem Content Overview                              453
     F.5.1.2     Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               455
     F.5.1.3     Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          456
       F.5.1.3.1  Front Control Arm Assembly                              457
       F.5.1.3.2  Front Steering Knuckle                                   462
       F.5.1.3.3  Front Stabilizer Bar System                               463
     F.5.1.4     Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          467
     F.5.1.5     Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          470
       F.5.1.5.1  Front Control Arm Assembly                              472
       F.5.1.5.2  Front Steering Knuckle                                   477
       F.5.1.5.3  Front Stabilizer Bar System                               478
     F.5.1.6     Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results          482
  F.5.2    Rear Suspension Subsystem                                   483
     F.5.2.1     Subsystem Content Overview                              483
     F.5.2.2     Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               485
     F.5.2.3     Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          486
       F.5.2.3.1  Rear Arm Assembly//!                                   487
       F.5.2.3.2  Rear Arm Assembly #2                                   487
-------
                                                 Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                              March 30, 2012
                                                                  Page 17
     F.5.2.3.3  Rear Rod Assembly                                      488
     F.5.2.3.4  Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle                              489
     F.5.2.3.5  Rear Stabilizer Bar System                                489
  F.5.2.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           493
  F.5.2.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          496
     F.5.2.5.1  Rear Arm Assembly//!                                    497
     F.5.2.5.2  Rear Arm Assembly #2                                    498
     F.5.2.5.3  Rear Rod Assembly                                      498
     F.5.2.5.4  Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle                              499
     F.5.2.5.5  Rear Stabilizer Bar System                                500
  F.5.2.6    Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results           504
F.5.3    Shock Absorber Subsystem                                      504
  F.5.3.1    Subsystem Content Overview                               504
  F.5.3.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               507
  F.5.3.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           508
     F.5.3.3.1  Strut / Damper Module Assemblies                          509
  F.5.3.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           516
  F.5.3.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          520
     F.5.3.5.1  Strut / Damper Module Assemblies                          523
  F.5.3.6    Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results           531
F.5.4    Wheels and Tires Subsystem                                    532
  F.5.4.1    Subsystem Content Overview                               532
  F.5.4.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               534
  F.5.4.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           534
     F.5.4.3.1  Road Wheel & Tire Assemblies                            535
     F.5.4.3.2  Spare Wheel & Tire Assembly                             537
     F.5.4.3.3  Lug Nuts                                                539
  F.5.4.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           539
  F.5.4.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          542
     F.5.4.5.1  Road Wheel & Tire Assemblies                            543
-------
                                                   Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                               March 30, 2012
                                                                    Page 18

       F.5.4.5.2  Spare Wheel & Tire Assembly                            545
       F.5.4.5.3  Lug Nuts                                               547
     F.5.4.6   Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results          548
F.6  Driveline System                                                   549
   F.6.1     Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem                             550
     F.6.1.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              550
     F.6.1.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology              551
   F.6.2     Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                                551
     F.6.2.1   Drive Hubs                                              551
   F.6.3     Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                553
   F.6.4     Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                              553
     F.6.4.1   Front Drive Unit                                         554
   F.6.5     Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results                 554
   F.6.6     Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem                              555
     F.6.6.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              555
   F.6.7     Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                   557
   F.6.8     Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                                557
     F.6.8.1   Right-Hand Half Shaft                                    557
     F.6.8.2   Bearing Carrier                                          557
     F.6.8.3   Bearing Carrier Bolt                                      558
   F.6.9     Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                559
   F.6.10   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                              559
     F.6.10.1  RH Half Shaft                                           560
     F.6.10.2  Bearing Carrier                                          560
     F.6.10.3  Bearing Carrier Bolt                                      561
   F.6.11   Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results                 561
F.7  Braking System                                                   562
   F.7.1     Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem                        563
     F.7.1.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              563
     F.7.1.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology              565
-------
                                                 Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                              March 30, 2012
                                                                  Page 19
  F.7.1.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           566
     F.7.1.3.1  Rotors                                                  566
     F.7.1.3.2  Splash Shields                                           567
     F.7.1.3.3  Caliper Assembly                                        568
  F.7.1.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          572
  F.7.1.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          575
     F.7.1.5.1  Rotors                                                  575
     F.7.1.5.2  Splash Shields                                           583
     F.7.1.5.3  Caliper Assembly                                        584
  F.7.1.6    Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results          588
F.7.2    Rear Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem                         590
  F.7.2.1    Subsystem Content Overview                               590
  F.7.2.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               592
  F.7.2.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           592
     F.7.2.3.1  Rotors                                                  592
     F.7.2.3.2  Splash Shields                                           594
     F.7.2.3.3  Caliper Assembly                                        594
  F.7.2.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          598
  F.7.2.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          601
     F.7.2.5.1  Rotors                                                  602
     F.7.2.5.2  Splash Shields                                           609
     F.7.2.5.3  Caliper Assembly                                        610
  F.7.2.6    Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results          615
F.7.3    Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem                          617
  F.7.3.1    Subsystem Content Overview                               617
  F.7.3.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               618
  F.7.3.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           619
     F.7.3.3.1  Pedal Frame and Arm Sub-Assembly                       620
     F.7.3.3.2  Cable System Sub-Assembly                               621
     F.7.3.3.3  Brake Shoes and Attachments Sub-Assembly                621
-------
                                                 Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                              March 30, 2012
                                                                  Page 20
  F.7.3.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           623
  F.7.3.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          624
     F.7.3.5.1  Actuator Button Sub-Assembly                             625
     F.7.3.5.2  Cable System Sub-Assembly                               626
     F.7.3.5.3  Caliper Motor Actuator Sub-Assembly                      626
  F.7.3.6    Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results           627
F.7.4    Brake Actuation Subsystem                                      628
  F.7.4.1    Subsystem Content Overview                               628
  F.7.4.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               629
  F.7.4.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           630
     F.7.4.3.1  Master Cylinder and Reservoir                             630
     F.7.4.3.2  Brake Lines and Hoses                                    630
     F.7.4.3.3  Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly                        631
     F.7.4.3.4  Accelerator Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly                   634
  F.7.4.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           634
  F.7.4.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          636
     F.7.4.5.1  Master Cylinder and Reservoir                             637
     F.7.4.5.2  Brake Lines and Hoses                                    637
     F.7.4.5.3  Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly                        637
     F.7.4.5.4  Accelerator Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly                   640
  F.7.4.6    Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results           641
F.7.5    Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic)                           643
  F.7.5.1    Subsystem Content Overview                               643
  F.7.5.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               643
  F.7.5.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           644
     F.7.5.3.1  Vacuum Booster Sub-Assembly                            645
  F.7.5.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           649
  F.7.5.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          651
     F.7.5.5.1  Vacuum Booster Sub-Assembly                            652
  F.7.5.6    Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results           656
-------
                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                              March 30, 2012
                                                                  Page 21
F.8  Frame & Mounting System                                         657
   F.8.1    Frame Subsystem                                            659
     F.8.1.1    Subsystem Content Overview                             659
     F.8.1.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               660
   F.8.2    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                                661
     F.8.2.1    Front Frame                                            661
     F.8.2.2    Rear Frame                                             662
     F.8.2.3    Front Suspension Brackets                                663
     F.8.2.4    Front Damper Assembly                                  663
     F.8.2.5    Frame Side Rail Brackets                                 664
     F.8.2.6    RearSuspension Stopper Brackets                         665
   F.8.3    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                665
     F.8.3.1    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                         666
     F.8.3.2    Front Suspension Brackets                                667
     F.8.3.3    Rear Suspension Stopper Brackets                         668
     F.8.3.4    Front Damper Assembly                                  668
     F.8.3.5    Front Damper Assembly                                  669
     F.8.3.6    Front Frame Assembly                                   670
     F.8.3.7    Rear Frame Assembly                                    670
   F.8.4    Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results                671
F.9  Exhaust System                                                   672
   F.9.1    Acoustical Control Components Subsystem                       674
     F.9.1.1    Subsystem Content Overview                             674
     F.9.1.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               674
     F.9.1.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          675
     F.9.1.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          675
     F.9.1.5    Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas                         676
     F.9.1.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                           682
   F.9.2    Exhaust Gas Treatment Components Subsystem                  683
     F.9.2.1    Subsystem Content Overview                             683
-------
                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                               March 30, 2012
                                                                   Page 22
     F.9.2.2     Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               683
     F.9.2.3     Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           684
     F.9.2.4     Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           684
     F.9.2.5     Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          685
     F.9.2.6     Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            685
F.10   Fuel  System                                                     686
  F. 10.1   Fuel Tank & Lines Subsystem                                   687
     F.10.1.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              687
     F.10.1.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               688
  F.10.2   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                                 689
     F.10.2.1   Fuel Tank                                               689
     F.10.2.2   Fuel Pump                                               690
     F.10.2.3   Sending Unit                                             692
     F.10.2.4   Fuel Tank Mounting Straps                               693
     F.10.2.5   Fuel Filler Tube Assembly                                 694
  F.10.3   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                694
  F.10.4   Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas                              695
     F.10.4.1   Cross-Over Tube Assembly                                696
     F.10.4.2   Fuel Tank                                               697
     F.10.4.3   Fuel Tank Mounting Pins (Eliminated)                     697
     F.10.4.4   Fuel Pump Retaining Ring                                 698
     F.10.4.5   Fuel Sending Unit Retaining Bracket                       698
     F.10.4.6   Large Bracket (Eliminated)                                699
     F.10.4.7   Protector Bracket (Eliminated)                            699
     F.10.4.8   Small Shield Bracket (Eliminated)                          700
     F.10.4.9   Fuel Filler Tube Assembly                                 701
  F.10.5   Calculated  Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results                 701
  F.10.6   Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem                             702
     F.I0.6.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              702
     F.10.6.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               703
-------
                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                               March 30, 2012
                                                                   Page 23
     F.10.6.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           703
     F.10.6.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          704
     F.10.6.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          705
     F.10.6.6   Canister Housing & Canister Cover                        706
     F.10.6.7   Canister Brackets                                        707
     F.10.6.8   Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results          708
F.11    Steering System                                                 709
  F.11.1   Steering Gear Subsystem                                       710
                                              X
     F.ll.1.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              710
     F.ll.1.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               711
     F.ll.1.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           711
     F.ll.1.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          711
     F.I 1.1.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          712
     F.I 1.1.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates                   712
  F.11.2   Power Steering Subsystem                                     713
     F.ll.2.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              713
     F.ll.2.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               714
     F.ll.2.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           714
     F.ll.2.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          714
     F.I 1.2.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          714
     F.ll.2.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            715
  F.11.3   Steering Column Subsystem                                    716
     F.ll.3.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              716
     F.ll.3.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               716
     F.ll.3.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           717
     F.ll.3.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          717
     F.I 1.3.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          717
  F. 11.4   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                                  718
  F.11.5   Steering Column Switches Subsystem                            719
     F.ll.5.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              719
-------
                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                               March 30, 2012
                                                                   Page 24
     F.ll.5.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               720
     F.ll.5.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          720
     F.ll.5.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          720
     F.I 1.5.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          720
  F.11.6   Steering Wheel Subsystem                                     721
     F.ll.6.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              721
     F.ll.6.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               721
     F.ll.6.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          722
     F.ll.6.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          723
     F.I 1.6.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          723
     F.ll.6.6   Reduction & Cost Impact                                 724
F.12   Climate Control System                                          725
  F.12.1   Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem                         727
     F.12.1.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              727
     F.12.1.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               727
     F.12.1.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          730
     F.12.1.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          734
     F.12.1.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          735
     F.12.1.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results                     736
  F.12.2   Heating/Defrosting Subsystem                                  737
     F.12.2.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              737
     F.12.2.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               738
     F.12.2.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          738
     F.12.2.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          738
     F.12.2.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          739
     F.12.2.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results                     739
  F.12.3   Controls Subsystem                                           740
     F.12.3.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              740
     F.12.3.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               741
     F.12.3.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          741
-------
                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                               March 30, 2012
                                                                   Page 25
     F.12.3.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           741
     F.12.3.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          742
     F.12.3.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results                     742
F.13   Info, Gage & Warning Device System                              743
  F.13.1   Instrument Cluster Subsystem                                   745
     F.13.1.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              745
     F.13.1.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               746
     F.13.1.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           746
     F.13.1.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           746
     F.13.1.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          746
     F.13.1.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            748
F.14   In-Vehicle Entertainment System                                  749
  F.14.1   In-Vehicle Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem                  750
     F.14.1.1   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               751
     F.14.1.2   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           752
     F.14.1.3   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           752
     F.14.1.4   Magnetic Tooling                                        753
     F.14.1.5   Recycled Plastic                                          754
     F.14.1.6   Widespread Application                                   755
     F.14.1.7   Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas                          755
     F.14.1.8   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates                   756
  F.14.2   Antenna Subsystem                                            757
  F.14.3   Speaker Subsystem                                            759
  F.14.4   Total Mass  Reduction and Cost Impact                           759
F.15   Lighting System                                                 759
  F.15.1   Front Lighting Subsystem                                       761
     F.15.1.1   Subsystems Content  Overview                             761
     F.15.1.2   Toyota Venza Baseline System Technology                  761
     F.15.1.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           764
     F.15.1.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           766
-------
                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                               March 30, 2012
                                                                   Page 26

       F.15.1.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                        766
       F.15.1.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results                    767
  F.16   Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System              768
     F.16.1   Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem                770
       F.16.1.1   Subsystem Content Overview                            770
       F.16.1.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology              772
       F.16.1.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                         772
       F.16.1.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          772
       F.16.1.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                        773
       F.16.1.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                          775
  F.17   Vehicle Systems Overview and Results                          779
  F.18   Comparison of Results                                         779
G.   Conclusions & Recommendation                               779
H.   Appendix                                                        779
  H.1    Main Sections of Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary
  Worksheet                                                          780
  H.2    Executive Summary for Lotus Engineering Phase 1 Report         787
  H.3    Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction Published Articles, Papers, and
  Journals Used as Information Sources in the Analysis                    790
  H.4    EPA Toyota Venza Cost Analysis Breakdown                     793
  H.5    Suppliers Contributed in Study                                 817
I.    Glossary of Terms                                              817
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                               Page 27


                                       Figures
NUMBER                                                                           PAGE
IMAGE B-L2009 TOYOTA VENZA	37
FIGURE E-l: FUNDAMENTAL STEPS IN COSTING PROCESS	132
FIGURE E-2: UNIT COST MODEL - COSTING FACTORS INCLUDED IN ANALYSIS	132
FIGURE E-3: SAMPLE MAQS COSTING WORKSHEET (PART lor 2)	154
FIGURE E-4: SAMPLE MAQS COSTING WORKSHEET (PART 2 OF 2)	155
FIGURE E-5: EXCERPT ILLUSTRATING AUTOMATED LINK BETWEEN OEM/T1 CLASSIFICATION INPUT IN MAQS
     WORKSHEET AND THE CORRESPONDING MARK-UP PERCENTAGES UPLOADED FROM THE MARK-UP
     DATABASE	156
FIGURE E-6: SAMPLE EXCERPT FROM MASS-REDUCED FRONT BRAKE ROTOR MAQS WORKSHEET
     ILLUSTRATING TOOLING COLUMN AND CATEGORIES	163
TABLE F.2-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR ENGINE SYSTEM	174
TABLE F.2-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR ENGINE SYSTEM	175
TABLE F.5-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR THE SUSPENSION SYSTEM	452
TABLE F.6-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR DRIVELINE SYSTEM	549
TABLE F.6-2: CALCULATED MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR DRIVELINE SYSTEM	550
TABLE F.6-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR FRONT DRIVE HOUSED AXLE SUBSYSTEM	550
TABLE F.7-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR THE BRAKING SYSTEM	562
TABLE F.8-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR FRAME & MOUNTING SYSTEM	658
TABLE F.8-2: CALCULATED MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR FRAME & MOUNTING SYSTEM	658
TABLE F.8-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR FRAME SUBSYSTEM	659
TABLE F. 13-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR INFO, GAGE & WARNING DEVICE SYSTEM	744
TABLE F. 13-2: PRELIMINARY MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR INFO, GAGE & WARNING DEVICE SYSTEM
     	744
TABLE F. 13 -3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR INSTRUMENT CLUSTER SUBSYSTEM	746
TABLE F. 13-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE INSTRUMENT CLUSTER
     SUBSYSTEM	746
TABLE F. 13 -5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL INFO INSTRUMENT CLUSTER SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS
     	747
TABLE F. 13-6: CALCULATED SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR INSTRUMENT CLUSTER
     SUBSYSTEM	748
TABLE F. 14-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR IN-VEHICLE ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM	749
TABLE F. 14-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR BODY SYSTEM GROUP	750
TABLE F. 14-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR RECEIVER AND AUDIO MEDIA SUBSYSTEM	751
FIGURE H-2: SAMPLE MAQS COSTING WORKSHEET (PART 2 OF 2)	782
FIGURE H-3: EXCERPT ILLUSTRATING AUTOMATED LINK BETWEEN OEM/T1 CLASSIFICATION INPUT IN MAQS
     WORKSHEET AND THE CORRESPONDING MARK-UP PERCENTAGES UPLOADED FROM THE MARK-UP DATABASE
     	783
FIGURE H-4: EXAMPLE OF PACKAGING COST CALCULATION FOR BASE BATTERY MODULE	786
                                       Tables

Number                                                                          Page

TABLE A-1: ADVANCED INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATIONS EVALUATED	ERROR!
     BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE A-2: ADVANCE TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATIONS EVALUATED	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT
     DEFINED.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 28

TABLE A-3: ADVANCE START-STOP HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATION EVALUATED (BELT
     ALTERNATOR GENERATOR ARCHITECTURE)	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE A-4: POWER-SPLIT HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATION	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT
     DEFINED.

TABLE A-5: P2 HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATION	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE A-6: ELECTRICAL AIR CONDITIONING COMPRESSOR TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATION.ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT
     DEFINED.

TABLE B-l: STUDIED TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATIONS APPLICABILITY TO NORTH AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN VEHICLE
     SEGMENTS	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLEB-2: EPANORTH AMERICAN POWERTRAIN VEHICLE CLASS SUMMARY MATRIX (P-VCSM)	ERROR!
     BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE B -3: EPA PUBLISHED REPORTS FOR EVALUATED TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATIONS ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT
     DEFINED.

TABLEB-4: EUROPEAN POWERTRAIN VEHICLE CLASS SUMMARY MATRIX (P-VCSM)	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT
     DEFINED.

TABLE B -5: UNIVERSAL CASE STUDY ASSUMPTION UTILIZED IN EUROPEAN ANALYSIS	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT
     DEFINED.

TABLE B-6: INDIRECT COST MULTIPLIERS (ICMs)UsED IN EUROPEAN ANALYSIS .ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE C-l: STANDARD MARK-UP RATES APPLIED TO TIER 1 AND TIER 2/3 SUPPLIERS BASED ON COMPLEXITY AND
     SIZE RATINGS	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-l: 1.6L, 14, DS, TC, GDI ICE COMPARED TO 2.4L 14, NA, PFI, ICE    HARDWARE OVERVIEW	ERROR!
     BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-2:2.0L, 14, DS, TC, GDI ICE COMPARED TO 3.0L V6, NA, PFI ICE       HARDWARE OVERVIEW
     	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-3: 3.5L, V6, DS, TC, GDI ICE COMPARED TO 5.4L, V8, NA, PFI ICE       HARDWARE OVERVIEW
     	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-4: DOWNSIZED, TURBOCHARGED, GASOLINE DIRECT INJECT ICE INCREMENTAL DIRECT MANUFACTURING
     COST SUBSYSTEM SUMMARY	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-5: DOWNSIZED, TURBOCHARGED, GASOLINE DIRECT INJECT ICE INCREMENTAL DIRECT MANUFACTURING
     COST SUMMARY BY FUNCTION	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-6: VARIABLE VALVE TIMING AND LIFT (FIAT MULTIAIR SYSTEM), INCREMENTAL DIRECT MANUFACTURING
     COST SUBSYSTEM SUMMARY	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-7: APPLICATION OF INDIRECT COST MULTIPLIERS AND LEARNING CURVE FACTORS TO EVALUATED ENGINE
     TECHNOLOGIES (DS, TC, GDI ICE&WTL)	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-8: NET INCREMENTAL (DIRECT + INDIRECT) MANUFACTURING COSTS FOR EVALUATED ENGINE
     TECHNOLOGIES (DS, TC, GDI ICE&WTL)	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-9:6-SPEED AT COMPARED TO 5-SPEED AT, HARDWARE OVERVIEW	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                               Page 29

TABLE E-10:6-SPEEDDSG/DCT COMPARED TO 6-SPEED AT, HARDWARE OVERVIEW	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT
     DEFINED.

TABLE E-l 1: S-SPEED AT COMPARED TO 6-SPEED AT, HARDWARE OVERVIEW ...ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-12: TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATIONS, INCREMENTAL DIRECT MANUFACTURING COST
     SUBSYSTEM SUMMARY	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-l3: APPLICATION OF INDIRECT COST MULTIPLIERS AND LEARNING CURVE FACTORS TO EVALUATED
     TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGIES (6-SPEED AT, S-SPEED AT, 6-SPEED DCT)	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT
     DEFINED.

TABLE E-14: NET INCREMENTAL (DIRECT + INDIRECT) MANUFACTURING COSTS FOR EVALUATED TRANSMISSION
     TECHNOLOGIES (6-SPEED AT, S-SPEED AT, 6-SPEED DCT)	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-15: START-STOP HEV (BAS), INCREMENTAL DIRECT MANUFACTURING COST SYSTEM-SUBSYSTEM
     SUMMARY	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-16: APPLICATION OF INDIRECT COST MULTIPLIERS AND LEARNING CURVE FACTORS TO START-STOP HEV
     (BAS)	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-17: NET INCREMENTAL (DIRECT + INDIRECT) MANUFACTURING COST FOR EVALUATED START-STOP HEV
     (BAS)	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-18: POWER-SPLIT HEV (2010 FORD FUSION) COMPARED TO CONVENTIONAL POWERTRAIN VEHICLE,
     HARDWARE OVERVIEW	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-19: POWER-SPLIT TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATION INCREMENTAL DIRECT MANUFACTURING COSTS SYSTEM
     SUMMARY	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-20: POWER-SPLIT TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATION, INCREMENTAL DIRECT MANUFACTURING COSTS,
     SYSTEM/SUBSYSTEM SUMMARY	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-21: APPLICATION OF INDIRECT COST MULTIPLIERS AND LEARNING CURVE FACTORS TO POWER-SPLIT HEVs
     	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-22: NET INCREMENTAL (DIRECT + INDIRECT) MANUFACTURING COST FOR EVALUATED POWER-SPLIT HEVs
     	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-23: P2 TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATION, INCREMENTAL DIRECT MANUFACTURING COSTS, SYSTEM
     SUMMARY	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-24: P2 TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATION, INCREMENTAL DIRECT MANUFACTURING COSTS,
     SYSTEM/SUBSYSTEM SUMMARY	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-25: APPLICATION OF INDIRECT COST MULTIPLIERS AND LEARNING CURVE FACTORS TO P2 HEVs.... ERROR!
     BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-26: NET INCREMENTAL (DIRECT + INDIRECT) MANUFACTURING COST FOR EVALUATED P2 HEVs.... ERROR!
     BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-27: APPLICATION OF INDIRECT COST MULTIPLIERS AND LEARNING CURVE FACTORS TO ELECTRICAL AIR
     CONDITIONING COMPRESSOR TECHNOLOGY	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-28: NET INCREMENTAL (DIRECT + INDIRECT) MANUFACTURING COST FOR EVALUATED ELECTRICAL AIR
     CONDITIONING COMPRESSORS	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
-------
                                                             Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                           March 30, 2012
                                                                                Page 30

TABLE F-l: LABOR RATE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ON THREE ENGINE DOWNSIZING, TURBOCHARGING, GASOLINE
     DIRECT INJECTION ENGINES ANALYSES	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE G-l: POWER-SPLIT VEHICLE SEGMENT ATTRIBUTE DATABASE FILE, PART 1 OF 3, BASE POWERTRAIN AND
     VEHICLE ATTRIBUTES	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE G-2: POWER-SPLIT VEHICLE SEGMENT ATTRIBUTE DATABASE FILE, PART 2 OF 3, ICE, ELECTRIC TRACTION
     MOTOR AND ELECTRIC GENERATOR SIZING	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE G-3: POWER-SPLIT VEHICLE SEGMENT ATTRIBUTE DATABASE FILE, PART 3 OF 3, HIGH VOLTAGE TRACTION
     MOTOR BATTERY SIZING	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE G-4: P2 VEHICLE SEGMENT ATTRIBUTE DATABASE FILE, PART 1 OF 3, BASE POWERTRAIN AND VEHICLE
     ATTRIBUTES	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE G-5: P2 VEHICLE SEGMENT ATTRIBUTE DATABASE FILE, PART 2 OF 3, ICE, ELECTRIC TRACTION MOTOR AND
     ELECTRIC GENERATOR SIZING	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE G-6: P2VEHICLE SEGMENT ATTRIBUTE DATABASE FILE, PART 3 OF 3, HIGH VOLTAGE TRACTION MOTOR
     BATTERY SIZING	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 31
A.      Executive Summary

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracted FEV to perform a
Phase 2 analysis on the Lotus Engineering low development portion of the 2010 Phase 1
report. The Phase 1 report, titled "An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a
2017-2020 Model Year  Program," was  submitted to  the  Internal Council on  Clean
Transportation for release during March 2010. The analyses were to include evaluating
the mass-reduction opportunities presented in the Lotus report  as well as investigate
additional mass reduction opportunities. This was to include:
   •  A detailed finite element  analysis of body-in-white (BIW)
   •  Crash simulation of the entire mass reduced vehicle using sophisticated computer
      aided engineering tools
   •  Conducting further investigations into new mass reduction technologies which
      have been developed since 2009/2010 and redesigning the BIW, if necessary.
   •  In the event that BIW changes were implemented, verify that the redesigned body
      meets the major vehicle functional objectives for safety, dynamics, durability and
      noise/vibration/harshness (NVH).
   •  Conducting a thorough cost analysis of the mass reduction technologies identified.
The Lotus Engineering low development portion  of the Phase 1  report identified  mass
reduction technologies that achieved a 19% reduction in curb weight, less powertrain, or
an 18%  curb weight  reduction when including a hybrid powertrain  with  an advanced
turbocharged  and downsized engine.  The goal of the study was to identify mass saving
opportunities  totaling  20% curb weight while  maintaining performance parity relative to
the current vehicle. FEV's review  of the Lotus Phase 1 low  development BIW design
showed bending and torsional stiffness to be insufficient in meeting the design target of
no expected degradation  of ride, handling or NVH. Hence  the BIW was  redesigned in
order to achieve the desired design characteristics.  FEV also  utilized approximately 40 of
Lotus's 150 design ideas for  mass reduction  in the following vehicle systems: seating,
vehicle interior, suspension, and braking. Other mass reduction ideas came  from research
into various technology sources. This report details FEV's additional work and findings
to prove the  design  concept,  cost effectiveness, manufacturing feasibility,  and
crashworthiness that can meet the function and performance of the baseline vehicle (2010
Toyota Venza). All components and assemblies included in the  various Toyota Venza
vehicle systems were considered available for potential mass-reduction. Both direct mass-
reduction of components (e.g., design and/or material alternatives) and mass-reduction of
components via mass-reduction  compounding (i.e., the reduction of component  mass
enabled by reductions in vehicle mass) were regarded as viable options.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 32

After a complete vehicle teardown analysis of a 2010 Toyota Venza to record components
and manufacturing  processes, FEV and its subcontractors used  design, material, and
manufacturing processes determined likely to be available by the 2017-2020 model year
time frame to evaluate mass-reduction ideas. Lighter weight materials  such as  high-
strength steels, aluminum, engineering  plastics,  and other materials incorporated into
innovative structural designs  can produce substantial vehicle weight reduction. Product
and  manufacturing  engineering   technical experts  identified  opportunities  at the
component and  assembly level to reduce mass  during  the  teardown  and  evaluation
process. A  combination  of  research  and  development benchmark  data, production
benchmark data, and Toyota Venza specific re-design and development data was used to
verify and validate the mass-reduction concepts.

Along with mass-reduction calculations, FEV also  evaluated the  costs associated with
mass reduction, employing detailed and transparent  costing methodology and tools. The
costing methodology and tools are the same as those successfully utilized on previous
EPA advance powertrain incremental direct manufacturing cost studies. Additional details
on the costing methodology can be found in the EPA  published report EPA-420-R-09-020
"Light-duty        Technology       Cost       Analysis        Pilot       Study
(http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420r09020.pdf).

To evaluate the impact of costs on the mass-reduced components,  cost models linked to
comprehensive costing  databases  for  raw  material rates,  labor  rates, manufacturing
overhead and burden rates,  as well as end item  scrap,  SG&A (selling general and
administration), profit, ED&T  (engineering, design, and testing), and  packaging  were
employed.

Key to the costing process is the task of developing a universal set of boundary conditions
establishing   a  constant  framework for  developing  incremental costs. A  common
framework for  all  costing   allows reliable comparison  of costs between the new
technology configuration (i.e., mass-reduced components) and the baseline technology
configuration (i.e., OEM production components).

In addition, having a good understanding of the analysis boundary conditions (i.e., what
assumptions are made in the analysis,  the methodology utilized, what parameters are
included in the final numbers, etc.), results in a fair and meaningful comparison between
results developed from alternative costing methodologies and/or sources.

Cost factors not included in the analysis include OEM indirect costs and learning factors.
OEM indirect costs include cost categories such as OEM engineering, design and testing,
OEM corporate overhead, OEM warranty, and OEM sales. Cost factors associated with
new technology inception (e.g. lower production volumes, lower market immaturity, low
market competition) are addressed through the addition of learning factors. Indirect costs
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 33

and costs associated with learning are addressed outside this analysis and within EPA's
modeling protocol.. Within the body of this report readers will be referenced as to where
additional details may be  found on the development and application of indirect cost
multipliers (ICM's) and learning factors.

The mass-reduction and cost analysis process employed in this project  is summarized
with the following five steps:
   1) fingerprint the baseline vehicle;
   2) mass-reduction idea generation;
   3) mass-reduction optimization (weights vs. costs);
   4) selection of mass-reduction level with best value; and
   5) detail technology feasibility and cost analysis.
FEV subcontracted with EDAG GmbH to evaluate the Venza body structure system using
sophisticated computer-aided design (CAD) and  engineering  (CAE)  tools.  EDAG is
worldwide engineering firm that provides "ready for production (engineering) solutions"
across entire  vehicle  platforms1   EDAG applied its standard  best practice of re-
engineering processes, which included vehicle teardown by skilled body technicians, parts
scanning, and data  collection of vehicle parts to build a full vehicle CAE model. Part
details crucial for building the  CAE model (e.g., weight,  thickness) were obtained  and
recorded here in an assembly hierarchy. Through the process  of constructing detailed
models for critical vehicle  systems, EDAG was able to validate that major vehicle level
functional objectives were being maintained throughout the mass reduction process.

The  Venza  breakdown identified  17  major  systems  (e.g.,  Engine,  Transmission,
Suspension, etc.) amassed by a significant number of subsystems and sub-subsystems that
were  individually evaluated in the course of this study.  In Error! Reference  source not
found., a  summary of the calculated mass reduction and cost impact for each major system
evaluated is provided. This project recorded a mass reduction of 18.51% with powertrain
at a cost savings of $0.29/kg without  tooling impact.  Shown  in Figure A-l  is  an
incremental  direct manufacturing cost/kilogram  vs. vehicle mass-reduction percentage.
This  curve  does  not include  tooling,  ICMs,  or  Learning  Factors.  It  shows both
compounded and non-compounded mass-reduction.   All    direct   mass-reduction   of
components (e.g., design  and/or material alternatives) as well  as  mass-reduction of
components via mass compounding are considered viable options. For this project,  mass-
reduction compounding refers to the reduction of mass of a given component as the result
of a reduction in the mass of one or several other components.
1 EDAG GmbH http://www.edag.de/en/company.html
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 34
Description
Engine System
Transmission System
Body System) Group -A-) BIW & Closures
Body System) Group -B-) Interior
Body System! Group -C-) Exterior
Body System! Group -D-) Glazing & Body Mechatronics
Suspension System
Driveline System
Brake System
Frame and Mounting System
Exhaust System
Fuel System
Steering System
Climate Control System
Info, Ga arning System
In-Vehicle Entertainment System
Lighting System
Electrical Dis. And Electronic Control System
Fluid & Misc.
Vehicle
Baseline
Mass "kg"
172.60
92.76
528.88
220.61
26.57
63.46
265.91
	 33.66 	
86.71
43.73
26.62
24.28
24.23
15.66
____
4.59
10.04
23.94
26.28
1711.38
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)
30.35
18.90
67.89
42.00
2.37
6.16
69.45
	 150 	
40.52
16.50
7.52
6.80
1.82
2.44

1.07
0.53
0.89
0.00
316.78
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"t"
* (2)
$43.24
($114.15)
($230.66)
$122.98
$7.59
($15.25)
$135.93
($bTl6)
$116.21
($3.66)
$2.47
$3.91
$11.05
$9.34

$2.43
($0.76)
$1.35
0.00
$92.04
(Decrease)
Tooling Cost
"$" (X1000)
$5,892.20
($7,650.80)
($22,900.00)
$9,966.15
$0.00
$0.00
($7,200.97)
($160730)
($1,426.12)
$4,059.70
$0.00
$1,535.50
$1,352.70
$386.00

$1,175.60
$400.00
$103.50
0.00
($14,466.84)
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
W/O
Tooling
$/kg
1.42
(6.04)
(3.40)
2.93
3.20
(2.48)
1.96
	 (oTTij 	
2.87
(0.22)
0.33
0.57
6.08
3.83
2.45
2.27
(1.42)
1.52
0.00
0.29
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram VW
Tooling
$/kg
1.66
(6.53)
(3.81)
3.22
3.20
(2.48)
1.83
	 (0724) 	
2.83
0.08
0.33
0.85
6.99
4.03
2.45
3.60
(0.51)
1.66
0.00
0.24
(Decrease)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
17.58%
20.37%
.
19.03%
9.01%
9.70%
26.12%
4747%
46.73%
37.73%
21.09%
28.03%
26.31%
15.55%
_JU01%_
23.39%
5.29%
22.43%
0.00
-
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
1.77%
1.10%
3.97%
2.45%
0.14%
0.36%
4.06%
b7o9%
2.37%
0.96%
0.44%
0.40%
0.11%
0.14%
,jy>P%_
0.06%
0.03%
0.05%
0.00
18.51%
 Table A-l:  Mass-Reduction and Incremental Direct Manufacturing Cost Impact for each Vehicle
                                  System Evaluated
Similar to the boundary conditions established in the Phase 1 Lotus analysis, the proposed
mass-reduction efforts maintain function and performance of the baseline Venza vehicle.
Again, the mass-reductions were selected to be available by the 2017 model year.  The
proposed  design is also commercially feasible for  high-volume  production  (-200,000
units per year) and the new technologies are expected to be  completely phased in and
incorporated into vehicle design by MY2017.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 35
      .
     O)
     o
o
O
O)

•§
*+5
3
c
CO
     £
     b
     "CD
     H—<
     c
     CD

     O
             0.000
            o.qo%
       -i.ooo

       -2.000
                                                                       20.00%
                            Percent Vehic e Mass-Reduction
                                                                          mpounde
                                                                        Non Compoi
                                                                        Compounde
                  Figure A-l: Toyota Venza Mass-Reduction Cost Curve
B.
   Introduction
B.1    Project Overview

     B.1.1    Background for Studying Mass-Reduction

Vehicle manufacturers are currently modifying the architecture and design of their entire
product lineups to better respond to regulatory actions curbing greenhouse gas emissions
(GHG)  and to  meet consumer demands for substantial improvements in  vehicle fuel
economy   while   maintaining   vehicle   functionality   and  performance  attributes.
Accordingly, manufacturers are planning to rapidly expand implementation of advanced
vehicle,  powertrain  and  engine  technologies.  These technologies  include  engine
downsizing, turbocharging, direct injection, variable valve  timing & lift,  automated
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 36

manual transmissions, automated start-stop  systems,  electric-hybridization and other
technologies.

Another promising technology for reducing vehicle GHG emissions, and the focus of this
work,  is  reduction of vehicle weight. Weight reduction can be  accomplished without
compromising vehicle interior volume and utility by combining lightweight materials and
innovative vehicle design. Many mass reduction  techniques are already being applied by
vehicle manufacturers such as the use the use of lighter weight materials.  These materials
include engineering  plastics, high strength  steels, aluminum, magnesium, and other
materials incorporated into innovative structural  designs can yield substantial reductions
in vehicle weight. Appropriate light-weight  vehicle designs can  maintain or improve
current vehicle characteristics such as  safety, NVH control,  durability, handling and load
carrying capacity. For example, HEV battery pack enclosures could be integrated within
the vehicle structure to better optimize body strength  and weight compared to current
HEVs  that are essentially derivatives  of conventional vehicles. New materials could be
utilized in suspension components that are lightweight but lower in cost  than aluminum.
Reduction in  unsprung mass and improvements in suspension  geometry can  reduce
suspension loads on the chassis allowing  synergistic reductions in weight. Use  of
advanced  Computer Aided  Engineering  (CAE) such as  finite  element analysis can
optimize  load paths through  the chassis and body by simultaneously maintaining NVH
and crashworthiness while achieving weight reduction.
                                        ^K
While  the vehicle  architectures being investigated  for  this timeframe (2017-2020
production) must achieve low greenhouse gas emissions, the  designs must also be cost
effective  for consumers,  meet or  exceed current and planned safety requirements, meet
consumer expectations for vehicle performance (e.g. acceleration,  towing, load carrying,
handling) and durability.
     B.1.2   Mass-Reduction Evaluation - Phase 1, Background Information

The analysis work covered in this report is  a continuation of work previously completed
for by Lotus  Engineering for the International Council on Clean Transportation. In the
initial analysis (also referred to as the Phase 1 analysis) Lotus Engineering performed a
mass-reduction evaluation and cost assessment on a current production 2009 Toyota
Venza. The Toyota Venza is a 4-door, 5-passenger vehicle available in all wheel drive or
front wheel drive configurations and has the physical attributes normally associated with
a Cross-over Utility Vehicle (CUV).  The Toyota Venza  (vehicle example shown in
Image B-l)  is  representative  of current  CUV's in terms  of body  architecture  and
powertrains. It achieves  five stars  (the highest rating)  in  crash testing, meets current
federal safety standards, offers comfortable seating for five with a large storage volume
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 37

and is rated at 21 MPG city and 29 MPG highway with a 2.7 liter four cylinder internal
combustion engine (ICE) and front wheel drive (FWD).  Toyota advertises that this is a
versatile vehicle for active lifestyles that meets a wide variety of functional requirements.
                            Image B-l: 2009 Toyota Venza
                  (Source: http://www.toyotacolors. info/2009-toyota-venza-4x4-v6/)
Lotus began the study with a complete tear-down of the Toyota Venza to establish the
mass for each vehicle system. Every part was removed from the Venza vehicle, measured,
weighed and the material type recorded. The components  were consolidated under the
appropriate  category,  e.g.,  body,  suspension,  interior. This work  was performed by
A2Macl,  an experienced benchmarking specialist subcontracted by Lotus Engineering.
This teardown  defined the baseline masses and the A2Macl database, which includes
teardown  data on vehicles distributed internationally, was used  as a source for selecting
lightweight components. Employing Lotus Engineering expertise, best-in-class  designs
(key selection criteria being mass) were selected to replace existing baseline components.

The  scope and deliverables  in Phase 1 of the  Lotus project included two  distinct
approaches  for  production  intent  lightweight  vehicle   structures.  Specifically,  the
deliverables were bills of materials (BOM's) representing  a Low Development vehicle
with a  20% overall mass reduction target  that represents approaches that  could be
implemented by 2017  and a High  Development vehicle with a  40% overall  mass
reduction  target, less powertrain, that represented approaches available for model year
2020 vehicles.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 38

The  original Lotus Engineering Phase 1 report, "An Assessment of Mass  Reduction
Opportunities for a 2017-2020 Model Year Program,"  was submitted to the Internal
Council on Clean Transportation for release  during March 2010. The report can be found
at the following Internet address: hrtp://www.theicct.org/sites/default /files/publications
/Mass_reduction_final_2010.pdf. In Appendix  H.I the executive summary from the
Lotus report listed above can be found. In summary, Lotus Engineering determined that a
19% (244kg) mass-reduction (no powertrain contribution considered) was possible at a
vehicle piece cost impact of a nominal 99% to the baseline Venza vehicle.
     B.1.3    Mass-Reduction Evaluation - Phase 2, Purpose and Objectives

As  covered in Section B.1.2 above, the original (Phase  1) Lotus  Engineering  Low
Development mass-reduction and cost  analysis had a target of  20% vehicle mass-
reduction with production feasibility in the 2017-2020 timeframe EPA contracted with
FEV and their contractors a Phase 2 low development mass-reduction analysis to build-on
the  vehicle mass-reduction  efforts  previously  conducted by Lotus  Engineering. The
primary objectives can be summarized as follows:
    1.  Preliminary review and assessment of mass-reduction concepts proposed in Lotus
      phase 1 analysis.
   2.  Research and evaluation of potential vehicle mass-reduction ideas to compliment
      and/or provide additional alternatives to the existing Lotus recommendations.
      Sources of information include but are not limited to:
         a.  OEM and Tl advance production technologies
         b.  OEM and Tl advance technologies currently under development
         c.  Raw Material Suppliers research and development projects in mass
             reduction
         d.  Existing published  studies on the light-weighting  of light-duty vehicles
             (Reference Appendix H3: "Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction Published
             Articles,  Papers,  and  Journals  Used as  Information Sources  in the
             Analysis")
         e.  Alternative industry mass-reduction practices
         f.  Mass-reduction idea generated from internal brainstorming.
   3.  Additional effort in validating Lotus phase 1 ideas and/or any new mass-reduction
      ideas developed with the scope of the project. The validation methodology was
      based mainly at three levels:
         a.  Surrogate production vehicle benchmark data
         b.  Research and Development data from automotive component and  material
             suppliers
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 39

         c. Toyota Venza vehicle specific computer aided design (CAD) and
            engineering (CAE) analysis
   4. Ensure most mass-reduction ideas selected are manufacturing feasible and
      implementation ready for phase-in starting in the 2017 timeframe.
   5. Develop detailed incremental direct manufacturing costs for the adoption of the
      mass-reduced components, with respect to the baseline components, utilizing the
      same detailed costing methodology employed on previous EPA advance
      powertrain technologies cost analyses.
   6. Develop an incremental tooling cost impact for the adoption of the mass-reduced
      components, with respect to the baseline components.
   7. Develop an incremental direct manufacturing cost versus % vehicle mass-
      reduction curve.
Basic high level analysis boundary conditions include the following:
   1. Target vehicle mass-reduction 20% (340kg) total (baseline Venza approximately
      1710kg)
   2. Target vehicle direct manufacturing cost impact 0% increase (i.e., cost neutral)
      with a maximum 10% ($1,671) increase. Manufacturing Suggested Retail Price
      (MSRP) $25,063, Retail Price Equivalent (RPE) 1.5, vehicle direct manufacturing
      cost estimate $16,709 ($25,063/1.5).
   3. All components and assemblies included in the various Toyota Venza vehicle
      subsystems and systems are considered available options for potential mass-
      reduction.
   4. All direct mass-reduction of components (e.g., design and/or material alternatives)
      as well as mass-reduction of components via mass compounding are considered
      viable options. For this  project, mass-reduction compounding refers to the
      reduction of mass of a given component as the result of a reduction in the mass of
      one or several other components.
   5. No functional or performance degradation permitted from the production stock
      Toyota Venza.
   6. No functional or architecture changes to accommodate alternative engine
      technologies (this will be done in a separate calculation in EPA's rulemaking
      modeling). For example:
         a. Downsizing the engine based on adding turbocharging and direct injection
         b. Changing from a traditional 14 internal combustion engine and 6-speed
            automatic transmission to a hybrid powertrain configuration.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 40

     B.1.4    Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis Process Overview

As  previously stated, the Toyota Venza cross-over utility vehicle (CUV) was initially
chosen as the baseline vehicle for evaluating mass-reduction opportunities, for  both the
low- and high-development mass-reduction analyses, in the prior ICCT Phase 1 project.
Since the work conducted by FEV and their contractors,  is an extension of the original
Phase 1 low develop assessment, the Toyota Venza CUV was also evaluated in the phase
2 analysis.

For the Phase 2 analysis, a conscious effort was made to procure a vehicle with a content
level similar to  the one evaluated in the Phase  1  analysis ensuring optimal continuity
between the two studies.  For reference the vehicle identification  number (VIN) for the
2009 Venza evaluated in the Phase 1 analysis is 4T3ZE11A09U002202. The VIN for the
2010 Venza evaluated in the Phase 2 analysis is 4T3ZA3BB1AU036880

The mass-reduction and cost analysis process overview is defined in five (5) process steps
as shown in Figure B-l. Additional details on the processes and tools used in each of the
steps can be found in Sections C and D.
      Stepl
  Baseline
Vehicle Finger
  Printing
Step 2
                       Reduction
                         Idea
                       Generation
Step 3

  Masi-
Reduction &
   Cost
Optimization
  Process
                                                      Step 4
                                 election of
                               Vehicle Mass-
                                 Reduction
                                 Solution
                                                StepB
                                                                        Detailed
 Reduction
Feasi bi I ity and
CostAnalysis

            Figure B-l: Key Steps in the Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis Project
Step 1: "Finger print" the baseline vehicle (i.e., current production Toyota Venza) to gain
a thorough understanding of the vehicle content and key attributes. The process involved
a systematic disassembly of the vehicle capturing key component information in detailed
bill of materials. In addition the finger printing process involved building CAE models of
the some of the  baseline systems,  such  as BIW, to establish  performance  attribute
baselines from which new technology configurations could be validated against.

Step 2: Review and analyze  the  Lotus  mass-reduction ideas as well as research new
potential mass-reduction ideas.  The primary  objective in  step 2  of the process was to
establish a comprehensive list  of mass-reduction ideas at a component level. In addition a
system was established to grade the mass-reduction ideas in terms of implementation
readiness, functionability/performance risk,  value (i.e., cost/mass-reduction),  etc. For
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 41

selected systems (e.g. body-in-white structure) preliminary validation work was initiated
to support grading of the mass-reduction concept.

Step 3: Utilize  an optimization process to determine the best component ideas to move
forward with to develop "best value" vehicle solutions. Mass-reduction ideas were sorted
and grouped at the component level in terms of their value (i.e., cost/kg). Two sets of
rules were established to group components, assemblies/sub-subsystems,  subsystems and
systems in optimized mass-reduced vehicle solutions. The more conservative approach
from  a cost perspective was called the "Low Cost Solution". The approach which
supported more emphasis on mass-reduction versus cost was termed the "Engineered
Solution".

Step 4: Evaluate various vehicle  solutions in terms of the  net mass-reduction, estimated
cost impact and comparison of risk. Based on these parameters the team  chose a vehicle
mass-reduction  solution. The  solution was  a compilation of mass-reduced components,
sub-subsystems, subsystems and systems.

Step 5: Develop a detailed mass-reduction feasibility and cost analysis on the vehicle
solution selected in step 4. The detailed mass-reduction feasibility analysis focused on
developing and refining the component mass-reduction  estimates made in step 2 of the
process. In  addition any validation work required  on the mass-reduction ideas  was
implemented in this step. Once the final details  on the component mass-reduction were
established  incremental cost models  were   established  to  determine  the  direct
manufacturing cost  differences between the baseline production components and new
mass-reduced components.  Mass-reduction  and incremental direct  manufacturing  cost
values were established starting at the component level building up to a vehicle level.

Additional details  on  the  methodology are  coved in Section  D (Mass Reduction
Analysis Methodology) and Section E (Cost Analysis Methodology).

C.    Mass-Reduction and  Cost Analysis Assumptions

C.1   Mass-Reduction Analysis Assumptions

A significant amount of the mass-reduction ideas  presented in this report are based on
implementation of ready bookshelf technologies. By selecting mass-reduction ideas which
are already in production and/or have gone through significant research and development
by OEMs, automotive parts  suppliers  and/or automotive raw  material suppliers, the
implementation risk and manufacturing feasibility  risk are considered far less. The end
result is a list of ideas with high probability of implementation success.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 42

The general,  sources of information used to develop mass-reduction ideas are shown in
Error!  Reference source not found.. In almost all mass-reduction cases, assumptions were
required to take the mass-reduction ideas from surrogate components and transfer them to
Toyota Venza specific components. This included normalizing the surrogate parts sizes
and weights to  Toyota  Venza specific parts  and making high  level engineering
adjustments for function  and performance  differences. Unique for the body-in-white
(BIW) structure portion of the analysis, CAE tools were used to  develop and model the
mass-reduction changes and  evaluate these  changes against the baseline  configuration
using  some industry recognize evaluation procedures. Note because the Body System -
Group A ( BIW and Closures) is the largest system contributor to mass-reduction and is
the primary system associated with crash safety, the additional CAE work was performed.
                                  Ready, Bookshelf    •
                                    Technology
       Figure C-l: Sources of Information used to develop Mass-Reduction Components
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 43

The  introduction of any  new  vehicle technologies for increased function, improved
performance, and/or reduction in mass, does not come without inherent challenges  and
risks. Large dedicated engineering teams at the automotive vehicle manufacturing level
and  automotive  parts supplier  levels spend years developing  components  for vehicle
specific application to ensure the designed components meet the component, subsystem,
system and vehicle function and performance  specifications. A great deal of this work
involves accounting for component interactions  both positively and negatively [e.g.,
Noise Vibration Harshness (NVH), durability, corrosion, calibration, etc.]

Due  to  the nature of this  type  of project, and the inherent analysis  limits (e.g. project
duration,   resources,  facilities, funding,  etc.) the level  of validation which can be
conducted on the components within each vehicle  system, as well  as with assessing the
synergistic impact (both positive and negative) is very limited. Though this doesn't imply
the mass-reduction ideas  are  not viable options.  It  only suggests  that  significant
engineering (i.e., what is normally required to develop a vehicle) is required to design and
develop the mass-reduced components into a vehicle specific application in some cases.
In many industries, especially the automotive industry, benchmarking vehicle components
and technologies  (similar to methodology employed in this analysis) is a significant part
of OEM and supplier research and development and a mechanism  of incubating new
vehicle technologies.

Within the scope of FEV's analysis no consideration is given to the exact quantity  and
timeframe of new mass-reduced technologies introduced  into a vehicle  platform. The
added complexity, associated risk, time period of phase-in, etc. and associated impact to
costs is addressed through the EPA's cost modeling factors (e.g., Indirect Cost Multipliers
[ICM], learning factors).

In Section C.2 below addition information on the cost analysis assumptions are covered.

Within the mass-reduction and cost analysis results sections (Sections E and F) additional
details on the mass-reduction assumption made and level of validation are captured.

C.2    Cost Analysis Assumptions

For both the baseline Toyota Venza components and the new mass-reduced replacement
components the  same universal set of assumptions are utilized in order to  establish  a
constant framework for all  costing.  The  primary assumption is that the  OEM  and
suppliers have the option of tooling up either the baseline components (i.e., production
stock Venza components)  or the mass-reduced components. The same product maturity
levels, manufacturing cost structure (e.g., production volumes, manufacturing locations,
manufacturing period), market conditions,  etc.  exist for either technology. This common
framework for costing  permits reliable comparison of  costs between new  (i.e., mass-
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 44

reduced components) and baseline (i.e., production stock Toyota Venza components)
components.  In  addition,  having  a good understanding  of the  analysis boundary
conditions  (i.e., what assumptions are made in the analysis, the  methodology utilized,
what  parameters  are included  in the final  numbers,  etc.),  a  fair  and  meaningful
comparison  can  be made  between  results  developed  from  alternative  costing
methodologies and/or sources.

Additional  details on the costing factors included in the cost analysis can be found in
Section E.

Table C-l  captures  the primary universal cost analysis assumptions which are applicable
to both the new and  baseline configurations evaluated in the analysis.
-------
                                                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                                                                  March 30, 2012
                                                                                                                          Page 45

Table C-l: Universal Case Study Assumption Utilized in the Mass-Reduction Analysis
             Item
                              Description
          Universal Case Study Assumptions
                   Incremental Direct Manufacturing Costs
                   (Included in the analvsis)
A- Incremental Direct manufacturing cost is the incremental
difference in cost of components and assembly, to the OEM.
between the new technology configuration (i.e.. mass-reduced
components, assemblies) and the baseline technology
configuration (i.e.. the production stock Venza
components--assemblies).

B. This value does not include Indirect OEM costs associated with
adopting the new technology configuration {e.g. tooling, corporate
overhead, corporate R&D. etc.).
                   Increraental Indirect OEM Costs
                   (Not included within the scope of this
                   cost analysis)
A_ Indirect Costs are handled through the application of "Indirect
Cost Multipliers" (ICMs) which are not included as part of this
analysis. The ICM covers items such as	
a. OEM corporate overhead (sales, marketing, warranty, etc.)
b. OEM engineering, design and testing costs (internal & external)
c. OEM owned tooling

B. Reference EPA report EPA-420-R-G9-Q03: February 2009:
"Automobile Industry Retail Price Equivalent and Indirect Cost
Multiplier" for additional details on the develop and application of
ICM factors.

C. Reference EPA & NHTSA: report EPA-420-D-11 -901:
November 2011 "'Draft Joint Technical Support Document:
Proposed Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards & Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards." for additional details on the develop and
application of ICM and learning factors.
                   Incremental Production Tooling Costs
                   (Included in the analysis)
A. Incremental Production Tooling cost is the differential cost of
tooling to the OEM: between tooling up the new technology
configuration (i.e., mass-reduced components' assemblies) versus
the baseline technology configuration (i.e.. the production stock
Venza components'1 assemblies).

B. Analysis assumes all tooling is owed by OEM

C. Tooling includes items like stamping dies, plastic injection
mold, die casting molds, weld fixtures, assembly fixtures, gauges.
etc.
                   Product Technology Maturity Level
A. Mature technology assumption, as defined within this analysis.
includes the following:
a. Well developed product design
b. High production volume (200K-450K, year)
c. Products in service for several years at high volumes
c. Significant market place competition

B. Mature Technology assumption establishes a consistent
framework for costing. For example, a defined range of acceptable
mark-up rates.
a. End-item-scrap 0.3-0.7%
b. SG&A'Corporate Overhead 6-7%
c. Profit 4-8%
d. ED&T (Engineering. Design and Testing) 0-6%

C. The technology maturity assumption does not include
allowances for product learning.  Application of a learning curve
to the calculated incremental direct manufacturing cost is handled
outside the scope of this analysis.
-------
Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
              March 30, 2012
                   Page 46
Item
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Description
Selected Manufacturing Processes and
Operations
Annual Capacity Planning Volume
Supplier Manufacturing Location
OEM Manufacturing Location
Manufacturing Cost Structure
Timeframe
( e.g. Material Costs. Labor Rates.
Manufacturing Overhead Rates)
Packaging Costs
Shipping and Handling
Intellectual Property (IP) Cost
Considerations
Platform Synergies Considerations
Derivative Model Considerations
Material Cost Reductions (MCRs) on
analyzed hardware
Operating and End-of Life Costs
Stranded Capital or ED&T expenses
Universal Case Study Assumptions
A. All operations and processes are based on existing
standard'mainstream Industrial practices.
B. No additional allowance is included in the incremental direct
manufacturing cost for manufacturing learning. Application of a
learning curve to the developed incremental direct manufacturing
cost is handled outside the scope of this analysis.
Toyota Venza Specific Components 200.000 Units
Shared Platform Components 450,000 Units
United States of America
United States of America
2010/201 IProduction Year Rates
A. Calculated on all Tier One (Tl) supplier level components.
B. For Tier 2/3 (T2/T3) supplier level components, packaging
costs are included in Tl mark-up of incoming T2.-T3 incoming
goods.
A. Tl supplier shipping costs covered through application of the
Indirect Cost Multiplier (ICM) discussed above.
B. T2/T3 to Tl supplier shipping costs are accounted for via Tl
mark-up on incoming T2/T3 goods.
Where applicable IP costs are included in the analysis. Based on
the assumption that the technology has reached maturity, sufficient
competition would exist suggesting alternative design paths to
achieve similar function and performance metrics would be
available minimizing any IP cost penalty.
No consideration was given (positive or negative ) to x-platform
synergies. Both the baseline and mass-reduced technology
configurations were treated the same.
a. Common parts used across different models
b. Parts homologated •• validated .' certified for various worldwide
markets
No consideration was given to derivative models. Both the
baseline and mass-reduced technology configurations were treated
the same.
a. 2 wheel. 4 wheel or all wheel drive applications
b. Various engine .-•' transmission options with models
c. Various towing / loading / earning capacities
Only incorporated on those components where it was evident that
the component design and;'or selected manufacturing process was
chosen due to actual low production volumes (e.g. design choice
made to accept high piece price to minimize tooling expense).
Under this scenario, assumptions where made, and cost analyzed
assuming high production volumes.
No new. or modified, maintenance or end-of-life costs, were
identified in the analysis.
No stranded capital or non-recovered ED&T expenses were
considered within the scope of this analysis. It was assumed the
integration of new technology would be planned and phased in
minimizing non-recoverable expenses.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 47
D.     Mass Reduction Analysis Methodology

D.1   Overview of Methodology

As outlined in Section B.I.4, there are five (5) major process steps implemented in the
mass-reduction and cost analysis project. For each of the five (5) process steps involved
in the generic process, two (2) analysis road maps were established based on the type of
analysis work and  project goals required for each (Figure D-l). These two primary
project goals can be summarized as:

   1. Project Task 1: to review the existing Phase 1 Lotus mass-reduction ideas for all
      remaining systems evaluated and assess the implementation risk, manufacturing
      feasibility, and value  (cost/mass-reduction).  The costs calculations referenced in
      the value equations to be detailed and transparent similar to previous powertrain
      cost analyses.  In  cases  where additional  or  greater  value mass-reductions
      component ideas are identified, include them in the analysis.

   2. Project  Task 2: to  validate the body-in-white (BIW)  structural mass-reduction
      ideas recommended by Lotus Engineering using industry-recognized NVH  and
      crash computer  aided  engineering  (CAE) methods and  tools.  If  the  Lotus
      recommended ideas  resulted in degradation to the  baseline  BIW  structure,
      alternative mass-reduction solutions were investigated and validated using industry
      recognized tools and methods.
-------
         Stepl
  Step 2
StepS
Step 4
Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
              March 30, 2012
                  Page 48


         StepS

Baseline
Vehicle Finger
Printing
'
>^^^^^^^k. >•
Mass-
Reduction
Idea
Generation J

Taskl: Non BIW
^
A
Ve**
Teardown,
Measurements,
Baseline BOMs
Development
Analysis Roadmap
•^^h Review, A. ^
Develop, Grade,
and Rank Mass-
Reduction Ideas ^IJF
Initial Idea
Down-Selection

Task 2
\

: BIW Analysis Roadmap
Vehicle
Scanning
Model
Development
and Validation
\ \
LotusBIWMass-
/ Reduction
Model Runs /

Preliminary
Mass-
Reduction
and Cost
Estimates /
Mass-
Reduction
and Cost
Optimization
Process /
Detailed
Mass-
Reduction ,
Feasibility and
Cost Analysis

Preliminaiy
Mass Reduction
and Cost
Estimate H^
Final Idea
Down -Selection
Sort Combine
Mass- Reduction
Ideas into
Optimized
Vehicle Solution
Final Detailed
Mass- Reduction
and Cost
Analysis

\ Elimination of
Unsuccessful /
Lotus Ideas /

\
BIW Lightweight
CAE Design
Optimization /
Process /

\ Detailed Cost
Analysis

               Figure D-l: Project Analysis Roadmaps Based on Project Tacks

Since the mass-reduction objectives were somewhat different for each of the primary
project goals, two roadmaps and two teams were developed to support the work. During
Project Task 1, FEV were lead and their subcontractor Munro and Associates supported
the analysis work; Project Task 2, FEV's subcontractor EDAG took lead on the analysis
and FEV supported.

In the methodology discussion which  follows, the analysis roadmaps for each task are
discussed in detail.

D.2   Project Task One - Non Body-In-White Systems Mass-Reduction and Cost
Analysis

     D.2.1    Baseline Vehicle Finger  Printing
      Procurement
  Vehicle
Measurements
   Vehicle
  Teardown
   Component
   Information
   Acquisition
            Detial System
               Bill of
              Materials
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 49

The process started with the purchase of the baseline vehicle (2010 Toyota Venza, VIN
4T3ZA3BB1AU036880). Along with the vehicle acquisition, additional BIW components
were  purchased upfront  due to  concerns  with damaging  the  BIW  panels  during
disassembly and while scanning the components.

Before  beginning  the disassembly  process,  key vehicle  measurements  were made,
including the four (4) corner vehicle weight, vehicle ground clearance, and positions of
key components (e.g., engine, fuel tank, exhaust, etc.) as assembled in the vehicle. The
global vehicle component positions were attained through a white light scanning  (WLS)
process. The same process was  used to capture the geometry of the  key components
required for the BIW NVH and crash analysis. (More discussion on WLS is captured as
part of Task 2 methodology, Section D.3)

Following the vehicle measurements, a  systematic, detailed vehicle  disassembly process
was initiated. The initial vehicle disassembly process was  initially  completed at a high
level  (e.g.  engine-transmission assembly, door assemblies, rear-hatch assembly, seats,
exhaust assembly). At each  stage of the disassembly process, the same order of events
took place: (1) WLS when applicable, (2) process mapping of part(s) to capture the part
removal process (inverse - part assembly process), (3) photographing of part assembled
and removed from the  vehicle,   and  (4) initial part attributes (i.e.,  part weight and
quantity). As each part was removed from the vehicle, it was logged into a general vehicle
level comparison bill of materials (CBOM).

After the vehicle was completely disassembled, major modules were  further broken down
into respective system groups. For example, the components within the front sub-frame
module  (e.g., brake rotors, brake calipers, drive shafts, suspension struts, springs, etc.)
were removed from the module and grouped in their respective systems (Figure XXX). A
process  similar to the vehicle disassembly process was  followed  ensuring applicable
information was captured (e.g., weight,  geometric size, process map, photographs, WLS
etc.) and recorded for each component. During this step of the process System CBOMs
were  created. All components belonging to a system (e.g. engine, transmission, body,
brakes,  fuel, etc.)  were physically  grouped together and  captured together in  system
CBOM.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 50
Image D-l: 2010 Toyota Venza Front Subframe Module as Removed During the Teardown Process
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

     D.2.2    Mass-Reduction Idea Generation
                     Detailed
                    Assembly
                   Teardown and
                                                            Initial Idea
                                                          Down-Selection
                                                            Process
  Grading of
Mass-Reduction
   Ideas
                  Mass-Reduction
                   lea Generation
Upon completion of assembly part binning and tracking, a parallel and iterative process of
teardown and mass-reduction idea generation was initiated. In general, the assembly level
teardown involved a full, detailed disassembly of parts into the lowest level manufactured
component  forms.  This  involved  both  destructive  and  non-destructive teardown
processes. For example, the fuel tank, shown in Image D-2, was fully disassembled into
the individual  manufactured components.  From  this detailed teardown  an accurate
assessment   of   the   component  materials,  weights,  hidden  design  details,   and
manufacturing processes utilized to manufacture the production stock  Venza fuel tank
were  collected. At  all teardown levels, the bill of materials  were updated tracking key
component information (e.g., parts, quantities, weights, etc.).
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 51
                    Image D-2: Toyota Venza Fuel Tank Disassembled

In parallel to hardware being disassembled, vehicle system leads (i.e., project engineers
responsible for generating mass-reduction ideas for a particular vehicle system) began the
mass-reduction  idea generation process.  The  process  started by  logging  the  Lotus
Engineering Phase 1 report mass-reduction ideas (report name "An Assessment of Mass
Reduction  Opportunities  for a  2017-2020  Model  Year Program")  into the  FEV
Brainstorming Template (FBT). The FBT contains five (5) major sections:

         •   Part 1: General Part Information Entry

         •   Part 2:  Mass Reduction Idea Entry

         •   Part 3: Primary Idea Ranking & Down-Selection Assessment

         •   Part 4: Quantitative Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis Estimation Entry

         •   Part 5: Final Ranking and Down-Selection Process Assessment
In this initial idea generation phase of the analysis, Parts 1 and 2 of the brainstorming
template are completed. In addition to logging all the Lotus Engineering ideas  in the
brainstorming template, modified and new ideas were added based on industry research
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 52

by the vehicle system teams. As shown in Figure C-l, several sources were utilized for
gathering mass-reduction ideas, including automotive vehicle manufacturers, automotive
parts suppliers, raw material suppliers, benchmarking suppliers, and non-automotive part
design and manufacturing technologies. The medium for attaining the information came
from  published articles, papers and journals,  supplier websites,   supplier  published
presentation materials, consultation with suppliers, access to benchmark databases (FEV
internal,  Munro  and  Associates   internal,  EDAG  internal,   A2MAC1  purchased
subscription),  and internal brainstorming  storming sessions. In Appendix  H.3 many of
the published documents reviewed and suppliers contacted are listed.  Also  in Section F,
"Mass-Reduction and  Cost Analysis Results," a significant  amount of the  details
supporting  the  mass-reduction ideas  are captured  (e.g.,  sources  of   information,
applications in production, manufacturing process details, etc.).

All mass-reduction ideas gathered  were  entered  into their respective vehicle  system
brainstorming  templates and connected to the  BOMs via a  standardized number and
naming convention. The process of detailed assembly teardown and generating mass-
reduction ideas was an iterative process  taking approximately one-third of the overall
project duration (four months).

Upon completion of the idea generation phase,  the preliminary idea ranking and down-
selection process began. In  Part 3 of the brainstorming template (Step 1  in  the down
selection process), the ideas were ranked by the team based on a five- (5-) parameter
ranking system: (1) Manufacturing Readiness Risk, (2) Functionality Risk, (3) Estimated
Percent Change in Weight, (4) Estimated Change in Piece cost, and (5) Estimated Change
in Piece Cost  as  a Result of Tooling. As  shown in Figure D-2, there were predefined
ranking values for each  parameter. The potential ranking values for each parameter were
set considering the importance of each parameter within the group. The final idea ranking
is the multiple of the  five  parameter  rankings. The best possible score is 1  (i.e.,
Ixlxlxlxl) which is  representative  of an idea already in  high automotive production,
performs equal to or better than the current production Venza part, is  expected to yield a
20% mass-reduction,  and is cost neutral  or a saving relative to the  current production
piece  cost and tooling. The highest achievable value is 10,500 (i.e., 5x10x10x7x3) which
represents the  opposite  extreme. Since one of the boundary conditions for this analysis
was low development mass-reduction, the majority of the mass-reduction ideas selected
were conservative, thus resulting in a ranking value between 1 and 200.

A ranking  of  50  was  chosen as the  cut-off for the initial down-selection  process. Any
mass-reduction ideas  with a value  greater than  50 were  removed  from  the  analysis;
although, there were a  few  exceptions, dependent on the number of ideas for a given
system.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 53
                              Primary Idea Down-Select Ranking Process
                                                                                    Imf
Manufacturing
Readiness Risk
"Possible for 201 7
Timeframe"
< 1 > High Production
Automotive
< 2 > High Production
Other
< 3 > Low Production
< 5 > Still In
Development/R&D

1
1

/ 2
3
1
Functionality Risk
(Driveability. Performance, Crash)
"Will it work"
< 1 > Equal or Better
< 2 > Vehicle Ancillary Function Degrade
< 5 > Vehicle Minor Primary Function Degrade
< 10 > Vehicle Major Primary Function
Degrade

1
1

1
1
1
Estimated Percent
Change In Weight
< 1 !• 20% or Greater
Decrease
< 2 > 10-20% Decrease
< 3 > 0-10% Decrease
< 10 > Weight Increase

3
3

1
1
3
Estimated Percent
Change In Piece Cost
< 1 > No Change or Decrease
< 2 > 0-10% Increase
< 3 > 10 25% Increase
< 7 > > 25% Increase

2
2

3
7
3
Tooling
Cost/Part
< 1 > Same or
Decrease
< 2 > 0-25%
Increase
< 3 > >25%
Increase

1
1

2
2
2
Total Ranking
Low Ranking - High
Potential Solution WE
High Ranking - Low I
Potential Solution
I
6
6
0
12
42
18
   Figure D-2: Primary Idea Down-Select Process Excerpt from FEV Brainstorming Template
     D.2.3    Preliminary Mass-Reduction and Cost Estimates
                     Mass-Reduction
                       and Cost
                       Estimates
  Final Down-
Selection of Mass-
 Reduction Ideas
Grouping of Ideas
 Based on Value
 (Cost/Kilogram)
Ideas that had an initial ranking  of less  than 50  were  considered as potential  high
probability mass-reduction ideas. The mass-reduction ideas consisted of ideas from the
Lotus Phase 1 report as well as new mass-reduction ideas.

For each of these ideas which made the first cut, the project team  then calculated the
potential mass-reduction and cost impact of each idea. These calculations were high level
calculations  based on initial information gathered for each  idea.  Sources included
benchmark data of surrogate lightweight designs, automotive material and part suppliers,
and high-level engineering estimates based  on material densities, material costs, and
anticipated manufacturing  cost  differences based  on processing  changes.  To reiterate,
these are high-level  calculations  providing  a  more  objective  measure of  the  value
(cost/kilogram) for each mass-reduction idea.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 54

The mass-reduction and cost estimates were added beside each relevant idea in the FEV
brainstorming matrix (Part 4 of the  matrix). Using the estimated  mass, estimated cost
impact, and Total Ranking (Part 3 of FBT), cost-versus-mass and Total Ranking-versus-
mass calculations were made (Figure D-3). The calculated values, found in Part 5 of the
brainstorming template, were used in the final down-selection process when comparing
competing  mass  reduction ideas on a  similar part.  For example,  several alternative
material choices  were available for brake caliper pistons (e.g., forge aluminum, cast
aluminum,  phenolic  plastic, titanium) with  compatible "Total Ranking" values, which
made it difficult to select the best option based on the preliminary  ranking process. The
preliminary quantitative calculations (i.e., cost impact/mass-reduction, total ranking/mass
reduction) provided additional information required to help select the best idea(s) moving
forward in the analysis.



Total Ranking
Low Ranking - High
Potential Solution
High Ranking - Low
Potential Solution

6
6
0
12

Estimate Weight and Cost
Impact on "Best Ranked Idea(s)"
(Total Ranking < 50)
Estimated
Incremental
Weight Change
"kg"


0.048
0.228
6.064
2.282

Estimated
Piece Cost
Impact


-$0.81
-$1.63
$0.67
-$3.02

Final Idea Down-Selection
Using Total Ranking, Unit Weight Save Cost, and Ranking/Incremental Weight Change, Identify Concept
for Evaluation
Unit
Weight
Save Cost
"$/kg"


-$16.97
-$7.15
$0.11
-$1.32

Ranking/Incremental
Weight Change
"Total Ranking #/kg"


125.000
26.316
0.000
5.259


Decision Supporting Information
(if Required)




approx = 2009 Toyota Camry (F 117-108)
given to Manfred@Munro to investigate: assume
hardware costs? machining?
Selected Idea
Add "1a,1b,1c,1d,X
or D" in box for
Selected Concept


X

la
1c

 Figure D-3: Estimated Weight and Cost Impact (Part 4) and Final Ideal Down-Selection (Part 5)
                       Excerpt from FEV Brainstorming Template
In many cases  team members considered together the preliminary rankings (Part 3 of
FBT), the magnitude of the mass-reduction savings (Part 4 of the FBT), and the value of
the mass-reduction ideas (Part 5 of the FBT) to determine the final mass-reduction ideas
to move forward at the component and assembly level.

Upon  completion of the  final  down-selection  process,  mass-reduction ideas were
grouped/binned together based on their value (i.e., cost/kilogram). There are five (5) cost
groups total, plus one group for tracking decontenting ideas that reduce mass, but at the
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 55

sacrifice of function and/or performance (Figure D-4). Decontenting ideas were tracked
in the analysis but never included in the final calculations.

At this stage  of the analysis, only mass-reduction ideas were captured.  These are not
necessarily complete mass-reduced component  or assembly solutions, as  several ideas
may have been combined to formulate a component or assembly solution. The process of
combining ideas occurs in the next phase of the analysis, which is referred to as the mass-
reduction optimization phase.
    Mass-Reduction Idea Grouping
    •Five cost groups were established to group ideas based on their average
    cost/kilogram weight save:
    Level A: < $0.00/kg (i.e., ideas that either save money or add zero cost)
    Level B: >$0.00 to < $1.00
    Level C: >$1.00 to < $2.50
    Level D: >$2.50 to < $4.88
    Level X: > $4.88

    • One additional category exists, which is independent of the cost per weight
    save ratio. This sixth category is referred to as the "Decontenting" category
    (Level Z) and is reserved for ideas which degrade a systems
    function/performance by employing the  mass reduction idea.

    • Decontenting can occur at various functional levels: (1) comfort convenience
    components (e.g. cup holders, DVD  player, storage concealer), (2) secondary
    support components (e.g. spare tire, jack), or (3) at a primary function level
    (e.g. downsized engine w/ less horsepower)
      Figure D-4: Mass-Reduction Idea Grouping/Binning Bases on Mass-Reduction Value
     D.2.4   Mass-Reduction and Cost Optimization Process
      Optimization         Optimization                        Optimization
        ,__              , __                             ' , __            selection ot
       of Mass-   ^^      of Mass-   ^^    Optimization of         Of Mass-          Qntimijed  ^^
                                      iiA^^^ n^.^..,	1         Darliirarl          fcT|**	4 = W
       Reduced    ^.     Reduced    ^.    Mass-Reduced         Reduced
      Vehicle Sub-          Vehicle          vehicle systems         Vehicle
      _ •               _ .                               _ .               Solution
      Subsystems          Subsystem                          Solutions
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 56

The next step in the process was to take the down-selected mass-reduction ideas and find
an optimal solution based on mass and cost.  The goal was to combine as many mass-
reduction ideas to achieve the targeted 20% vehicle mass-reduction, at the lowest possible
incremental cost,  at the lowest 2017 production implementation ready risk (design  and
manufacturing).

To  achieve an optimized vehicle solution,  mass-reduction  ideas were combined to
formulate mass-reduced components and assemblies (also referred to as sub-subsystems).
Mass-reduced components and assemblies were combined into mass-reduced vehicle
subsystems; mass-reduced subsystems were combined to  create mass-reduced vehicle
system solutions;  and, finally, mass-reduced vehicle systems solutions were combined to
formulate optimized mass-reduced vehicle solutions.

Upfront it is very difficult to predict which components, subsystem, or systems offer the
best value relative to mass-reduction until they are evaluated in detail against one another.
From the mass-reduction idea level to the vehicle level, all possible combinations were
reviewed and compared for the best value.

To help  explain the optimization methodology, a mock brake system example will be
used as the reference system. The same process is employed for all vehicle systems. The
starting point is combining mass-reduction ideas into various component and assembly
mass-reduced options. Shown in Figure D-5, the front rotor has 10 different ideas which
can be combined into several different combinations  to create different mass-reduced
rotors  with different  cost impacts  (i.e.,  cost/kilogram).  Note,  not all ideas can  be
combined together, as some  are  alternative options within the same or different cost
group. Similar to how  mass-reduction ideas  are  grouped/binned into different value
groups, the sample methodology applies to  components/assemblies, subsystems,  and
systems.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 57
Mass-Reduction Ideas => Mass-Reduced Component/ Assembly Options
( Exarrmle: Front Rotor)
Cost Group: A
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"


A
<$0

IDEA#1 ^
Reduce Rotor
Thickness
IDEA#2 ^ j
Reduce Rotor
Diameter

RotorO
#1 is pla
the Low
Solut
Assem
Compo
Mas
Reduc
Mat


ption
ced in
Cost
bly/
nent
s
iton
rx
Cost Group: B
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"

B
>$o.oo -
<$1.00


IDEA #3 "Vj
Vent/Slot Rotor I
IDEA #4
Cross-Drill Rotor
IDEA #5 ^
Drill Holes in
Rotor Top Hat
Surface



Cost Group: C
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"
Cc
>$1.00-
<$2.50
r ROTOR ^
Option # 1
IDEA#1
IDE A #2
IDE A #3
IDE A #4
IDE A #5
IDE A #6 +
IDE A #7 +
$1.35/kg

Cost Group: C
Subgroup C
Range >$1.00-
"$/kg" S$2.50
|r IDEA m \j
II Rotor ID Scaliping 1
1 (Hat Perimeter)
^ IDEA #7 \|
Rotor CD
Scaliping
J

\-
^
Cost Group: D
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"

D
>$2.50-
<$4.88

C IDEA #8 ""
Change to
Ceramic Rotor
v J



Cost Group: D
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"
De
>$2.50-
<$4.88
r ROTOR ^
Option #2
IDEA#1
IDE A #2
IDE A #3
IDE A #4
IDE A #5
IDE A #6 +
IDE A #7 +
$3.56/kg
Cost Group: X
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"

X
>$4.88


IDEA #9
1 2 PC Rotor Design
(Iron&CF)
1 J
( IDEA #10 ^
Change to
Composite Rotor
v J



Rotor Option
#2 is placed in
the
Engineered
Solution
Assembly/
Component
Mass
Reduciton
Matrx
           Figure D-5: Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Optimization Process

Two sets of boundary conditions were established to standardize how mass-reduced ideas
were grouped into component/assembly solutions.  The first set of boundary conditions
drives  toward a more  cost conscious solution labeled the "Low  Cost  Solution." The
second set of boundary conditions  allows more expensive mass-reduction ideas  to be
integrated with lower cost ideas and is referred to  as the "Engineered Solution." These
same two sets of boundary conditions apply throughout the analysis at all levels (i.e., the
subsystem, system, and vehicle level).

The simplest way to explain the difference between  the two methodologies is with the aid
of Figure D-5. In Option #1, Ideas #1 through #7 were summed to develop a mass-reduce
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 58

front rotor. The cost impact is $1.35/kg, which puts the component solutions into  Cost
Group C. Because all the ideas included in the combined solution are taken from the cost
group bins equal to or lower than Cost Group C (i.e., Cost Group A, Cost Group B and
Cost Group C), the final solution is considered a "Low Cost Solution." In Option #2, Idea
#9 is  grouped with Ideas #1 through #7 to create a mass-reduced front rotor falling in
Cost Group D ($3.56/kg).  Because the mass-reduced rotor combines more  expensive
ideas  (Cost Group X) with better value ideas (Cost Groups A, B, and C), the solution is
termed an Engineered Solution. An Engineered Solution can include mass-reduction ideas
above and below the final solution.

At the completion of idea combining phase of the analysis, various brake subsystems  exist
(e.g. Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem,  Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem,
Parking Brake and Actuation  Subsystem, Brake  Actuation Subsystem) populated  with
mass-reduced component solutions. Each subsystem has an Engineering Solution matrix
and a Low Cost Solution matrix. The Engineering  Solution Matrix (Figure D-6) has
mass-reduced  component/assembly  solutions  built  using the  Engineered  Solution
methodology. The intent is to try and have a component mass-reduction solution for every
cost group, though this  was very difficult within the timing  constraints of the project.
Conversely,  a Low Cost Solution matrix  exists, built using the Low Cost Solution
methodology.

The same methodology for combining mass-reduction  ideas into component/assembly
mass-reduced  solutions  is  used for  combining  components/assemblies into brake
subsystems.  The only difference,  starting at the  subsystem build-up level and moving
forward,  engineered component  solutions  are used to  create  engineered subsystem
solutions  and subsystem engineered  solutions are  used to  create engineered  system
solutions.  The subscript "e"  (e.g., Ae,  Be, Ce, De,  and Xe) identifies the component ideas
as Engineered Solutions (Figure D-6). The same principles apply for Low Cost Solutions:
subscript "c" identifies Low Cost Solutions.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 59
Components
Included In
Subsystem
1 . Mass-Reduced
Rotors
2. Mass-Reduced
Dust Shields
3. Mass-Reduced
Brake Capilers
4. Mass-Reduced
Pad Kits
5. Mass-Reduced
Caliper Brackets
•Same Pro<
for Low C
Subs
•Built-up u;
Solution
Assem
Mass
Reduced (MR) Componenets Options => Mass-Reduced Subsystem Options
(Example: Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem (FRDSS) )
Cost Group: A
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"

Ae
<$0

I Rotor
Option #2


Brake Caliper
Option #2

Option #2
[Caliper Bracket 1
Option #2

:ess Repeated
ost Solution
ystems
;ing Low Cost
Component
bly Matrix





Cost Group: B
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"

Be
>$o.oo -
<$1.00

Dust Shield
Option #2


Brake Caliper
Option #3


Caliper Bracket
Option #3




Cost Group: B
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"
Be
>$o.oo -
<$1.00
r~ ~\
' FRDSS Option
#2
Rotor #2 +
Dust Sh eld #3 +
Brake Caliper #4 +
Pad Kit #2
Caliper Brkt #4
$0.93/kg



Cost Group: C
Subgroup
Ce
Range >$1.00-
"$/kg" <$2.50

Rotor
Option #3

Brake Caliper 1
Option #4

Caliper Bracket 1
Option #4


V

1
,
V
Cost Group: D
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"

De
>$2.50-
<$4.88

Rotor
Option #4

Dust Shield
Option #3

Brake Caliper
Option #5


Cost Group: D
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"
De
>$2.50-
<$4.88
FRDSS Option '
#4
Rotor #3 +
Dust Shield #4 +
Brake Caliper #6 +
Pad Kit #2
Caliper Brkt #2
$4.40/kg
J


Cost Group: X
Subgroup Xe
Range
>$4.88

Dust Shield
Option #4

1 Brake Caliper 1
Option #6

Pad Kit
Option #3






      Figure D-6: Subsystem Mass-Reduction Optimization Process - Engineered Solution

At the brake  system level, mass-reduced Brake Engineered Subsystem  Solutions are
grouped to create Brake Engineered System Solutions for several Cost Groups as shown
in Figure D-7. The same process applies for Low Cost Solutions. The same process was
followed for all 17 vehicle systems.
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                           March 30, 2012
                                                                                Page 60
       Subsystems Included In
           System

     1. Front Rotor/Drum and Shield
     Subsystem (FRDSS)

     2. Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield
     Subsystem (RRDSS)

     3. Parking Brake and Actuation
     Subsystem (PBAS)

     4. Brake Actuation Subsystem
     (BAS)
     5. Hydraulic Power Brake
     Subsystem (HPBS)

     6. Brake Controls Subsystem
     (BCS)
Mass-Reduced Subsystem Options => Mass-Reduced System Options
(Example: Brake System)
Cost Group: A
Subgroup
Range
"S/kg"
Ae
$o.oo -
<$1.00
IFRDSS
Option #2



PBAS ||
Option #2


I HPBS
Option #2



Cost Group: A
Subgroup
Range
"S/kg"
Ae
>$o.oo -
<$1.00
Brake System
Option #1
FRDSS #1 +
RRDSS #1 +
PBAS #2 +
BAS#1
HPBSffl
$-0.26/kg
^ J



Cost Group: C
Subgroup Ce
Range >$l.OO -
"S/kg" £$2.50

BAS
Option #2
f HPBS 1
[ Option #3 J

1

r]^\
W
Cost Group: D
Subgroup
Range
"S/kg"
De
>$2.50-
<$4.88
FRDSS
Option #3
RRDSS
Option #2



BAS
Option #3

Cost Group: C
Subgroup
Range
"S/kg"
Ce
>Si.oo-
<$2.50
s \
Brake System
Option #2
FRDSS #2 +
RRDSS #3 +
PBAS #2 +
BAS #3
HPBS #2
$2.33/kg
^. J

Cost Group: X
Subgroup Xe
"7?, > 54.88
S/kg

IRRDSS
Option #3

BAS
Option #4
HPBS
Option #4


        Figure D-7: System Mass-Reduction Optimization Process - Engineered Solution
The vehicle optimization process is completed using a similar methodology as previously
detailed. Four different vehicle optimization processes are performed. Similar to the
subsystem and system levels  above  Low Cost Vehicle  Optimized Solutions  (C) and
Engineering Vehicle  Optimized (E) Solutions  are developed. In addition a Low Cost
Vehicle Optimized Solution is  developed using system solutions from both the Low Cost
systems matrix and Engineering Solution systems matrix; designated Low Cost Vehicle
Optimized Solution (C&E) in  Figure D-8. Similarly an Engineering Vehicle Optimized
Solution is developed using system solutions from both the Low Cost systems matrix and
Engineering Solution systems matrix.
-------
                                                             Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                           March 30, 2012
                                                                                Page 61

Figure  D-8 shows  the  various  optimized vehicle  solutions  plotted in  terms  of
cost/kilogram versus  %Vehicle mass-reduction. Based on the data, the team chose the
Low Cost Vehicle Optimized Solution (C&E), which was estimated to reduce the vehicle
mass by 20% at an estimated cost of $0.82/kilogram.
                    Toyota Venza Mass-Reduction Versus S/kg
    $5.000
2
g>  $2.000
5
o
0
                                                                          —*— Low Ccst Solution [C&E)

                                                                          —»—Enginea&d Solution
                                                                            (C&E)
                                                                            Low Cost Solution (C)

                                                                            EngineHed Solution |E1
                           Percent Vehicle Mass Reduction
 Figure D-8: Potential Mass-Reduction Vehicle Solutions Developed Through the Mass-Reduction
                                   Optimization Process
     D.2.5    Detailed Mass-Reduction Feasibility and Cost Analysis
  failed Mass-
  Reduction
Calculations and
  Feasibility
   Analysis
                                        Detailed Mass-
                                        Reduction Cost
                                          Analysis
Development of
Final Cost Curve
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 62

Upon the selection  of the optimized vehicle solution, and the  mass-reduction ideas
associated with the  optimized vehicle solution, the detail analysis could begin. In the
detail mass-reduction feasibility analysis additional engineering work was employed to
verify the mass-reduction ideas  were feasible both from the design and manufacturing
feasibility perspective. The additional work was centered  on expanding the supporting
portfolio of information gathered on the mass-reduction ideas using the  same types of
sources and methodology  as  used  in  the initial idea  generation  phase including:
researching  existing industry published works in mass-reduction, reference data from
production benchmark databases, and speaking with material suppliers, automotive part
suppliers, and alternative transportation industry suppliers. The research, the partnerships
involved in the analysis, study assumptions, and calculations are all discussed in detail in
Section F ("Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis Results"). This includes the assumptions
on  those systems (e.g., engine, brakes,  suspension,  fuel, body-in-white) which  took
additional mass-reduction credit based on the entire vehicle getting lighter (i.e., mass
compounding credit).

In some cases, the ideas originally selected for the detailed analysis did not work out.
When this  occurred, the team returned to the brainstorming template for similar value
mass-reduction ideas to try and ensure their system target mass-reductions and costs were
maintained.  In other cases new alternative, better value ideas were discovered as  part of
the detailed analysis. When this occurred, the new, greater value mass-reduction ideas
replaced the  original  lessor  value  mass-reduction   ideas. From  a  mass-reduction
perspective, some systems went up slightly from the original mass-reduction optimization
model while others came down  by similar amounts. Overall the difference between the
originally predicted  mass-reduction, from  the  optimized  vehicle  solution, to the  final
detailed model, for  all systems other than Body Group  -A- (body-in-white, bumpers,
closures) was approximately +1% (greater mass-reduction for the detailed analysis).

The original target for the Body  Group -A- system analysis was approximately 20% from
a system perspective, or 6.2% relative to the total vehicle mass-reduction. With  project
timing constraints, the Body Group -A- system mass-reduction system target was reduced
to 16%, or 5% relative to the vehicle. The achieved Body Group -A- mass-reduction was
12.8% relative to  the system, 4% relative to the vehicle.  Details on the body-in-white
targets can be found in the following section (Section D.3).

Complete details  on the costing methodology utilized in  this analysis can be found in
Section E. In addition a summary of the costing results  can be found in Section F.I.
Details on the costing assumptions made in the analysis can also be found in the various
system, subsystem, and sub-subsystem sections within Section F of the report.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 63

In summary, there was a shift in the cost impact between the original optimized vehicle
solution and the final detailed solution. The original optimized vehicle solution predicted
a cost increase of $0.82/kg for a 20% vehicle mass-reduction.  In the final detailed
analysis, a 18.5% mass-reduction yielded a $0.29/kilogram savings. The difference is not
so surprising as the inflection point in Figure D-10  is right  around the  16% mass-
reduction  point. At 15%vehicle mass-reduction  there  is an  approximate savings of
$0.33/kg.  At 18%  vehicle mass reduction there is  a positive cost impact (i.e., cost
increase) of approximately $0.66/kg.

Because  many of the detailed costing spreadsheet  documents generated  within this
analysis are too large to be shown in their entirety,  electronic  copies can be accessed
through     EPA's      electronic      docket     ID     EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799
(http;//www.regulations.gov).
D.3   Project Task Two - Body-In-White Systems Mass-Reduction and Cost
Analysis

The following section deals with detail methodology in developing the mass-reduction for
Body Group -A- [body-in-white (BIW) structures, bumpers, and closures]. As mentioned
in Section D.I,  the portion of the analysis was subcontracted to EDAG due to their vast
experience in BIW design and development.

To keep with the integrity of the work performed by EDAG, their report was included in
the overall report in  its entirety.
     D.3.1    Introduction

The team evaluated the body system of a Toyota Venza using computer-aided engineering
(CAE). vehicle noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH)  and crash load cases were built
based on physical NVH test requirements and regulatory crash and safety requirements
respectively. CAE baseline models for each of the NVH and crash-load cases were built
and simulated to correlate the CAE results with the test results of a similar vehicle (in this
case, the 2009  Toyota Venza with panoramic roof). Upon verifying the  model quality
based on EDAG CAE guidelines and meeting the correlation targets (<5% difference),
the EDAG baseline model was treated as the baseline reference for further development
of NVH and crash-iteration models and lightweight optimization processes.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 64

A detailed CAE evaluation of the body structure for the lightweight design of the Toyota
Venza is described in this section. The weight reduction and cost effect of the lightweight
design are  also presented, along with the CAE  evaluation cases including structural
strength (torsion,  bending, and modal) and regulatory crash requirements (flat frontal
impact FMVSS208/US NCAP; 40% offset frontal Euro NCAP;  side impact FMVSS214;
rear impact FMVSS301; and roof crush resistance FMVSS216A/IIHS).
D.4   Body System CAE Evaluation Process

A CAE  evaluation was conducted based  on EDAG's standard best practice of re-
engineering process. It includes vehicle teardown, parts scanning, and data collection of
vehicle parts to build a full vehicle CAE model without the use of actual design drawings
or CAD data. The typical CAE evaluation process followed for this project is shown in
Figure D-9. Various  inputs, outputs, and tools used for the steps in  each process are
provided in Figure D-10.
        Phase 1: Data Generated from Toyota Venza
                  Figure D-9: CAE Evaluation Process and Components
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 65
Phase 1: Data Generated from Toyota Venza

t
ut
>
Vehicle Tear Down
S
Physical
Property
Repair
Manuals
Systems and
Parts Weight
and
Dimensions
\ Vehicle Scan
Body
Structure
Other parts
(Powertrain,
Chassis. 1
Systems and
Parts Scan
Geometry
Weld points
Locations
>8uik) Initul
FEA Model
Material
Coupon
Scan Data
EDAG CAE
Modeling
Guidelines
««alBlP
FEA Model
Validate a
Material Spec
Phase 2: Data Generated from the FEA
Models
>FEAModel ^V Crash FEA
Validation J Model Butt)
Physical Body
In-Prime |BIP|
Testing
NVHand
Stiffness
results
correlation
E DAG Expertise in Virtual Validation and Model Generation
S
j
E
EDAG Tear
Down/
Benchmark
Guidelines
Garage
Services
White Light
Scan
Ansa
Advanced
EOAGFEA
Software for
Model Quality
Check
Sensitivity
Analysis
Software
EDAG CAE
Guidelines
Initial Crash
Vehicle FEA
Model
> Crash FEA \
Model
CompansKxi j
Physical
Vehicle
Crash
Crash results
Comparison
* Delme ^
} Comparison
' Factors ^ifl

intrusion
Values
Crash Pulse
EDAG Engineering (CAE and Vehicle integration i Expertise
Ansa
Advanced
EDAG FEA
Software for
Mode! Quality
Check
LS-Oyna
A3 Animator
EDAG
Results
DataBase
and Tools

              Figure D-10: CAE Evaluation Process Inputs, Outputs, and Tools
D.5   Vehicle Teardown

Phase 1 : Data Generated from Toyota Venza

t
Ut
s
J

Physical
Property
Repair
Manuals
Systems and
Pans weight
and
Dimensions
EDAOE
EDAG Tear
Down/
Benchmark
Guidelines
Garage
Phase 2: Data Generated from the FEA
Models
\v. . N BuHdmmal \ FEA Model \ Cf.shFEA \ CH££* \r<1£±!Lr
^ «,n^ FEAMOtfe, \ Vafctotlon ^^^ >c^MI>c™<»£*' 3
Body Material Physical Body-
Structure. Coupon in-Prime (BIP)
Other parts Scan Data Testing
(Powertrain. EOAGCAC
Chassis. .) Modeling
Guidelines
Systemsand MNtalBB? NVHand
PartsScan FEA Model Stiffness
Geometry Validated results
weld points Material Spec, correlation
Locations
lertse in virtual validation and Model Generation
Ansa
White Light Advanced Sensitivity
Scan EDAG FEA Analysis
Software for Software
Model Quality
Check

EOAGCAE Physical
Guidelines Vehicle
Crash
initial Crash Crash results intrusion
vehicle FEA Comparison values
Model Crash Pulse
EDAG Engineering (CAE and Vehicle Integration) Expertise
Ansa
Advanced EDAG
EDAG FEA ^1^0, Resu«s
Software for DataBase
Model Qualrty and Tools
Check

                            Figure D-ll: Vehicle Teardown

A Toyota 2010 Venza was  purchased and completely  disassembled by skilled body
technicians. Toyota body repair manuals were used to aid in disassembly of vehicle. Part
details and metadata crucial for building  the  CAE model (such as part weight and
thickness) were obtained and recorded in an assembly hierarchy (see Figure D-12).
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 66
                                                      ¥
              Vehicle Database (OB)
                • Pictures
                • Part Id. Part Name, Gauge
                •Part Weight, Material
                         Figure D-12: Vehicle Teardown Process

A few more disassembled body parts used in the CAE model are shown in Appendix A
(see Section A. 1).

EDAG's project scope was to calculate a reduction in body weight for the EDAG baseline
model; major  subassembly weights were calculated and tabulated. This information was
used as the baseline weights in the CAE evaluation process (Table D-l).
Area
System
Closures
BIW
BIW Extra
Bumper
Sub-system
Door Frt
Door RR
Hood
Tailgate
Fenders
Sub-Total
Underbody Asy
Front Structure
Roof Asy
Bodyside Asy
Ladder Asy
Sub-Total
Radiator Vertical Support
Compartment Extra
Shock Tower Xmbr Plates
Sub-Total
Bumper frt
Bumper rear
Sub-Total
Edag Target System Total
Baseline
System Mass
53.2
42.4
17.8
15.0
6.8

40.2
42.0
31.3
161.9
102.6

0.7
4.5
3.1

5.1
2.4


Sub-Total





135.3





378.0



8.2


7.5
528.9
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 67
                             Table D-l: Baseline Weights
D.6   Vehicle Scanning


K u
Phase 1: Data Generated from Toyota Venza Phase 2: Data Generated from the FEA
^^^^^^ Models
1 Vehicle rear Down
Phyriol
Property
t R*p*ir
Mwiu*It
—
Systems and
Parts Weight
Output and
Dimensions
•

EDAG El
EDAG Tear
TOOlS Down/
Used Benchmark
Guidelines
Garage
I Services



Body
Structure
Other pcrts
Chassis. 1
Systems end
PamJcan
Geometry
Weld points
locations
wruem Virtual Vain
White Light
Scan
V ButfdlrMul X FEA Model X Oath FEA X ClJttEfA \r
> FEA-od,, > v^wn >Mod.,8«i« >co^;w >cr£xr J
MMerwl Kriyncil Body-
Coupon in-Prime (SIP)
Son 0»t« >-.•.-,-
COM CM
Modelmi
Guidelines
m*.iBii> NVHand
FEA Model Stiffness
v»lid«te<) resu«s
MMerinspec correlation
ibon and Model Generation
Ansa
Advanced Sensitivity
EDAG FEA Analysis
Software (or Software
Model Quality
Check

EDAG CAE Physical
Guidelines Vehicle
Crash
Initial Crash Crash results intrusion
Vehicle FEA Comparison v.ioei
Model Cr«sh Pulse
EDAG Engineering (CAE and Vehicle Integration) Expertise
Ansa
Advanced EDAG
EOAGFEA JS22J, Results
Software for DataBase
Model Quality and Tools
Check

                            Figure D-13: Vehicle Scanning

One of the most critical inputs for building the finite element analysis model (FEA) was
the digital format of the geometry of the body parts.  The geometry of each part was
obtained by  using White Light  Scanning (WLS) techniques and  stored in stereo
lithography (STL) format. As the vehicle was disassembled, the scanning was performed
simultaneously with the vehicle teardown process starting  with the full vehicle before
disassembling,  then progressing  to the subsystem level, and lastly moving  to  the
component level.

Even though the WLS focused on body parts, it also included the powertrain, chassis, and
miscellaneous parts needed for a full vehicle FEA model. The parts required for scanning
were determined  based on the analysis load cases (NVH and crash) considered for the
CAE evaluation. The parts required for scanning were used  to determine the FEA model
for analyzing the  NVH and crash load cases. Figure D-14 shows a typical methodology
of identifying the parts  for scanning.  In addition to part geometry, the part connection
(such as location and type, e.g., spot weld, seam weld, laser weld), dimensions (e.g., weld
diameter, weld length), and characteristics (e.g., bushing) were also captured during the
scanning process.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 68
                                I  Sel Target FEA Load Cases J
                                       ~T
                            [ Identify system configuration for Load Cases J

Reference NVH
FEA Models
I Reference Crash
FEA Models
V
Analyze
Stress & Strain Density
& Concentration for
. Major Systems .

Analyze
Load Path & Deforming
Behavior for
. Major Systems ,
                              Inlegralmg & Filtenng Major & Minor Parts
                                   Identify & Determine
                            minimum required sub-systems and components
             Figure D-14: White Light Scanning Part Identification Methodology

A few sample images of raw STL data of the body structure parts obtained by WLS are
shown in Figure A.2.1 in Appendix A. An example of the weld point locations captured
from the scanning process is also shown in Figure A.2.2 in Appendix A.
D.7    Initial FE Model

A finite element (FE) model was constructed using finite element mesh (from geometry
data), part-to-part connection data, and part characteristics (material data). The geometry
and  connection data were  obtained  from the scanning process. The part material  data,
such as steel grades, were obtained by conducting material tests on the corresponding part
samples.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 69
         Input
         Tools
         Used
Phase 1: Data Generated from Toyota Venza Phase 2: Data Generated from the PEA

• >
Vehicle Tear Down
s
Physical
Property
t Rep«r
Mmah


Systems and
Parts Weight
Ut and
Dimensions

Models
> \^ BualdMiil \ FEAModel \ CrashFEA
" J FEA Model / VaMlUon y Model Butt)
Bod,
Structure
Other parts
(Powertrain,
Cham-, I

Systems end
Parts Scan
Geometry
Weld points
locations
E DAG Expertise in Virtual val
EDAG Tear
S Down;
J Benchmark
Guidelines
r Garage
Services

White Light
Scan


Mater ill
Coupon
Scan Data
E DAG WE
Modflin,
Guidelines
initial BlP
FEA Model
Validated
Material Spec

labon and Model Ge:
An sa
Advanced
EOAGFEA
Software for
Model Quality
Check
Physical Body
In-Prime |BIP|
Testing



NVHand
Stiffness
results
correlation

mHa

Sensitivity
Analysis
Software

EDAGCAE
Guidelines



initial Crash
Vehicle FEA
Model


>Cr«»hFEA >
Model
CompaniKxi j

Physical
Vehicle
Crash


Crash results
Comparison


. Define ^B
} Comparison
' Factors ^
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 70
                    Image D-3: Mesh Generation from STL Raw Data

The raw STL data (e.g., the fuel tank) was imported into the meshing tool. The geometry
was then cleaned and meshed as per EDAG meshing quality standards. The meshed parts
were assembled by using the connection data captured from the scanning process. EDAG
CAE guidelines[2][3] were followed in building the complete vehicle assembly hierarchy.
Image D-4  shows the completely assembled FE model of  the Toyota Venza  body
structure.
                  Image D-4: FE Model of Toyota Venza Body Structure
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 71

The initial FE model was built with body-in-prime (BIP) assembly for NASTRAN for
NVH load cases of bending stiffness, torsion stiffness, and natural  frequency modal
analysis. It consisted of all the body-in-white (BIW) parts (welded body parts) and a few
bolt-on parts needed for NVH analysis. The gauge (thickness) and material data for each
part were incorporated  into the model accordingly. Image D-5 represents the gauge map
for the  BIP. Image D-6 represents the material grades map for BIP, which,  with the
exception of the aluminum rear bumper, is made up of all steel components.
          0.5mm to 0.8 mm
                                                                 Above 2.00mm

                                                      1.60mm to 2.00 mm
\
                      Image D-5: Gauge Map of Baseline BIP Model
-------
                                                                                   Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                                                              Page 72
                              Image D-6: Material Map of Baseline BIP Model
D.8     FEA Model Validation—Baseline  NVH Model
                  Phase 1: Data Generated from Toyota Venza
                                    Phase 2. Data Generated from the FEA
                                    Models
                         Phytttl

                         Property
                         Repair
                         V!",.!-.
                        Physical Body
                        in.Prime (BIP
                          Testing
  Body
 Structure
Other parts
(Powertrwn.
 Coupon
Scan Data
EDAG CAS
Madeline
Guidellnei
                       Systems and
                       Pansweigm
                          and
                       Ditnensions
Systems and
 Pacts Scan
 Geometry
Weld points
 locations
             Initial BIP
             FEA Model
             validated
            Material Spec
            NVH and
            Stiffness
             results
            correlation
Initial Crasn
Vernde FEA
  Modal
Crash results
Conpatoofl
                            EOAG Expertise in Virtual validation and Model Gi
                                                                          EOAG Engine«nng (CAE jndVehiaelnleor»on)Exp«rti!e
                        EDAG Tear
                         Down/
                        Benchmark
                        Guidelines
              Ansa
             Advanced
            EDAGFEA
            So (ware for
            Model Quality
              Check
                                       Ansa
                                     Advanced
                                     EDAG FEA
                                     Software for
                                    Mode) Quality
                                       Check
            Sensitivity
             Analysis
             Software
              LS-Dyna
             A3 Animator
                        Figure D-16: FEA Model Validation: Baseline NVH Model
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 73

The initial FE model needed to be validated in order to obtain a realistic analytical model
that represented the  real-world test vehicle. The following NVH and static  load cases
were chosen to validate the initial FE model.

   •  Static Bending Stiffness

   •  Static Torsional Stiffness

   •  Modal frequency

The validation  was carried  out  by correlating  the analytical results of each load case
against the corresponding physical test results.

      D.8.1  Model Statistics

The NVH model consisted of the BIP model including radiator support, glass, front, and
rear bumpers. The meshed model of the Toyota Venza baseline model contained 434 parts
made up of 720,323 shell elements and 7,913 solid elements.

The necessary load case  specific boundary conditions were incorporated into the model
using a commercially available pre-post tool and then analyzed using the MSC Nastran
solver. The model setup in terms of boundary and load conditions is explained in detail
for each of the NVH load cases.  Figure D-7 shows the NVH model  before incorporating
the boundary and load conditions.
                      Image D-7: Toyota Venza Initial NVH Model
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 74
D.8.1.1 Static Bending Stiffness
In the bending stiffness model, the BIP was constrained and loaded as shown in Image D-
8. The rear-left shock tower was constrained in the x-, y-, and z-axes; the rear-right shock
tower was constrained in the x- and z-axes; the front left shock tower was constrained in
the  y- and z-axes; and the front right shock  tower was constrained in the z-axis. A
bending load of 2,224N was applied at the center of the front and rear seats.
                       FORCE - 2 22e»03
                                          FORCE • 2 22e*03
           Image D-8: Loads and Constraints on NVH Model For Bending Stiffness

The calculation of bending stiffness was done by measuring Z-displacement in the rocker
section area, noting the maximum displacement on each measured location.
                      Bending Stiffness =
                                              Total Force
                                         Maxium Displacement
D.8.1.2 Static Torsion Stiffness

The torsion stiffness BIP model was constrained and loaded, as shown in Image D-9. The
rear-left shock tower was constrained in the x-, y-, and z-axes; the rear-right shock tower
was  constrained in the x and  z-axes. Additionally, the center of the  front bumper is
constrained  in the  z-direction. Vertical  loads  of  1,200N  were  applied  in opposite
directions on the left and  right-front shock  towers. Torsional stiffness was  calculated
from the applied load and deflection.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 75
                            FORCE = 1.20e*03
           Image D-9: Load and Constraints on NVH Model For Torsional Stiffness

The calculation of torsion stiffness is done by calculating the angular displacement of the
BIP. The average of the Z-displacement (Z) at the shock tower is calculated, and then the
distance between the shock towers (D) was measured. The angular displacement (w) is
calculated as ATAN (Z/D).
                Torsion Stiffness = Total Force * Angular Displacement
D.8.1.3 Modal Frequency

For a vehicle to be dynamically stiff, it is important to have high natural frequencies for
the global modes. In the modal frequency analysis model, MSC Nastran SOL 103[4], was
used with no boundary conditions.  It is  a free-free (no boundary condition, no initial
condition) natural frequency analysis within a given frequency range of 0-100Hz. This
was defined with the help of the NASTRAN PARAM control cards in which the input
and output requirements were embedded with the EIGRL card.

      D.8.2 FE Model Validation

The validation of the CAE model was carried out in three different steps based on EDAG
expertise and engineering knowledge. A  summary of the model validation and EDAG
CAE baseline model creation is depicted in Figure D-17.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 76




2009 Venza
Test Data


2009 Venza
CAE Model


2010 Venza
Full Roof Model



—


Step I
Physical Property

Physical Test
+ *
Test BIP
Configuration
— *
Test Results
Static Stiffness & Modal

Step II
Build Analytical Model

Analytical Test
* +
Create EDAG BIP
Test Configuration



Run Analytical Test
Compare to Physical Test Results
I
Correlate Model

Step III
Build Baseline NVH Model

Analytical Test
* *
Create EDAG BIP
EDAG Configuration
	 »
Run Analytical Test
Establish Baseline NVH Results




                   Figure D-17: Process Flow to Build Baseline Model

Step-I: NVH test  setup.  Collect NVH test results for the 2009  Toyota Venza with
panoramic roof.
                                                 w
Step-II: Construction and correlation of NVH  model. Correlate the CAE model for the
2009 Toyota Venza with panoramic roof with the test results.

Step-III: EDAG CAE baseline model. Convert the CAE model to a 2010 Toyota Venza
with full roof model to build the baseline model.

The model results were then compared with the analytical test results, thus establishing
the EDAG CAE baseline model.

       D.8.3 Step  I: NVH Test Setup

A 2009 Toyota Venza BIW with  panoramic roof was setup with the necessary test
equipment  for static bending,  static torsion,  and dynamic modal measurements. The
testing was conducted at the Ford Motor Company NVH labs.
D.8.3.1. Static Bending Stiffness Test Setup

For testing purposes, the vehicle  was  instrumented with the necessary deformation
measuring gages at the selected locations. The bending test setup is shown in Image D-
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 77

10. The deformations at different locations were measured by applying a 2,200N force at
the left and right rocker sections of the front door opening.
     Bending Stiffness Testing Setup
               BIP with the displacement 9*ges
                       Image D-10: Bending Stiffness Testing Setup

The test vehicle was the 2009 Toyota Venza panoramic roof model. The CAE model was
created as an exact replica of the test setup in order to achieve the test correlation. Figure
1.6.2 and Image D-ll show the static bending CAE setup equivalent to the test vehicle.
                                                FORCE • 2 22e-03
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 78
                        Image D-ll: Bending Stiffness CAE Setup
D.8.3.2 Static Torsional Stiffness Test Setup

Similarly,  the  vehicle   was   instrumented  for  measurement   of torsion  stiffness
characteristics as shown in Image D-12. The necessary deformations were measured at
different test locations by applying 1,200N and -1,200N on the left and right shock towers
respectively.
         Torsional Stiffness Testing Setup
             BIP instrumented with accelerometers
                       Image D-12: Torsion Stiffness Testing Setup

The CAE model was created by incorporating the same boundary and loading conditions
as seen in the physical test setup. Image D-13 shows the equivalent CAE model for the
torsion stiffness test setup.
-------
                                                      Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                   March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 79
                                  FORCE • 1 20e-03
                       Image D-13: Torsion Stiffness CAE Setup
D.8.3.3 Dynamic Modal Test Setup

In the  dynamic modal  analysis, MSC Nastran SOL 103 was used with no  boundary
conditions.  It is a free-free (no boundary condition, no  initial condition) frequency
analysis with a given frequency range of 0-100Hz. This was defined with the help of the
NASTRAN  PARAM control card in which  the  input and  output requirements are
embedded with the EIGRL card.

Once the test data was  recorded for the dynamic modal setup, the FEA model was run
using NASTRAN. The normal modes were noted in the CAE model and then compared
with the test data in order to correlate the FEA model to the physical model.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 80

                        Image D-14: Dynamic Modal Test Setup

     D.8.4   Step II: Construction and Correlation of NVH Model

After the teardown vehicle was scanned and converted to a CAE model, it was converted
into  a panoramic roof model. This model was then compared with the test model, as
shown in Image D-15. The various factors that were considered for the correlation were
weight of the test vehicle versus  the CAE model, modal analysis,  torsion  stiffness, and
bending stiffness.

The  NVH models shown in Figures  D-26, D-29, and D-31 were  used to correlate the
CAE model. The results are shown in Table D-3.
                     Image D-15: CAE Model for NVH Correlation

     D.8.5   NVH Correlation Summary

The MSC Nastran solver (SOL 101 &  103[4]) was used to analyze the NVH load cases.
The results of the NVH simulations were studied with respect to the test results. The
correlation of the CAE test results of the NVH load cases are shown in Table D-2.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 81

Study Description

ActualTest Results
(Panoramic Roof)
EDAG CAE Model
(Panoramic Roof)
Correlation Model
Correlation of
CAE Model to
Actual Test Results

Overall
Torsion
Mode
(Hz)

23.0

23.0


100.0%


Overall
Lateral
Bending
Mode
(HZ)

35.3

34.2


96.6%


Rear-End
Match-Boxing
Mode
(Hz)

36.4

35.6


97.8%

Overall
Vertical
Bending,
Rear-End
Breathing
Mode
(Hz)
44.5

41.9


94.2%


Torsion
Stiffness
(KN.mJrad)

686.7

703.0


Bending
Stiffness
(KN/m)

17991.0

17725.7


97.6%

98.5%


Weight
Test
Condition
(Kg)

400.5

392.5


98.0%


Comments

Physical Test of 2009 Venza
CAE Model of 2009 Venza
Same Configuration as
Test Vehicle

Model Correlation

             Table D-2: FEA Model Test Correlation Comparison with Test Data

The data in Table D-2 shows the initial FE model correlated well with the test vehicle
within the 5% target.  This model thus qualified to create further EDAG CAE baseline
models for the remaining NVH and crash load cases.

       D.8.6  Step III:  EDAG CAE Baseline Model

The EDAG CAE baseline model for NVH cases was  created from the correlated FE
model. The correlated  FE model was converted to a 2010 Toyota Venza with full roof and
simulated for NVH load cases. The results were compared with the test data  and the
correlated model as shown in Table D-3. Note the results of the global torsion mode and
torsional stiffness of the baseline model were significantly higher due to the full-roof
structure.  The other global bending mode and static bending  stiffness results  showed
similar performance with the baseline and correlated models.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 82

Study Description

Actual Test Results
(Panoramic Roof)
Phase 1
EDAG CAE Model
(Panoramic Roof)
Phase II
EDAG CAE Model
(Full Root)
Baseline Model
Phase III

Overall
Torsion
Mode
(Hz)


23.0


23.0

54.6


Overall
Lateral
Bending
Mode
(HZ)


35.3


34.2

34.3


Rear-End
Match-Boxing
Mode
(Hz)


36.4


35.6

32.4

Overall
Vertical
Bending,
Rear-End
Breathing
Mode
(Hz)

44.5


41.9

41.0


Torsion
Stiffness
(KN.m(rad)


686.7


703.0

1334.0


Bending
Stiffness
(KNi'm)


17991.0


17725.7

18204.5


Weight
Test
Condition
(Kg)


400.5


Comments


Physical Test of 2009 Venza

CAE Model of 2009 Venza
392.5

407.7

Same Configuration as
Test Vehicle
CAE Model Of 2010
Full Roof Venza
Baseline Vehicle

                Table D-3: NVH Results Summary for CAE Baseline Model

The baseline model for the NVH cases was correlated and referenced in the project for
further NVH load cases. The same NVH baseline model was used to create the crash
baseline models.  The model setup and load case creations for crash  simulations are
explained later in this study.
D.9   Lotus Results Validation

The project also included validation of the weight reduction of the Toyota Venza with
respect to the Lotus Engineering weight reduction report.[5] Lotus Engineering provided a
theoretical  study of the weight reduction of the Toyota Venza under two different study
levels: a low-development study and a high-development study.

The low-development study primarily  included the use of various high-strength steel
materials with more focus on substituting existing parts, thus yielding weight savings and
resulting cost increases.  The  high-development study, however, included some design
changes,  futuristic  manufacturing  techniques,  newly  combined  assemblies,   and
production volumes. It primarily featured changes in the body structure of the vehicle.

The scope  of this project was to validate the findings  of the low-development  study,
which states that without any major performance  degradation,  the BIW mass savings
would be about 6.55%. Images D-16 and  D-17 show the material map and the thickness
map of Lotus Engineering's optimized low-development study, respectively.
-------
                                 Material Map by Lotus
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 83
                          BH210
                 MLD140
                                                              DP300
                                                                   DP700
                             DP350
                                                DP500
             Image D-16: Material Map Based on Lotus Engineering information
        0.5 mm to 0.8 mm
                                                                     Above 2.00mm


                                                         1.60mm to 2.00 mm
             Image D-17: Thickness Map Based on Lotus Engineering information

EDAG validated  Lotus Engineering's  low-development study  for  NVH performance
using the materials and gauges shown in Images D-16 and D-17. This information was
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 84

incorporated into the EDAG baseline NVH model. Static stiffness and modal load cases
were simulated and compared with EDAG baseline NVH results.

The results of the validation in comparison to the EDAG  baseline model are shown in
Table  D-4. The modal analysis  results  and corresponding weight reduction were
comparable, but the bending and torsional stiffness values did not provide acceptable
performance. The torsional stiffness is 20.4% less,  and the bending stiffness is 20.0% less
than the 5% target performance established by EDAG.

Study Description

EDAG CAE Model
(Full Roof)
Baseline Model
EDAG CAE Baseline
Model with
Lotus Recommended
Substitutions
Percentage
Difference

Overall
Torsion
Mode
(Hi)

54.6

53.4

•2.2

Overall
Lateral
Bending
Mode
(HZ)

34.3

33,7

-1.8

Rear-End
Match-Boxing
Mode
(Hi)

32.4

31.8

-1.9
Overall
Vertical
Bending.
Rear-End
Breathing
Mode
(Hz|
41.0

39.7


Torsion
Stiffness
(KN.m/rad)

1334.0

1062.2

-3.2

Bending
Stiffness
(KHrm)

1B204.5

14560.0


Weight
Test
Condition
(Kg)

407.7

384.6

-5.7

Weight
BIW
(Kg)

378.0

352.1

-6.5

Comments

CAE Model of 2010
Full RoofVenza
Baseline Vehicle
EDAG CAE Model
with Lotus
Recommendations

Torsion and Bending
Outside of the
Acceptable Limits
                 Table D-4: NVH Results Summary for Lotus CAE Model

Further crash validations of Lotus Engineering's study were not conducted, since it did
not meet the NVH targeted performance.
-------
D.10  Baseline Crash Model
              Phase 1: Data Generated from Toyota Venza
                 Vehicle Tear Down
                            Body
                           Structure
                           Other parts
                           (Powertrwn.
                   Huitd Initial
                   FEA Model
                   M«Wn«l
                   Coupon
                   SctnDit*
                   EDAGCAE
                                    •3- at rt-.
                 Systems and
                 Parts Weight
         Output      and
                 Dimensions
         Systems ind
          PertsScin
          Geometry
         Weld points
          locMons
          initiiJ SIP
          FEA Model
          v«!.d«tcd
         MMerulSpec
                  In-Prime (BIP)
                   Teitinf
          NVHand
          Stiffness
           results
          correlation
                     EOAG Expertise in Virtual Validation and Model Generation
          Tools
          Used
            "E-
EDAG Tear
 Down/
Benchmark
Guidelines
 Garage
 Services
White light
  Scan
  Ansa
 Advanced
 EDAGFEA
 Software lor
Model Quality
  Check
Sensitivity
Analysis
Software
                                                             Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                            March 30, 2012
                                                                                 Page 85
                                    Phase 2: Data Generated from the FEA
                                    Models
                   EDAGCAE
                   Guidelines
         Initial Crash
         Vehicle FEA
          Model
  Ansa
 Advanced
 EOAG FEA
 Software for
Model Quality
  Check
                                      ClaihFEA
                                       Model
                                     Com pans loo
                   Physical
                   Vehicle
                    Crash
                                       Define
                                     • Comparison
                                       Factors
          Crash results
          Comparison
           Valves
          Cr«h Pulse
                                                       EDAG Engineer! g(CAE andVehideIntegration)Expertise
 LS-Dyna
A3 Animator
 EDAG
 Results
Database
ana Tools
                             Figure D-18: Baseline Crash Model

As per the scope  of the project,  CAE crash  performance analyses were carried out to
verify compliance with the National Highway Traffic  Safety Association (NHTSA)
regulatory performance targets. For this project, the following Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards (FMVSS) and European regulatory test requirements were incorporated
into the individual CAE models:

    1)  FMVSS 208—35 MPH flat frontal crash with rigid wall barrier, same as US New
       Car Assessment Program (US NCAP)

    2)  European New  Car Assessment Program (Euro NCAP)—35 MPH frontal crash
       with Offset Deformable Barrier (ODB),  same as  the  Insurance  Institute for
       Highway Safety (IIHS) frontal crash

    3)  FMVSS 214—38.5 MPH side impact with  moving deformable barrier (MDB)

    4)  FMVSS 301—50 MPH rear impact with moving  deformable barrier (MDB)

    5)  FMVSS 216a—Roof  crush  resistance (utilizing the  higher standard  IIHS roof
       crush resistance criteria)


The structural level performance indices (such as pulse and intrusion) were compared to
each of the regulatory targets. In compliance with EDAG common practice, a correlation
requirement of >95% (or <5% error) was set for the performance indices.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 86

A baseline crash model was developed and correlated for the frontal and side-impact load
cases of testing specifications in FMVSS requirements 1 and 3. The remaining load cases
were then carried out using the correlated crash model.
     D.10.1  Model Building
D.10.1.1
Major System for Full Vehicle Model
In order to build  the  full-vehicle crash model, the validated NVH BIP  model (from
section  1.6.5) was utilized. The crash model included all closure parts (such as hood,
doors, and tailgate). Front and rear bumper system structural parts were also included to
represent realistic high-speed front and rear-crash scenarios. All parts critical  to a high-
speed frontal impact scenario were included:  powertrain assembly, major engine and
transmission parts, radiator assembly, and exhaust subsystem. The fuel tank system parts
(critical for rear and side-impact scenario) were also included in the full  vehicle crash
model. The rear seat system was represented as a lumped mass critical for front and rear-
impact  scenarios.  A carryover FEA seat system  was integrated to take  into account
resistance of seat structure  deformation in side-impact scenario. The full-vehicle crash
model consisted of a total of 1,300,000 elements.  The CAE  weight of the model was
1,843.2  kg, in comparison with test vehicle weight of 1,839.9 kg. Figure D-35  shows the
different major systems of the full-vehicle crash model.
           Body in White
           (BIW)
                                                                  Closures
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 87

                    Figure D-35: Major Systems of Full-Vehicle Model

The gauge map and material map of BIP parts (the same as the validated BIP model) are
shown in Section 1.5. The gauge and material data for the remaining closure parts were
also  incorporated accordingly.  Images D-18  and  D-19  represent the gauge map and
material grade map of the closure parts.
            0.5mm to 0.8mm
                  Image D-18: Gauge Map of Closures Models of Baseline
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 88
   Mild-Steel Group
                                                              HSLA 350
D.10.1.2
                 Image D-19: Material Map of Closures Models of Baseline
Mass Validation
EDAG  standard  CAE  Modeling guidelines[3]  were  followed throughout the  model
building process to be consistent with mass and center of gravity (CG) calibrations. The
total vehicle mass was correlated to NHTSA Test No.  C95111. Vehicle mass difference
was  calibrated within 0.5% of test weight. The vehicle CG was calibrated to be  within
0.5% of the test measurement.
     D.10.2  Powertrain Mass & Inertia Calibration Test

In order to capture correct moment of inertia (MOI)  and mass  information  for the
powertrain assembly, an independent swing test was executed. In a full vehicle crash
analysis, the characteristics of the powertrain significantly influence the body pulse and
engine compartment structural deformation. An accurate representation of the mass and
MOI  of the  engine and  powertrain system is therefore  a crucial  part of the crash
simulation.
D.10.2.1      Measuring Powertrain CG & Moment of Inertia

The powertrain and/or engine characteristics, namely, MOI and center of gravity (CG),
were measured by conducting an oscillation test on the disassembled powertrain system
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 89


using trifilar suspension apparatus.[1!i] Due to the complexity of the measuring process,
the following assumptions were made while calculating the MOI and CG:

   •  Engine mass is evenly distributed across the engine

   •  The oscillation is assumed to be undamped

   •  Test frame inertia was subtracted from powertrain inertia

MOI  and CG were recorded  as per trifilar suspension testing procedures.[18] The  CG
location is shown in Figure 1.8.4; the  powertrain mass and inertia matrix are shown in
Image D-20.
                                          Center of Gravity Refrence :
                                              Center of Crank Bolt
                 Image D-20: Powertrain and/or Engine Center of Gravity
-------
 Powertrain Mass [kg]
 Center of Gravity (from reference) [m]
 Inertia Tensor (about CG) [kg-m2]
 Principal MOI [kg-m2]
 Principal Directions
 (unit vectors relative to original coordinate axis
  - displayed in columns of orientation matrix)
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 90
235.0
0.427   0.002  0.083

10.466  1.282  -4.016
1.282  21.807  -0.287
-4.016 -0.287  20.284

8.9366    0      0
  0    22.515    0
  0       0    21.106

-0.940 -0.196  -0.280
0.086   0.657  -0.749
-0.331   0.729  0.600
                Figure D-19: Powertrain Mass & Moment of Inertia Results
Baseline Crash Model Set-up

The crash load cases considered in this study are
      •   FMVSS 208—35 MPH flat frontal crash (US NCAP)

      •   Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB frontal crash (Euro NCAP/IIHS)

      •   FMVSS 214—38.5MPHMDB side impact

      •   FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB rear impact

      •   FMVSS 261 a—Roof crush (utilizing IIHS roof-crush criteria)

Figure D-19 shows all five different load case configurations with appropriate barriers
placed against the full vehicle baseline model.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 91
           Image D-21: Configuration of All Load Case Set-Ups for Baseline Model

The necessary physical vehicle data obtained during the vehicle teardown phase (e.g.,
bushings) were included in the crash model. A brief summary of model content statistics
is provided in Table D-5.
Model Detail
Total number of elements
Total number of nodes
Total number of shell elements
Total number of solid elements
Total number of beam & discrete elements
Total number of part IDs
Count
1,372,930
1,374,947
1,275,631
97,099
91
1157
                    Table D-5: Contents of EDAG CAE Baseline Model
The crash model correlations with the test results are explained in detail in the following
sections.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 92
     D.10.3 Baseline Crash Model Evaluation
For reasonable representation of a realistic vehicle crash test, the FE baseline crash model
needed to be correlated against physical test data. The FE crash model was correlated
using two load cases: frontal impact with flat rigid wall barrier and side impact with
moving deformable barrier.

FMVSS 208—35 MPH flat frontal crash (US NCAP)

FMVSS 214—38.5 MPH MDB side impact

The  details  of these  two load cases and correlations  of the test results and  CAE
simulations are explained in the following section.

D.10.3.1     I.FMVSS 208—35 MPH Flat Frontal Crash (US NCAP)
                                                                   r
D.10.3.1.1   Model Setup

The frontal impact test of FMVSS 208 (US NCAP) undertaken by the NHTSA, is a full
frontal barrier test at a vehicle speed of 35 mph (56 km/h). The corresponding NHTSA
Test No.  C95111[19] of a 2009 Toyota Venza was referenced to obtain initial crash setup
and results.  Image  D-22 shows the FMVSS  208 frontal impact test setup of  a  2009
Toyota Venza.
              Image D-22: FMVSS 208 35 MPH Flat Frontal Crash Test Setup

The CAE model was  setup as defined in the FMVSS 208 regulation. The LS-DYNA
model was created to represent the exact test initial setup, such as vehicle velocity of 35
mph against a flat rigid wall barrier.  The CAE vehicle mass was 1,843.2 kg. This was
3.3kg more than in the test (1,839.9 kg). The weight difference was due to the mesh
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 93

characteristics of the stamped parts. The CAE vehicle mass included a mass of 38 kg for
the purpose of the LS-DYNA mass scaling requirement.[6J

To measure passenger compartment structure integrity,  data analysis points as shown in
Image D-23 were measured with respect to a coordinate system reference at the cargo
area of the body structure; reference point locations follow IIHS standards. To measure
instrument panel  (IP) movements, two reference  points were taken from the cowl
crossmember.
                                Toe-C
                     Image D-23: Intrusion Measurement Locations

The LS-DYNA simulation was carried out for an 80 milliseconds (msec) analysis time
frame. Following are the results of the analysis and comparison with the test results.

D.10.3.1.2   Deformation Mode Comparison

Global vehicle deformation and vehicle crash behaviors were analyzed and compared to
the deformation modes of test photographs.  Images D-24 through D-29 show different
views of the comparative  deformation mode at 80  msec  (end  of crash). From the
comparison of the deformation modes,  it can be observed the EDAG baseline model
showed similar deformation modes.
-------
                                               Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                             March 30, 2012
                                                                  Page 94
Image D-24: Deformation Mode Comparison: Right Side View @ 80msec
 Image D-25: Deformation Mode Comparison: Left Side View @ 80msec
   Image D-26: Deformation Mode Comparison: Top View @ 80msec
-------
                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                March 30, 2012
                                                                     Page 95
       Image D-27: Deformation Mode Comparison: ISO View @ 80msec
Image D-28: Deformation Mode Comparison: Bottom View Front Area @100msec
Image D-29: Deformation Mode Comparison: Bottom View Rear Area @100msec
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 96

Similarly, the following figures compare the deformation modes at 30 msec. Image D-30
shows the bottom view of the engine compartment and front cradle deformation. The
deformation mode at 46 msec (when the cradle was fully deformed and the impact load
was transferred to the lower front dash) was also observed to be well correlated with the
test results as shown in Image D-31.
       Image D-30: Intermediate Time Front Engine Room and Front Cradle @ 30msec
       Image D-31: Intermediate Time Front Engine Room and Front Cradle @ 46msec
D.10.3.1.3   Body Pulse Comparison

Another important result was the vehicle acceleration pulse  (in G's). The pulse  was
measured at the undeformed location of the rear-seat crossmember. Figure  1.8.17 shows
the location of the pulse data measurement (accelerometer data number 1 &  2) on the test
vehicle. The vehicle velocity was measured on the CAE model at the same location (rear-
seat crossmember). The velocity was  differentiated to obtain the acceleration pulse.
-------
                                                     Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                 March 30, 2012
                                                                     Page 97
                VEHICLE ACCELEROMETER LOCATION
                 WHELS  AN° °ATA SUMMARY


1_
J

X
r~

5 '
1
•J
*
J
— i
F
r
6
X
CENT
j
4
T
T

2
ERLINE / L- |
ry- V
f 1
•'

I

H
A I
v |
-—4^
—
8


            ENGINE —'
                                    TOP VIEW
           ACCELEROMETER
           COORDINATE SYSTEM  	
           (POSITIVE DIRECTION SHOWN)
REAR SEAT CUSHION
ASSY. FRONT ATTACHMENT
BRACKET SUPPORT
           ENGINE
          BOTTOM OF
          OIL PAN
              DISC BRAKE
              CALIPER
                              LEFT SIDE VIEW
                Figure D-20: Location of vehicle pulse measurement

The vehicle acceleration pulse (in G's) for the driver side and the passenger side of the
vehicle are shown in Figure 1.8.18. The vehicle pulse of the baseline model is 43.4G, and
the test model is 40.9G. When compared to the test results, the vehicle pulse of the CAE
simulation is  higher by 2.5G. The difference in the  vehicle pulse was  found to be
influenced by the properties of the powertrain mounting bushing. The bushing mountings
of the  CAE model were  represented as rigid connections. In the  real test, bushing
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 98

mountings transfer  the crash loads to  the  engine compartment and  under the floor
structures: Some of the bushing mountings could fail due to severe deformation of the
structure. In this study, since all bushing  mountings  were  rigidly connected  to the
structure, deformation behavior was treated based on engineering estimates. So the global
stiffness of the test vehicle turned out slightly stiffer than the actual vehicle.
                  -FULR, x axis WM LOC NA. *3i - G'S.SAEBO
                  -)l«f 06_OSO_LH_F
-FLRR X anis VeM Loc NA. «2 • G'S_SAE60
-lte'_Oe_05Q_RH_Baseiine
                   Driver side
                                                           Passenger side
         Venza2010 CAEBaseline (Average pulse 43.4G)
         Venza2009 Test (Average pulse 40.9G)
                 Figure D-21: Body Pulse: CAE Baseline Model vs. Test

Even though the pulse of the CAE baseline model is slightly higher, it is believed to be
acceptable  for  the  baseline model.  This model  gave  an  excellent frontal  crash
performance based  on an  analysis of the  dynamic  crush  and compartment intrusions
(explained below).
D.10.3.1.4   Dynamic Crush and Intrusions

Dynamic  crush is the total vehicle body deformation at the end of the crash event with
respect to the undeformed vehicle.  The  initial crush of the Toyota Venza baseline was
measured to be 605 mm as shown in Image D-32.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 99
                           Image D-32: Initial Crush Space


The dynamic crush of flat frontal simulation is plotted in Figure D-22.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 100
                                                        1 Jmvs5208_usncap_loyot3_venz3_Baseline |
               0.01
                        •102
                                 003
                                          0.04
                                         Time(S«.)
                                                   0.05
                                                             O.C6
                                                                      0.07
                                                                               006
         Figure D-22: FMVSS 208 Baseline Dynamic Crush with Barrier Deformation
                                                     w
Figure D-22 shows the maximum vehicle crush of 599.7mm of the baseline model is less
than the initial  crush space of 605mm. When compared to test results of a maximum
crush of 592mm, the baseline model shows a good correlation.

A summary of performance indicators of the baseline model for the flat frontal crash load
case is listed in Tables D-6 and D-7.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 101
No.
1
o
4
Frontal crash
measurements
Pulse (G's)
Dynamic Crush (mm)
Weight (kg)
Venza 2009 Test Model
1st peak= 17.0 @ 13.8msec
2nd peak=40.9 @ 84.5 msec
592.0
1839.9
Venza 2010 CAE Baseline
Model
lstpeak=7.8 @ 13.8msec
2nd peak=41.2 @ 84.5 msec
599.7
1843.2
                         Table D-6: Pulse and Dynamic Crush
Model
Baseline
Driver Footwell (mm)
58.8
Driver Toe Pan Left (mm)
137.1
Driver Toe Pan Center (mm)
157.1
Driver Toe Pan Right (mm)
102.9
                        Table D-7: Compartment Dash Intrusion

Table D-7 lists the compartment dash intrusions measured at locations shown in Image
D-23

Based  on the analysis  of the  deformation mode,  dynamic  crush,  and  compartment
intrusions, this model was established as EDAG's baseline target for further frontal offset
load case iterations.
D.10.3.2     ILFMVSS 214—38.5MPH MDB Side Impact

D.10.3.2.1   Model Setup

The baseline crash model was correlated using another crash load case of FMVSS 214
side  impact with MDB  where a moving deformable barrier with a mass of 1,370 kg
impacted the vehicle on the driver side with a velocity of 38.5 mph (61.9 km/h). The
corresponding NHTSA Test No. MB5128[20] of a 2010 Toyota Venza was referenced to
obtain initial crash setup and results. The CAE model was setup as defined in the FMVSS
214 regulation.  Full vehicle mass, impact velocity, vehicle height, and barrier position
were calibrated accordingly. A typical FMVSS 214 side impact setup with MDB is shown
in Image D-33.
-------
                                                      Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                   March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 102
          Image D-33: FMVSS 214, 38.5MPH MDB Side Impact CAE Model Setup.

The LS-DYNA simulation was carried out for a 100 msec analysis time frame. The
necessary results were analyzed and compared with the test results.

D.10.3.2.2   Deformation Mode Comparison

Side-structure deformation and vehicle crash behaviors were analyzed and compared to
the deformation modes of test photographs.  Image D-34  shows the pre-crash conditions
for  comparison  purposes  and  Images  D-35  through  D-37  show the comparative
deformation modes at 100 msec (end of crash) in different views.  By comparing the
deformation modes,  it can  be observed the EDAG baseline model shows  similar
deformation modes.
                        Image D-34: Side Impact: Pre-Crash
-------
                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                              Page 103
            Image D-35: Side Impact: Post-Crash
      Image D-36: Doors Deformation Mode Comparison
Image D-37: Rear Door Aperture Deformation Mode Comparison
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 104

It is also observed the deformation mode for the doors, especially the rear door aperture
deformation, correlated reasonably well with the test as shown in Image D-37.

D.10.3.2.3   Intrusion Comparison

Another critical parameter correlated for the side impact case was the B-pillar intrusion
levels  at  the  driver-side  compartment. The  compartment structure intrusions  were
specified as intrusion numbers (see Figure  1.8.26). The intrusion numbers represent the
relative displacement with respect to an undeformed driver-side structure. The accuracy
of the intrusions was maintained by using a local vehicle coordinate system at a point on
the  passenger-side  structure. The intrusions were  measured at different zones  such  as
zones 1, 2, & 3 to  represent B-pillar upper, mid and lower areas. Figure D-23 shows a
section-cut view of the B-pillar intrusion. The gray  contour represents the  undeformed
structure and the red contour represents the deformed structure.
  B-Pillar Intrusions of BASELINE
 Zone 1
 Zone 2
 ZooeS
2 .471
f /

3

1 (4018
R H*0
fl \
IV"
te
7
/""
/ ""•"-
2 x AA





-•
492
J
I




/ Relative Displacements of B-p
@ B-p liar Inner panel

H
" " ' O 	
                                                                     Section
                                                                     Section
                      Figure D-23: B-Pillar & Side Rocker Intrusions

A summary of the relative intrusions of the B-pillar of the baseline model is shown in
Table D-8.

Measured Location
Intrusion (mm)
Zone 1
Upper
-4.7

Lower
64.0
Zone 2
Upper
118.0

Middle
155.7

Lower
185.4
Zones
Upper
172.4

Lower
88.3
           Table D-8: Baseline Model, Relative Intrusions of B-Pillar for FMVSS 214
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 105

In analyzing the comparison, the intrusion levels are found to be well correlated to the test
results. For example, in zone 2, the maximum intrusion of 185.4mm is in good correlation
with the test value of 184 mm[20] (data sheet  12, exterior crush measurements). Since the
baseline model is found to be in good correlation with the test result, this intrusion plot is
used to compare further iteration models.
     D.10.4  Baseline Crash Results




Phase 1 : Data Generated from Toyota Venza

Phase 2: Data Generated from the FEA
Models
1 VMM. Tea, Oown\veh*,esc.n\ »*£» \ «*•£•« \ £•*«• \ **££* ^ > Condon ^
/ / / / * r Comwrislon ^ f F«ct«» ^|
Physic*) Body Miteritf Physic •! Body-
Property Structure Coupon in-Prime (SIP)
InpUt Reptir Other pvts Scan DM* Testing



Manulls (Powertraln. COAGCAC
Ch«ys. 1 Modelmf
._ 	 , Guide toes

Systems and svaerrawd mra^KP NVHand
Parts Weigh! Pwescw PEA Model Stillness
Output ana Geometry v»iid»ted results


Dimensions weldpotntj vnieraispec correlation
LocMora
1 	
EDAG Expertise m Virtual vaiioaton and Model Generation

EDAGCAE
Guidelines


initial Crash
Vehicle FEA


EOAG Engineer
EDAG Tear Ansa Ansa
TOOlS Down/ White Light Advanced Sensitivity Advanced
Used Benchmark Scan EDAG FEA Analysis
Guidelines Software for Software
Garage Model Quality
1 Services Check

EOAG FEA
Software for
Model Quality
Check
Physical
Vehicle
Crash

Crash results
Comparison


15 iCAE and Vehicle


A3 Animator




Intrusion
vtluet


ilegrabon) Expertise

EDAG
Results
Database
and Tools

                          Figure D-24: Baseline Crash Results

The baseline crash results of the  FMVSS 208 flat frontal and FMVSS 214 MDB side
impact load cases were obtained during the crash model correlation stage (see analysis in
Section 1.8.4).  The correlated crash model became the  baseline crash model for the
remaining load cases. By using the correlated baseline model, the remaining 3 crash load
cases  (listed below and analyzed in the following sections) were simulated to obtain the
baseline performance results.
   •  Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB frontal crash  (Euro NCAP/IIHS)

   •  FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB rear impact

   •  FMVSS  216a—Roof  crush  resistance  (utilizing   IIHS  roof  crush resistance
      criteria)
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 106
These baseline results were treated as performance targets for further iterations.
D.10.4.1
I.FMVSS 208—35 MPH Flat Frontal Crash (US NCAP)
The impact requirements, model setup, and results of the FMVSS 208 flat frontal crash
load case have been explained in the model comparison in section 1.8.4.

D.10.4.2     ILEuro NCAP—35 MPH ODB Frontal Crash (Euro NCAP/IIHS)

D.10.4.2.1   Model Setup

For the frontal offset crash load case, the Euro NCAP 35 MPH ODB test execution, as
described in the requirements,  was used. The CAE model was setup as defined in the
Euro NCAP requirements. An offset barrier weighing 233 kg was used. The barrier was
positioned with a 40% overlap with respect to the vehicle side-to-side width as per the
test requirements. The vehicle impact speed was set at 35 MPH. A typical offset frontal
impact model setup with ODB is shown in Image D-38.
                     Image D-38: Euro NCAP Baseline Model Setup

To measure passenger compartment structure integrity, data analysis points as shown in
Image D-39 were measured with respect to a coordinate system reference at the cargo
area of the body structure; reference point locations follow IIHS standards. To measure
instrument panel (IP)  movements, two reference  points were taken from the  cowl
crossmember.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 107
                                 Toe-C
                     Image D-39: Intrusion Measurement Locations

The LS-DYNA simulation was carried out for a  100 msec analysis time frame. Offset
frontal crash test  results  were not available  for this selected  Toyota Venza vehicle
configuration; therefore, necessary results were  analyzed  based on the EDAG crash
model.

D. 10.4.2.2    Deformation Mode

The post-crash vehicle deformation modes of the  CAE simulation are shown in Images
D-40 to D-43
              Image D-40: Euro NCAP Baseline Deformation Mode Top View
-------
                                              Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                            March 30, 2012
                                                                Page 108
Image D-41: Euro NCAP Baseline Deformation Mode Isometric View
Image D-42: Euro NCAP Baseline Deformation Mode Left Side View
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 109
             Image D-43: Euro NCAP Baseline Deformation Mode Bottom View

The  deformation modes show the impact energy is  absorbed  by the front bumper and
front rail parts  without much  compartment  intrusion.  It  also  reveals the model is
integrated well without any connectivity issues.

D. 10.4.2.3    Body Pulse. Dynamic Crush, and Intrusion

The  vehicle velocity was measured in the x-direction and is  shown in Figure D-25. The
velocity was differentiated to obtain the vehicle acceleration in terms of crash pulse (in
G's).
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 110
                                                >3«2    P.W   Gl»   tvM   D.1   '.'I   Ul
        Dun   »    aw   a
                     TlW
                                                          VntiOife: rde
    liar
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 111
                           Image D-44: Allowable Crush Space

Graphs of the dynamic crush of frontal offset with and without barrier deformations are
plotted in Figures D-26 and D-27, respectively.
                                      0.06          0.08
                                          Time (sec.)
         Figure D-26: Euro NCAP Baseline Dynamic Crush with Barrier Deformation
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 112
                                     Vehicle Dynamic Crush
              0.02
                         0.04
                                    0.06         0.08
                                       Time (second)
                                                          0.1
                                                                     0.12
                                                                                0.14
       Figure D-27: Euro NCAP Baseline Dynamic Crush Without Barrier Deformation
The dynamic crush shown in Figure D-26 includes the barrier deformation. Subtracting
the barrier deformation, the vehicle crush is 554.5 mm as shown in Figure D-27.
Therefore, the dynamic crush of the baseline model was within the acceptable range.

Another  approach for analyzing  the offset frontal crash performance was to plot the
passenger compartment intrusions. In the Euro NCAP/IIHS  case, the global  structural
deformation is plotted in terms of intrusion values measured at the compartment dash
panel (shown in Image D-39). These  are rated using  different zones: good (green),
acceptable  (yellow), marginal (orange), and poor (red). The  intrusion plot of the CAE
baseline simulation is illustrated in Figure D-28. The CAE baseline model shows a good
rating (green) at the foot well, left and right toe-pan, brake pedal point, and left and right
instrument panel crossmember points. The CAE baseline model also shows an acceptable
rating at the center toe-pan and door-opening area points.
-------
                                                             Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                           March 30, 2012
                                                                               Page 113
        LS-DYNA keyword deck by LS-PrePost
            Mammal

            Acceptable
                   23456

                1:Footwell 2:LeftToe 3:CenterToe 4:RightToe 5:BrakePedal 6:Left IP 7:Right IP 8:Door
                          Figure D-28: Euro NCAP Intrusion Plot

A summary of the performance indicators  of the baseline model for the offset frontal
crash load case is listed in Tables D-9 and D-10.
No.
1
3
4
Frontal crash measurements
Pulse (G's)
Dynamic Crush (mm)
Weight (kg)
Baseline Model
1st Peak = 7.8 @ 13. 8ms
2nd Peak = 41. 2 @ 84.5ms
1071.2
1710.0
                           Table D-9: Pulse and Dynamic Crush
-------
                                                     Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                  March 30, 2012
                                                                      Page 114
Model
Baseline
Driver Footwell (mm)
133.7
Driver Toe pan Left (mm)
171.2
Driver Toe pan center (mm)
169.9
Driver Toe pan Right (mm)
75.9
                      Table D-10: Compartment Dash Intrusion

Based  on the  analysis  of the  deformation mode, dynamic  crush, and compartment
intrusions, this model was established as the  EDAG  NVH baseline target for further
frontal offset load case iterations.
D.10.4.3     IILFMVSS 214—38.5 MPH MDB Side Impact
The impact requirements, model setup, and results of the FMVSS 214 side impact load
case have been previously been examined (see Section 1.8.4).
                                             S^^          '
D.10.4.4     IV.FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB Rear Impact

D.10.4.4.1   Model Setup
FMVSS 301 specifies a moveable deformable barrier (MDB) impact at 50 mph (80 km/h)
into a stationary vehicle with an overlap of 70% as shown in Image D-45. The  MDB used
in the test and analysis weighed 1,380 kg.
                    Image D-45: Rear Impact Baseline Model Setup.

The CAE model was setup as defined in the requirements of FMVSS 301. The LS-DYNA
simulation was carried out for a 100 msec analysis time frame. FMVSS 301 test results
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 115

are not available for this selected Toyota Venza vehicle configuration. What follows is an
analysis of the results using the EDAG crash baseline model.

D. 10.4.4.2    Deformation Mode

The deformation modes of the rear-impact simulation are shown in Images D-46 to D-49.
These deformation modes indicate that rear structures protect the fuel tank system during
the crash event.  In Figure 1.8.39 the rear door area shows no jamming shut of the door
opening.

The skeleton view of the rear inner structure deformation in Image D-47 shows the rear
underbody  was  involved  to maximize crush  energy  absorption  and to minimize the
deformation of the rear door and the fuel tank mounting areas.
                     Image D-46: Deformation Mode, Left Side View
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 116
         Image D-47: Deformation Mode of Rear Underbody Structure, Left Side View

The bottom view of the rear underbody structure around the fuel tank area at the end of
the crash (100 msec) is shown in Images D-48 and D-49. This deformation mode shows
the rear rail structure and the rear suspension mounting are intact and that the fuel tank
system is protected.
-------
                                                      Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 117
             Image D-48: Deformation Mode, Bottom View at 100 msec
Image D-49: Deformation Mode of Rear Underbody Structure, Bottom View at 100 msec
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 118
D. 10.4.4.3   Fuel Tank Integration
Fuel tank integrity was further analyzed by its plastic strain plot. The fuel tank system
strain plot was monitored as one of the necessary parameters in the rear impact scenario.
Image D-50 and D-51 show the plastic strain spot of the top and bottom of the fuel tank
system at the end of the crash. It indicated no significant risk of fuel system damage as
the maximum strain amount is less than 20% of the plastic  strain of the entire fuel tank
system.
              max. pi. strain (Shell/SolidI
               Image D-50: Fuel Tank Plastic Strain Plot of Baseline Top View
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 119
               max. pi. strain (Shell/Solid)
                   r
             Image D-51: Fuel Tank Plastic Strain Plot of Baseline Bottom View
D. 10.4.4.4   Structural Deformation

The structural performance of the rear impact is indicated as zonal deformation numbers
at each of the deformation zones from the rear end to the front: zone 1—rear bumper area,
zone 2—rear trunk structure area, zone 3—rear suspension mounting area, and zone 4—
fuel tank mounting area. The deformation measurement locations are shown in Image D-
52. In addition to the zone deformations, the rear-door opening area deformation was also
measured in two more areas: the beltline and the dogleg.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001

                                                                    March 30, 2012

                                                                       Page 120
                                            Dogleg
                                           «  :>
           Image D-52: Rear Impact, Structural Deformation Measurement Area
The rear impact deformation measurements of the baseline model are summarized in

Table D-ll.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 121
Model

Baseline
Under Structure Zone Deformation (mm)
Zone-1
133.9
Zone-2
301.7
Zone-3
0
Zone-4
0
Door Opening (mm)
Beltline
1.8
Dogleg
0
                    Table D-ll: Rear Impact Structural Performance

Table D-ll shows the door is able to be opened on the baseline model after the crash.
D.10.4.5
V.FMVSS 216a Roof Crush Resistance
D.10.4.5.1    Model Setup

For the roof crash load case, FMVSS 216a roof crush resistance and IIHS roof crush
resistance recommendations were  used.  The FMVSS  216a roof crush resistance test
determines the crashworthiness of the vehicle in a rollover. This test requires each side of
the passenger compartment roof structure to resist a maximum applied force equal to 3.0
times the unloaded vehicle weight (UVW). The IIHS roof crush resistance test, however,
is more stringent and requires the roof structure should resist up to a maximum applied
force equal to 4.0 times (rather than 3.0 times) the requirement in FMVSS 216a; it uses
the same rigid rectangular platen which is used in the FMVSS 216a roof crush resistance
procedure. According to both the FMVSS 216a and the IIHS roof crush resistance tests,
the test vehicle will meet the requirements  of  the standard if each side of the roof
structure withstands the maximum applied force prior to the lower surface of the rigid
plate moving more than 127 millimeters.

In this project,  the driver side roof crush resistance simulation was performed with the
assumption  of  a symmetrical structure  for  the  passenger side. The complete  body
structure was assembled and clamped at the lower edge of the rocker. The rigid loading
device applied  the load  in a quasi-static manner to the structure by means  of  a flat
rectangular loading platen.  LS-DYNA pre-scribed motion[6] was applied in the platen's
normal direction. Image  D-53 shows the typical  roof crush resistance model setup with
the platen positioned on the driver side roof.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 122
           •L.
                     Image D-53: Roof Crush Baseline Model Setup.

The LS-DYNA simulation was carried out for a 140 msec analysis time frame. The strain
contour plot of the upper BIP structure and the loading forces were recorded with respect
to loaded platen travel.

D.10.4.5.2    Deformation Mode

The roof crush deformation mode at 140 msec after crush event is shown in Image D-54.
It is noted most of the deformation is concentrated on the roof rail, the A-pillar, and the
B-pillar of the load side. The remaining neighboring  structures remained undeformed. As
a result, a majority of the roof rail and B-pillar deformation modes were analyzed.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 123
            H-.-*
                    Image D-54: Roof Crush Baseline After Crush View

D.10.4.5.3   Structural Strength

The strength of the roof rail  and B-pillar structures  in  terms of rear passenger head
protection during the rollover scenario was determined by a maximum plastic strain plot
and a platen force vs. displacement plot. Image D-55 shows the plastic strain distribution
of the roof and B-pillar structures. A 20% limit of the plastic strain was set to analyze the
strain distribution. The maximum plastic strain is found to be within the 20% limit over a
very few spots, not indicating any failures.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 124
                  Image D-55: Roof Crush Resistance Baseline After Crush
The ultimate performance of roof crush resistance was determined by the platen force
level over the vehicle roof structure.  The force vs.  displacement curve of the platen is
illustrated in Figure 1.8.49.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 125
                                                            	Roof Cnnh Fore* • rOM_OMJ>*M*n»|
                        Edag Light Weight Vehicle Judging Criteria
                        4.0 times of UVW = 67.1 kN
                                                • Vehicle UVW (Unloaded Vehicle Weight): 1705.5kg
              Figure D-29: Roof Crush Force vs. Displacement Plot of Baseline

A 4 times UVW criterion was used to verify both FMVSS216a and IIHS roof crush
resistance requirements. The UVW of the baseline roof crush resistance model is 1,705.5
kg. From Figure D-29 it is observed the maximum load (86 kN) is greater than 4 times
UVW (66.8 kN). Therefore, the baseline model meets both the FMVSS216a  and IIHS
requirements; it will be treated as the target requirement for  further roof crush resistance
iterations.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 126

E.    Cost Analysis Methodology

E.1    Overview of Costing Methodology

A comprehensive discussion of the costing methodology used to develop the incremental
direct manufacturing  cost  can be found  in the EPA  published report "Light-Duty
Technology Cost Analysis Pilot Study (EPA-420-R-09-020). In the context of the EPA
analysis,  incremental direct manufacturing  cost is the incremental difference in cost of
components and assembly to the OEM, between the new mass reduced technology and
baseline technology configurations. The FEV calculated costs for the EPA analyses did
not give consideration to any incremental OEM indirect cost with the exception of tooling
costs. This portion  of the analysis was carried out by the EPA through the application of
Indirect  Cost  Multipliers  (ICMs).  For additional  details  on the  development  and
application of ICM factors, reference  EPA report EPA-420-R-09-003, February 2009,
"Automobile Industry Retail Price Equivalent and  Indirect Cost Multiplier"  and EPA
report EPA-420-D-11-901, November 2011, "Draft Joint Technical Support Document".

The  costing methodology  is based heavily on  assembly teardowns  and component
analysis of both mass reduced  and baseline technology configurations that have similar
driving performance metrics. Only components identified as being  different, within the
two  selected  technology configurations, as a result of  the mass  reduced technology
adaptation, are evaluated for cost.  Component costs are calculated using a ground-up
costing  methodology  analogous to that  employed  in  the automotive  industry. All
incremental costs for the new technology are calculated and presented using transparent
cost  models consisting of eight (8)  core cost elements:  material, labor, manufacturing
overhead/burden, end item scrap, SG&A  (selling general and administrative),  profit,
ED&T (engineering, design, and testing), and packaging.
   ^^^
E.2    Teardown, Process Mapping, and Costing

     E.2.1    Cost Methodology Fundamentals

The costing methodology employed in this analysis is based on two (2) primary processes:
(1) the development  of detailed production process  flow charts (P-flows),  and (2) the
transfer and processing of  key information from the P-flows  into standardize quoting
worksheets. Supporting these two (2) primary processes with key input data  are the
process cost models and the costing databases (e.g.  material [price/kg], labor [$/hour],
manufacturing overhead [$/hour], mark-up  [% of manufacturing cost],  and packaging
[$/packaging type]). The costing databases are discussed in greater detail in Section E.5.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 127

Process flow charts, depending on their defined function and the end  user, can vary
widely in the level of detail  contained. They can range from simple block diagrams
showing the general steps involved in the manufacturing or assembly of an item, to very
detailed process flow charts breaking out each process step in fine detail capturing key
manufacturing variables. For  this cost  analysis,  detailed P-flows (which will  also be
referred to as process maps) are used to identify all the steps involved in manufacturing a
product (e.g., assembly,  machining, welding, forming),  at  all  levels  (e.g.,  system,
subsystem, assembly and component).

For example, in a front corner brake system scenario, process flows would exist for the
following: (1) at the component level, the manufacturing of every component within the
front brake  caliper sub-assembly. This  would  include such components as  the caliper
housing, caliper mounting bracket, caliper piston,  etc. (unless considered a purchase part
- ie. Bleeder fitting, brake pads, piston seal, fastening bolts, etc.); (2) at the assembly
level,  the  assembly of all  the individual components to produce  the caliper assembly
module; (3)  at the sub-subsystem level, the assembly of the  caliper module onto the front
knuckle module (including the  splash shield, bearing hub, rotor, etc.);  and (4)  at the
subsystem level, the assembly of the  front  corner brake module onto the  vehicle
suspension and framing connections. In this example, the front corner brake system  is one
of several subsystems  (e.g.,  rear brake  subsystem,  parking  brake  subsystem,  brake
actuation  subsystem, and power brake subsystem) making up the vehicle overall braking
system. Each subsystem, if it  is cost in the analysis,  would have  its own process map
broken out using this same process methodology.

In addition to detailing pictorially the process steps involved for a given manufacturing
process, having  key information (e.g., equipment type, tooling configuration,  material
type & usage, cycle times, handling requirements, number  of operators) associated with
each step  is  imperative. Understanding the steps and the key process parameters  together
creates the costing roadmap for any particular manufacturing process.

Due to the vast and complex nature of P-flows associated with some of the larger systems
and subsystems  under analysis,  having  specialized software which can  accurately and
consistently create and  organize the abundant number  of detailed P-flows  becomes a
considerable advantage. For this cost analysis Design Profit® software is utilized for
producing and managing the process flows and integrating key costing information.

Simply explained,  the symbols which make up the process map each contain essential
pieces of information required to develop a cost for a particular operation  or process. For
example,  in a metal  stamping process, the  basic  geometry of the part, quantity  and
complexity  of part  features,  material  gauge  thickness, material selection, etc.,  are
examples  of the input parameters used in the calculation of the output process parameters
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 128

(e.g. press size, press cycle time, stamping blank size). From the calculated press size an
overhead rate, corresponding to the recommend press size, would be selected from the
manufacturing overhead database. Dividing the equipment rate ($/hour) by the cycle time
(pieces/hour) yields  a manufacturing overhead cost contribution per part. In a similar
fashion a labor contribution cost would be generated. The loaded labor rate for a press
operator would be pulled from the labor database. An  estimate is made on how  many
presses the operator is overseeing during any given hour of operation. Dividing the labor
rate by number of presses the operator is overseeing, and then by number of pieces per
hour, a labor cost contribution per part is derived.

Lastly, using the calculated blank size, material type, and material  cost (i.e., price per
kilogram) pulled from the material database, a material contribution cost per part can be
calculated.  Adding all three  cost contributors together  (e.g., Manufacturing  Overhead,
Labor, Material) a  Total Manufacturing Cost  (TMC) is  derived.  The TMC  is then
multiplied by a mark-up  factor to arrive at a final manufacturing cost.  As explained
briefly below and in more detail in Section E.I, key data from the process flows and
databases are pulled together in the  costing worksheets to calculate the TMC, mark-up
contribution, and final manufacturing cost.

There  are three (3) basic levels of process parameter  models used to convert  input
parameters into output process parameters that can then be used to calculate operation or
processing  costs: simple serial, generic moderate and custom complex.  1) Simple  serial
are simple process models which can be created directly in Design Profit®. These process
models are single input  models  (e.g.,  weld time/linear millimeter of weld,  cutting
time/square millimeter of cross-sectional area, drill time/diameter vs millimeter  of hole
depth).  2)  Generic  moderate process models are more complex  than simple serial,
requiring multiple input parameters.  The models have been developed for more  generic
types of operations and processes (e.g.,  injection molding, stamping, die casting). The
process models, developed in Microsoft Excel, are flexible enough to calculate the output
parameters for a wide  range of parts.  Key output parameters, generated from  these
external process models,  are then entered into the process maps. 3) Custom complex
parameter models are similar to generic moderate models except in that they are
traditionally more  complex in nature and have limited usage for work  outside of what
they were originally developed. An example of a custom complex model would be one
developed for manufacturing a selected size heat exchanger (radiator) unit for a particular
vehicle engine size and body configuration.

All process parameter cost models are developed  using a  combination of published
equipment data, published processing data, actual supplier production data, and/or subject
matter expert consultation.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 129

The second major step in the cost analysis process involves taking the key information
from the process flows and uploading it into a standardized quote worksheet. The quote
worksheet, referred to as the Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary (MAQS)
worksheet, is  essentially a modified generic OEM quoting  template. Every assembly
included in the cost analysis (excluding commodity purchased parts) has a completed
MAQS  worksheet capturing all the cost details for the assembly. For example, all the
components and their associated costs, required in the manufacturing  of a brake caliper
module assembly, will be captured in the caliper module assembly MAQS worksheet. In
addition, a separate MAQS worksheet detailing the cost associated with assembling the
caliper assembly to the vehicle front suspension knuckle, along with any other identified
front corner brake sub-subsystem components, would be created.

In addition to  process flow information feeding into the MAQS worksheet,  data is also
automatically  imported  from the  various  costing databases.  More discussion on the
MAQS  worksheet, the  database  interfaces, and  it's complete function  is captured in
Section E.7.

     E.2.2    Serial and Parallel Manufacturing Operations and Processes

For purpose of this analysis, serial operations are defined as operations which must take
place in a set sequence, one (1) operation at a time. For example, fixturing metal stamped
bracket components before welding can  commence, both the fixturing and welding are
considered serial operations  within  the  bracket  welding process.  Conversely, parallel
operations are  defined as two (2) or more operations which can occur simultaneously on a
part. An example  of this would  be machining multiple  features into a  cylinder block
simultaneously.

A process is defined as one (1) or more operations (serial or parallel) coupled together to
create a component, subassembly, or assembly. A serial process is  defined as a process
where  all operations (serial  and/or  parallel) are completed  on a  part before  work is
initiated on the next. For example, turning a check valve body on a single spindle, CNC
screw machine, would be considered a  serial process. In comparison, a parallel process is
where  different  operations (serial and/or parallel) are taking  place  simultaneously at
multiple stations  on more than one (1) part. A multi-station  final assembly  line, for
assembling together the various components of a vacuum pump, would be considered a
parallel process.

As discussed, the intent  of a process flow chart  is to capture all the individual operations
and details required to manufacture a part (e.g., component, subassembly, assembly). This
often results in a string  of serial operations, generating a serial process, which requires
additional analysis to develop a mainstream mass production process (i.e., inclusion of
parallel operations and processing). The Manufacturing Assumption section of the MAQS
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 130

worksheet is where the base assumptions for converting serial operations and processes
into mass production operations and processes, is captured.

For example, assume "Assembly M" requires fifteen (15) operations to assemble all of its
parts. Each operation, on average, taking approximately ten (10) seconds to complete. In a
serial process (analogous to single, standalone work cell, manned by a single operator)
consisting of fifteen (15) serial operations, the total process time would be 150 seconds to
produce each part (15 operations x 10 second average/station). By taking this serial
assembly process and converting it into a mass production parallel process,  the following
scenarios could be  evaluated (Note: rates and assumptions applied below are assumed for
this example only):
   Scenario #1: 15 serial operation stations, all manned, each performing a single parallel
   operation.
         •   Process Time 10 seconds/part, 360 parts/hour @ 100% efficiency
         •   Labor Cost/Part = [(15 Direct Laborers)*(Labor Rate $30/hour )]/360
             parts/hour = $1.25/part
         •   Burden Cost/Part = [(15 Stations)*(Burden Rate Average (Low Complexity
             Line) $15/hour/station)]/360 parts/hour = $0.625/part
         •   Labor + Burden Costs = $1.875/part

   Scenario #2:15 serial operations combined into 10 stations, 5 with 2 parallel
   automated operations, 5 serial manual operations.
         •   Process Time 10 seconds/part, 360 parts/hour @ 100% efficiency,
         •   Labor Cost/Part = [(5 Direct Laborers)*(Labor Rate $30/hour )]/360
             parts/hour = $0.42/part
         •   Burden Cost/Part = [(10 Stations)*(Burden Rate Average (Moderate
             Complexity Line) $30/hour/station)]/360 parts/hour = $0.83/part
         •   Labor + Burden Costs = $1.25/part

Assuming a high production volume and a North America manufacturing base  (two key
study assumptions), Scenario #2 would have been automatically chosen,  with the higher
level of automation offsetting higher manual assembly costs.

For a component which has a serial process as its typical mass production process (e.g.,
injection molding,  stamping, die casting, selected screw machining), the manufacturing
assumption section  of the  MAQS worksheet requires far less consideration. Analysis is
usually limited to  determining the total  number of equipment pieces required for the
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 131


defined volume. Figure E-l illustrates the fundamental steps incorporated into the cost
methodology.
-------
                                                              Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                            March 30, 2012
                                                                                Page 132

                      Figure E-l: Fundamental Steps in Costing Process

E.3     Cost Model Overview

The cost parameters considered in determining the net incremental component/assembly
impact to the OEM for new technologies are discussed in detail following.

Unit Cost is the sum of total manufacturing cost (TMC), mark-up  costs, and packaging
cost associated with producing a component/assembly. It is the net component/assembly
cost impact to the OEM (generally, the automobile manufacturer). Figure E-2 shows all
the factors contributing to unit cost for  supplier manufactured components. Additional
details  on the subcategories are discussed in the sections that follow.
                                   Net Component/Assembly Cost
                                         Impact To OEM
   Total Manufacturing
        Cost
Raw Material

In-process Scrap
Purchased Part -
Commodity Parts

Direct Labor

Maintenance,
Repair, Other
Indirect Labor

Fringe
Primary
Equipment

General Plant &
Office Equip.

Utilities





Process
Supporting Equip.

Facilities

Plant Salary
Mark-up Cost
Quality Defects
Shipping Damage
Destruct Tests

                                                          Corporate Overhead: personnel functions,
                                                             finance/accounting, systems data
                                                           processing, sales/marketing, purchasing,
                                                            public relations, legal staff, training,
                                                                 warranty, etc
                                                           Supplier compensation for the assumption
                                                           of investment risk in supplying a part to a
                                                                  customer.
Packaging Cost
              Figure E-2: Unit Cost Model - Costing Factors Included in Analysis
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 133

For OEM manufactured components/assemblies, the unit cost is calculated in the same
way, except that mark-up is addressed outside the scope of this study through application
of indirect cost multipliers (ICM). See Section E.4 for additional details.

Shipping  Costs  are  those  required  to  transport  a component between dispersed
manufacturing  and assembly locations, including any  applicable  insurance,  tax,  or
surcharge expenses. Shipping costs between T2/T3 and Tl suppliers are captured as part
of the mark-up rate (except where  special handling measures  are  involved).  For Tl
supplier to OEM facilities, the  shipping costs are captured using the ICM that replaces
mark-up  as  discussed previously. Additional  details on shipping costs are discussed in
Section E.66.

Tooling Costs are the dedicated tool, gauge, and fixture costs required to manufacture a
part or assembly. Examples of items  covered by tooling costs include injection molds,
casting molds, stamping dies, weld fixtures, assembly fixtures, dedicated assembly and/or
machining  pallets,  cutting tool bodies, torque guns and dedicated gauging.  For this
analysis, all tooling is assumed to be owned by the OEM. The differential cost impact due
to tooling expense is calculated but not included in the incremental direct manufacturing
cost in this  study. It is however further discussed in Section E.10.

Investment  Costs are the manufacturing facility costs, not covered as tooling, required to
manufacture parts.  Investment  costs include  manufacturing plants (facilities including
building  structure,  flooring  &  foundations, lighting, water &  pneumatic  systems,
manufacturing equipment (e.g., injection mold machines, die cast  machines, machining
and turning machines, welding  equipment, assembly lines), material handling equipment
(e.g., lift forks, overhead cranes, loading dock  lifts, conveyor systems), paint lines, plating
lines,  and heat treat equipment.  Investment costs are covered by manufacturing overhead
rates and thus are not summed separately in the cost analysis. Additional details on how
investments expenses are accounted for through manufacturing overhead can be found in
Section E.5.4.

Product  Development  Costs are the  ED&T costs incurred  for development of  a
component or system. These  costs can be associated with a vehicle-specific application
and/or be part of the normal research and development (R&D) performed by companies
to remain competitive. In the cost analysis, the product development costs for suppliers
are included in the mark-up rate as ED&T. More details are provided in Section  E.5.5.2.
For the OEM, the product development costs are captured in the ICM that replaces mark-
up, as discussed previously in the Unit Cost section.

In summary, the two (2) main cost elements (TMC and Mark-up)  in the supplier unit cost
model defined in Figure E-2 include considerations for shipping, investment, and product
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 134

development costs. For the purpose of this study component/assembly packaging costs
were considered to be neutral due to the relative size envelope of these parts not changing
significantly between the production stock and mass-reduced parts.

Investment costs for the  OEM are accounted in the OEM Unit cost model via the TMC.
Shipping, tooling, product development and other OEM mark-up costs are accounted for
as part of the ICM and are addressed outside the scope of this study.

Lastly, the "Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing Cost" is the incremental difference in
cost of components and assembly, to the  OEM, between the mass reduced technology
configuration and the baseline technology configuration.
                                                  X
A more detailed discussion on the elements which make-up the unit cost model follows in
Section E.5, Costing Databases.

                                        ^\    X.
E.4   Indirect OEM Costs

In addition to the direct manufacturing costs,  a manufacturer also incurs certain indirect
costs. These costs may be related to production, such  as research and development
(R&D); tooling; corporate operations, such as  salaries, pensions, and health care costs for
corporate staff; or selling, such as transportation, dealer support, and marketing. Indirect
costs  incurred by a supplier of a  component  or vehicle  system  constitute  a  direct
manufacturing cost to the OEM (the original equipment (vehicle) manufacturer), and thus
are  included in this study. The OEM's indirect costs, however, are not included and must
be determined and applied separately to obtain total manufacturing costs. These indirect
costs are beyond the scope  of this study and  are applied  separately by the EPA staff in
their analysis. The methodology used by the EPA to determine indirect costs incurred by
auto manufacturers is presented in two (2) studies:

    1) Rogozhin, A., et al., "Using Indirect Cost Multipliers to Estimate the Total Cost of
      Adding New Technology  in the Automobile Industry," International Journal of
      Production Economics (2009), doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.11.031.

   2) Gloria  Helfand and  Todd  Sherwood,  "Documentation of the Development of
      Indirect  Cost  Multipliers  for  Three  Automotive  Technologies,"  Office  of
      Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. EPA, August 2009. This document can be
      found    in   the   public   docket     at   EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799-0064
      (www.regulations.gov).

   3) EPA & NHTSA, "Draft Joint Technical Support Document: Proposed Rulemaking
      for 2017-2025  Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse  Gas  Emission  Standards &
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 135

      Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards," for EPA report EPA-420-D-11-901,
      November 2011, at (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420dl 1901 .pdf).

E.5    Costing Databases

     E.5.1    Database Overview

The Unit Cost  Model shown in Figure E-2 illustrates the three (3) main cost  element
categories,  along with all the core subcategories, that make up the unit costs for all
components and assemblies in the analysis.

Every cost  element  used  throughout the analysis is  extracted  from one of the  core
databases. There are  the databases for material prices ($/kilogram), labor rates ($/hour),
manufacturing  overhead rates  ($/hour),  mark-up rates  (% of  TMC)  and packaging
($/packaging option). The databases provide the foundation of the cost analysis, since all
costs originate  from  them,  and they are also used to document sources and supporting
information for the cost numbers.

The model  allows for updates to  the  cost elements  which automatically roll into the
individual component/assembly cost models. Since all cost sheets and parameters are
directly linked to the databases, changing any of the  "Active Rate" cost elements in the
applicable   database   automatically  updates the  Manufacturing  Assumption  Quote
Summary (MAQS) worksheets. Thus, if a material doubles in price, one can easily assess
the impact on the technology configurations under study.

     E.5.2    Material Database

E.5.2.1 Overview

The Material Database houses specific material prices and related material information
required for component cost estimating  analysis. The information related to  each material
listed includes  the material name, standard industry identification (e.g., AISI  or  SAE
nomenclature), typical automotive applications, pricing per kilogram, annual consumption
rates,  and source references. The prices recorded in  the database are in US dollars per
kilogram.

E.5.2.2 Material Selection Process

The materials listed  in the database (resins, ferrous, and non-ferrous alloys) are used in
the products and components  selected for  cost  analysis.  The materials  identification
process  is based on visual part markings, part appearance, and part application. Material
markings are the most  obvious method of material identification. Resin components
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 136

typically have  material markings (e.g., >PA66  30GF<) which are easily identified,
recorded in the database, and researched to establish price trends.

For components which are not marked, such as transmission gears, knuckles, body-in-
white sheet metal,  engine connecting rods, and  the  like,  the  FEV and Munro  cross-
functional team members and Contracted Subject Matter Experts (SME)  are consulted in
the materials identification. For any materials still not identified, information published in
print and on the web is researched, or primary manufacturers and experts within the Tier
1 supplier community are contacted to establish credible material choices.

The specific application and the part appearance  play a role in materials identification.
Steels commonly referred to  as work-hardenable steels with high manganese content
(13% Mn) are readily made in a casting and are not  forgeable. Therefore,  establishing
whether a component is forged or cast can narrow the materials identification process.
Observing visual  cues on components can be very informative. Complex part geometry
alone can rule out the possibility of forgings; however, more subtle differences must be
considered. For example, forged components typically  have a smoother appearance to the
grain  whereas  cast components have a rougher  finish,  especially in the  areas  where
machining is absent. Castings also usually display evidence of casting flash.

The component application environment will also help determine material choice. There
are, for  example, several conventional ductile  cast  iron   applications found in base
gasoline  engines that are moving to Ductile High Silicon - Molybdenum or Ductile Ni-
Resist cast irons  in downsized turbocharged engines. This  is due to high  temperature,
thermal cycling, and corrosion resistance demands associated with elevated exhaust gas
temperatures in turbocharged engines. Therefore,  understanding the part application and
use environment can greatly assist in more accurate material determinations.

E.5.2.3 Pricing Sources and Considerations

The pricing data  housed  in the database is  derived  from various sources of publicly
available data from which historical trend data can be derived. The objective is to find
historical pricing  data over as many years as possible to obtain the most accurate trend
response.  Ferrous and non-ferrous alloy  pricing  involves  internet searches of several
sources, including the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), MEPS (previously Management
Engineering  &  Production   Services),  Metal-Pages,  London  Metal   Exchange,
estainlesssteel.com and Longbow.

Resin pricing is also obtained from sources such  as Plastics News, Plastics  Technology
Online, Rubber and Plastics News, and IDES (Integrated Design Engineering Systems).
Several other sources are used in this research as outlined in the database.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 137

Though material prices are often published for standard materials, prices for specialized
material  formulations and/or those having a nonstandard geometric configuration (e.g.,
length, width, thickness, cross-section), are not typically available. Where pricing is not
available for a given material with a known composition, two (2) approaches are used:
industry consultation and composition analysis.

Industry  consultation mainly takes the form of discussions with subject matter experts
familiar with the material selection and pricing used in the products under evaluation to
acquiring formal quotes from  raw material suppliers.  For example, in the case of the
NiMH battery, much of the material pricing was acquired from supplier quotes at the
capacity planning volumes stated in the analysis.

In those  cases where published pricing data was unavailable and raw material supplier
quotes could not be acquired,  a composition analysis was used. This was  achieved by
building  prices based on element composition and applying a processing factor  (i.e.,
market price/material composition cost) derived from a material within the same material
family. The calculated  price was compared to other materials  in the same family as  a
means to ensure the calculated material price was  directionally correct.

Obtaining prices for unknown proprietary material compositions, such as powder metals,
necessitated a standardized industry approach. In these cases, manufacturers  and industry
market research firms  are consulted to provide generic pricing  formulas  and pricing
trends. Their  price  formulas  are  balanced against  published market trends of  similar
materials to establish new pricing trends.

Resin formulations are also available with a variety of fillers and filler content. Some
pricing data is available for specific formulations; however, pricing is not published for
every variation. This variation is significant since many manufacturers  can easily tailor
resin filler type and  content to  serve the specific  application. Consequently,  the database
has been structured to group resins with a common filler into ranges of filler content. For
example, glass filled Nylon 6 is grouped  into three  (3) categories: 0 to  15 percent glass
filled, 30 to 35 percent  glass filled, and 50 percent glass filled, each with their own price
point. These groupings provide a single price point as the price differential within a group
(0 to 15 percent glass filled) is not statistically significant

E.5.2.4 In-process Scrap

In-process scrap is  defined  as the raw  material mass, beyond the final part  weight,
required  to manufacture a component. For example, in an injection molded part,  the in-
process scrap  is typically  created from the delivery  system  of the molten plastic into the
part cavity (e.g., sprue, runners and part gate). This additional  material is  trimmed off
following part injection from the mold. In some cases, dependent on the material and
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 138

application, a portion of this material  can be ground up and returned into the  virgin
material mix.

In the case of screw machine parts, the in-process scrap is  defined  as  the  amount of
material removed from the raw bar stock in the process  of  creating  the part features.
Generally,  material removed  during the various machining processes is sold  at scrap
value. Within this cost analysis study, no  considerations were  made to account for
recovering scrap costs.

A second scrap parameter accounted for in the cost analysis is end-item scrap. End-item
scrap is captured as a cost element within mark-up and will be discussed in more detail
within the mark-up database section, Section E.5.5. Although it is worth reiterating here
that  in-process  scrap  only covers the  additional  raw  material  mass required for
manufacturing a part, it does not include an allowance for quality defects, rework costs
and/or destructive test parts. These costs are covered by the end-item scrap  allowance.

E.5.2.5 Purchase Parts - Commodity Parts

In the quote assumption section of the  CBOM, parts are identified as either "make" or
"buy." The "make" classification indicates a detailed quote is  required for the applicable
part, while "buy" indicates an established price based on historical data is used in place of
a full quote work-up. Parts identified as a "buy" are treated as a purchased part.
                                                    w
Many of the parts considered  to be purchased are simple standard fasteners (nuts, bolts,
screws, washers, clips, hose clamps) and seals (gaskets, o-rings). However, in certain
cases, more value-added components  are considered purchased when  sufficient data
existed supporting their cost as a commodity: that is, where competitive or other  forces
drive these costs to levels on the order of those expected had these parts been analyzed as
"make" parts.

In the MAQS  worksheet, standard purchase parts costs are binned to material  costs,
which, in the scope of this analysis, are generally understood to be raw material costs. If
the purchase part content for a particular assembly or system is high in dollar value, the
calculated  cost breakdown in  the relevant elements (i.e., material,  labor,  manufacturing
overhead, mark-up) tended to be misleading. That is the material content would show
artificially inflated because of the high dollar value of purchase part content.

To try and minimize this cost binning error,  purchase parts with a value in the range of
$10  to $15, or greater, were broken into the standard cost elements using cost element
ratios developed for surrogate type parts. For example, assume a detailed cost analysis is
conducted  on a roller bearing assembly, "Bearing  A."   The ratio of material,  labor,
manufacturing overhead,  and  mark-up, as a percent  of the selling price, can easily be
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 139

calculated. Knowing the commodity selling price for a similar type of bearing assembly,
"Bearing B," along with the cost element ratios developed for Bearing A, estimates can
be made on the material, labor, manufacturing overhead, and mark-up costs for Bearing
B.

Purchased part costs are obtained from a variety of sources. These include FEV and
Munro team members' industry cost knowledge and experience, surrogate component
costing databases, Tier 1  supplier networks, published information, and service part cost
information.  Although an  important component of the  overall costing methodology,
purchase part costs are used judiciously and conservatively, primarily  for  mature
commodity parts.
     E.5.3    Labor Database

E.5.3.1 Overview

The  Labor Database contains all the standard occupations  and associated labor rates
required  to manufacture  automotive parts  and vehicles.  All labor rates referenced
throughout the cost analysis are referenced from the established Labor Database.

Hourly wage rate data used throughout the study, with exception of fringe and wage
projection parameters, is acquired from the  Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). For the
analysis,  mean hourly wage  rates were  chosen for each occupation, representing an
average wage across the United States.

The Labor Database is broken into two (2) primary industry sections, Motor Vehicle Parts
Manufacturing (supplier base) and Motor Vehicle Manufacturing (OEMs). These two (2)
industry sections correspond to the BLS, North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) 336300 and 336100 respectively. Within each industry section of the database,
there is  a list of  standard  production  occupations taken  from the  BLS  Standard
Occupation Classification  (SOC) system.  For reference,  the base  SOC  code for
production occupations within the Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing and Motor Vehicle
Manufacturing is 51-0000. Every production  occupation listed in the Labor Database has
a calculated labor rate, as discussed in more detail below. For the Toyota Venza CUV
mass-reduction and cost analysis study, 2010 rates were used.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 140
E.5.3.2 Direct Versus Total Labor, Wage Versus Rate
Each standard production  occupation  found in  the  Labor  Database  has  an SOC
identification number, title, labor description, and mean hourly wage taken directly from
the BLS.

Only "direct" production occupations are listed in the labor database. Team assemblers
and  forging, cutting, punching, and press machine operators are all considered direct
production occupations. There are several tiers of manufacturing personnel supporting the
direct laborers  that need to be accounted for in the total labor costs, such as  quality
technicians, process engineers, lift truck  drivers, millwrights, and electricians. A method
typically used by the automotive industry to account for all of these additional "indirect
labor" costs - and the one chosen for this cost analysis - is to calculate the contribution
of indirect labor as an average percent of direct labor, for a given production occupation,
in a given industry sector.

The  BLS Database provides labor wage data, rather than labor rate data. In addition to
what a direct laborer is paid, there are  several additional expenses the employer must
cover in addition to the employee base wage. This analysis refers to these added employer
expenditures as "fringe". Fringe is applicable to all employees and will be discussed in
greater detail following.

 It should be noted that the BLS motor  vehicle and motor vehicle parts manufacturing
 (NAICS  336100  &  336300) labor  rates  include  union and  non-union labor rates,
 reflecting the relative mix of each in the workforce at the time the data  was gathered
 (2010).

E.5.3.3 Contributors to Labor Rate and Labor Rate Equation

The four (4) contributors to labor costs used in this study are:

Direct Labor (DIR) is the mean manufacturing  labor wage directly associated with
fabricating,  finishing, and/or assembling a physical component or assembly. Examples
falling into this labor classification include injection mold press operators,  die cast press
operators, heat  treat  equipment operators, team/general assemblers, computer numerical
controlled (CNC)  machine operators, and stamping press  operators. The  median labor
wage for each direct labor title is also included in the database. These values are treated
as reference only.

Indirect Labor (IND)  is the manufacturing labor indirectly associated with making a
physical component or assembly. Examples include material handling personnel, shipping
and  receiving   personnel,  quality  control  technicians,   first-line  supervisors, and
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 141

manufacturing/process engineers.  For a  selected  industry sector (such  as  injection
molding, permanent casting,  or metal stamping), an average ratio of indirect to  direct
labor costs can be derived from which the contribution of indirect labor ($/hour) can be
calculated.

This ratio is calculated as follows:
          1.  An industry sector is chosen from the BLS, NAIC System, (e.g., Plastics
             Product Manufacturing NAICS 326100).
          2.  Within the selected industry sector, occupations are sorted (using SOC
             codes) into  one (1) of the four (4) categories: Direct Labor, Indirect Labor,
             MRO Labor, or  Other.
          3.  For each category (excluding "Other") a total cost/hour is calculated by
             summing up the population weighted cost per hour rates, for the SOC codes
             within each labor category.
          4.  Dividing the total indirect labor costs by total direct labor costs, the industry
             sector ratio  is calculated.
          5.  When multiple industries employ the same type direct laborer, as defined by
             NAICS, a weighted average of indirect to direct is calculated using the top
             three (3) industries.

Maintenance Repair and  Other  (MRO) is the labor required to repair and maintain
manufacturing  equipment and  tools  directly associated with  manufacturing a  given
component  or  assembly.  Examples  falling into  this  labor classification  include
electricians, pipe fitters, millwrights, and on-site tool and die tradesmen. Similar to
indirect labor, an average ratio of MRO to direct labor costs can be derived from which
the contribution of MRO labor  ($/hour) can be calculated. The same process used to
calculate the indirect labor ratio is also used for the MRO ratio.

Fringe (FR)  is all the additional expenses a company must pay for an employee  above
and beyond base wage. Examples of expenses captured as part of fringe include company
medical  and  insurance  benefits,  pension/retirement benefits,  government directed
benefits, vacation and holiday benefits, shift premiums, and training.

Fringe applies to all manufacturing employees. Therefore the contribution of fringe to the
overall labor rate is based on a percentage of direct, indirect and MRO labor. Two (2)
fringe  rates   are  used:  52%  for supplier manufacturing,  and  160%  for  OEM
manufacturing. The supplier manufacturing fringe rate is based on data acquired from the
BLS (Table 1009: Manufacturing Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Per Hours
Worked: 2000-2010). Taking  an average of the "Total Compensation" divided by "Wages
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 142

and Salaries" for manufacturing years 2008 thru 2010, an average fringe rate of 52% was
calculated.

Due to the  dynamic change of OEM wage and benefit packages over the last few years
(2008-2010), and differences among the OEMs, no updates were made from the original
OEM fringe assumptions developed for the initial "Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis
Pilot  Study"  EPA-420-R-09-020 (http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420r09020. pdf).
The OEM fringe rate utilized throughout the analysis was  160%.
     E.5.4    Manufacturing Overhead Database

E.5.4.1 Overview

The  Manufacturing Overhead Database contains several manufacturing overhead rates
(also  sometimes referred  to as  "burden rates," or simply "burden") associated with
various types of manufacturing equipment, that are required to manufacture automotive
parts  and  vehicles.  Combined  with  material and labor costs,  it  forms the total
manufacturing cost (TMC) to manufacture a component or assembly, and,  subsequently,
the cost  accounting  for  considerations such as workers, supervisors, managers, raw
materials,  purchased parts,  production  facilities,  fabrication  equipment,  finishing
equipment, assembly equipment, utilities, measurement and  test equipment, handling
equipment, and office equipment. Manufacturing equipment is typically one of the largest
contributors to manufacturing overhead, so manufacturing overhead rates are categorized
according to primary manufacturing processes and the associated equipment as follows:
   1.  The  first tier of the Manufacturing Overhead Database is arranged by the primary
       manufacturing process groups (e.g., thermoplastic molding, thermoset molding,
       castings, forgings, stamping and forming, powder metal,  machining, turning, etc.)
   2.  The  second tier subdivides the primary manufacturing process groups into primary
       processing equipment groups. For example the 'turning group' consists of several
       subgroups including some  of the following: (1) CNC turning, auto bar fed, dual
       axis  machining, (2)  CNC turning, auto bar fed, quad axis machining, (3) double-
       sided part, CNC turning, auto bar fed, dual axis machining, and (4) double-sided
       part, CNC turning, auto bar fed, quad axis machining.
   3.  The  third and final tier of the database increases the resolution of the primary
       processing equipment groups and defines the applicable manufacturing overhead
       rates. For example, within the "CNC turning, auto bar fed, dual  axis machining"
       primary process equipment group, there are four (4) available machines sizes
       (based on max cutting diameter and part length) from which to choose. The added
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 143

      resolution is typically based on part size and complexity and the need for particular
      models/versions of primary and secondary processing equipment.
E.5.4.2 Manufacturing Overhead Rate Contributors and Calculations

In this analysis burden is defined in terms of an "inclusion/exclusion" list as follows:

Burden costs do not include:
   •  manufacturing material costs
   •  manufacturing labor costs
          o direct labor
          o indirect labor
          o maintenance repair and other (MRO) labor
   •  mark-up
          o end-item scrap
          o corporate SG&A expenses
          o profit
          o ED&T/ R&D costs expenses
   •  tooling (e.g., mold,  dies, gauges, fixtures, dedicated pallets )
   •  packaging costs
   •  shipping and handling costs

Burden costs do include:
   •  rented and leased equipment
   •  primary and secondary process support manufacturing equipment depreciation
   •  plant office equipment depreciation
   •  utilities expense
   •  insurance costs (fire and general)
   •  municipal taxes
   •  plant floor space (equipment and plant offices)
   •  maintenance of manufacturing equipment (non-labor)
   •  maintenance of manufacturing building (general, internal and external, parts, and
      labor)
   •  operating supplies (consumables)
   •  perishable and supplier-owned tooling
   •  all other plant wages (excluding  direct, indirect and MRO labor)
   •  returnable dunnage  maintenance (includes allowance for cleaning and repair)
   •  intra-company shipping costs
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 144

As shown in the lists above, burden includes both fixed and variable costs. Generally, the
largest contribution to the fixed burden costs are the investments associated with primary
and secondary process support equipment. The single largest contributor to the  variable
burden rate is typically utility usage.

E.5.4.3 Acquiring Manufacturing Overhead Data

Because there is very limited publicly available data on manufacturing overhead rates for
the industry sectors included in this analysis, overhead rates have been developed from a
combination of internal knowledge and experience at FEV and Munro, supplier networks,
miscellaneous publications, reverse costing exercises, and "ground-up" manufacturing
overhead calculations.

For ground-up  calculations, a generic  "Manufacturing Overhead Calculator  Template"
was created. The template consists of eight (8) sections:
   •  General Manufacturing Overhead Information
   •  Primary Process Equipment
   •  Process Support Equipment
   •  General Plant & Office Hardware/Equipment
   •  Facilities Cost
   •  Utilities
   •  Plant Salaries
   •  Calculated Hourly Burden Rate.

The hourly burden rate calculation for a 500 ton (T) injection mold machine is used as an
example in the  following paragraphs. The General Manufacturing Overhead Information
section, in addition to defining the burden title (Injection Molding, Medium Size and/or
Moderate  Complexity) and description (Injection Molding Station, SOOT  Press), also
defines the equipment life expectancy (12 years),  yearly operating capacity (4,700 hours),
operation  efficiency (85%), equipment utilization (81.99%) and borrowing cost of money
(8%). These input variables support many of the calculations made throughout the costing
template.

The Primary  Process Equipment section (SOOT Horizontal Injection  Molding Machine)
calculates the annual expense ($53,139) associated with equipment  depreciation  over the
defined life expectancy. A straight-line-depreciation method, with zero end of life value,
is assumed for all equipment. Included in the cost of the base equipment  are several
factors such as  sales tax, freight, installation, and insurance. In addition, a maintenance,
repair and other (MRO) expense (other than MRO labor, which is covered as  part of the
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 145

overall labor cost), calculated as a percentage of the primary process equipment cost, is
included in the development of the manufacturing overhead.

The  Process Support Equipment section (e.g.,  Chiller,  Dryer,  Thermal  Control  Unit-
Mold), similar to the Primary Process Equipment section, calculates the annual expense
($6,121) associated with process support equipment depreciation.

The   General Plant  and   Office  Hardware/Equipment  section  assigns  an  annual
contribution  directed  toward  covering  a portion of the miscellaneous plant & office
hardware/equipment  costs  (e.g.,  millwright,  electrician, and plumbing  tool   crib,
production/quality communication, data tracking and storage,  general material handling
equipment,  storage, shipping and receiving equipment,  general quality lab equipment,
office equipment).  The contribution expense ($2,607) is calculated as a percent of the
annual primary and process support equipment depreciation  costs.

The  Facilities Cost section assigns  a cost based on square footage utilization for the
primary equipment ($4,807), process support equipment ($3,692), and general plant and
office hardware/equipment ($6,374). The general plant and office  hardware/equipment
floor space allocation is a calculated percentage (default 75%) of the derived primary and
process  support equipment floor space. The expense per square foot is $11.50 and covers
several  cost categories  such as facility depreciation costs, property taxes,  property
insurance, general facility maintenance, and general utilities.
                                                   w
The  Utilities section calculates a utility expense per hour for both primary equipment
($9.29/hour) and process support equipment ($3.5I/hour) based on equipment utility
usage specifications.  Some of the utility categories covered in this section include:
electricity at $0.10/kW-hr, natural gas at $0.00664/cubic foot, and water at $0.00I/gallon.
General plant and office hardware/equipment utility expenses are covered as part of the
facility cost addressed in the paragraph above (i.e., $11.50/square  foot).

The  Plant Salary section estimates the contribution of manufacturing salaries (e.g., plant
manager,  production  manager,  quality  assurance  manager)  assigned to the  indirect
participation of  primary and process support equipment.  An estimate is made on the
average size of  the manufacturing facility for this type  of primary process equipment.
There are  six (6)  established manufacturing facility sizes and corresponding salary
payrolls. Each has  a calculated salary cost/square foot. Based on the combined square
footage  utilization of  the  primary,  process support,  and general plant and office
equipment, an annual salary contribution cost is calculated ($6,625).

The  final  section, Calculated Hourly Burden Rate, takes the calculated values from the
previous sections and calculates  the hourly burden  rate in three (3) steps:  (1) 100%
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 146

efficiency and utilization ($30.54/hour); (2) user-defined efficiency with 100% utilization
($35.12/hour); and (3) both user-defined efficiency and utilization ($38.79/hour).

The majority of primary process equipment groups (e.g., injection molding, aluminum die
casting, forging,  stamping and forming) in the  manufacturing overhead database are
broken into five (5) to ten (10) burden rate subcategories based on processing complexity
and/or size,  as discussed in the manufacturing overhead review. For any given category,
there will often be a range of equipment  sizes and associated burden rates which are
averaged into a final burden rate.  The  goal  of  this averaging method  is to keep the
database compact while maintaining high costing resolution.

In the example of the  SOOT injection molding  press burden  rate,  the  calculated rate
($38.79) was averaged with three (3) other calculated rates (for 390T, 610T  and 720T
injection mold presses) into a final burden rate called "Injection Molding, Medium Size
and/or Moderate Complexity." The  final  calculated burden rate of $50.58/hour is used in
applications requiring injection molding presses in the range of 400-800 tons.

The  sample calculation  of the manufacturing overhead rate for an injection molding
machine above is a simple example highlighting the steps  and parameters  involved  in
calculating overhead rates. Regardless of the complexity of the  operation or process, the
same methodology is employed when developing overhead rates.

As  discussed, multiple  methods  of arriving at burden rates are used within the cost
analysis. Every attempt is made to acquire multiple data points for a given burden rate  as
a means of validating the rate. In some cases,  the validation is accomplished at the final
rate level and in other cases multiple pieces of input data, used in the calculation of a rate,
are acquired as a means of validation.
     E.5.5   Mark-up (Scrap, SG&A, Profit, ED&T)

E.5.5.1 Overview

All mark-up rates for Tier 1 and Tier 2/3 automotive suppliers referenced throughout the
cost analysis  can be found in the Mark-up Database, except in those cases where unique
component tolerances, performance requirements, or some other unique feature dictates a
special rate. In cases where a mark-up rate is "flagged" within  the costing worksheet, a
note is included which describes the assumption differences justifying the modified rate.

For this cost  analysis study, four (4) mark-up sub-categories  are used in determining  an
overall mark-up rate: (1) end-item scrap allowance, (2) SG&A  expenses, (3) profit, and
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 147

(4) ED&T/R&D expenses. Additional  details  for each  subcategory are discussed
following.

The layout of the Mark-up Database is similar to the Manufacturing Overhead Database
in that the  first tier of the Mark-up Database is arranged by the primary manufacturing
process groups (e.g., thermoplastic processing, thermoset processing,  casting, etc.). The
second tier subdivides the primary manufacturing process groups into primary processing
equipment  groups (e.g., thermoplastic processing is subdivided into injection molding,
blow or rotational molding, and pressure or vacuum form molding). The third and final
tier of the database increases the resolution of the primary processing  equipment groups
and defines the applicable mark-up rates. Similar to the overhead manufacturing rates,
size  and complexity of the parts being manufactured will direct the  process  and
equipment  requirements, as well  as  investments.  This, in  turn,  will have  a  direct
correlation to mark-up rates.

                                                 kA^
E.5.5.2 Mark-up Rate Contributors and Calculations

Mark-up, in general, is an added allowance to the Total Manufacturing  Cost to cover end-
item scrap, SG&A, profit and ED&T  expenses. The following are additional details on
what is included in each mark-up category:

End-Item Scrap Mark-up is an added allowance to cover the projected manufacturing fall-
out and/or rework costs associated with producing a particular component or assembly. In
addition, any  costs associated with in-process  destructive  testing  of a component or
assembly are  covered by  this allowance. As a  starting  point, scrap allowances  were
estimated to be between 0.3% and 0.7%  of the TMC within  each primary manufacturing
processing  group. The actual assigned value for each category is an estimate based on size
and complexity of the primary processing equipment as shown in Table E-l.

When published industry data or consultation with an industry expert  improves estimate
accuracy for scrap allowance associated  with  a generic manufacturing process (e.g., 5%
for sand casting,  investment casting),  the Mark-up Database is updated accordingly. In
cases  where  the manufacturing  process is  considered generic,  but  the component
performance requirements drive a higher  fall-out rate (e.g., 25% combined process fallout
on turbocharger turbine wheels), then  the scrap mark-up rate would only be adjusted in
the Manufacturing Assumption Quote Summary (MAQS) worksheet.

Selling. General,  and Administrative (SG&A) Mark-up is also referred to as  corporate
overhead or non-manufacturing overhead costs. Some of the more common cost elements
of SG&A are:
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 148

   •  Non-manufacturing, corporate facilities (building, office equipment, utilities,
      maintenance expenses, etc.)
   •  Corporate salaries (President, Chief Executive Officers, Chief Financial Officers,
      Vice Presidents, Directors,  Corporate Manufacturing, Logistics, Purchasing,
      Accounting, Quality, Sales, etc.)
   •  Insurance on non-manufacturing buildings and equipment
   •  Legal and public relation expenses
   •  Recall insurance and warranty expenses
   •  Patent fees
   •  Marketing and advertising expenses
   •  Corporate travel expenses
SG&A, like all mark-up rates, is an applied percentage to the Total Manufacturing Cost.
The default rates for this cost analysis range from 6% to 7% within each of the primary
processing groups. The actual values, as with the end-item scrap allowances, vary within
these ranges based on the size and complexity of the part, which in turn is reflected in the
size and complexity of the processing  equipment as shown in Table E-l. To support the
estimated SG&A rates (which are based on generalized OEM data), SG&A values are
extracted from publicly traded automotive supplier 10-K reports.

Profit Mark-up is the supplier's or OEM's reward for the investment risk associated with
taking on a project. On average, the higher the investment risk, the larger the profit mark-
up that is sought by a manufacturer.

As part  of the  assumptions list made for this cost analysis, it is assumed that the
technology being studied  is mature from the development and competition standpoint.
These assumptions are reflected in the conservative profit mark-up  rates which range
from 4% to 8% of the Total Manufacturing Cost. The profit mark-up ranges selected from
this cost analysis are based on generalized historical data from OEMs and suppliers.

As detailed with the preceding mark-up rates, the actual assigned percentage is based on
the supplier processing equipment size and complexity capabilities (Figure E-2).

ED&T Mark-up:  the ED&T used for this cost analysis is a combination of "Traditional
ED&T" plus R&D mark-up.

Traditional ED&T may be defined as the engineering,  design and testing activities
required to take an "implementation ready" technology and integrate it into  a specific
vehicle application. The ED&T calculation is typically more straight-forward because the
tasks are predefined. R&D, defined as the cost of the research and development activities
required to create a new (or enhance an existing) component/system technology, is often
independent of a specific vehicle application. In contrast to ED&T, pure R&D costs are
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 149

very difficult to predict and are very risky from an OEM and suppliers perspective, in that
these costs may or may not result in a profitable outcome.

For many automotive suppliers and OEMs, traditional ED&T and R&D are combined
into  one (1) cost center. For this cost analysis, the same methodology has been adopted,
creating a combined traditional ED&T and R&D  mark-up rate simply referred to as
ED&T.

Royalty fees, as the result of employing intellectual property, are also captured in the
ED&T mark-up section. When such cases exist,  separate lines in  the Manufacturing
Assumption & Quote Summary (MAQS) worksheet are used to capture these costs. These
costs are in  addition to the standard ED&T rates. The calculation of the royalty fees are
on a case by case basis and information regarding the calculation of each fee can be found
in the individual MAQS worksheets where applicable.
  Table E-l: Standard Mark-up Rates Applied to Tier 1 and Tier 2/3 Suppliers Based on Size and
                                 Complexity Ratings
Primary Manufacturing Equipment Group

Tier 2 /3 - Large Size, High Complexity,
Tier 2 /3 - Medium Size, Moderate
Complexity,
Tier 2 /3 - Small Size, Low Complexity

Tier 1 Complete System/Subsystem Supplier
(System/Subsystem Integrator)
Tl High Complexity Component Supplier
Tl Moderate Complexity Component
Supplier
Tl Low Complexity Component Supplier
End Item
Scrap
Mark-up

0.7%
0.5%
0.3%

0.7%
0.7%
0.5%
0.3%
SG&A
Mark-up

7.0%
6.5%
6.0%

7.0%
7.0%
6.5%
6.0%
Profit
Mark-up

8.0%
6.0%
4.0%

8.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
ED&T
Mark-up

2.0%
1.0%
0.0%

6.0%
4.0%
2.5%
1.0%
Total
Mark-up

17.7%
14.0%
10.3%

21.7%
19.7%
15.5%
11.3%
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 150

E.5.5.3 Assigning Mark-up Rates

The three (3) primary steps to matching mark-up rates to a given component are:

      Step  1; Primary manufacturing process and equipment groupings are pre-selected
      as part of the process to identify the manufacturing overhead rate.

      Step  2; Manufacturing  facilities are identified as  OEM, Tl or  T2/T3  (this
      identification process is discussed in more detail in the Manufacturing Assumption
      & Quote Summary worksheet section).

      Step  3;  The best-fit mark-up rate is selected based on the size and complexity of
      the part, which in turn is reflected in the size and complexity of the processing
      equipment.  Note  that   size and complexity  are   considered as  independent
      parameters when reviewing a  component  and the  equipment  capabilities (with
      priority typically given to "complexity").

Further details on methodology for developing TMC and supplier mark-up can be found
in EPA published report EPA-420-R-09-020 "Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Pilot
Study" (http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420r09020.pdf).
     E.5.6   Packaging Database

E.5.6.1 Overview

The  Packaging  Database  contains  standardized packaging  options  available  for
developing packaging costs for components  and assemblies. In the cost  analysis only
packaging costs required to transport a  component/assembly from a Tier 1 to an OEM
facility (or one  facility to another at the same OEM) are calculated in detail. For Tier 2/3
suppliers of high- and low-impact components, as well as purchased parts, the Tier 1
mark-up is estimated to cover the packaging as well as shipping expenses. Tier 1 mark-up
on incoming Tier 2/3 parts and purchase parts are discussed in more detail in Section E.6.

All core packaging items (e.g., containers, pallets, totes) referenced in the database are
considered returnable dunnage. Internal packaging (e.g., tier pads, dividers,  formed trays)
are also considered returnable with the exception of a few items that are expendable. The
cost  to clean  and maintain  returnable dunnage is  assumed to be  covered by the
manufacturing overhead rate.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 151
E.5.6.2 Types of Packaging and Selection Process
Packaging  options  in the  database  are limited to a few standard  types  and sizes  to
minimize complexity. In general,  everything is tailored toward fitting onto a standard
automotive pallet (as specified by the Automotive Industry Action  Group), which has
exterior dimensions of 48 by 45 inches and  a base height  assumption of 34  inches
(although other standard sizes exist in 25, 33  39, 42, 48, and 50 inches in height).  A
standard transport  trailer height of  106  inches is  used as the guideline for overall
packaging height.

When initially trying to package a component, three (3) typical packaging options are
considered:
         •   standard 48 by 45 by 34-inch palletized container (with tier pads and
             dividers)
         •   48 by 45-inch base pallet with stacked 21.5 by 15 by 12.5-inch totes (48
             totes max - and note that totes can have specialized tier pads, dividers, etc.)
         •   48 by 45-inch base pallet with vacuum formed dividers strapped together
Considering component attributes  such as weight, size, shape, fragility, and cleanliness,
one  (1) of the packaging  options above is  selected, along with an  internal dunnage
scheme. If it is deemed impractical  to package the  component within one (1)  of the
primary options, a new package style is created and added to the Packaging Database.
                                                   w
Once the primary packaging  type and  associated internal  dunnage are selected for  a
component,  the assumptions  along  with the costs  are entered into  a Manufacturing
Assumption Quote  Summary  (MAQS) worksheet. In the MAQS worksheet, packaging
costs along with volume assumptions, pack densities, stock turn-over times, program life,
packaging life, and interest expenses are used to calculate a cost-per-part for packaging.
   ^^^
E.5.6.3 Support for Costs in Packaging Database

Primary pallet and container costs are acquired from either Tier 1 automotive suppliers  or
from container  vendors. In some cases,  scaling within container groups is  performed  to
quantify the pricing for slightly larger or smaller containers within the  same family.

Internal dunnage costs are acquired from either Tier 1 automotive suppliers or calculated
based on standard material and processing estimates. When tooling costs are required for
packaging,  the value of that tooling is added to the total pallet  container piece cost,  as
calculated in the MAQS worksheets. The total value is then amortized to calculate  a cost-
per-part for packaging.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 152
E.6    Shipping Costs
In the cost analysis, shipping costs are accounted for by one (1) of three (3) factors: (1)
Indirect Cost multiplier,  (2) total mark-up allowance, or (3) manufacturing overhead.
Further, shipping costs  are always considered freight on board (FOB) the shipper's dock,
with the exception of intra-company transportation. Following are the four (4) shipping
scenarios encountered in the cost analysis and how each case is handled.

In the first two (2) cases,  OEM and supplier intra-company transportation, shipping costs
are accounted for as part of the manufacturing overhead rate. It is assumed that the OEM
or supplier would either have their own transportation equipment and/or subcontract for
this service. In either case the expense is binned to manufacturing overhead.

The third case is Tier 1 shipments to an OEM facility. As  stated previously the shipments
are FOB the shipper's dock and thus the OEM is responsible for the shipping expense.
The  ICM is assumed to  cover the  OEM's expense to have  all parts delivered to the
applicable OEM manufacturing facilities.

The final case is Tier 2/3  shipments to the Tier  1 facility. Generally, the Tier 1 supplier is
allowed a mark-up on incoming purchased parts from Tier 2/3  suppliers. The mark-up
covers many costs including the shipping expenses  to have the part delivered onto the
Tier  1 supplier's dock. Further, the mark-up can either be a separate mark-up only applied
to incoming purchased parts, or accounted for by the mark-up applied to the TMCs. In the
former, the purchase part  content would not be  included in the final mark-up calculation
(i.e., Mark-up = (TMC - Purchase Parts cost) x Applicable Mark-up Rate).

For this cost analysis, the latter case is chosen using the same mark-up rate for all Tier 1
value-added manufacturing as well as all incoming purchase parts.
   ^^^
E.7    Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary Worksheet

     E.7.1    Overview

The Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary (MAQS) worksheet is the document
used in the cost analysis process to  compile all the known cost data, add any remaining
cost  parameters, and calculate a final unit cost. All key manufacturing cost information
can be  viewed in the  MAQS worksheet for  any component or  assembly. Additional
details on the  information  which  flows  into  and  out  of the  MAQS worksheet are
discussed in  more detail in following  sections.  Section E.9  discusses how MAQS
worksheets are uploaded into subsystem, system, and vehicle summary templates to
calculate the net component/assembly cost impact to the OEM.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 153

The  fundamental objective of the MAQS worksheet is similar to a  standard quoting
template used by the automotive industry. However, the format has been revised to
capture additional quote details and manufacturing assumptions, improve on transparency
by breaking out all major cost elements, and  accommodate variable data inputs for the
purpose  of sensitivity assessments.  These features are discussed in more detail in
following sections.

For  a given  case study,  all Tier 1  or OEM assemblies,  identified in  the  CBOM as
requiring cost analysis, will have a link to a MAQS worksheet. In some  cases where high
value final assembly Tier 2/3 parts are shipped to a Tier 1 supplier, a separate MAQS
worksheet is  created  for greater transparency.  These T2/3 MAQS worksheets are linked
to T I/OEM MAQS worksheets, which in turn are referenced back to the  CBOM.

Because many of the detailed spreadsheet documents generated within this analysis are
too large to be shown in their entirety, electronic copies can be accessed through EPA's
electronic docket ID TBD (http://www.regulations.gov).
     E.7.2    Main Sections of Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary
     Worksheet

The MAQS worksheet, as shown in Figure E-3 and Figure E-4, contains seven (7) major
sections. At the top of every MAQS  worksheet is an information header (Section A),
which captures the basic project details along with the primary quote assumptions.  The
project detail section references the MAQS worksheet back to the applicable CBOM.  The
primary quote assumption section provides the basic information needed to put together a
quote for a component/assembly. Some of the parameters in the quote assumption section
are automatically referenced/linked throughout the MAQS worksheet, such as capacity
planning volumes,  product life   span,   and  OEM/T1  classification.  The  remaining
parameters in  this  section including facility  locations, shipping methods,  packing
specifications,  and  component  quote  level  are  manually  considered for  certain
calculations.
-------
                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                            Page 154

1

IS
NonhAm
TIHighl
°.°
° M
3.8
IB


=
S
O. 1
ii
0 M
IN ^
r



«


f

h
(
L
C

1
•f;

-
1
&l
pi
H
ll
at
Vehicle Cl
Study Ca

li
E



i
FOB Ship
J
1
|



i
S
E
1
5
|



*|

7
•*
M
—
4
L



0

i

2007 Mini Cooper S. 1.6
c
I
I

s
1
.1
•J
Retumab
m
1
1
1


.
s
ID
E

S







i
s
i
is
IE
£
£





1
1
Fuel Injector Assembly
c
















5
|
T5
E
t;
m









1
1
1
1
L
"
1
L

|
*
0
p

"1000"
Tooling Assumptions
"xlOOO "
' Total 3 =

- Total 1 + Total Mark-up
11=1
11=1
i Ilil
1 III
lit
Slfll
Total 1 =
, «bterial+ Labor* Burder
I ~P
> 1
1
1 II
IJU
Pit
; l«t
\ pit
: Material Usage "Ibs"
; Parallel Processing
' Multiplier
Number of Lines
Number of Operators
Finished Pieces Per Hour

i!
• 1


ii
5 «
I
|
11

If
P
QTY Per Assembly
i J
• *
i
i 1
Relereme I


































I
E

1
1
1


% t ^ 5 iq Sj S
******
i i i 5 i I i

i i i i i i i
i i i i i i i
iiiiiii
SSSSSSS
i « « s s s s
2 5 5 "• 2 2 5
5 1 1 1 S 5 5
I IS 1111
* 5 S * * * *
8 S S S S s S
I 8 § i i I I
S 0 S 0000
0 00 0000

j j j i i i i


. . y . . .
	
s S S S S 5 5

1 11 1111
1 11 1111
j j j j : j j
s s s i j | |
i 11 1111
i 11 1111
1
I i 1

11 1111
® 1® 1® f* 1 1
, , t t t t
S ! { J 1 i
{ ! j j 1 1
1 i 1 | 1 „ 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
	

S S S S S S S
ill 1
{ t I i I t I
1 i i ; I f |
; s s s s s s




































J
s
purchase Part- High Impact Item


™ = !q § ™ S S

Iiiiiii

SSSSSSS
SSSSSSS
iiiiSii
SSSSSSS
iiiiSii
5 i I i i i i
s i i 3 s 5 5

SSISSii
ISllill

IIIIIII
lllllli
illllli

	

3333388
152S1SS


njjj
°°°° '°1
i i i i i i J
lllllli
i i i i ™ i i
£ £ 1 j
ess
i i
I I I I i I |
	

jjjf??j
1
s
1 1
li, i,






















:
?
i
F
f


E
1
1
0
"5
•s
E

i
1
i
ost Mapping
1
(Purchase Part- Low Impact Item






















V
"\
y-

)
i














































1
Q
£
1
1
s
Purchase Part- Commodity (Val






I


































iSSSSSSii

iiiiiiiii
ssssssszz
iiiiiiiii


















'. S 8^ t

1 III |
f | 1 | 1
S 1! f = S!
t SE« B
1 Ml !
1 pi it
i! 1 1


.......




iiii
SSSSSSS
f I
liiiiH
lilliii


s
*


i!
i
!
I
?
B
1
1
1


























£
"


! Is
Hi
s |s
I is
ill
1 i
I i
1 i
5 1!
iti
sii
ill
= •

ii

^
o

i—
o
lil
(/)













5 =

if
*i
•
































Figure E-3: Sample MAQS Costing Worksheet (Part 1 of 2)
-------
                                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                                              March 30, 2012
                                                                                                   Page 155
   Total Number of Direct
    Resulting Pieces/Hou
    Number of Equivale
    Machines Require
   Multiplier, If Required for
    Piece/Cycle/Machine
       Parallel
   OperationsflUlachine
      Stations/Line
    an Design Calculation
    for Complete Process
     Time "Sec."
     e Time/Operation
   Stated Efficiency "Sec."
    ©StatedEfficiency

    Pcs./Hr.(100%Eff.)
       Is
                     5   Is   1155
                         55   55
                     S   S  S   S  S  S  S
                     ;   ;  ;   5555
                            s   s
                     §   =  =   =  =  =  =
                                                    g| | g a
                                                iiiiiii
                                                3333333
                                                sssssss
                                                sssssss
                                                =======
                                                     2
                                                                             ;.,
                                                                             ill
                                                                            HP!
                                                                                     I'll!
                                                                                     •Mr'
                                                      Hi
                                                                                      53 = -
                                                                                     li
u
z
   (Component/ Assem
1
   (Component/ Assembly)
-1
 i |
I
                     I   I
I  I  I  I
                                      1  1
                                                                    lililliii
            Figure E-4: Sample MAQS Costing Worksheet (Part 2 of 2)
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 156
Two (2) parameters above whose functions perhaps are not so evident from their names
are the "OEM/T1 classification" and "component quote level."

The   "OEM/T1  classification"  parameter  addresses  who  is  taking  the  lead  on
manufacturing the end-item component, the OEM or Tier 1 supplier. Also captured is the
OEM or Tier 1  level, as defined by size, complexity, and expertise level.  The value
entered into  the  cell  is  linked to  the  Mark-up  Database,  which  will  up-load the
corresponding mark-up values from the database into the MAQS worksheet. For example,
if "Tl High Assembly Complexity" is entered in the input cell, the following values for
mark-up are pulled into the worksheet: Scrap = 0.70%, SG&A =  7%, Profit = 8.0% and
ED&T = 4%. These rates are then multiplied by the TMC at the bottom of the  MAQS
worksheet to calculate the applied mark-up as shown in Figure H-H-2.

The process for selecting the classification of the lead manufacturing site (OEM or Tl)
and corresponding complexity (e.g.,  High Assembly Complexity,  Moderate Assembly
Complexity, Low Assembly Complexity) is based on the team's  knowledge of existing
value chains for same or similar type components.
  OEM Operating Pattern (Weeks/Year):
        Annual Engine Volume (CPV):
           Components per Engine:
         Annual Component Volume:
         Weekly Component Volume:
            Estimated Product Life:
                          OEM Plant Location: North America
                                    ratre
                             1 Classification: T1 HighAssembj
                            Shipping Method: FOB ship Point
          3G.29G
                                 10
Packaging Specification:
Returnable Container & Internal Dunnage
                                                                       TMC
                      Material
                            Labor
                                  Burden
                                        TMC
                                            Scrap
 T1 or OEM Total Manufacturing Cost
      T1 or OEM MartUJp Rates:
  (SAC) ST1 or OEM MaiKUp Values:
$2.16

am
                             $1.47
                                   $10 M
     Base Cost Impact to Vehicle:
                      $2.16
      $1.47   $6.44  $10.07  $0.11  $1.18  $1.26  $0.10  $3.03
                                   $13.11



                                                              I	  Packaging Cost
                                                               Net Cost Impact to Vehicle:
                                                          $0.01
                                                         $13.13
 Figure E-5: Excerpt Illustrating Automated Link between OEM/T1 Classification Input in MAQS
 Worksheet and the Corresponding Mark-up Percentages Uploaded from the Mark-up Database

The "component quote level" identifies what level of detail is captured in the MAQS
worksheet for a  particular component/assembly, full quote,  modification quote, or
differential quote. When the "full quote" box is checked, it indicates all manufacturing
costs are  captured for the component/assembly. When the "modification quote" box is
checked,  it indicates  only the changed portion of the  component/assembly  has  been
quoted. A differential quote is similar to a modification quote with the exception that
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 157

information from  both technology configurations, is brought into the same MAQS
worksheet, and a differential analysis is conducted on the input cost attributes versus the
output cost attributes. For example, if two (2) brake boosters (e.g., the production stock
booster and the mass-reduced booster) are being compared for cost, each brake booster
can have its differences quoted in a separate MAQS worksheet (modification quote) and
the total  cost  outputs  for  each can be subtracted  to  acquire  the  differential  cost.
Alternatively in a single MAQS  worksheet the cost driving attributes for the differences
between the  booster's  (e.g.,  mass  difference  on  common components,  purchase
component differences, etc.) can be offset, and the differential cost calculated in a single
worksheet. The differential quote method is typically employed those components with
low  differential cost  impact to help  minimize the  number of MAQS  worksheets
generated.

From left to right, the MAQS worksheet is broken into two (2) main sections as the name
suggests, a quote summary (Section B)  and manufacturing assumption section (Section
D). The manufacturing assumption section, positioned to the right of the quote summary
section, is  where the additional assumptions and calculations are made to convert the
serial  processing  operations from Lean Design® into  mass production  operations.
Calculations  made in this section are  automatically loaded into the quote summary
section. The quote summary section utilizes this data  along with other costing database
data to calculate the total cost for each defined operation in the MAQS worksheet.
                                                   7
Note  "defined operations"  are all the value-added  operations  required to make  a
component or assembly. For example, a high pressure fuel injector may have twenty (20)
base level components which all need to be assembled together. To manufacture one (1)
of the base level components there may be as many as two (2) or three (3) value-added
process operations (e.g., cast, heat treat, machine). In the MAQS worksheet each of these
process operations has an individual line summarizing the manufacturing assumptions
and costs for the defined operation. For a case with two (2) defined operations per base
level component, plus two (2) subassembly and final assembly operations, there could be
as many as forty (40) defined operations detailed out in the MAQS worksheet. For ease of
viewing  all the costs associated with a  part, with multiple value-added operations, the
operations are grouped together in the MAQS worksheet.

Commodity based purchased parts are also included as a separate line code in the MAQS
worksheet.  Although  there  are  no  supporting  manufacturing  assumptions  and/or
calculations required since the costs are provided as total costs.

From top to bottom, the MAQS worksheet is divided into four (4) quoting levels in which
both the value-added operations and commodity-based purchase parts are grouped:  (1)
Tier 1 Supplier or OEM Processing and Assembly, (2) Purchase Part - High  Impact
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 158

Items, (3) Purchase Part - Low Impact Items, and (4) Purchase Part - Commodity. Each
quoting level has different rules relative to what cost elements are applicable, how cost
elements are binned, and how they are calculated.

Items listed in the Tier 1 Supplier or OEM Processing and Assembly section are all the
assembly and subassembly manufacturing  operations assumed to be performed at the
main OEM or Tl manufacturing facility. Included in manufacturing operations would be
any on-line attribute and/or variable product engineering characteristic  checks. For this
quote level, full and detailed cost analysis is performed (with the exception of mark-up
which is applied to the TMC at the bottom of the worksheet).

Purchase Part — High Impact Items include all the operations  assumed to be performed
at Tier 2/3 (T2/3) supplier facilities and/or Tl internal supporting facilities. For this quote
level  detailed cost analysis is performed, including  mark-up  calculations  for those
components/operations  considered  to be supplied  by  T2/3  facilities.  Tl  internal
supporting facilities included in this category do not include mark-up  calculations. As
mentioned above, the Tl mark-up (for main and supporting facilities) is applied to the
TMC at the bottom of the worksheet.

Purchase Part — Low Impact Items are for higher priced commodity based items which
need to have their manufacturing  cost elements broken out and presented in the MAQS
sheet similar to high impact purchase parts. If not, the material cost group in the MAQS
worksheet may become distorted since commodity based purchase part costs are binned to
material costs as discussed previously in Section E.5.2.5 Purchase Parts - Commodity
Parts. Purchase Part — Commodity Parts are  represented in the MAQS worksheet as a
single cost and are binned to material costs.

At the bottom of the MAQS worksheet (Section F), all the value-added operations and
commodity-based  purchase  part  costs, recorded in  the  four  (4)  quote levels,  are
automatically added together to obtain the  TMC. The applicable mark-up rates based on
the Tl or OEM classification recorded in  the  MAQS  header are then multiplied by the
TMC to obtain  the mark-up contribution. Adding the TMC and mark-up contribution
together, a subtotal unit cost is calculated.

Important to  note is that throughout the MAQS worksheet, all  seven (7)  cost element
categories (material, labor, burden,  scrap,  SG&A, profit, and ED&T) are maintained in
the analysis.  Section C,  MAQS breakout calculator, which resides between the quote
summary and manufacturing assumption sections, exists primarily for this function.

The last major section of the MAQS worksheet is the packaging  calculation, Section E. In
this section of the MAQS worksheet a packaging cost contribution is calculated for each
part  based on considerations such  as packaging requirements, pack densities,  volume
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 159

assumptions, stock, and/or transit lead times. As previously mentioned, for the purpose of
this study component/assembly packaging costs were considered to be neutral due to the
relative size envelope of these parts not changing significantly between the production
stock and mass-reduced parts.

E.8    Marketplace Validation

Marketplace validation  is the process by which individual parts, components,  and/or
assemblies are cross-checked with costing data developed by entities and processes
external to the team responsible for the cost analysis. This process occurs at all stages of
the cost analysis, with special emphasis is placed on cross-checking in-process costs (e.g.,
material costs, material selection, labor costs,  manufacturing overhead costs, scrap rates,
and individual component costs within an assembly).

In-process cost validation occurs  when a  preliminary cost has been developed for a
particular part within an assembly, and the  cost is significantly higher or lower than
expected  based  on the  team's   technical  knowledge  or on pricing  from   similar
components. In this  circumstance, the cost analysis team would first revisit the costs,
drawing  in part/process-specific internal expertise  and checking surrogate parts from
previously costed bills of materials where available. If the discrepancy is still unresolved,
the team would rely on automotive supplier networks,  industry experts, and/or publicly
available publications to validate the cost assumptions, making changes where warranted.

Cross-checking on final assembly costs also occurs within the scope of the  cost analysis,
mainly as a "big picture" check.  Final assembly costs, in general cross-checking, are
typically achieved through solicitation  of industry experts. The depth of cross-checking
ranges  from  simple  comparison of cost   data  on  surrogate  assemblies  to full
Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary (MAQS) worksheet reviews.

E.9    Cost Model Analysis Templates

     E.9.1    Subsystem, System  and Vehicle Cost Model Analysis Templates

The Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMAT)  are the documents used to display and roll-
up all the costs associated with a particular subsystem,  system  or vehicle. At the lowest
level  of the hierarchy,  the manufacturing  assumption  quote summary worksheets,
associated with a particular vehicle subsystem, are directly linked to the Sub-subsystem
CMAT (SSSCMAT). These Sub-subsystem cost totals  are then summarized at the next
level  in the Subsystem CMAT   (SSCMAT). All  the subsystems  cost  breakdowns,
associated with a particular system, are directly linked to the relevant System CMAT
(SCMAT). Similarly, all the system cost breakdown summaries are directly linked to the
Vehicle CMAT (VCMAT). The top-down layering of the incremental costs,  at the various
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 160

CMAT levels, paints a clear picture of the cost drivers at all levels for the adaptation of
the advance technology. In addition, since all of the databases, MAQS worksheets, and
CMATs are linked together, the ability to understand the impact of various cost elements
on the incremental cost can be readily understood. These costing variables can be easily
and quickly updated within the various databases to provide a tremendous  amount of
flexibility in evaluating various costing scenarios and sensitivity studies.

E.10   Differential Tooling Cost Analysis

     E.10.1  Differential Tooling Cost Analysis Overview

As  part  of the mass-reduction and  cost  analysis project,  EPA requested that  FEV
determine the differential tooling impact for those  components that were evaluated for
mass-reduction. As stated in Section E.3, Tooling Costs are the dedicated tool,  gauge, and
fixture costs required to manufacture a part. Examples of items covered by tooling costs
include injection molds, casting molds, stamping dies, weld fixtures, assembly fixtures,
dedicated assembly and/or machining pallets, and dedicated gauging. For this analysis, all
tooling is assumed to be owned by the OEM.

Tooling costs should not be confused with equipment and facility costs (also  sometimes
referred to as investment costs or capital investment costs). In the scope of this analysis,
Investment Costs are the manufacturing facility costs, not covered as tooling, required to
manufacture  parts.  Investment costs  include manufacturing  plants,  manufacturing
equipment (e.g., injection  mold machines,  die cast machines, machining and turning
machines, welding equipment,  assembly lines), material handling equipment (e.g., lift
forks,  overhead cranes, loading dock  lifts, conveyor systems), paint lines, plating lines,
and heat  treat equipment. Investment costs  are accounted for  in the  manufacturing
overhead rates  as discussed in  Section E.5.4.2.The tool cost analysis is  an incremental
analysis using a similar methodology as established for developing the incremental direct
manufacturing costs. For example if a part on the production Venza is injection-molded
and the new mass-reduced replacement  part is injection-molded using the PolyOne
injection mold process,  then no further tooling analysis was conducted. The PolyOne
process requires no significant tooling modifications relative to traditional injection mold
tools. Conversely, if a component went from a stamped part to an injection mold part, the
team would then quote the tooling needed for stamping the production stock part as well
as the injection-molded mass-reduced part. The tooling cost would be  the  difference
between these two values (+/-).
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 161

     E.10.2   Differential Tooling Cost Analysis Methodology

Outlined here  are the general  process steps  used by FEV to evaluate the differential
tooling impact between the production stock Venza  components and the mass-reduced
replacement components.
1)    Assemble and assign teams of manufacturing expertise

   a) Assembled team members have expertise in several key primary and secondary
      manufacturing processes including stamping, casting, molding and machining.
   b) When required, outside consultation resources were also utilized.
   c) Assemble and assign teams to vehicle subsystems and systems having  a majority of
      components with fabrication processes matching team's expertise.

2)    Establish Boundary Conditions for Tooling Analysis
   a) High volume production: 200K units/year Venza specific components (e.g. body-
      in-white); 450K units/year on cross-platform  shared  components (e.g. engine,
      transmission, brakes)
   b) Assumed manufacturing  life: 5 years
   c) Assumed cost of borrowing money: 8%

3)    Identify mass-reduced  components  in the  analysis potentially  having an
   incremental tooling impact

   a) Evaluate component manufacturing process differences between the production
      stock and mass-reduced components.
   b) Based on the team's assessment,  if a  significant tooling value  difference exists
      between the production stock and mass-reduced components, a tooling analysis is
      initiated.
   c) If an insignificant incremental tooling difference is identified by the  team, a zero
      value is placed in the Manufacturing Assumption and  Quote Summary (MAQS)
      worksheet for both the production stock component and mass-reduced alternative.

4)    Establish tooling  costs for components having  a potential  tooling impact
   (components which were not evaluated  in the analysis  for mass  reduction were
   excluded from the analysis up front)
   a) Establish tooling line-up for the production Venza components with respect to the
      mass-reduced components (e.g., types of tools, number of tools)
   b) Six (6) standard tooling categories exist to establish the potential tooling line-ups:
-------
                                                    Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                  March 30, 2012
                                                                     Page 162

   i)     Primary Manufacturing Tools and Fixtures (e.g., molds, dies, machining
      fixtures, assembly fixtures, stamping tools)
   ii)    End of Line Gauges and Testing Fixtures.
   iii)   Non-Perishable   Tooling  (e.g.,  machining   cutter   bodies,   pick-n-
      place/gantries arms, guide/bushing plates)
   iv)   Custom & Dedicated Gauges
   v)    Bulk Processes (e.g., baskets, hangers, custom conveyors or walking arms)
   vi)   OPTIONAL (to be described w/ comment box if needed)
c) As part of the tooling assessment, consideration is also given to the following:
   i)     Number of back-up tool sets
   ii)    Repair frequency, complexity, and costs
   iii)   Refurbishment frequency, complexity, and costs

d) Tooling costs for each operation included in the component analysis are summed-
   up and entered in the tooling column of the Manufacturing Assumption and Quote
   Summary (MAQS) worksheet (Figure E-6). The tooling impact is  automatically
   summed-up  at the bottom  of the MAQS worksheet  similar  to  the direct
   manufacturing costs for every component  evaluated; both the production stock
   Venza  parts  (baseline)  and  mass-reduced  Venza  parts  (new  technology
   configuration).
-------
                                                             Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                            March 30, 2012
                                                                                Page 163
                   Technology Level: Light Weighting Technology
                     Vehicle Class: Mid to Large Size Passenger Vehicle, 4-6 Passengers	
                     Study Caseff: TJ0502 |N = New, 05 = Technology Package, 02 = Vehicle Class )
                  System Description: Brake system
                                                            OEM Plant Location: USA
                                                          Supplier Plant Location: USA
OEM/T1 Classification: T1 High Assembly Complexity
   Shipping Method: FOB Ship Point
               Component Description: Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem: Front Rotor and Shield Sub.   Packaging Specification: Returnable Dunnage	
               Component Quote Level:  1^ Full Quote   r Differential Quote (Quote Summary includes costing for both Technology Packages)       EOP:'  2023
                                                            Mean Year Quoted: 2011
GENERAL COMPONENT INFORMATION
*
Part Description

Tie 1 Supplier or OEM Processing
Front Brake RoBr (DtscShM
FrortBrate Rccr (Disc 8 Hal
Frort Brake Roor (Dae 8 Ha)
From Brake Roor (Dec S Hat)
Fron Brake Rc»r IDecSHa)
M.MUWM
FrQr.< Brate Ro»r (Csci
Frore Brake Rotor (Dec)
Frora Brake Rcor (Dec)
F row Brake Rotor (Dec)
Part Number

& Assembly (Full Cost









QTY Per Assembly

map


2
2
GENERAL MANUFACTURING INFORMATION
Primary Process
Description

Ping)
Inlne gaging
Wash
Sur&ce Grind rfccsurtee
WasH
UKnarcaiA&y
wash
CNCMacfwe
Tftn tasfl a gaes (saw)
Sand casing - remove sand
Sand easing - pour cas material

Labor
Classification


NK^pfAade
Grmding/Poishing Opera»r-
336300
PBsng/Cosing Opera»r-332iO<
Wort Cel asemWy-332100
Plasng/Coawig Operasw-332!K
CNC Operaor-332100
DrSng/Boring Opet»or-3315M
MoW/CasfSiner Operanr-
331600
MeiaCFourer^Casers Operscr
331500

uofiiKj Categories:
. Manufacturing Fixtures
. Gage & Test Tortures
. Non-perishable tooing [
Hide/bushing plates, etc)
MARK-UP COSTS




TOTAL COSTS
^
machining, assembly, welding, molds, dies)
. Gauging (standard & custom - both variable and go/no-go)
. Bulk Process Handing: baskets, hangers, custom conveyors or walking arms
. OPTIOHAi. (to be described w/ comment box if needed)
Grinding, MLS, LMC
Washing Eqwpmera. LMC
Mecfi AEsemHy, MC, Base
Washing Equpmere, LMC
CNC Macrurmg, LC
SAW, BftND, VERT: nVxVH -
4-WX4-H
Sand Casi, Sana Removal, MS
Sand CaS. Iron. Cansnab
DDK
00%
00*t
N/A
00%
90%
00%
0.00%
ocrs
00%
' N'A
no^j
00%
DOS
D.DO-i
0.00%
000%
0.00'^
0.00%
' *>N)A
D.00%
O-Otrs
0.00%
000%
O.OOfe
SO DO
SO DO
SO 00
' #N/A
$0.00
$0.00
W.DO
$000
MOO
1



0.64
011
027
fiN/A
(112
1.79
005
024
24 QS
ll
1 "
>
5
USD

im
044
1.2B
021
054
tM
0.?4
1.57
0.11
048
4816
TOOLING A INVESTMENT
J Tooling Assumptions
"xlOOO "
USD


S60
515
S95
w
sss
W
5225
S21
SO
so
Investment
Assumptions "xlOOO "
USD




     Figure E-6:  Sample Excerpt from Mass-Reduced Front Brake Rotor MAQS worksheet
                         Illustrating Tooling Column and Categories


5)     Calculation of Net Differential Tooling Impact
   a)  Similar to the direct manufacturing cost roll-ups, Cost Model Analysis Templates
       (CMATs) are used to roll-up the tooling costs at each level of the analysis.
   b)  Tooling costs are summed-up  at the sub-subsystem, subsystem, system level and
       vehicle level.
6)     The  Final step is the calculation of "Incremental Tooling Cost per Vehicle" and
   "Incremental Tooling Cost/Kilogram"  of mass-reduction at the final assessed mass-
   reduced vehicle.
   a)  Assumptions and calculation shown using the vehicle differential tooling cost and
       mass reduction value.
   b)  Additional details on incremental tooling costs by system can be found in
       Section F.
 Assumptions:
     •   200K units per year
     •   Average product/tooling life 5 years
     •   Cost of money 8%
     •   Calculated incremental vehicle tooling cost: +$14.5M
     •   Calculate mass-reduction/vehicle  = -316.8kg (18.5%)

 Calculations (for the 18.xx% mass reduced vehicle):
     •   Cost of over 5 years =$+16.2M (constant rate,  uniform monthly payments)
     •   Incremental Tooling Cost per vehicle = $+16.18 ($16,182,335 tooling/[200K
        units/year x 5 years])
     •   Incremental Tooling Cost per kilogram = $0.051/kilogram ($16.18/316.8kg)
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 164
E.11  Cost Curve - % Mass Reduction vs. Cost per Kilogram
     E.11.1  Cost Curve Development Overview

The  majority  of the  Toyota Venza components were  reviewed for potential mass
reduction as shown in Section Y. While the focus of this study was to obtain 20% mass
reduction, it is possible that manufacturers could adopt a portion of these technologies as
part  of their plan to  increase gas mileage over the next decade. EPA's rulemaking
calculations  utilize a variety of technology feasibility combinations as a part of their
rulemaking  requirements (e.g. mass reduction, advanced engine technologies, etc.).
EPA's current technology packages include estimates of 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% mass
reduction (Reference  EPA &  NHTSA, report EPA-420-D-11-901,  November 2011
"Draft Joint Technical Support Document: Proposed Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Light-
Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards & Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards,") over a variety of vehicle platforms. The technologies examined by FEV for
the Toyota  Venza can be grouped such that they achieve these various mass reduction
targets.

FEV developed differential costs per component with the assumption that these  are the
costs when the components  are in full production at 200,000 or 450,000 per year as
appropriate per sub-subsystem. These values do not include OEM markups for indirect
costs - as discussed in Section E.4, with the exception of tooling. In the mass-reduction
analysis, incremental  direct manufacturing costs  were  calculated with and  without
assessing the impact of tooling.
     E.11.2  Cost Curve Development Overview

FEV utilized their  component mass reduction and cost  estimates to create a cost per-
kilogram per-component. At the  sub-subsystem level (which is generally the same as the
assembly or module level) all mass-reduced ideas were  listed in a table (Table XXX)
along with key calculated parameters and attributes (e.g.,  mass deltas, cost deltas, cost/kg
impact,  and compounded/non-compounded designation). Sub-subsystems  were  then
identified as compounded or non-compounded. Sub-subsystems relying on other vehicle
mass-reductions were considered compounded while ideas not relying on a reduction in
vehicle mass were considered non-compounded.

All sub-subsystems were then sorted by cost per kilogram in ascending order. Since all
compounded sub-subsystems were  created with an 18-20% mass reduction in mind, and
would not be appropriate to apply to points which only had 5%, 10% or 15% mass
reduction, all compounding sub-subsystems were placed at the bottom of the list listed in
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 165

the order of  lowest to highest cost per kilogram structure. Cumulative sub-subsystem
cost-per-kilogram values were calculated and the values plotted relative to percent vehicle
mass-reduction. Because the compounded mass-reduction sub-subsystem ideas cannot be
included in any point other than the 18.5% vehicle mass-reduction point, the line graph
stops at approximately 12% (Need to confirm final value) with a single data point at 18.5.
Figure XXX illustrates  the data  shown  in Table XXX.  Note these values  are only
incremental direct manufacturing costs and do not include tooling.

To develop data points between the 12% and 18.5% vehicle mass-reduction values,  and to
determine the potential compounding advantage at values  other than at 18.5% vehicle
mass-reduction  a updated table of data was assembled. By removing the added  mass-
reduction as a result of compounding for each of the applicable  sub-subsystems additional
cumulative cost/kg data points were establish for vehicle mass-reductions in the 12-16%
range (Table  XXX). Using a trend line  (Figure XXX) applied to the cumulative cost/kg,
non-compounded data, an offset value was  established at 18.5% vehicle mass reduction
between the cost/kilogram with compounding, and without compounding. Assuming the
offset is zero  at 0% vehicle mass-reduction, and $X.XX at 18.5% mass-reduction, a curve
with compounding considerations  at every percent vehicle mass-reduction "x" axis point
could be generated.

In Section F.X cost curves with and without mass-reduction compounding are shown for
percent vehicle mass-reductions of 0% to 20%. In addition the  additive impact of tooling
at the 5%, 10%, 15% and 20% vehicle mass-reduction data points is included.
-------
                                                      Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 166
F.    Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Results
F.1    Vehicle Results Summary
     F.1.1   Assumptions

This analysis used a 2010 model year, 2.7L engine Toyota Venza vehicle. Its purchase
price  was $25,063.00. Based  on the assumption of 1.5 retail price  equivalent, the
estimated  cost to  manufacture  the  Venza vehicle is  $16,708.67  (10%  vehicle
manufacturing  cost increase would be $1670.87).  The weight of Toyota Venza vehicle is
1711 kg (3771 Ibs).  The target of this study is to achieve 20% mass reduction which is
342 kg (7541bs).  Although Toyota  Venza annual volume  is 60k units,  this  analysis
considers the volume to be 200k units per year consistent with high volume production
assumptions.

The target of  this study  is to  achieve 20% mass reduction (342kg) within 10%  cost
increase ($1670.87). Five cost groups were established to categorize the mass reduction
ideas: A, B, C,  D, and X.

   •  Group A is to reduce mass between 0 and 5% with 10%  cost increase. Group A
      requires an average cost/kilogram <$0.

   •  Group B is mass reduction from 5% to 10% with 10% cost increase. Group B
      requires an average cost/kilogram between  $0 and $1.

   •  Group C is mass reduction of 10% to 15% with 10% cost increase. Group  C
      requires an average cost/kilogram between  $1 and $2.5.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 167

      Group D is to reduce mass 15% to 20% with 10% cost increase. Group D requires
      an average cost/kilogram between $2.5 and $4.88.

      Group  X is  de-contenting. All  mass  reduction  ideas  providing an  average
      cost/kilogram >$4.88 is outside the target of this study.
Level #A Average Cost/Kilogram @ 0-5% Mass Reduction
Level #B Average Cost/Kilogram @ 5-10% Mass Reduction
Level #C Average Cost/Kilogram @ 10-15% Mass Reduction
Level #D Average Cost/Kilogram @ 15-20% Mass Reduction
Level X, De-Contenting
1 . No Impact to Daily Operation
2. Impact to Daily Operation (feature, function, performance, etc)
<$0.00
>$0.00to<$1.00
>$1.00to<$2.50
>$2.50 to < $4.88
< $4.88
             Table F.l-1: Five Cost Groups to Categorize Mass Reduction Ideas
     F.1.2    Baseline Vehicle Mass
                                                   F
Baseline Mass of Vehicle: 1,711 kg (3,771 Ibs.)

The vehicle weight was distributed among 23 systems. The body systems take most of the
weight, while  other major weight  contributors  included  the Suspension,  Engine,
Transmission, and Brakes systems.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 168
                     Body Exterior^    In-Vehilce
                       Trim
                       1%
Fluids    Engine  ^Transmission
                5%
                     Body Closures
                                           Electronic\_lnfo, Gauge,
                                           Features   Warning
                                             0%     0%
                  .Electrical
                  Distribution
                   & Control
                    1%
                      Figure F.l-1: Vehicle Mass System Breakdown
     F.1.3   Vehicle Cost Summary

Table F.l-1 is the vehicle mass reduction summary, including the mass reduction and
cost impact from each system. The major mass saving systems  in the  Toyota Venza
include:  Body system (Group -A-), which saved   3.97% of the vehicle weight; the
Suspension system, 4.06%; Brake  System, 2.37%; and Body  system (Group -B-) at
2.45%. The Engine and Transmission systems reduced vehicle mass by 1.77% and 1.10%,
respectively. The  entire vehicle achieved 316.78 kg weight reduction and $92.04 cost
savings.  Average  cost per kilogram is $0.29 reductions comparing to baseline vehicle
without  consider  tooling  and $0.24  reduction included  tooling  impact. The   table
explained the subsystem level details.
-------
Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
              March 30, 2012
                  Page 169
Description
Engine System
Engine System Roll-up ((Eng Down Size))
Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem
Crank Drive Subsystem
Counter Balance Subsystem
Cylinder Block Subsystem
Cylinder Head Subsystem
Vah/etrain Subsystem
Timing Drive Subsystem
Accessory Drive Subsystem
Air Intake Subsystem
Fuel Induction Subsystem
Exhaust Subsystem
Lubrication Subsystem
Cooling Subsystem
Breather Subsystem
Engine Management; Engine Electronic, Electrical
Subsystem
Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.)


Transmission System
Transmission System Roll-up
External Components
Case Subsystem
Gear Train Subsystem
Launch Clutch Subsystem
Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem
Mechanical Controls Subsystem
Electrical Controls Subsystem
Parking Mechanism Subsystem
Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem


Body System (Group -A-)
Body System (Group- A-j
Body Structure Subsystem
Body Closures Subsystem
Bumpers Subsystem


Body System (Group -B-)
Body System (Group -B-)
Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)
Sealing Subsystem
Seating Subsystem
Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem


Body System (Group -C-)
Body System (Group -C-)
Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Rear View Mirrors Subsystem
1 Front End Modules
Rear End Modules
System/
Subsystem/ Sub
Subsystem
Weight "kg"
172.60
172.60
15.27
24.73
7.22
30.13
21.12
9.78
4.31
0.55
13.99
0.54
7.39
3.34
14.10
0.90
2.65
16.56


92.76
0.00
0.02
24.57
41.44
9.75
6.53
6.30
0.78
0.90
2.48


528.88
0.00
386.18
135.25
7.45


220.61
0.00
65.20
4.50
8.23
92.55
32.69
17.44


26.57
0.00
13.38
2.76
5.03
5.39
Estimate Mass
Reduction
"+" Mass Decrease,
"-" Mass Increase
"kg"
30.35
10.37
1.11
0.69

7.11
1.05
3.71
1.45
0.51
0.11

0.33
2.59
0.22
0.39
0.71


18.90

0.00
7.75
3.49
4.90
1.03



1.73


67.89

60.30
7.24 "
0.35


42.00
8.92
0.27
2.03
23.39
6.33
1.06


2.37

1.15
0.22
0.49
0.51
Estimated Cost Impact
"+" Cost Decrease,
"-" Cost Increase
"$"
43.24
38.42
(0.09)
6.88

(24.93)
14.04
(11.13)
4.79
3.01
2.13

(0.20)
4.62
4.93
1.00
(0.23)


(114.15)
0.00
0.00
(11.03)
(119.68)
45.16
0.90
0.00
0.00

(29.49)


(230.66)

(189.99)
(29.96)
(10.71)


122.98
0.00
37.72
0.38
15.70
84.55
(12.49)
(2.88)


7.59

2.31
0.73
2.24
2.32
Tooling Cost "$"
(X1000)
5,892.20
0.00
(2,778.60)
302.80

(2,918.00)
2,199.60
(2,171.00)
3,522.40
1,924.70
1,533.40

26.50
2,977.60
^1,720.10
341.00
(788.30)


(7,650.80)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(7,650.80)
0.00

0.00 _^^
^^H
0.00


(22,900.00)

(22,900.00)
0.00
0.00


9,966.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
14,507.05
(5,317.90)
777.00


0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
W/O
Tooling
$/kg
1.42
3.71
(0.08)
10.00

(3.51)
13.41
(3.00)
3.29
5.90
18.51

(0.60)
1.78
22.52
2.57
(0.33)


(6.04)

0.00
(1.42)
(34.29)
9.21
0.87



(17.08)


(3.40)

(3.15)
(4.14)
(30.60)


2.93
4.23
1.40
7.74
3.61
(1.97)
(2.71)


3.20

2.01
3.33
4.56
4.52
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
W/
Tooling
$/kg
1.66
3.71
(3.11)
10.53

(4.01)
15.97
(3.72)
6.24
10.49
34.75

(0.51)
3.18
32.07
3.64
(1.68)


(6.53)

0.07
(1.42)
(34.29)
7.31
0.87
000


(17.08)


(3.81)

(3.61)
(4.14)
(30.60)


3.22
4.23
1.40
7.74
4.37
(3.00)
(1.82)


3.20

2.01
3.33
4.56
4.52
% System/
Subsystem
Mass
Reduction
"%"
17.58%
6.01%
7.29%
2.78%

23.58%
4.96%
37.90%
33.72%
3.65%
21.32%

9.97%
18.38%
24.24%
14.64%
4.28%


20.37%

0.00%
31.52%
8.42%
50.32%
15.84%

0.00%

69.55%


12.84%

15.61%
5.35%
4.70%


19.04%
13.69%
5.95%
24.67%
25.28%
19.36%
6.08%


8.92%

8.57%
7.90%
9.75%
9.54%
% Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
1.77%
0.61%
0.07%
0.04%

0.42%
0.06%
0.22%
0.08%
0.03%
0.01%

0.02%
0.15%
0.01%
0.02%
0.04%


1.10%


0.45%
0.20%
0.29%
0.06%



0.10%


3.97%

3.52%
0.42%
0.02%


2.45%
0.52%
0.02%
0.12%
1.37%
0.37%
0.06%


0.14%

0.07%
0.01%
0.03%
0.03%
-------
Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
              March 30, 2012
                  Page 170
Description
Body System (Group -D-) Glazing & Body Mechatronics
Body System (Group -D-)
Glass (Glazing), Frame and Mechanism Subsystem
Handles, Locks, Latches and Mechanisms Subsystem
Rear Hatch Lift assembly
Wipers and Washers Subsystem


Suspension System
Suspension System
Front Suspension Subsystem
Rear Suspension Subsystem
Shock Absorber Subsystem
Wheels And Tires Subsystem


Driveline System
Drive/me System
Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem


Brake System
Brake System
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
Brake Actuation Subsystem
Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic)
Brake Controls Subsystem


Frame and Mounting System
Frame and Mounting System
Frame Subsystem


Exhaust System
Exhaust System
Acoustical Control Components Subsystem
Exhaust Gas Treatment Components Subsystem


Fuel System
Fuel System
Fuel Tank And Lines Subsystem
Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem


Steering System
Steering System
Manual Steering Gear Subsystem
Power Steering Subsystem
Steering Column Subsystem
Steering Column Switches Subsystem
Steering Wheel Subsystem
System/
Subsystem/ Sub
Subsystem
Weight "kg"
63.46
0.00
48.01
4.93
4.56
5.96


265.91
24.42
32.89
23.58
42.94
142.07


33.66
0.00
8.63
6.35
18.67


86.71
0.00
32.97
23.44
13.40
5.54
2.83
8.53


43.73
0.00
43.73


26.62
0.00
11.74
14.87


24.28
0.00
21.02
3.26


24.23
0.00
8.82
7.48 ]
5.08 A
0.55
2.29
Estimate Mass
Reduction
"+" Mass Decrease,
"-" Mass Increase
"kg"
6.16
6.06
n nn

0.10


69.45

14.18
8.32
14.11
32.83


1.50
0.73
0.77


40.52
17.08
9.57
^9.63
2.98
1.24



16.50

16.50


7.52
279
4.73


6.80

6.31
0.50


1.82
^^0.00
0.12
0.21
1.15
0.34
Estimated Cost Impact
"+" Cost Decrease,
"-" Cost Increase
"$"
(15.25)
(15.67)
n nn

0.42


135.93

(5.74)
4.91
57.99
78.77


(0.16)
£154
(1.70)


116.21
(6.07)
6.08 ^
82.98
31.87
1.35



(3.66)

(3.66)


2.47
(0.21)
2.68


3.91

2.70
1.21


11.05

0.24
0.10
10.39
0.32
Tooling Cost "$"
(X1000)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00


(7,200.97)

(4,828.98)
(2,459.05)
87.06
0.00


(160.30)
0.00
(30.00)
(130.30)


(1,426.12)
(2,182.66)
(1,897.51)
1,526.28
1,253.15
(125.39)



4,059.70

4,059.70


0.00
0.00
0.00


1,535.50
0.00
1,439.50
96.00


1,352.70
0.00
0.00
186.80
(1,910.00)
3,075.90
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
W/O
Tooling
$/kg
(2.48)
(2.59)


4.18


1.96

(0.40)
0.59
4.11
2.40


(0.11)
2.10
(2.21)


2.87
(0.36)
0.63
8.61
10.68
1.09



(0.22)

(0.22)


0.33
(0.07)
0.57


0.57
0.00
0.43
2.44


6.08

1.99
0.46
9.05
0.94
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
W/
Tooling
$/kg
(2.48)
(2.59)


4.18


1.83

(0.82)
0.23
4.12
2.40


(0.24)
2.05
(2.42)


2.83
(0.51)
0.39
8.81
11.19
0.97



0.08

0.08


0.33
(0.07)
0.57


0.85

0.71
2.68


6.99

1.99
1.54
7.03
12.07
% System/
Subsystem
Mass
Reduction
"%"
9.71%
12.63%


1.68%


26.12%

43.12%
35.28%
32.86%
23.11%


4.47%
11.54%
4.12%


46.73%
51.81%
40.84%
71.88%
53.90%
43.89%



49.02%

37.73%


28.25%
23.75%
31.79%


28.03%

30.01%
15.26%


7.50%

1.39%
2.81%
22.58%
14.69%
% Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
0.36%
0.35%


0.01%


4.06%

0.83%
0.49%
0.82%
1.92%


0.09%
0.04%
0.04%


2.37%
1.00%
0.56%
0.56%
0.17%
0.07%



0.96%

0.96%


0.44%
0.16%
0.28%


0.40%

0.37%
0.03%


0.11%

0.01%
0.01%
0.07%
0.02%
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 171
Description
Climate Control System
Climate Control System
Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem
Heating/Defrosting Subsystem
Refrigeration/Air Conditioning Subsystem
Controls Subsystem


Information, Gage and Warning Device System
Information, Gauge and Warning Device System
nstrument Cluster Subsystem
Horn Subsystem


Electrical Power Supply System
Electrical Power Supply System
Service Battery Subsystem


In-Vehicle Entertainment System
In-Vehicle Entertainment System
Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem
Antenna Subsystem
Speaker Subsystem


Lighting System
Lighting System
Front Lighting Subsystem
Rear Lighting Subsystem
Lighting Switches Subsystem

Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System
Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control Sys.
Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem
Sub-Total Vehicle Weight =
1^^^^^^^^^^^^^^3 Weight Reconcile
^^rFiuids^
NVH (Body Mastic) =
^f Misc. =
Net Calculated Vehicle Weight =
Vehicle Weight As Purchased=

System/
Subsystem/ Sub
Subsystem
Weight "kg"
15.66
0.00
12.81
1.03
1.33
0.48


1.90
0.00
1.40
0.50


18.96
0.00
18.96


4.59
0.00
3.15
0.16
1.28


10.04
0.00
6.09
3.83
0.13

23.94
0.00
23.94
1685.10
68.52
8.00
(50.24)
1711.38
1710.53

Estimate Mass
Reduction
"+" Mass Decrease,
"-" Mass Increase
"kg"
2.44
2.03
0.39

0.01


0.08

0.08




0.00



1.07

1.02
0.05



0.53
^ 0.00
0.53
0.00


0.89
0.89
316.78



(Decrease)
Estimated Cost Impact
"+" Cost Decrease,
"-" Cost Increase
"$"
9.34
7.27
2.03

0.04


0.19

0.19



0.00
C'O'^B
0.00


2.43

1.74
0.69



(0.76)
0.00
(0.76)



1.35
1.35
92.04



(Decrease)
Tooling Cost "$"
(X1000)
386.00
146.00
240.00
0.00
0.00


0.00
0.00
0.00





0.00


1,175.60

1,175.60
0.00



400.00

400.00



103.50
103.50
(14,466.84)



(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
W/O
Tooling
$/kg
3.83
3.58
5.16

4.21


2.45

2.45



0.00
0.00
0.00


2.27

1.70
14.17



(1.42)

(1.42)



1.52
1.52
0.29



(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
W/
Tooling
$/kg
4.03
3.66
5.90

4.21


2.45
0.00
2.45
0.00







3.60

3.10
14.17



(0.51)
0.00
(0.51)



1.66
1.66
0.24



(Decrease)
% System/
Subsystem
Mass
Reduction
"%"
15.55%
15.88%
38.03%

1.84%


4.01%

5.44%
0.00%



0.00%



23.39%

32.55%
30.82%



5.29%
0.00
8.73%



3.71%
3.71%





% Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
0.14%
0.12%
0.02%

0.00%


0.00%

0.00%




0.00%



0.06%

0.06%
0.00%



0.03%

0.03%



0.05%
0.05%
18.51%




                          Table F.l-2: Vehicle Cost Summary
     F.1.4    Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing Cost

A summary  of the calculated, net incremental,  and direct  manufacturing costs for
producing a Toyota Venza vehicle are presented in Error! Reference source not found..
The  costs,  captured only for vehicle differences having an overall positive or negative
cost  impact, are broken out for each of the major systems. At the bottom of the table,
there is a net incremental cost. From the cost element breakdown within the table, the
incremental direct manufacturing costs (i.e., $148.30) are material costs, $109.68 was
saved on labor costs,  and $80.43 was reduced from overhead  costs. Relative to the net
incremental direct manufacturing  cost  of $91.96,  approximately  45.46% is  total
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 172

manufacturing costs (i.e., material, labor, overhead). The remaining 54.42% is applicable
mark-up.

In the sections which follow, additional details on the components evaluated within each
vehicle system and their associated costs will be discussed.
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
I

__
4
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
17



0 £,

Sub-Subsystem Description


I 01

Engine

I 03 Transmission

I < Body System A

I ! Body System B

I ! Body System C

I 03

I 04
Body System D

Suspension System

I 05

Driveline System

I i Brake System

07
=rame and Mounting System

09


I 11
Exhaust System

Fuel System 	
Steering System

I 12
Climate Control

13
nfo, Gage and Warning System

14
Electrical Power Supply

I 15
n-Vehicle Entertainment

I 17
-ighting

I 18
Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System

19
Electronic Features

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
Manufacturing
„„=„„


614.67

261.26

780.13

335.28

52.07

27.90

362.60

16.59

151.00

71.76

36.97

	
16.81

17.82

1.70



1.18

10.87

7.61



2,813.20
Lator


41.94

19.48

93.56

47.79

2.04

5.78

81.18

2.84

29.27

10.88

0.95

	
4.64

5.39

0.05



0.64

1.23

0.62



354.26
Burden


123.85

33.32

466.60

111.10

8.24

114.79

110.72

5.87

73.30

42.55

0.97

	
5.57

3.97

0.31



0.78

3.31

0.58



1,123.57
[Component;
Assembly)


780.47



1,340.29

494.18











125.19



	


27.17

2.07



2.60

15.41





4,291.03
Markup
End Item


3.21

2.20

0.02

1.77

0.45

0.38

4.83

0.34

1.30

0.85

0.12

	
0.20

0.07

0.01



0.01

0.04

0.03



16.33
se«


23.52

28.98

0.35

29.86

6.90

7.59

43.78

2.61

18.13

8.95

1.57

	
1.35

1.38

0.12



0.27

0.77

0.45



181.87
Profit


20.24

20.12

0.28

22.55

5.47

5.09

34.64

2.57

15.85

9.83

1.45

	
1.15

0.92

0.14



0.18

0.52

0.34



146.94
ED&T-R&D


6.43

3.30

0.06

6.13

1.12

1.26

9.54

0.95

5.29

4.46

0.60

	
0.34

0.23

0.07



0.02

0.13

0.05



42.45
Total Markup
[Component;
Assembly)




54.61

0.70









6.47





3.74


3.04

2.61

0.34



0.49

1.46

0.87



387.59
Packaging
Assembly)


0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

	
0

0

0



0

0

0



0
Net
Impact to OEM


833.86



1,343.15



76.30



647.29

31.77

294.14





	
30.07



2.41











4,680.78
-------
Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
              March 30, 2012
                  Page 173
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
I

4
6
__
__
__


1 I
Sub-Subsystem Description


01
Engine

02
Transmission

I 03 Body System A

I 03
Body System B

I 03
Body System C

I 03
Body System D

I 1 Suspension System

1 05 Driveline System

1 > Brake System

1 07 Frame and Mounting System

I ) Exhaust System

— Ll°_
11

Fuel System 	
Steering System

12
Climate Control

I 13
nfo, Gage and Warning System

I 14

Electrical Power Supply

I i n-Vehicle Entertainment

17
Lighting

18 Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System

I ) Electronic Features

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1

1
13
14
15
16
17


0 |
Sub-SJ^^K Description

	

02

Transmission

03
Body System A

03
Body System B

I 03
Body System C

1 03

Body System D

1 1 Suspension System

1 i Driveline System

1 1 Brake System

1 I Frame and Mounting System

I 09 Exhaust System

I I Fuel System

I 11
Steering System

I 12
Climate Control

13
nfo, Gage and Warning System

14
Electrical Power Supply

I i In-Vehicle Entertainment

I f Lighting

I ) Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System

I 19
Electronic Features

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
Manufacture
Material


654.08

166.53

599.94

356.01

57.04

25.76

429.1C

16.7E

157 .8C

77.41

39.02

	
18.4E

18.12

1.95



1.46

7.91

8.92



2,664.98
Labor


41.76

24.32

80.83

99.03

2.28

6.44

103.60

2.52

52.09

21.22

0.84

	
7.84

4.37

0.06



1.55

2.26

0.59



463.94
Burden


119.55

30.33

428.71

146.46

9.30

102.31

137.94

5.96

143.38

17.43

1.05

	
8.86

13.20

0.22



1.62

4.55

0.63



1,204.00
Total
Cost
(Component;
Assembly)


815.40

221.17

1,109.47

601 .50

68.61









116.06



	
35.18

35.70





4.62



10.14



4,332.91
Markup
Scrap


5.62

1.03

0.02

2.30

0.48

0.35

5.96

0.29

1.77

0.99

0.13

	
0.38

0.09

0.01



0.04

0.04

0.03



20.06
SGSA


26.50

17.98

0.37

35.83

7.57

6.91

53.36

2.54

27.10

12.53

1.75


2.69

1.81

0.13



0.48

0.74

0.51



204.63
P,.,,


22.64

12.23

0.29

28.69

6.01

4.64

41.94

2.55

21.98

11.84

1.62


2.28

1.21

0.15



0.32

0.49

0.34



165.24
ED&T-R&D


6.95

2.09

0.06

9.15

1.21

1.15

11.32

0.97

6.23

4.19

0.67

	
0.59

0.30

0.07



0.04

0.12

0.03



47.70
Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)


61.70











112.58







4.18

	
5.94

3.42

0.37



0.89

1.39

0.90



437.64
Total
Packaging
(Component/
Assembly)


0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

	
0

0

0



0

0

0



0
Net
Component;
Assembly Cost
mpacttoOEM


877.10

254.51



677.47



147.56

783.22

31.60

410.35

145.61



	
41.11

39.11

2.60





16.11

11.04



4,772.82
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
Manufacture
Matena,


	
(94.73)

(180.18)

20.73

4.96



66.50

0.19

6.80

5.65

2.05

(18.32]

1.67

0.30

0.25



0.28

(2.95)

1.31



(148.23
Lator



4.84

(12.74)

51.24

0.24

0.66

22.42



22.81

10.34

(0.11)

6.38

3.19



0.01



0.91

1.03





109.68
Burt=n



(2.99)



35.35

1.06

(12.48)

27.22

0.09

70.08



0.08

14.79

3.28

9.24





0.84

1.24

0.04



80.43
Total
Assembly)


	
(92.88;

(230.81;





(13.97;

116.14











8.15



0.16







1.32



4,.88
Markup
End Item


	


0.00

0.53

0.03



1.13



0.46

0.14

0.01

0.03

0.18

0.02

0.00



0.03

(0.00)

(0.00)



3.73
SG«


	
(11.00)

0.02

5.97

0.67



9.58



8.97

3.58

0.19

0.55

1.34

0.43

0.01



0.21

(0.03)

0.06



22.76
Profit


	


0.02

6.14

0.54

(0.45)

7.30

(0.02)

6.13

2.02

0.17

0.40

1.13

0.29

0.01



0.14

(0.02)

0.00



18.30
ED&T-R&D


	


0.00

3.02

0.10



1.79

0.01

0.94



0.07

0.08

0.25

0.07

0.01



0.02

(0.01)

(0.03)



5.25
Assembly)


	


0.04



1.33

(1.28







5.46

0.44

1.06

2.90

0.81

nm



0.40



0.03



50.05
Packaging
(Component;
Assembly)


	
0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0



0

0

0



0
Net
Component;
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM


	
(114.15)







(15.25)





116.21



2.47

3.91



9.34

0.19



2.43



1.35



92.04
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 174
F.2    Engine System
The Base Engine system comprises 10.1% of the total Venza vehicle mass. This system is
divided into various subsystems as shown in Table F.2-1. Significant mass contributors
to the  Engine system include  Cylinder  Block, Crank Drive, and Cylinder  Head
subsystems. The 2.7 L inline 4-cylinder gasoline engine selected by Toyota is naturally
aspirated with no Induction Air Charging subsystem.
V)
><
£
CD
3

01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01




Subsystem

00
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
60
70




Sub-Subsystem

00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00




Description

Engine System
Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem
Crank Drive Subsystem
Counter Balance Subsystem
Cylinder Block Subsystem
Cylinder Head Subsystem
Valvetrain Subsystem
Timing Drive Subsystem
Accessory Drive Subsystem
Air Intake Subsystem
Fuel Induction Subsystem
Exhaust Subsystem
Lubrication Subsystem
Cooling Subsystem
Induction Air Charging Subsystem
Exhaust Gas Re-circulation Subsystem
Breather Subsystem
Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Electrical Subsystem
Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.)

Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsystem
Mass
"kg"


15.274
24.730
7.218
30.135
21.115
9.783
4.312
0.554
13.994
0.539
7.387
3.342
14.098
0.000
0.000
0.904
2.650
16.562

172.598
1711
10.09%
               Table F.2-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Engine System
Table  ¥.2-2 summarizes mass  and cost savings by subsystem. The systems largest
savings results from engine downsizing  permitted by a lightened vehicle. The largest
subsystem  contributors  for mass  savings  are  the  Cylinder  Block and  Valvetrain
subsystems. Detailed system analysis resulted in 30.3 kg  saved and $1.45/kg savings.
Lightening the 2.7L  Venza Engine system,  without the cost  and mass  benefit  of
downsizing, results in a cost save of $0.28/kg. Research and development, warranty costs,
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 175

and NVH were not captured in this analysis. 93% of mass savings claimed for this system
have current automotive production examples.

All subsystems were reviewed for mass save opportunity. No opportunities were selected
for the Counter Balance, Accessory Drive,  Exhaust,  and Exhaust Gas Re-circulation
subsystems. The Venza engine has no Induction Air Charging system, hence no mass
savings for that subsystem.

Lotus used a hybrid approach to address the Venza engine system. This analysis  focuses
specifically on lightweighting the 2.7L and downsizing based on an  equal technology
approach. The horsepower requirement determined for the lightened Venza matches what
was calculated by Lotus. The components considered as part of the engine system in this
analysis do not match what Lotus  included. Due to the  different approaches in analysis,
there will be no further mention of Lotus for this system.

w
•$
ro

01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01


Subsystem

00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
60
70


Sub-Subsystem

00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00


Description

Engine System
Engine Assembly Downsize (2.4L)
Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets
Subsystem
Crank Drive Subsystem
Counter Balance Subsystem
Cylinder Block Subsystem
Cylinder Head Subsystem
Valvetrain Subsystem
Timing Drive Subsystem
Accessory Drive Subsystem
Air Intake Subsystem
Fuel Induction Subsystem
Exhaust Subsystem
Lubrication Subsystem
Cooling Subsystem
Induction Air Charging Subsystem
Exhaust Gas Re-circulation Subsystem
Breather Subsystem
Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Electrical
Subsystem
Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator,
etc.)


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A
A
A
A
D
A
D
A
A
A
A
A
B
A


A
A
B

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" CD


10.365
1.114
0.688
0.000
7.106
1.047
3.707
1.454
0.000
0.510
0.115
0.000
0.333
2.591
0.000
0.000
0.219
0.388
0.709

30.347
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"(Ml f
* (2)


38.420
0.788
$6.88
$0.00
-24.931
14.043
-11.133
4.792
0.000
2.859
2.127
0.000
-0.201
4.620
$0.00
$0.00
$4.93
$1.00
-$0.23

43.963
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$3.71
$0.71
$10.00
$0.00
-$3.51
$13.41
-$3.00
$3.29
$0.00
$5.60
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.60
$1.78
$0.00
$0.00
$22.52
$2.57
-$0.33

1.449
(Decrease)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


6.01%
7.29%
2.78%
0.00%
23.58%
4.96%
37.90%
33.72%
0.00%
3.65%
0.00%
0.00%
9.97%
18.38%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.28%

17.58%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.61%
0.07%
0.04%
0.00%
0.42%
0.06%
0.22%
0.09%
0.00%
0.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
0.15%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.04%

1.77%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
              Table F.2-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Engine System
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 176
     F.2.1    Engine Assembly Downsize (2.4L)

F.2.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview

The intent of reviewing the engine as an assembly is to propose an engine with less mass
yet capable  of producing  horsepower sufficient to accelerate the lightened Venza with
performance equal to base Venza. Since new technologies such as  direct  injection and
turbo charging  have been the  focus  of previous research,  only engines of equal
technology (dual VVT with no induction) were considered for the downsize.

F.2.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The 2.7L inline 4 cylinder engine selected by Toyota (Image F.2-1) for Venza is an all
Aluminum design with variable valve timing on both the Intake and Exhaust camshafts.
The engine  has no induction air charging system  and utilizes port injection. The intake
manifold is a dual runner design, optimizing torque.
                  Image F.2-1: Venza Base Engine (Toyota 2.7L 1AR-FE)
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                           March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 177

  (Source: www. mr2. com/forums/mk-2-mr2-sw20/Toyota-MR2-2034 7-some-info-toyota-s-new-6-speed-ea-series-
                                    transmissions. html)

F.2.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Mass reduction of passenger car engines has been driven by fuel economy. Valve control
technology is one way engines have increased power output.  Variable valve timing has
become  commonplace using hydraulic cam phasers on the intake or intake and exhaust
camshafts. Variable valve duration such as in Fiats Multiair has further increased output.
Forced induction  has also become more popular but comes with additional hardware and
associated mass.
F.2.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

The downsized Venza mass was calculated by assuming a 20% reduced curb weight and
maintaining the base payload. The resulting GVWR reduction factor is 84.8%.

Using this Scale factor new horsepower and  torque requirements were calculated (Table
F.2-3). Smaller displacement engines of equal technology were reviewed for power and
torque at RMP compatibility.
    ENGINE SIZING - BASED ON 20% GVWR REDUCTION
    Toyota Venza Curb Weight (kgs)                1711
    Toyota Venza GVWR (kgs)                    2249

    20% Curb Weight Reduction                   1369
    Lightened Weight (GVWR)                   1907

    Power Reduction Factor ^                   0.848
    2.7 Power (kW)                            136
    2.7 Torque (N*m)                           247
    Reduced-Weight Power (kW)                 115
    Reduced-Weight Torque (N*m)                209

    1AR-FE (Venza) DOHC 14 2672 (kW)      136 @5800 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota Venza
    1AR-FE (Venza) DOHC 14 2672 (N*m)     247 @4200 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tovota Venza
    2AZ-FE (Matrix) DOHC 14 2362 (kW)      119 @5600 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tovota AZ engine
    2AZ-FE (Matrix) DOHC 14 2362 (N*m)      220 @4000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tovota AZ engine

    1AR-FE 2.7L Bore & Stroke (mm)         89.9 x 104.9
    2AZ-FE 2.4L Bore & Stroke (mm)         88.4x96

    Engine Downsize Selection - Toyota DOHC 14 2362cc (Avensis, Matrix,...)	
                          Table F.2-3: Engine Downsize Selection
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 178
F.2.1.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The Engine selected for the lightened Venza is Toyota's 2.4L 2AZ-FE 14 DOHC (Image
F.2-2). This Engine (EOF 2009) was featured in cars such as the Camry, Matrix, and Vibe
among others. The 2.4L exceeds power and torque requirements at lower engine speeds,
indicating that acceleration and drivability would be equal or better. The 2.4L represents a
data point for mass and output of a technologically similar power plant. As predecessor to
the AR engine, the 2.4L AZ results in a conservative estimate for mass savings.

               Image F.2.2: Engine Downsize Selection (Toyota 2.4L 2AZ-FE)
                              (Source: www.japparts.com.au)
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 179
F.2.1.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
As shown in Table F.2-4, Engine system downsize results in a mass reduction and cost
savings.

•2
1
3

01
01


Subsystem

00
05


Sub-Subsystem

00
01


Description

System downsize (2.7L 14 to 2.4L 14)
System downsize (2.7L 14 to 2.4L 14)


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


10.365

10.365
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 180
For the sub-systems included in the engine downsize (i.e., engine mounts, pistons, block,
head, etc.) the 2.4L mass is 92% of the base Venza mass (Table F.2-6). The 2.7L material
content for these subsystems was estimated using surrogate cost data.

The mass reduction factor applied to the 2.7L material cost was used to estimate the 2.4L
material cost.  The  difference in  material costs results  in a $38.42 engine  downsize
savings. It is assumed that labor and manufacturing burden costs are equal between the
2.7L and 2.4L engines.
    ENGINE COST - SAVINGS BASED ON 2.4L TOYOTA REPLACEMENT (HISTORICAL EST)
    2.4L Mass/Base Mass (Downsize Related)       92.0%

    2.7L Cost Estimate (Material Only)        $  480.00 Material Cost for displacement effected components
                                             only (block, crank, pistons, head,..)
    2.4L Cost Estimate (Material Only)        $  441.58 Material Cost for displacement effected components
                                             only (block, crank, pistons, head,..)

    2.7L - 2.4L Cost Reduction (OEM)	$   38.42	
                        Table F.2-6: Engine Downsize Cost Savings
     F.2.2    Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem

F.2.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.2-7, the most significant contributor to Engine Frames, Mounting, and
Brackets subsystem mass is the Engine Mountings. This subsystem comprises 8.9% of the
Engine mass. The Power Train Dampening Element supports the rear of the engine and
was categorized with various bolts and fasteners as miscellaneous.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 181
V)
><
<2.
CD
3

01
01
01
01
01






Subsystem

02
02
02
02
02






Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
10
99






Description

Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem
Engine Frames
Engine Mountings
Hanging Eyes
Misc.

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


0.000
12.387
0.000
2.887

15.274
172.598
1711
8.85%
0.89%
  Table F.2-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets
                                    Subsystem
F.2.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

As pictured in Image F.2-3,  the Venza engine is secured in the vehicle with 3 engine
mounts, a Torsion Strut, and Powertrain Dampening Element.  Engine mounts (Image
F.2-4) are constructed from stamped steel weldment with a isolated stud as an attachment
point to the engine mounting  bracket. The engine mounting brackets  are  cast  iron
construction. The engine mount and bracket serve as the link between the engine and
vehicle subframe.
-------
                                              Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                              March 30, 2012
                                                                  Page 182
                                                      12372*
                                                                 1158KJE
        Image F.2-4: Venza Engine Mount Diagram
              (Source: www.villagetoyotaparts. com)
Image F.2-5: Venza Engine Mount (Stamped Steel Weldment)
                (Source: autopartsnetwork.com)
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 183
F.2.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Lightweighting trends for engine mounts include the use of plastic  for  components
traditionally made from metal. Plastic polymer (Polyamide) torque dampeners are current
production on Opel and Astra/Insignia (Image F.2-6). Polyamide is being tested as  a
lightweight material for engine mounts (Image F.2-7).
                 Image F.2-6:                        Image F.2-7:
          PnlvamiHp Tnrnne Daimierier            Polyamide Engine Mount
 Source: www. contitech. de/pases/produkte/schwinsunsstechnik/motorlasemns/motorlaserkomponenten en. html
F.2.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.2-8 lists the mass reduction ideas considered for the Engine Frames, Mounting,
and  Brackets Subsystem.  Engine  Mount  scale  down was included  in  the  Engine
downsizing  calculation and therefore was not credited in this  subsystem.  Other ideas
included material changes for the Engine Mounting Bracket and  Torsion  Strut Link. The
Top Engine Mount Bracket PN12313 shown in Table F.2-8, was already a two piece cast
iron/Aluminum design and assumed to be partially cast iron for NVH not considered for
lightweighting.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 184
Component/Assembly
Engine Mountings
Engine Mounting
Bracket
Torsion Strut Link
Engine Mountings
Mass-Reduction Idea
Scale down engine mounts
based on reduced
powertrain size and weight
reduction
Material change from steel
to Aluminum
Material change from
stamped steel to cast Al
Polyamide Engine Mounts
Estimated Impact
15% mass reduction
50% mass reduction
50% mass reduction
50% mass reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Some components may cross other
product lines
Increased NVH, FEA required for exact
sizing
Simplified processing

 Table F.2-8: Summary of mass-reduction concepts considered for the Engine Frames, Mounting,
                               and Brackets Subsystem
F.2.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.2-9  lists the mass  reduction ideas applied to Engine Frames, Mounting, and
Brackets subsystem. Polyamide was not selected for the torsion strut application because
at the time of the initial investigation no production applications were known.


I
3


01
01
01
01
01

en
I
d>
3

02
02
02
02
02
(n
c
7
U)
1

sr
3
00
01
02
10
99


Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description



Engine Frames, Mounting, and Bracket:
Engine Frames
Engine Mountings
Hangine Eyes
Misc.


Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation



. Subsystem
N/A
Steel to Aluminum Mounting Bracket & Link
N/A
N/A
    Table F.2-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets
                                    Subsystem.
Image F.2-8 shows the Torsion Strut Assembly as it is featured in the vehicle. Image
F.2-9 shows the Torsion Strut with the bushings removed and NVH pad removed. This
stamped steel weldment was changed to  die cast Aluminum and 25% volume added to
compensate for differences in yield strength.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 185
                          Image F.2-8 Torsion Strut Assembly
       Image F.2-9: Torsion Strut Link         Image F.2-10: Lower Engine Mounting Bracket
                          (Images F.2-8 - 10 Source: FEV, Inc. photos)
Image F.2-10 is a cast iron Engine Mounting Bracket changed to cast aluminum and 30%
volume added for yield strength compensation.

Although not included in this analysis, additional lightweighting  opportunity exists for
engine mount material substitution. The stamped steel weldment (previous Image F.2-5)
could be done in aluminum or plastic.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 186
F.2.2.6
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
As  shown in Table F.2-10, engine mountings material change from steel to aluminum
results in a  mass reduction and cost savings. The Torsion Strut Link was a 55% mass
reduction or .355kg and saved $.25. The Lower Engine Mounting Bracket was a 55%
mass reduction, or .723kg and saved $.54.

u>
•<
2-
0
3

01
01
01
01
01


Subsystem

02
02
02
02
02


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
03
04


Description

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select

Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem
Engine Frames
Engine Mountings
Hangine Eyes
Misc.



A



A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" CD


0.000
1.114
0.000
0.000

1.114
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Mrt-ii
* (2)


$0.00
$0.79
$0.00
$0.00

0.788
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$0.00
$0.71
$0.00
$0.00

$0.71
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs./ Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.00%
8.99%
0.00%
0.00%

7.29%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.07%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

         Table F.2-10: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Cylinder Head Subsystem
                         (See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)

     F.2.3    Crank Drive Subsystem

F.2.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As  seen in Table F.2-11, the most significant contributor to the Crank Drive subsystem is
the  Crankshaft comprising 14.3% of the Engine Mass.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 187
(f>
*<
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 188
                      Image F.2-11: Key Components - Crank Drive

                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.2.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Aluminum connecting rods (Image F.2-12) are popular in the racing industry and can be
purchased from a variety of manufactures. They are typically machined from billet but
forged are also available.  While lighter aluminum rods contribute  to better engine
acceleration they have durability and packaging issues not suiting them for production
use. Metal Matrix composite has been tested for racing applications and has potential to
offset durability issues but at this point is unfeasible for mass production.^1

Titanium connecting rods are used in racing  and production applications. Honda used
titanium connecting rods in  the Acura NSX  in 1990. Other production  examples include
Corvette (Image F.2-12) and the Porsche GTS. Although titanium connecting rods have
superior performance at high rpm titanium's cost limits its use to high performance
applications.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 189
              Image F.2-12
        Aluminum Connecting Rod
        (Source: www.extremepsi.com)
         Image F.2-13:
    Titanium Connecting Rod
(Source: http://www.citycratemotors. com)
F.2.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.2-12 lists the mass reduction ideas considered for the Crank Drive  subsystem.
Ideas  considered include material substitutions for  connecting rods  and Flexplate.
Aluminum Flexplates are available for aftermarket applications but the gear requires steel
for strength and additional fasteners are required to join the Aluminum hub and gear
offsetting mass savings and increasing cost. Lightening the connecting rods would likely
lead to some savings in the crankshaft, however, quantifying the savings requires design
work and was not considered.  The Infinity 4.5L V8  has  a forged crank with drilled
connecting  rod  journals.  This idea,  not known  during  the  Venza  review, has
lightweighting opportunity.
Component/Assembly
Connecting Rods
Connecting Rods
Crankshaft
Crankshaft
Connecting Rods
Drive Plate & Ring Gear
Mass-Reduction Idea
Change Material for
Connecting Rods (AI/MMC)
Forged steel carburized
connecting rods
process change forged
steel to hollow cast iron
reduced crankshaft weight
due to lighter connecting
rods
split break
Aluminum Flexplate
Estimated Impact
30% mass reduction
25% mass reduction
15% mass reduction
5% mass reduction
0% mass reduction
0% mass reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
No proven examples
Feasible Honda S2000 & 1.0L Insight
BMW 745i 4.4L V8 Cast with cored
mains 18.8kg
Infinity M45 4.5L V8 Forged with drilled
conrod journals 23.2 kg
Difficult to quantify
Cost save only; pair with mass reduction
idea for reduced cost/kg
Ring gear requires steel
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 190

 Table F.2-12: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for the Crank Drive Subsystem
F.2.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.2-13 lists the mass reduction ideas applied to Crank Drive subsystem.

OT
I



01
01
01

01


01

ni

ni

01
01

OT
c
sr
I
3


03
03
03

03


03

m

n?

03
03

c
cr
OT
c
cr
tn
(/)
t
3

00
01
02

03


04

n^

m

15
99


Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description



Crank Drive Subsystem
Crankshaft
Flywheel
Connect Rods (Assemblies:
Connecting Rod, Connecting Rod
Cap)
Pistons (Assemblies, Including
Pistons, Ring Packs, Piston Pins,
Circlips) ^1
Drive for Accessory Drives (Down
force, Flywheel side)
Drive for Timing Drive (Down force,
Flywheel side)
Adaptors
Misc.


Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation




N/A
N/A

Design optimization and material change


Design optimization of pistons & wristpins

N/A

N/A

N/A
N/A

           Table F.2-13: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Crank Drive Subsystem
The  connecting rod is one  of most  highly  stressed components of the engine. Its
optimization  is a  delicate balance between reducing rotating mass and  catastrophic
failure. Mahle, an automotive supplier of power cell units, performed an optimization on
a 3.6L V6. The optimized rod design saved 27% mass and is currently in high volume
production1. The Venza connecting rod, peak combustion pressure (surrogate estimate),
and dimensional characteristics were provided to Mahle. After reviewing the connecting
rod,  the  base design was found to be conservative.  The base  design was coplanar,
meaning  both the big and small end share the  same width. The base Venza rod (Image
F.2-13) is a plain carbon wrought forged design, requiring full machining and doweling
of the cap connection (Image F.2-14).  The Mahle redesign changes the material to
46MnVs4,  providing  maximum  strength  and  crack  break  properties.  Crack break
eliminates the machining and doweling of the cap connection (Image F.2-15).
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 191
                  Image F.2-13:
        Fully Machined & Doweled Rod Cap
              (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
               Image F.2-14:
            Crack Break Rod Cap
           (Source: ~www.pirate4x4, com)
Image F.2-16 is a 3D rendering of the lightened Venza rod provided by Mahle. At the
small end, the design is stepped, optimizing the pin-bore profile. The pin-bore features
forged-in oil pockets (Image F.2-17) and eliminates the bushing. The shank cross-section
shape was optimized for maximum strength. Mahle downsized the  cap and fasteners to
save additional  weight. Improvements to the connecting rod extend to the wristpin and
piston. The piston journals were brought in to meet the narrower small end  of the rod
which also shortened the wrist pin.
                                           mnHLE
                Image F.2-15:
       Connecting Rod Assembly (Venza)
            (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
            Image F.2-16:
Connecting Rod Assembly (Lightweighted)
       (Source: Mahle Engineering)
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 192
                                Image F.2-17:
                      Forged In Oil Pockets (Lightweighted)
                            (Source: Mahle Engineering)

Table F.2-14 breaks down the mass savings by component. The Mahle redesign reduced
the Connecting Rod Assembly by 23% and the engine mass by .688 kg. While the Mahle
redesign impacts the overall vehicle weight,  the most significant  benefit is reduced
friction and improved mechanical efficiency^.
CONNECTING ROD & PISTON ASSEMBLY MAHLE LIGHTWEIGHTED REDESIGN
Reduction [%]
Connecting Rod (46MnVs4)
Connecting Rod Cap (46MnVs4)
Connecting Rod Bolts Quantity x 2
Connecting Rod Bushing
Piston: (Mahle EvoTec, M174+)
Wrist Pin (16MnCr5)
24%
14%
25%
100%
3.4%
12%
Base [g] Mahle [g]
411
155
64
12
298
107
311
134
48
0
288
94
Save [g]
100
21
16
12
10
13

Connecting Rod Assembly
Piston Assembly
Engine Quantity x 4
23%
6%

642
405

493
382

149
23
688
              Table F.2-14: Summary of Mahle Lightweighted PCU components
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 193
F.2.3.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
As shown in Table F.2-15 Mass reductions for the Crank Drive subsystem save $10/kg.
The cost savings for this subsystem is a result of processing savings utilizing split break
connecting rod technology.

•2
(/}
ro

01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01


Subsystem

03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
03
04
65
66
67
99


Description

Crank Drive Subsystem
Crankshaft
Flywheel
Connect Rods (Assemblies: Connecting Rod,
Connecting Rod Cap)
Pistons (Assemblies, Including Pistons, Ring
Packs, Piston Pins, Circlips)
Drive for Accessory Drives (Down force, Flywheel
side)
Drive for Timing Drive (Down force, Flywheel side)
Adaptors
Misc.


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select




A
A





A
Mass
Reduction
"kg"(i)


0.000
0.000
0.596
0.092
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.688
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
iie-ii
* (2)


$0.00
$0.00
$6.51
$0.36
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

6.878
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$0.00
$0.00
$10.93
$3.96
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$10.00
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs./ Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.00%
0.00%
22.24%
5.45%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

2.78%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.00%
0.00%
0.03%
0.01 %
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.04%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

          Table F.2-15: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Crank Drive Subsystem

                         (See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
     F.2.4    Counter Balance Subsystem

F.2.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.2-16 summarizes the mass contributions for the Counter Balance subsystem. The
balance shafts make up the Dynamic Parts sub-subsystem and are the largest contributors
to the subsystem.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 194
(f>
*<
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 195
F.2.4.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
Lightweighting trends for balance shafts include the use of nylon drive gears and roller
bearings. Development is being done using two mating nylon gears that would further
reduce weight and cost.
F.2.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.2-17 summarizes ideas considered for balance shaft lighweighting.
Component/Assembly
Balance Shaft Assembly
Balance Shaft Drive
Gear
Mass-Reduction Idea
roller bearing supports
enable weight optimized
layout for balancer shafts
Nylon instead of Steel
Estimated Impact
10% mass reduction
80% mass reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Reduced system friction
Durability concern, no proven examples
at this time
 Table F.2-17 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for the Crank Drive Subsystem
Schaeffler AG, winner of the 2011 Pace Awards, was recognized for  applying roller
bearings to the balance shaft in automotive applications (Image F.2-19). Roller bearings
require  less  contact area than the journal bearings used on Venza, allowing for balance
shaft mass reductions. Schaeffler's review of the 2.7L balance shaft assembly determined
a maximum of .4 kg could be removed from the balance shafts. Replacing the journal
bearings with roller bearings would add .330 kg resulting in a system savings of .070 kg.
Due to marginal mass savings this idea was not applied.

Roller bearings  applied  to balance shafts  reduce friction by 50% and  in production
applications have saved  1.5 kW of power. Roller bearings do  not require pressurized
engine cooling and eliminate the need for oil galleries.
Using nylon for all balance shaft drive gears has potential to save additional weight, but
no successful testing or applications have proven an all nylon drive feasible at this time.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 196
            Image F.2-19: Schaeffler's Low Friction Roller Bearing Balance Shaft
F.2.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Downsizing the balance shaft assembly to coincide with the downsized 2.4L engine was
selected for the Counter Balance Subsystem.
F.2.4.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

 Mass reduction and cost impact for Counter Balance Subsystem is captured in the engine
downsize calculation
     F.2.5    Cylinder Block Subsystem
F.2.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As  seen in Table  F.2-18,  the  most significant mass  contributor to Cylinder Block
subsystem is the cylinder block itself making up two-thirds of the subsystem mass. The
Crank Case Adapter makes up 20% of the subsystem mass.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 197
(f>
*<
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 198
                Image F.2-20: Key Components - Cylinder Block Subsystem
F.2.5.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Grey  cast iron is still a popular choice for engine blocks. Among the advantages are
strength, wear performance, corrosion resistance, castability,  NVH  & cost. Compacted
Graphite Iron GCI is increasing in popularity for  its improved strength over grey cast
iron,  permitting thinner cross sections  and weight reductions  over conventional  grey
cast.[3] GCI is mostly used in European diesel engine applications. Over the past decade,
the weight advantage of aluminum has fostered its growth as a material choice for engine
blocks and now makes up 60% of engine blocks in  production. Under consumer pressure
for better fuel economy automakers are now turning their attention to the even lighter
magnesium alloys for engine block applications.

Volkswagen has used magnesium cylinders in its 4-cylinder air-cooled boxer engine  used
in the Beatle and other vehicles for decades. BMW has taken the lead in Magnesium alloy
engine block applications. BMW's  Z4 Roadster debuted in 2004 as the lightest 3.0 L
inline six-cylinder gas engine in the world, made possible by the composite magnesium-
aluminum alloy engine. The engines success lead  to its implementation in subsequent
BMW models exceeding over 300,000 units in 2006[4].

In 2010 a joint effort by GM,  Ford, and Chrysler concluded through extensive testing
magnesium was a feasible engine block material as  tested on the Ford Duratech 2.5L V6.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 199

Changes for successful implementation include ethylene glycol coolant with magnesium
protective additives and a new head gasket design to accommodate the aluminum head to
Magnesium block  interface. Iron bulkheads were also required  for added  strength and
further bulk head development is required to prevent failures. The engine block mass was
reduced by 25% without any significant compromises to performance[5].
F.2.5.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.2-19 lists the mass reduction ideas considered for the cylinder block subsystem.

Due to a majority mass contribution, cylinder block was the focus of this subsystem.
Carbon fiber was reviewed as a lightweight material for the cylinder block. Composite
Castings LLC has a patent-pending molding process used to produce carbon fiber engine
blocks for the racing industry. The engine blocks are 45-50% lighter than a comparable
aluminum block. Due to extreme cost and only one successful application, carbon fiber is
not feasible for lightweighting the engine  block. Magnesium, known  for its  superior
specific strength,  does have  a high-volume production example and presents good
opportunity for mass reduction. The main journal caps are constructed from cast iron and
are a potential  candidate for Metal Matrix Composite but  no  production examples  or
testing were identified and therefore questionable technology for the 2017 timeframe.
Component/Assembly
Cylinder Block
Cylinder Block
Main Journal Caps
Cylinder Oil Tubes
Cylinder Block Liner
Crankcase Adapter
Mass-Reduction Idea
Carbon fiber composite
engine block
Aluminum to Magnesium
Cast Iron to Aluminum
MMC
press in rather than bolt on
Plasma sprayed cylinder
^^P bores
Aluminum to Magnesium
Estimated Impact
75% mass reduction
25% mass reduction
50% mass reduction
50% mass reduction
80% mass reduction
65% mass reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Durability concern, unrealistic cost
Improved NVH
No proven examples or successful
testing at this time
Reduced oil coverage

Reduced elastic modulus & creep
resistance
 Table F.2-19: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for the Crank Drive Subsystem
Highlighted in an  April  2005  edition of  MTZ  was work performed by  Audi on
development of a magnesium engine block (Image F.2-21). The object of the study was
to design, build and test a  1.8L turbo diesel engine with aluminum inserted (Image F.2-
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 200

22)  magnesium  engine block. The publication details  the  many different  factors
considered in the use of magnesium applied to an engine  block. The prototype passed
teardown   inspection  and  demonstrated  outstanding  dampening  properties.   The
magnesium engine weighed 23kg less than its cast iron counterpart and proved a high-
strength, closed-deck design can be manufactured from pressure die casting.
                                              Audi 1.8L Turbo
                Image F.2-21: Audi Lightweight Magnesium Hybrid Engine

                    (Source: MOTORTECHNISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT April 2005)
-------
                                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                                             Page 201
                                  integrierter
                                Wassefmantel
   f— ubcreutfrktische
   1 Zylnderiaufbahn
                       Gcwindc fill
                       Zylinderkopf-
                      verschraubung
                                                                         _V»rbindung«-
                                      7
                              G«wind* fiir_
                     Hauptlagerverschraubung
Durchbruche fur
Verankerung im
Mg-Umguss
                     Bild 1: Closed-deck Aluminium-Zvlindereinsatz (AISi17Cu4)
                     Figure 1: Closed-deck aluminium cylinder insert IAISrt7Cu4)


                            Image F.2-22 AlSil7Cu4 Gravity Die Casting

                        (.Source: MOTORTECHNISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT April 2005)
F.2.5.5  Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
CO
*<
1

01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01

| Subsystem

05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05

[Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
03
04
65
66
67
99

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description

Cylinder Block Subsystem
Cylinder Block
Crankshaft Bearing Caps
Bedplates
Piston Cooling
Crankcase Adaptor
Water Jacket
Clinder Barrel
Misc.

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation


Cylinder Block - Aluminum to Mg/AI hybrid.
Cylinder Liner - cast steel to plasma wire arc
N/A
N/A
Oil Nozzles - bolt on to through bulk head
Stiffening Crankcase Housing - Al to Mg
N/A
N/A
N/A

        Table F.2-20: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Cylinder Block Subsystem Analysis
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 202
F.2.5.5.1     Cylinder Block
Aluminum inserted Magnesium was selected as a replacement to the all Aluminum 2.7L
engine block. Like BMW's 3.0L N52 (Image F.2-23), a cylinder insert including cooling
duct (Image F.2-24) is die  cast from Aluminum Silicon Alloy (Image F.2-25). This
Aluminum insert strengthens the  critical cylinder bore and bulk head structure  while
providing a coolant compatible interface. No coolant ever contacts the Magnesium. The
insert is then coated with A1SU2 for adhesion and preheated before being inserted into
the block die casting tool. The magnesium die casting machine is similar to an Aluminum
die casting machine but material conveyance requires a gas  cover to prevent contact
between molten magnesium alloy and the atmosphere. Magnesium Alloy AJ62 is injected
around the Aluminum  insert and  bonds within  20 seconds  then removed and degated
(Image F.2-26).  Components are  attached to the Magnesium block  with  Aluminum
fasteners to prevent  corrosion from dissimilar  metals. High stress fasteners like  the
cylinder head and crankshaft caps are bolted into the Aluminum insert. Magnesium also
requires a specialized rubber coated head gasket to prevent electrochemical corrosion
between the sheet steel gasket and magnesium.  Magnesium and its alloys are typically
treated in aqueous passivating electrolytes to  prevent corrosion. All these factors were
considered in the differential cost build up. Mass savings was calculated by applying
similar water jacket dimensions used by BMW to the 2.7L 1AR-FE and calculating the
volume. The remaining volume for  the Base engine  block was used to  calculate  the
Magnesium content.
-------
                                                             Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                             March 30, 2012
                                                                                 Page 203
BMUU NS£ ENONE MAGNESIUM & flLUMNUM COMPOSITE C
         Image F.2-23: BMW N52 Magnesium Aluminum Hybrid Engine Block
            (Source: http://www.mwerks.com/artman/publish/features/printer_960.shtml)
 Image F.2-24: Aluminum Cylinder Insert with Integrated Water Jacket and Bulkheads
       (Source: http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=zhravlik27&logNo=30080774016)
-------
                                                    Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                   March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 204
         Image F.2-25: Die Casting - Aluminum Cylinder Insert

Source: http://www. 7-forum, com/new s/news2004/6zyl/bmw_6zylinder_ottomotor4.php
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 205
F.2.5.5.2
                   Image F.2-26: Die Casting - Aluminum Cylinder Insert
          (Source: http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogM=zhravlik27&logNo=30080774016)
Cylinder Liner
Toyota's 2.7L uses standard cast iron cylinder liners (Image F.2-27). These liners are
inserted  into the  die  casting mold prior to filling.  Following casting the liners are
machined to finish the cylinder bore. Plasma Transfer Wire Arc (PTWA) is a new method
of forming an iron surface for the cylinder wall (Image F.2-28). The alternative process
began development by Ford in the early  1990s and was first implemented on the 2008
Nissan GT-R and the 2011 Shelby Mustang  GT500. With PTWA, the aluminum engine
block is cast without liners and the aluminum bore is pre-machined to near net size. The
bore is then cleaned and fluxed  followed by a bonding coat. Low carbon  steel wire  is
continuously fed into  the nozzle apparatus  and deposited on the cylinder wall. After
machining  the remaining plasma  coating is .070 - .170 mm in thickness. This is roughly
10% of the cast liner thickness found on Toyota's 2.7L. This ultra-thin surface improves
heat transfer between the combustion process and the aluminum block.7 Although Ford
has patented their PTWA process, plasma can be used to  apply cylinder coatings in a
variety of ways. BMW's new N20 engine block uses two iron wires in a similar process.
Volkswagen has a cylinder coating process in which steel and Molybdenum powder are
applied by  a plasma jet. Production applications include Touareg, Lupo, & Van T5. High-
Velocity Oxy-Fuel (HVOF) has also been used for the cylinder friction surfaces.
      Image F.2-27: [Base Technology]
         Cast Iron Cylinder Liners
Source: http.V/dwolsten. tripod. com/articles/jan96a. html
                                     Image F.2-28: [New Technology]
                                   Plasma Transfer Wire Arc (PTWA)
                              Source: http://www.greencarcongress. com/2009/05/ptwa-
F.2.5.5.3
Crankcase Adapter
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 206

The 2.7L 1AR-FE has cast iron main bearing caps housing the crankshaft. A Crankcase
Adapter  is used to stiffen the engine block and integrates the oil filter (Image F.2-29).
BMW's N52 Engine uses a Magnesium Bedplate with integrated bearing caps bolted to
the engine block, trapping the crankshaft (Image F.2-30). The 2.7L Crankcase Adapter
was lightened by using  a direct material replacement from Aluminum to Magnesium
Alloy.
      Image F.2-29: [Base Technology]
       Aluminum Crankcase Adapter
           (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
    Image F.2-30: [New Technology]
    Magnesium Bedplate BMW N52
Source: http://www.mwerks.com/artman/publish/fe
    atures/printer_960.shtml20090529.html
F.2.5.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

Cylinder Block subsystem results are listed  in  (Table F.2-21). The cylinder  block
represents the largest mass savings contribution to the engine system.  The Magnesium
outer block saves 3.3kg  over the 2.7L's  conventional cast  aluminum design. PTWA
cylinder liners saved 1.7 kg over cast iron. Substituting magnesium for aluminum in the
crankcase adaptor saved 1.9 kg. While magnesium has a considerable weight advantage
over aluminum, it comes at a significant cost, resulting in a high cost per kilogram value
for the cylinder block subsystem.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 207

w
•$
m

01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01


Subsystem

05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
03
04
65
66
67
99


Description

Cylinder Block Subsystem
Cylinder Block
Crankshaft Bearing Caps
Bedplates
Piston Cooling
Crankcase Adaptor
Water Jacket
Clinder Barrel
Misc.


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


D


A
C




D
Mass
Reduction
"kg" CD


5.058
0.000
0.000
0.124
1.924
0.000
0.000
0.000

7.106
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
iirt-M
* (2)


-$20.55
$0.00
$0.00
$0.65
-$5.03
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

-24.931
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


-$4.06
$0.00
$0.00
$5.20
-$2.61
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

-$3.51
(Increase)
Sub-
Subs./ Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


25.34%
0.00%
0.00%
89.86%
31.17%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

23.58%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.30%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.11%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.42%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
       Table F.2-21: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Cylinder Block Subsystem
     F.2.6   Cylinder Head Subsystem
F.2.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.2-22, the most significant mass contributors to the Cylinder Head
subsystem are the cylinder head, camshaft carrier and cylinder head cover.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 208
(f>
*<
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 209
                Image F.2-31: Key Components - Cylinder Head Subsystem
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.2.6.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Cylinder head  industry trends for lightweighting  have been  limited to  the  use of
aluminum.  Magnesium alloy development for cylinder  heads is ongoing  and aims to
resolve stiffness, creep, and corrosion issues. In 2008, the Changchun Institute of Applied
Chemistry of CAS and FAW Group successfully developed a magnesium alloy cylinder
head  for heavy-duty truck.  Over 15,000  cylinder heads  have been produced  from
magnesium  alloy for heavy-duty truck.[8] A  popular  choice for lightweight camshaft
covers continues to be plastic as well as some use of magnesium.
F.2.6.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

As a top subsystem mass contributor, the cylinder head was a focus for mass reduction.
Magnesium as a material  replacement for aluminum was researched. A production
example of a magnesium  cylinder head was difficult to  find and  no passenger car
applications were identified. The cam cover, a commonly plastic component, was quickly
identified as  an opportunity.  Hydraulic cam  phaser control circuitry through  the cam
cover was a point of concern for the composite replacement. The  latest in valve spring
technology offers reduced spring masses as well as reduced spring  free lengths,  enabling
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 210

cylinder head height and mass reductions. Table F.2-23 summarizes ideas considered for
cylinder head subsystem.
Component/Assembly
Cam Cover
Cylinder Head Plug
Large
Cylinder Head Plug
Small
Cylinder Head Assembly
Cylinder Head
Mass-Reduction Idea
Material change from
magnesium to composite
Material change from steel
to Aluminum
Material change from steel
to Aluminum
Reduced Height
Material change from
Aluminum to Magnesium
Estimated Impact
28% mass reduction
65% mass reduction
65% mass reduction
7% mass reduction
25% mass reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Cost effective, noise reducing


Improved packaging
Additional cost, no applicable examples
 Table F.2-23: Summary of mass-reduction concepts considered for the Cylinder Head Subsystem
F.2.6.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.2-24 outlines the mass reduction ideas selected for the Cylinder Head subsystem.
As  a result of valve spring lightweighting research, an opportunity to save mass on the
cylinder head was identified. Optimizing the valve spring  includes a shortening of the
valve spring free length and creates opportunity to reduce cylinder head height. Although
a reduction was assumed feasible and credited as a mass save, design work is required to
validate this as an option.
V)
*<
1

01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01

| Subsystem

06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06

Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
03
06
07
08
09
20

Description

Cylinder Head Subsystem
Cylinder Head
Valve, Guides, Valve Seats
Guides for Valvetrain
Camshaft Bearing Housing
Camshaft Speed Sensor
Camshaft Carrier
Other Parts for Cylinder Head
Cylinder Head Covers

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation


Cylinder Head - reduced height for shorter spring
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Cylinder Head Plug - Steel to Al
Cylinder Head Cover - Mg to Plastic

-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 211
          Table F.2-24: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Cylinder Head Subsystem
The Magnesium Cylinder head cover was changed to plastic as a weight save, cost save,
and performance benefit (Image F.2-32). Production examples include Chrysler 4.7L V8
and Ford Zetec-R. A plastic cam cover as applied to Venza represents a new challenge
due to hydraulic Cam Phaser  solenoid actuation. Toyota integrated the valve mounting
into the Cam Cover.  Plastic may require integration of the solenoids into the Cam Carrier
or Camshaft Bearing Cap.
                     Image F.2-32 Mahle Composite Cam Cover

                     (Source: www. mahle. com/MAHLE/en/Products/Air-
                  Management-Systems/Engine-and-cylinder-head-covers)

The  coolant  cavity Access Plug  Images  5.1-33  and 34 was  changed from steel to
aluminum. Common with the cylinder head, Aluminum is expected to work well for this
application. A  waxed base polymer applied to the  threads was selected  to  stabilize
tightening  torques.  Aluminum fasteners, common  in the Aerospace industry  are  also
being used in automotive. KMAX, a supplier of Aluminum fasteners, was consulted in
this application. Production examples include transfer case to transmission bolts on the
F150,  fasteners  on  the  BMW  NG6  engine, and   oil pan  fasteners  used  on  ZF
transmissions.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 212
Image F.2-33: Access Plug - Cylinder Head   Image F.2-34: Access Plug - Cylinder Head
                                  (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.2.6.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

Table F.2-25  summarizes lightweight activities  applied to Cylinder  Head  subsystem.
Among ideas selected,  cylinder head height reduction yields the greatest mass savings for
the cylinder head subsystem and represents a 7% cylinder head mass reduction. The  cost
savings of changing the cam cover  material from magnesium to composite curbs the
entire subsystem cost structure.

u>
•<
2-
0
3

01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01


Subsystem

06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
03
06
07
08
09
20
99


Description

Cylinder Head Subsystem
Cylinder Head
Valve, Guides, Valve Seats
Guides for Valvetrain
Camshaft Bearing Housing
Camshaft Speed Sensor
Camshaft Carrier
Other Parts for Cylinder Head
Cylinder Head Covers
Misc.


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A





A
A


A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


0.900
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.095
0.052
0.000

1.047
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 213
     F.2.7    Valvetrain Subsystem

F.2.7.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As  seen in  Table F.2-26, the most significant subsystem  mass  contributor is  the
camshafts.  Second to the camshafts, the cam phasers make up  a large portion  of
subsystem mass.
(f>
*<
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 214

components are contracted from sintered iron. The cam phasers directly coupled to the
camshafts,  drive roller cam followers supported by hydraulic lash adjusters. The  roller
followers actuate the intake and exhaust valves (Image F.2-35). The camshafts on Venza
are traditional solid cast design.
                  Image F.2-35: Valvetrain Assembly (Phasers removed)
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.2.7.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Hollow cast camshafts are a new lightweighting technology that can be  found in the
Chevy Cruze Ecotec 1.4L turbo. As part of this study a 1.4L camshaft was purchased and
a sectioned (Image F.2-36). Analysis found that the cored cavity saved 21% mass  over
the same camshaft cast from solid.

Composite or tubular  camshafts used in Europe, are made  from tube stock. Cam lobes
made from powder metal or forged steel are hydroformed in place. Composite camshafts
offer weight savings of up to 50% over traditional solid cast.

Advances in valve spring technology have lead to many new design options, including
symmetrical, asymmetrical  coiling and tapered springs  or  beehive  springs.  All spring
types can be made from wire with round or profiled cross sections. Advances in materials
and processing techniques now permit lighter spring weights, smaller retaining diameters,
and shorter free lengths.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 215
                                                                             ,
                    Image F.2-36: Hollow Cast Camshaft - 1.4L Ecotec
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.2.7.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

As  seen in Table F.2-27, the camshaft, phaser assembly, valve spring, and valve were
considered for mass reduction.
Component/Assembly
Camshaft
Intake Cam Phaser
Assembly
Exhaust Cam Phaser
Assembly
Valve Spring Keeper
Valve
Valve Spring
Mass-Reduction Idea
Solid cast to tubular
composite
Steel to powder metal
Steel to powder metal
Reduced size, paired with
optimized valve spring
Laser welded sheet steel
Design Optimization
Estimated Impact
46% mass reduction
66% mass reduction
66% mass reduction
25% mass reduction
50% mass reduction
26% mass reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
More expensive, current production
examples
Current production examples
Current production examples
Reduced valvetrain inertia
cost build-up not feasable for this project
Current production examples
        Table F.2-27: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for Valvetrain
Mubea, a  development  leader in lightweight vehicle  technology supplies  composite
camshafts to the European passenger car market (Image F.2-37). Mubea's process uses
internal high pressure fluid to expand the camshaft tube inside servo positioned camshaft
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 216

lobes. This assembly process opens the range of materials that can be considered for lobe
design and concentrates the material to the critical cam lobe region.[9]
   Image F.2-37: Hydroformed Camshaft       Image F.2-38: Mahle Sheet Steel Valve
     Source: http://www.mubea.com/english/     Source: http://www.tokyo-motorshow.com/show/2007
The Cam Phaser assembly, made up of many subcomponents can be manufactured from
powder metal  Aluminum  rather  than sintered  iron. SHW, 2010 award winner  for
excellence  in powder metal, offers this technology in large scale  production (700,000
units/year). In this application mass savings is complimented by a performance advantage
of reducing valvetrain inertia.[1
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 217
F.2.7.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
As seen in Table F.2-28, the camshaft, phaser assembly and valve springs were selected
for mass reduction. Spring Retainers, Spring Seats, and Valve Actuation Elements were
not investigated due to limited opportunity mass content.

OT
1
3



01
01
01
01
01


01

01
01
01

OT
c
I
U)
ff
3


07
07
07
07
07


07

07
07
07

c
cr
OT
c
cr
(/)
1
3

00
01
02
03
04


05

06
08
99


Description




Valvetrain Subsystem
Inlet Valves
Outlet Valves
Valve Springs
Spring Retainers, Cotters, Spring
Seats
Valve Actuation Elements: Rockers,
Finger Followers, Hydraulic Lash
Adjusters, . . .
Camshafts
Camshaft Phaser and/or Cam
Sprockets
Misc.


Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation





Shortened Valve post for shortened spring
Shortened Valve post for shortened spring
Mass & free length reduction; optimized design
N/A


N/A

Solid cast to tubular hydroformed assembly
replace steel components with cast Al
N/A

            Table F.2-28: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Valvetrain Subsystem
Solid cast  camshafts selected by  Toyota (Image F.2-39) were replaced with Tubular
composite camshafts (Image F.2-40). Forged cam lobes hydroformed onto the tube make
up the base assembly. Additional details are pressed onto the ends providing geometry for
the cam phaser  and timing sensor. Production applications for assembled hollow tube
camshafts include Fiat 1.8L Diesel, Ford 4.6/5.0/5.4/6.2L V8,  Chrysler 3.7L V6 and 8.4L
V10.
                   Image F.2-39: [Base Technology] Solid Cast Camshaft
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 218
       Image F.2-40: [New Technology] Mubea Hydroformed Camshaft (Fiat 1.8L Diesel)
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Sinter iron cam phasers used on base Venza were lightweighted to Aluminum. Image
F.2-41  shows the  sintered iron  cam  phaser components  selected by Toyota  and
components from a 2008 Mini Cooper. The stator is die cast aluminum and the rotor is
sintered powder aluminum  (Image  F.2-42). SHW,  located  in Aalen-Wasseralfingen,
Germany, offers  a high silicon alloy Aluminum powder metal  sprocket with  wear
properties sufficient for this roller chain application (Image F.2-43). SHW in conjunction
with HILITE International, have produced Aluminum cam phaser assemblies,  including
aluminum sprockets for the BMW N52 & N55.
      Image F.2-41: [Base Technology] Sintered Iron Cam Phaser Rotor, Stator, Sprocket
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 219
            Image F.2-42: [New Technology]
            PM Al Rotor, Die Cast Al Stator
                 (Source: FFV. Inc. nhoto)
Image F.2-43: [New Technology]
     SHW PM Al Sprocket
     (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
The base valve spring used on Venza is a symmetrical cylinder design with round cross
section Image F.2-44. Mubea offers an optimized version with two advancements that
enable reduced spring length Image F.2-45.  The Mubea  spring features an ovate wire
profile. As compared to conventional round,  ovate wire reduces the solid height of the
spring. The installed height can be reduced proportionally. In addition, Mubea's spring
undergoes  a special hardening process after  coiling. This  optimizes the residual stress
profile, resulting in the  best possible material properties  and enabling a reduced wire
diameter.  The smaller wire diameter reduces the solid height and resultant  installed
height. The shorter spring offers a packaging  advantage for cylinder head designers that
can lead to reductions in cylinder head size and valve length. Further refinements include
a honeycomb style or tapered spring that can reduce the valve keeper size. Lighter valve
trains mean reduced inertia, less friction, and improved efficiency.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 220
            Image F.2-44: [Base Technology]
                     Valve Spring
                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.2.7.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
Image F.2-45: [New Technology]
         Valve Spring
     /"Source: FEV. Inc. nhoto)
As seen in Table F.2-29, the camshaft offers the greatest opportunity for mass reduction.
Additional processing  associated  with tubular camshafts  result in higher  costs. The
optimized valve spring also comes at a cost increase. Valve spring optimization yields
mass savings to the cylinder head and the  valve  itself. New technology applied to the
Valvetrain subsystem results in a cost increase.
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 221

•2
(/}
ro

01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01


Subsystem

07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
03
04
05
06
08
99


Description

Valvetain Subsystem
Inlet Valves
Outlet Valves
Valve Springs
Spring Retainers, Cotters, Spring Seats
Valve Actuation Elements: Rockers, Finger
Followers, Hydraulic Lash Adjusters,...
Camshafts
Camshaft Phaser and/or Cam Sprockets
Misc.


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A
A
X


D
B


D
Estimated
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (D


0.015
0.015
0.154
0.000
0.000
2.133
1.391
0.000

3.707
(Decrease)
Estimated
Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 222
(f>
*<
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 223
                        Image F.2-46: Venza Timing Drive System
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

F.2.8.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Timing belts are commonly use in the industry due to cost and quietness of operation.
Timing chains, although more durable (service life double that of a belt) began fading out
in the  1980s.  In recent  years, OEMs  have trended  back due  to advances  in  high-
performance chains[12] (Figure 5.1-1).
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 224
                             Timing chain drive systems
                              Timing belt drive systems
                                 2002
2003
Year
2004
2005
2006
              Figure 5.1-1: Industry Trend Timing Belt vs Chain Applications
           (Source: http://www.ntn.co.jp/english/products/review/pdf/NTN_TR?'3_en_P110.pdf)
Front Covers or timing covers have trended to lightweight materials like Magnesium or
plastic. Advances in plastic technology have improved thermal resistance and coolant
compatibility.  Magnesium, although more  expensive, has the structural capability to
support accessories  and mountings. Plastic timing covers are  common place on dry belt
drive systems. Plastic timing covers on chain drive systems is a developing technology.
F.2.8.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

As  seen in  Table F.2-31, many of the timing  drive components had opportunity for
weight  reductions.  As  largest mass  contributor,  the  Front Cover  was  reviewed for
alternate materials. Magnesium offers a weight advantage over the base aluminum cover,
but at a higher cost and still higher weight than plastic.  Plastic timing covers have been
mass produced for decades on belt drive (dry)  systems and offer a substantial weight
savings.

The Timing Chain Tensioner Guide for  the 2.7L is composed of aluminum. DSM offers
production proven plastic  solutions for this component saving weight and cost. The
Crankshaft  Timing Sprocket was  reviewed for lightweighting. The  loading  of this
sprocket is higher and it is smaller in diameter  than the cam drive sprocket. For these
reasons, this component was eliminated as an opportunity for lightweighting.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 225
Component/Assembly
Front Cover
Timing Chain Tensioner
Timing Vibration
Dampener
Front Cover Plug
Crankshaft Timing
Sprocket
Timing Cover Plate
Timing Chain Guide
Mass-Reduction Idea
Material change from
Aluminum to composite
Material change from Steel
to Aluminum
Steel reinforced to all
composite
Material change from Steel
to Aluminum
Material change from Steel
to powder metal
material change from Steel
to Aluminum
base bracket from steel to
Al
Estimated Impact
34% mass reduction
61% mass reduction
60% mass reduction
66% mass reduction
30% mass reduction
66% mass reduction
66% mass reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Cost effective, noise reducing
Reduced durability
Packaging concern

Reduced durability


   Table F.2-31: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for Timing Drive
                                      Subsystem
F.2.8.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

As seen in Table F.2-32, the Chain Tensioner, Guide, and Front Cover were all selected
for detailed evaluation. The timing chain was not selected due to durability concerns of
timing belts, larger  pulleys required, and the hydraulic cam phaser design requiring an
oiled drive system.

OT
3



01
01
01
01
01

01

01

OT
c
I
U)
ff
3


08
08
08
08
08

08

08

c
cr
OT
c
cr
*<
of
3

00
01
02
03
05

06

99


Description




Timing Drive Subsystem
Timing Wheels (Sprockets)
Tensioners
Guides
Belts, Chains

Covers

Misc.


Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation





N/A
Tensioner Housing - Cast Iron to Al
Timing Chain Tensioner Base - Al to Plastic
N/A
Front Cover - Al to Plastic.
Timing Chain Cover Plate - Steel to Plastic
Front Cover Tight Plug - Steel to Al
N/A

           Table F.2-32: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Timing Drive Subsystem
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 226

The 2.7L Tensioning Guide has a nylon contact pad over top an Aluminum base (Image
F.2-47). DSM  specializes  in  single piece and two piece plastic timing chain guides.
Production examples include the 2007 Honda 1.8L and Chrysler TigerShark 14 (Image
F.2-48). Stanyl was chosen for this engines timing and balancer drive system due to the
hot temperature stiffness, fatigue, and overall efficiency benefit offered by Stanyl.
                    Image F.2-47
                  [Base Technology]
            Timing Chain Tensioning Guide
                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
        Image F.2-48
      [New Technology]
Timing Chain Tensioning Guide
        (Source: DSM)
The  Timing  Chain  Tesioner is  a ratcheting  spring plunger  mechanism that applies
pressure to the Tensioning Guide. On the Venza, the base construction of this tensioner is
cast  iron  (Image  F.2-49).  Other applications including,  3.6L Pentastar are  using
aluminum housings (Image F.2-50).
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 227
                     Image F.2-49
                   [Base Technology]
             Tensioner Housing - Cast Iron
                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
        Image F.2-50
      [New Technology]
Tensioner Housing - Aluminum
    (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
The timing drive system cover, commonly referred to as the Front Cover is made from die
cast aluminum  (Image F.2-51).  Mann+Hummel,  located  in  Ludwigsburg,  Germany,
recently  showcased a plastic concept integrating the engine bearing, oil  filter and oil
cooler (Image F.2-52). The  Venza Front  Cover integrates the oil pump presenting a
challenge for plastic. This application  was reviewed with DSM  and was considered
feasible for plastic. A molded insert is required for the oil pump case. Aluminum inserts
would be used to  support the mounting  surface for the Torsion Strut Mounting Bracket
and transfer load to the engine block.
                   Image F.2-51:
                 [Base Technology]
                    Front Cover
    Figure 5.1-52
  [New Technology]
    Front Cover
                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)   (Source: http://www.plasticstoday.com/articles)
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 228
The Front Cover provides a window for tensioner access. A stamped steel plate was used
as a cover. This cover was lightweighted to plastic and a rubber inlayed gasket used to
improve sealing. A steel tight plug used for phaser access was changed to aluminum.
F.2.8.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

As  seen in Table F.2-33, the Front Cover contributes the most mass savings for  the
Timing Drive subsystem. The size  of this component best leverages  the aluminum to
plastic density advantage. The material cost per unit volume of plastic offsets other costs
in this system resulting in an overall cost savings.

•2
(/}
ro

01
01
01
01
01
01
01


Subsystem

08
08
08
08
08
08
08


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
03
05
06
99


Description

Timing Drive Subsystem
Timing Wheels (Sprockets)
Tensioners
Guides
Belts, Chains
Covers
Misc.


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select



A
A

A


A
Estimated
Mass
Reduction
"kg"(D


0.000
0.125
0.054
0.000
1.276
0.000

1.454
(Decrease)
Estimated
Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 229

Tensioner uses lightweight aluminum for the tensioning mechanism and a plastic idler
pulley. No lightweighting ideas were identified for this subsystem.
(f>
*<
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 230
(f>
*<
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 231
                                            r        iii
                    Image F.2-53: Air Intake Subsystem Components
                               (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.2.10.3
Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
Industry trends for air intake lightweighting are  focused on the intake manifold. This
component, typically made from cast iron, then aluminum is now trending toward plastic.
Plastic lends itself well to more  complex and more efficient  dual  runner designs.
Aftermarket suppliers  offer carbon  fiber Intake Tubes. Due to cost and  resonator
attachment points, carbon fiber was not considered.
F.2.10.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
As shown in Table F.2-36, plastic components were reviewed for MuCell lightweighting.
The Intake Manifold weighing over 7kg was a target for lightweighting. MuCell was
reviewed with Trexel and the highly engineered manifold was not a viable candidate. The
Aluminum  Throttle Body Housing was reviewed for a material change to plastic. The
base Venza used  fasteners  to join the Upper  and Lower Air Filter Box segments.
Lightweight clips, found in other applications, simplify filter access and were considered
for lightweighting.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 232
Component/Assembly
Air Filter Box
Throttle Body Housing
Air Intake Ducting
Air Filter Box Fasteners
Mass-Reduction Idea
MuCell
Aluminum to Plastic
MuCell
Redesign for lightweight
clips
Estimated Impact
9% mass reduction
40% mass reduction
9% mass reduction
75% mass reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
No thick mold flow sections
Metal inserts required
No thick mold flow sections
Less expensive design
   Table F.2-36: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for Timing Drive
                                      Subsystem
F.2.10.5       Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Ideas selected to lightweight the Air Intake Subsystem are listed in Table F.2-37.
V)
*<
1

01
01
01
01
01
01
01

| Subsystem

10
10
10
10
10
10
10

Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
03
04
05
99

Description

Air Intake Subsystem
Intake Manifold
Air Filter Box
Air Filters
Throttle Housing Assembly; including
Supplies
Adapters: Flanges for Port Shut-off
Misc.

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
^f

N/A
MuCell; redesign for clips, ellimnate bolts
N/A
Throttle Body Housing - Al to Plastic
N/A
Air Intake Housing/Cover/Duct/Main Intake Hose - MuCell

           Table F.2-37: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Timing Drive Subsystem
The Venza  Throttle Body  Housing is die  cast  aluminum  (Image  F.2-54).  Plastic
applications  are  now emerging on vehicles like  the Mini Cooper (Image F.2-55).
Aluminum,  although still considered lightweight,  has nearly twice the density of its
plastic counterpart.
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 233
     Image F.2-54: [Base Technology]
     Throttle Body: Aluminum Housing
          (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.2-55: [New Technology]
 Throttle Body: Plastic Housing
     (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
The fasteners and threaded inserts (Image F.2-56) used to joint the upper and lower Air
Filter Box were replaced with light weight, low cost, quick clamps (Image F.2-57).
      Image F.2-56: [Base Technology]
        Air Filter Access Fasteners
           (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
 Figure 5.1-57: [New Technology]
     Air Filter Access Clamp
      (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 234

After Consulting Trexel, MuCell was applied to all applicable intake components (Image
F.2-58 through Image F.2-63). Due to the basic geometry of these components, material
delivery webs could not be thinned and a 9% mass reduction was applied.

  Image F.2-58: Air Intake Housing
     MuCell - 9% Mass Savings
  Image F.2-59: Air Intake Cover
    MuCell - 9% Mass Savings
   Image F.2-60: Air Intake Duct
     MuCell - 9% Mass Savings
Image F.2-61: Main Intake Hose
  MuCell - 9% Mass Savings
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 235
              Image F.2-62: Air Box Upper        Image F.2-63: Air Box Lower

                       (Images 5.1-58 through 5.1-63 Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.2.10.6
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
Table F.2-38  shows the weight  and cost savings  for Air Intake Lightweighting.  The
Throttle Body cost  savings by  switching from aluminum to injection-molded plastic
drives the $5.60/kg savings for this system.

u>
•$
ro

01
01
01
01
01
01
01


Subsystem

10
10
10
10
10
10
10


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
03
04
05
99


Description

Air Intake Subsystem
Intake Manifold
Air Filter Box
Air Filters
Throttle Housing Assembly; including Supplies
Adapters: Flanges for Port Shut-off
Misc.


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select



A

A

A

A
Estimated
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


0.000
0.144
0.000
0.245
0.000
0.122

0.510
(Decrease)
Estimated
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)


$0.00
$0.29
$0.00
$2.27
$0.00
$0.29

2.859
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$0.00
$2.04
$0.00
$9.29
$0.00
$2.40

$5.60
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs./ Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.00%
9.48%
0.00%
7.92%
0.00%
5.83%

3.65%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.01 %
0.00%
0.01 %

0.03%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
           Table F.2-38: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Air Intake Subsystem
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 236
     F.2.11   Fuel Induction Subsystem
F.2.11.1
Subsystem Content Overview
Table F.2-39  details the mass breakdown for the Fuel Induction subsystem. The most
significant subsystem mass contributor is the  Fuel Rail. The Fuel Injection Pump  and
regulator  were included in the  Fuel  system and therefore excluded from  the Fuel
Induction subsystem.  At .5  kg,  this subsystem has a  minimum impact on the overall
engine system mass.
(f>
*<
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 237
F.2.11.3
                   Image F.2-64: Fuel Induction Subsystem Components
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
Fuel induction lightweighting trends include smaller more efficient fuel  injectors and
lightweight plastic  fuel  rails.  Some plastic  fuel  rail designs  integrate  the  pulsation
dampener, eliminating mounting hardware and reducing cost (Image F.2-65).
                Image F.2-65: Fuel Rail with Integrated Pulsation Dampener
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 238
F.2.11.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
As seen in Table F.2-40, concepts for Fuel Induction Lightweighting include a material
change  for the  Fuel Rail  and  copper-clad  aluminum  wire for the  Fuel  Injector.
Disassembly of the Fuel Injector revealed minimal copper content. In addition, to match
current  carrying  capacity copper-clad aluminum wire  must be  1.2 times  larger in
diameter, increasing package size. For these reasons the idea was not feasible.
Component/Assembly
Fuel Rail
Fuel Injector
Mass-Reduction Idea
aluminum to plastic
Copper Clad Aluminum
Wire
Estimated Impact
25% mass reduction
5% mass reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Reduced cost
Larger wire gage for same performance
  Table F.2-40: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for Fuel Induction Subsystem
F.2.11.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
As seen in Table F.2-41, the cast aluminum fuel rail was changed to plastic. Production
examples include the 3.5L Toyota (Image F.2-66). Toyota's reasoning for using plastic in
particular engine applications and not exclusively is not understood. Factors such as crash
safety may drive metal Fuel Rails.


OT
1
3


01
01
01
01
01
01



c
m
(D
3


11
11
11
11
11
11

c
cr
r/>
c
cr
0)
•s
of
3

00
01
04
06
07
99




Description



Fuel Induction Subsystem
Fuel Rails
Fuel Injectors
Pressure Regulators
Fuel Injection Pumps
Misc.




Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation




Al to Plastic
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

          Table F.2-41: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Fuel Induction Subsystem
-------
                                                              Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                             March 30, 2012
                                                                                 Page 239
                        Image F.2-66: Plastic Fuel Rail (Toyota 3.5L)

                                   (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.2.11.6
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
As seen in Table F.2-42, changing the Fuel Rail from aluminum to plastic saved .115 kg
and $2.13.

w
•3
ro

01
01
01
01
01
01


Subsystem

11
11
11
11
11
11


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
04
06
07
99


Description

Fuel Induction Subsystem
Fuel Rails
Fuel Injectors
Pressure Regulators
Fuel Injection Pumps
Misc.


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A





A
Estimated
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


0.115
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.115
(Decrease)
Estimated
Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 240
     F.2.12  Exhaust Subsystem
F.2.12.1
Subsystem Content Overview
As seen in Table F.2-43, the Exhaust Manifold and Oxygen Sensor were included in the
Exhaust subsystem.
(f>
*<
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 241
               Image F.2-67: Manifold with Integrated Catalyst - 2.7L Toyota
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)


     F.2.13  Lubrication Subsystem
F.2.13.1
Subsystem Content Overview
As seen in Table F.2-44, the largest contributor to the Lubrication subsystem is the Oil
Pan. Included within the Miscellaneous sub-subsystem is the dipstick assembly.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 242
(f>
*<
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 243
F.2.13.3
       Image F.2-68: Lubrication Subsystem Components
                   (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)


Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
Lightweighting  trends  for  lubrication  are  metal  to  plastic applications.  Common
components include Oil Pans, Baffle Plates, and Dip Stick Cases. Plastic presents the best
advantage when multiple components can be integrated into one, like the oil filter mount
and the oil pan.
F.2.13.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.2-45 summarizes ideas considered for the Lubrication subsystem.  The Oil Pan
was considered for plastic or magnesium, but the simple steel stamping is low cost and
the pans size limits savings opportunity. The stamped steel oil pan Baffle Plate requires
less draw than the oil pan and was considered for an aluminum stamping. The oil pump
inner and outer rotors were considered for powder metal aluminum but the severity of
failure and lack of production examples discontinued the idea.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 244
Component/Assembly
Oil Pan
Oil Pan Baffle Plate
Oil Pump
Dip Stick Tube
Mass-Reduction Idea
Mg or plastic instead of
stamped steel
steel to plastic or Al
Steel to PM Al
steel to plastic
Estimated Impact
35% mass reduction
65% mass reduction
50% mass reduction
50% mass reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Increased cost, reduced durability

Durability Concern

   Table F.2-45: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for Lubrication Subsystem
F.2.13.5       Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.2-46 summarizes the Ideas Implemented for the Lubrication subsystem.
V)
*<
1

01
01
01
01
01
01

| Subsystem

13
13
13
13
13
13

Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
05
06
99

Description

Lubrication Subsystem
Oil Pans (Oil Sump)
Oil Pumps
Pressure Regulators
Oil Filter
Misc.

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation


Oil Pan Baffle Plate - Steel to Al
N/A
N/A
N/A
Dip Stick Tube - Stamped Steel to Plastic

           Table F.2-46: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Lubrication Subsystem

The stamped  steel Oil Baffle Plate  (Image  F.2-69) is used in  the  oil pan to reduce
turbulence and fluid restriction of moving parts. Preventing unintended grabbing of pan
oil helps keep the oil pick submerged particularly at high RPM. This plate was changed to
Aluminum.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 245
       Image F.2-69: Oil Pan Baffle Plate  Image F.2-70: Oil Pan Baffle Plate Assembled
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photos)
Austrian supplier, Schneegans  Silicon GmbH, supplies a plastic Dip Stick Tube for
BMW's  2L diesel engine (Image F.2-71). Water-injection technology and DuPont™
Zytel® nylon  produce a lightweight economical alternative to steel. Plastic also allows
easy integration of surrounding components.  The Venza Dip Stick Tube is constructed
from steel (Image F.2-72). The Dipstick Tube was lightweighted by a material change to
plastic and scaling the volume up by 2.5.
                   Image F.2-71: Plastic Dip Stick Tube (BMW 2L Diesel)
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 246
                        Image F.2-72: Steel Dip Stick Tube (Venza)
                                  (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.2.13.6
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
As seen in Table F.2-47, lightweighting ideas applied to the Lubrication subsystem saves
one-third of a kg and has little impact on cost. Results for the Oil Pan Baffle Plate are
summarized in the Oil Pans sub-Subsystem. The Dip Stick Tube is in the Miscellaneous
sub-subsystem.

w
*<
1
3

01
01
01
01
01
01


Subsystem

13
13
13
13
13
13


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
05
06
99


Description

Lubrication Subsystem
Oil Pans (Oil Sump)
Oil Pumps
Pressure Regulators
Oil Filter
Misc.


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A



D

B
Estimated
Mass
Reduction
"kg" CD


0.167
0.000
0.099
0.000
0.067

0.333
(Decrease)
Estimated
Cost
Impact
II (Ml
* (2)


$0.09
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.30

-0.201
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$0.57
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$4.39

-$0.60
(Increase)
Sub-
Subs ./Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


9.51 %
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
45.40%

9.97%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.01 %
0.00%
0.01 %
0.00%
0.00%

0.02%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 247
          Table F.2-47: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Lubrication Subsystem
                          (See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)


     F.2.14  Cooling Subsystem
F.2.14.1
Subsystem Content Overview
Table F.2-48  summarizes the mass breakdown for the Cooling subsystem. The largest
mass contributor is the Radiator. Included in the Heat Exchanger sub-system is the AC
Condenser.
V)
><
cn.
oT
3

01
01
01
01
01
01
01


Subsystem

14
14
14
14
14
14
14


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
04
05
06
99


Description

Cooling Subsystem
Water Pumps
Thermostat Housings
Heat Exchangers
Pressure Regulators
Expansion Tanks
Misc.

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


2.872
0.205
9.543
0.030
0.282
1.166

14.098
172.417
1711
8.18%
0.82%
          Table F.2-48: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Cooling Subsystem.
F.2.14.2
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Venza radiator (Image F.2-73) uses standard aluminum heat transfer element with
plastic end caps on top and bottom. The water pump is aluminum and has  integrated
mounting features for the thermostat, belt tensioner, and alternator. The Impeller Cover
supports the Impeller Shaft and Drive  Belt load. The Water Pump Pulley is  steel. The
Venza Thermostat Housing is already lightweight plastic.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 248
                         Image F.2-73: Toyota Venza Radiator
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.2.14.3
Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
Lightweighting trends for cooling system include the use of plastic water pump housings,
plastic water pump impellers, and plastic thermostat housings. Coolant transfer tubes are
now being manufactured from plastic. Plastic drive pulleys  offer an attractive potential
for mass savings. Although common for idler pulleys no examples of plastic drive pulleys
were identified. Future  development of plastic drive pulleys is  expected. Transmission
heat exchangers assembled  in  the radiator  are  now  being made  from  lightweight
Aluminum (Image F.2-74) instead of copper alloy (Image F.2-75) and can save 50%
mass.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 249
                                                                          i
               Image F.2-74: Transmission Heat Transfer Element - Aluminum
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
              Image F.2-75: Transmission Heat Transfer Element - Copper Alloy
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.2.14.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Lightweighting ideas considered for the cooling system are summarized in Table F.2-49.
Component/Assembly
Radiator
Water Pump
Radiator Fan Shroud
Transmission Heat
Exchanger
Water Pump Impeller
Radiator Fan Blade
Radiator housings
Water Pump Pulley
Mass-Reduction Idea
Downsize radiator to match
engine size
Aluminum to Plastic
MuCell
Copper to Aluminum
Steel to Plastic
MuCell
MuCell
Steel to Plastic
Estimated Impact
10% mass reduction
50% mass reduction
17% mass reduction
80% mass reduction
80% mass reduction
8% mass reduction
8% mass reduction
70% mass reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Reduced opportunity for commonizing
with other vehicles

Optimum part for MuCell
Already Aluminum



friction loss, friction burn
     Table F.2-49: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for Cooling Subsystem
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 250

F.2.14.4      Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.2-50 summarizes lightweighting ideas selected for the Cooling subsystem.

OT
3



01

01

01
01
01
01
01

OT
c
I
U)
ff
3


14

14

14
14
14
14
14

c
cr
OT
c
cr
(/)
t
3

00

01

02
04
05
06
99


Description




Cooling Subsystem

Water Pumps

Thermostat Housings
Heat Exchangers
Pressure Regulators
Expansion Tanks
Misc.


Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation





Water Pump Housing - Al to Plastic
Water Pump Impeller - Steel to Plastic
Impeller Housing - Al to Plastic
N/A
Radiator - Downsize for 2.4L Engine
Fan Shroud/Fan Blades - MuCell
N/A
N/A
N/A

             Table F.2-50: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Cooling Subsystem
A lightened Venza means that a smaller engine can match acceleration performance. The
engine selected for this study is Toyotas 2.4L. A wet 2.4L radiator was compared to the
Venza's 2.7L radiator for mass savings. After disassembly the 2.4L radiator was found to
have a copper alloy transmission heat exchanger. The 2.4L radiator mass was adjusted to
assume a lightweight aluminum heat exchanger. Additional savings were  applied to the
2.4 Liter by using MuCell to lighten the plastic end caps.

The  water pump housing  was changed to a  two  piece design. One section  left as
aluminum to support the integrated Alternator and tensioner mount, and a  second plastic
section to serve as the water pump housing. The Audi A3 features a fully plastic water
pump assembly. The water pump impeller housing and impeller were changed to plastic.
Mini Cooper features a plastic impeller housing (Image F.2-76) and plastic impellers on
commonplace.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 251
        Image F.2-75: [Base Technology]
      Water Pump Assembly - Aluminum

            (Source: FEV, Inc. photoy)
                                 Image F.2-76: [New Technology]
                                 Water Pump Assembly - Plastic
                                      (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Some sections of the fan shroud (Image F.2-77) are designed for material flow. Due to
the improved flow characteristics of  MuCell, these sections  can be thinned to their
structural requirement making the fan  shroud a good candidate for MuCell and a mass
savings of 15%. The Radiator fans were also MuCelled, so balancing may be required.
                        Image F.2-77: Fan Shroud and Fan Blades
      Fan Shroud (MuCell - 15% Mass Savings); Fan Blades (MuCell - 7% Mass Savings)
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.2.14.5
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
As seen in Table F.2-51, changes made to the Cooling Subsystem saved 2.6kg and $4.62.
Changes made to the radiator saved .82kg and $1.10. Changes made to the water pump
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 252


saved 1.6 kg and $2.84. MuCell applied to the Fan Shroud and Blades saved .170kg and
$.68.

•2
(/}
ro

01
01
01
01
01
01
01


Subsystem

14
14
14
14
14
14
14


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
04
05
06
99


Description

Cooling Subsystem
Water Pumps
Thermostat Housings
Heat Exchangers
Pressure Regulators
Expansion Tanks
Misc.


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A

A




A
Estimated
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


1.601
0.000
0.990
0.000
0.000
0.000

2.591
(Decrease)
Estimated
Cost
Impact
II (Ml ^
* (2)


$2.84
$0.00
$1.78
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

4.620
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$1.78
$0.00
$1.79
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$1.78
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs./ Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


55.75%
0.00%
10.37%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

18.38%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.09%
0.00%
0.06%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.15%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase


            Table F.2-51: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Cooling Subsystem

                           (See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
     F.2.15  Induction Air Charging Subsystem

No Induction Air  Charging was identified on the Venza:  Toyota's 2.7L  AR FE is
naturally aspirated.
     F.2.16  Exhaust Gas Re-circulation

No EGR system was identified on the Venza.
     F.2.17  Breather Subsystem


F.2.17.1       Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.2.52 summarizes the mass breakdown of the Breather Subsystem.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 253
(f>
*<
1

01
01
01
01


Subsystem

17
17
17
17


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
04


Description

Breather Subsystem
Oil/Air Separator
Valves
Misc.

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


0.853
0.051
0.000

0.904
172.598
1711
0.52%
0.05%
F.2.17.2
          Table F.2-52: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Breather Subsystem
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
2.7L Venza has a baffle mounted to an aluminum cover and is housed in the engine block
(Image F.2-78). The PCV valve is  integrated into the hose fitting and plumed to the
intake. The cover is made from die cast aluminum.
                     Image F.2-78: Breather Subsystem Components
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 254
F.2.17.3
Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
Positive Crankcase Ventilation system designs vary. In general, metal-to-plastic switching
opportunities exist for many systems. Multiple components can be integrated into a single
plastic part, thus saving weight and cost.
F.2.17.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
As seen in Table F.2-53, the ideas generated for the Breather subsystem were a material
substitution for the Crank Case Vent Baffle Housing and integrating the baffle into the
housing, eliminating the need for fasteners.
Component/Assembly
Crank Case Vent Baffle
Housing
Crank Case Vent Baffle
Fasteners.
Mass-Reduction Idea
Aluminum to Plastic
Integrate baffle into
housing and eliminate
fasteners
Estimated Impact
50% mass reduction
100% mass
reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Reduced cost
Reduced cost
    Table F.2-53: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for Breather Subsystem
F.2.17.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Ideas selected for Breather subsystem (Table F.2-54) include a material change for the
Crank Case Vent Housing. The die cast housing was changed to injection-molded plastic.
The silicon gasket was changed to an inlay rubber seal. The fasteners securing the baffle
were eliminated, and the baffle friction welded to the plastic housing.
-------
                                                              Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                             March 30, 2012
                                                                                 Page 255
O)
*<
1

01
01
01
01

| Subsystem

17
17
17
17

Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
04

Description

Breather Subsystem
Oil/Air Separator
Valves
Misc.

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation


Crank Case Vent Housing - Al to Plastic
Crank Case Vent Baffle Fasteners - Elliminated
N/A
N/A

F.2.17.6
              Table F.2-54: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Cooling Subsystem
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
As seen in Table F.2-55, the metal to plastic change and elimination of fasteners saved
mass and cost.

3

01
01
01
01


Subsystem

17
17
17
17


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
05


Description

Breather Subsystem
Oil/Air Separator
Valves
Misc.


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A



A
Estimated
Mass
Reduction
"kg" CD


0.219
0.000
0.000

0.219
(Decrease)
Estimated
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)


$4.93
$0.00
$0.00

4.934
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$22.52
$0.00
$0.00

$22.52
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs ./Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction


25.69%
0.00%
0.00%

24.24%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction


0.01 %
0.00%
0.00%

0.01%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase


            Table F.2-55: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Breather Subsystem

                             (See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 256
     F.2.18  Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Elec. Subsystem
F.2.18.1
Subsystem Content Overview
As  seen in Table F.2-56, Engine Management systems is the largest contributor to the
Engine Management, Electronic subsystem and is composed of the ECM and associated
brackets. The engine wiring harness is included in System 18: Electrical Distribution &
Electrical Control.
(f>
*<
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 257
            Image F.2-79: Engine Management, Electronic Subsystem Components
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.2.18.3      Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

No Lightweighting industry trends were identified for Engine Management,  Electronic
subsystem.
F.2.18.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
As shown in Table F.2-57, the ECU Bracket Assembly and Spark Coil were considered
for mass reduction.
Component/Assembly
ECU Bracket Assembly
Spark Coil
Mass-Reduction Idea
Steel to Plastic
Copper Clad Aluminum
Wire
Estimated Impact
60% mass reduction
10% mass reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Loss of Rigidness
Larger wire gage for same performance
    Table F.2-57: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for Engine Management,
                                 Electronic Subsystem
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 258
F.2.18.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.2-58 summarizes the ideas  selected for the  Engine Management,  Electronic
Subsystem. The Venza ECU bracket  is a three-piece stamping spot welded and bolted
together. This assembly was changed to a single-iece injection molded component.

OT
3



01
01
01


01

01

OT
I
m
oi
zi


60
60
RO


60

60

c
rr
OT
1

of
3

00
01
rp


03

99


Description





Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation




Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Electrical Subsystem
Spark Plugs, Glow Plugs
Engine Management Systems,
Engine Electronic Systems
Engine Electrical Systems (including
Wiring Harnesses, Earth Straps,
Ignition Harness, Coils, Sockets)
Misc.

N/A
ECU Bracket Assembly - Two piece stamped steel to single
piece Plastic

N/A

N/A

   Table F.2-58: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Engine Management, Electronic Subsystem
F.2.18.6
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
As  seen in  Table F.2-59, metal-to-plastic lightweighting  applied to the ECU bracket
saves both mass and cost.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 259

w
•$
m

01
01
01
01
01


Subsystem

60
60
60
60
60


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
05
06


Description

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select

Estimated
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)

Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Electrical Subsystem
Spark Plugs, Glow Plugs
Engine Management Systems, Engine Electronic
Systems
Engine Electrical Systems (including Wiring
Harnesses, Earth Straps, Ignition Harness, Coils,
Sockets)
Misc.



A



A
0.000
0.388
0.000
0.000

0.388
(Decrease)
Estimated
Cost
Impact
II (Ml
* (2)


$0.00
$1.00
$0.00
$0.00

0.998
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$0.00
$2.57
$0.00
$0.00

$2.57
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs./ Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.00%
29.78%
0.00%
0.00%

14.64%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%

0.02%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase


            Table F.2-59: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Breather Subsystem

                            (See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)




     F.2.19   Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.)
F.2.19.1
Subsystem Content Overview
Table F.2-60 summarizes the mass breakdown for the 2.7L engine accessories. The top
mass contributors include the AC compressor and the Alternator.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 260
to
S3.
o>
3

01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01


Subsystem

70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70


to
CT
to
t
£

00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
10
99


Description

Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.)
Starter Motors
Alternators
Power Steering Pumps
Vacuum Pumps
Air Conditioning Compressors
Hydraulic Pumps
Ventilator
Other Accessories
Misc.

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


2.909
6.028
0.000
0.000
7.225
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.400

16.562
172.598
1711
9.60%
0.97%
          Table F.2-60: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Accessory Subsystem
F.2.19.2
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Venza Accessory Subsystem consists of the alternator, starter, AC compressor, and
AC Bracket (Image F.2-80). The Venza utilizes an electric power steering pump.
                     Image F.2-80: Accessory Subsystem Components
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 261
F.2.19.3
Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
Lightweight technology for Accessories focuses on compact efficient designs. The Venza
starter, weighing only 2.9 kg, represents a standard compact design.
F.2.19.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.2-61  summarizes concepts considered for accessory lightweighting. Integrated
starter alternators used on start-stop micro Hybrids were reviewed as a weight reduction.
Systems  reviewed included an  additional starter motor  for  cold  starts  and complex
controls.  For this reason this idea was not implemented. The alternator case is made from
lightweight  aluminum  and a change  to  plastic was considered.  The  poor thermo
conductivity of plastic eliminated this from consideration, copper-clad aluminum wire has
been  applied  to  alternators  due  to  increase  copper cost and  was reviewed for
lightweighting opportunity. The  copper content was quantified and mass save estimated
to be 10%. The increased gauge  diameter required by aluminum copper-clad wire would
drive larger packaging potentially offsetting mass savings. In addition,  special welding
techniques may be required to address high joint temperatures. For these reasons, copper-
clad aluminum wire  was not further considered as a weight savings. Standard filament
bulbs were not replaced with LED's as initially considered, therefore Alternator downsize
was not an option.
Component/Assembly
Starter/Alternator
Alternator
AC compressor bracket
AC compressor bracket
Alternator
Alternator
Mass-Reduction Idea
Replace these two devices
with an Integrated Starter-
Alternator. This would
require additional control
circuitry
Make outer case out of
plastics or some other light
material
material change from cast
iron to cast aluminum
Integrate into block or
stiffenging crankcase
reduced load for LED -
reduced size
Copper Clad Al windings
Estimated Impact
30% mass reduction
5% mass reduction
65% mass reduction
65% mass reduction
10% mass reduction
5% mass reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Additional control hardware, limited
torque
Make outer case out of plastics
NVH concern


Larger wire gage for same performance
    Table F.2-61: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for Accessory Subsystem
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 262
F.2.19.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
As  seen in  Table  F.2-62,  the AC  compressor  mounting bracket was selected for
lightweighting.
V)
*<
1

01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01

| Subsystem

70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70

Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
10
99

Description

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.)
Starter Motors
Alternators
Power Steering Pumps
Vacuum Pumps
Air Conditioning Compressors
Hydraulic Pumps
Ventilator
Other Accessories
Misc.

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Mounting Bracket - Cast Iron to Al
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

            Table F.2-62: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Accessory Subsystem
The AC compressor bracket found on Venza was Cast Iron (Image F.2-81). While there
may be  NVH  drivers  for  this  material selection,  similar  applications have been
constructed from cast Aluminum (Image F.2-82).
     Image F.2-81: [Base Technology]
          AC Comp Bracket
         (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
                            Image F.2-82: [New Technology]
                            AC Comp Bracket (Nissan 350z)
                                 (Source: slidegood. com)
-------
                                                             Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                            March 30, 2012
                                                                                Page 263
F.2.19.6
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
Table F.2-63  shows there is a  cost  increase  for  changing  the  AC Bracket material to
aluminum.

•2
(/}
ro

01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01


Subsystem

70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
10
99


Description

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select

Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.)
Starter Motors
Alternators
Power Steering Pumps
Vacuum Pumps
Air Conditioning Compressors
Hydraulic Pumps
Ventilator
Other Accessories
Misc.






B





B
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.709
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.709
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
ufl-ll
* (2)


$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.23
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

-0.231
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.33
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

-$0.33
(Increase)
Sub-
Subs ./Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
9.82%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

4.28%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.04%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
            Table F.2-63: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Accessory Subsystem
                          (See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 264
Works Cited:
   1.  http://www.forging.org/members/docs/pdf/A_mparison_of_Manufacturing_Techn
      ologies_in_the_Connecting_Rod_Industry.pdf

   2.  http://www.sae.org/mags/AEI/10125
   3.  http://claymore.engineer.gvsu.edu/~nguyenn/egr250/automotive%20engine%20bl


   4.  http://www.intlmag.org/files/mgOO 1 .pdf

   5.  http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2010/wednesday
      /presentations/deer 10_powell.pdf
   6.  www.intlmag.org/files/mgOO 1 .pdf
   7.  http://www.me.berkeley.edU/~mford/Ford_Fisher_PTWA.pdf
   8.  http://www.foundryworld.com/english/news/view.asp?bid=106&id=2649
   9.  http://www.mubea.com/english/download/NW_engl.pdf
   10. http://www.shw.de/cms/en/business_segments/pumps_and_engine_components/pr
      oducts passenger vehicles/camshaft phasers/
   11. http://www.mahle.com/MAHLE/en/Products/Valve-Train-Systems/Valves-valve-
      seat-inserts-and-valves-guides/Lightweight-valves
   12. http://www.ntn.co.ip/english/products/review/pdf/NTN TR73  en P110.pdf
F.3    Transmission System

The  Toyoda Venza transmission  package (U660e)  is  a 6-speed  automatic  with a
traditional torque converter. Some weight reduction concepts were employed when it was
designed. As shown in Table F.3-1, we have targeted some key areas in the unit that hold
further reduction opportunities.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 265
V)
•-<
£
CD
3

02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02


Subsystem

00
01
02
03
05
06
07
08
09
20


Sub-Subsystem

00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00


Description

Transmission System
External Components
Case Subsystem
Gear Train Subsystem
Launch Clutch Subsystem
Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem
Mechanical Controls Subsystem
Electrical Controls Subsystem
Parking Mechanism Subsystem
Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem

Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsystem
Mass
"kg"


0.023
24.573
41.437
9.745
6.526
6.296
0.777
0.904
2.482

92.763
1711
5.42%
             Table F.3-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Transmission System
                  Image F.3-1 : Toyota Automatic Transaxle Transmission
                                  (Source: Toyoland.com)

As shown in Table F.3-2, there are material, technological, and process opportunities that
have  come  to  the  industry that  are available  in the search  for mass reduction in
tomorrow's vehicles.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 266

•2
(/}
ro

02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02


Subsystem

00
01
02
03
05
06
07
08
09
20


Sub-Subsystem

00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00


Description

Transmission System
External Components
Case Subsystem
Gear Train Subsystem
Launch Clutch Subsystem
Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem
Mechanical Controls Subsystem
Electrical Controls Subsystem
Parking Mechanism Subsystem
Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select



C
X
A
A



X

X
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


0.000
7.745
3.490
4.904
1.034
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.726

18.900
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                               Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                              March 30, 2012
                                                                  Page 267
                Image F.3-2: Transaxle Housing

                     (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
V)
><
a
CD
3

02
02
02
02


Subsystem

02
02
02
02


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
03


Description

Case Subsystem
Transaxle Case
Transaxle Housing
Covers

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


8.300
11.480
4.793

24.573
92.763
1711
26.49%
1.44%
Table F.3-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Cass Subsystem
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 268
F.3.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
Toyota has been using aluminum transmission cases for years and has optimized the thin
wall casting technique that they use. The strength and integrity of their cases has never
been  an issue  for  them.  Its mass weight  compares to  others in the industry using
aluminum in their cases has never been a concern.
F.3.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

There are vehicles manufactures in the industry that have adopted alternate materials one
being Magnesium alloy to  reduce their transmission weight and maintain their case
integrity, one of them  being (Mercedes-Benz 7G-TRONIC), and at present,  General
Motors  also  has approximately 1 million GMT800  full  size trucks and sport  utility
vehicles (SUV) that are produced annually that have two magnesium transfer cases with a
(total weight  7 kg) per unit. Since 2002, VW has produced 600 magnesium alloy manual
transmission  cases  daily for the  VW  Passat and the Audi  A4/A6.  The magnesium
transmission case is a proven mass weight reduction product.

Industry visionaries have also looked at carbon fiber combinations as alternate  material
for the transmission cases;  however, at  this time there are no  viable products for us to
look at as an option.
F.3.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.3-4 shows the mass reduction ideas considered for the Case subsystem. Toyoda
has always been mass reduction conscious in their designs but tend to lean toward the
conservative side of the engineering spectrum in drive train design. That is why carbon
fiber and magnesium have not fond their way into drive train components in their vehicles
Component/Assembly
Aluminum Case
Assemble
Aluminum Case
Assemble
Aluminum Case
Assemble
Mass-Reduction Idea
Reduce wall thickness
Carbon fiber material
replacement
Magnesium material
replacement
Estimated Impact
10% weight save
50% weight save
30% weight save
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Integrity and strength compromised
Extensive engineering hurdles to
overcome
Low risk moderate cost increase
 Table F.3-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for Transmission Case
                                    Subassembly
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 269
F.3.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The mass reduction ideas selected from this subassembly fell into the "A" group as shown
in Table F.3-5. Components shown utilizing magnesium alloy will meet the  integrity
needs of the system and fulfill the mass reduction parameters.

OT
B)
of
3



2
02
02
02
02

r/>
c
cr
0)
m
ff
3


2
02
02
02
02

c
OT
c
sr

1
3

00
01
02
03
99



Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description




Case Subsystem
Transaxle Case
Transaxle Housing
Covers
Misc.



Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation



"^

Replace a 390 aluminum casting with Mg AJ62 (Mg-AI-Sr). For
30% weight save
Replace a 390 aluminum casting with Mg AJ62 (Mg-AI-Sr). For
30% weight save
Replace a 390 aluminum casting with Mg AJ62 (Mg-AI-Sr). For
30% weight save
n/a

            Table F.3-5 Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Case Subsystem
F.3.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates

The greatest mass reduction was gained by the material selection of magnesium alloy as
shown in Table F.3-6. Doing thin  wall analysis on each  of the components of  the
subassembly did not garner an outcome that would have proven to be advantages to  the
end product. Although there were opportunities to reduce the actual mass of the Case
subsystem we have not pursued them at  this time. The choice of magnesium has proven to
be cost effective and met the mass reduction  goals.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 270

Subsystem

02
02
02
02


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
03


Description

Case Subsystem
Transaxle Case
Transaxle Housing
Covers


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


C
C
C

C
Mass
Reduction
"kg" CD


2.947
3.706
1.092

7.745
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
><
orj-
oT

02
02
02


| Subsystem

03
03
03


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02


Description

Gear Train Subsystem
Planetary Gears
Carrier Gears

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


32.407
9.030

41 .437
92.763
1711
44.67%
2.42%
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 271
          Table F.3-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Gear Train Subsystem
F.3.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Gear Train Subsystem in the Toyota U660e transmission is a very compact unit. Care
was taken to insure that only minimal space was give between aligning components, with
this said lightning exercises done on the gear train did not open many doors for mass
reduction. There are other opportunities and we will pursue them
F.3.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

In the automotive transmission industry the  Gear Train has its opportunities for light
weight, cost effective and longer life cycles. The use of aerospace lightened gear designs
and raw materials, using new plastic components to reduce weight and cost, reducing the
overall mass of the transmission when new and smaller components are used are some of
the tactics that we will  employ. The actual transmission is getting smaller  and gear
selection is getting larger in the industry today.
F.3.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Used

Table F.3-8 shows the mass reduction ideas used for the U660e Gear Train Subsystem.
The present Toyoda  design of the gear train is compact and demonstrates a conscious
engineering choice towards light weight.

Replacing  the  Industry Standard  Needle Bearings  with Vespel  SP-21  was  an easy
decision; we  looked  at other products but deduced that the Dupont product had all the
qualities required for a worry  free replacement in our application.  Vespel has a proven
track record of success in other transmissions.

Replacing the Cast Iron Differential Carrier with Aluminum proved to be a significant
weight  savings' and the cost  was not prohibitive after investigation.  There are many
vehicles in the  field that  utilize aluminum for  this weight save in their differential
application.

The Helical Ring Gear inside this transmission to transmit power through the differential
to the axels is a traditional 4140  crab and hardened gear. We chose a  stronger gear
material in Ferrium C61 to help  insure that we maintained the gear integrity after going
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 272

through  an aerospace type mass reduction analyses which garnered a 25% weight
reduction. At this time the cost and limited availability of the material is a concern but we
see this product as a key component in mass weight reduction throughout the drive train
in the future. We believe that utilizing C61 throughout the transmission gear train could
have  garnered another 20%  weight save  and a  reduction in  the total  size in  the
transmission package.
Component/ Assembly
Planetary Gear Sub-
Subsystem
Carrier Gear Sub-
Subsystem
Carrier Gear Sub-
Subsystem
Mass-Reduction Idea
Replace Thrust Bearings
withVespelSP-21D
Replace cast iron
differential carrier with
aluminum ^^8
Change 4140 ring gear raw
material with high strength
C61 alloy and lighten gear
Estimated Impact
75% weight save
50% weight save
10% weight save
Risks & Trade-offs
and/or Benefits
Low risk cost benefit
Low risk moderate
cost increase
Low risk moderate
cost increase
   Table F.3-8: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Gear Train
                                     Subsystem
F.3.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The  mass reduction ideas selected from this  subassembly fell into the "A" group  are
shown in Table F.3-9.

The  first component shown utilizes Vespel SP-21D, a DuPont product that is being used
by other transmission builders. The second component is the Differential Carrier, which
will be casted from a high-strength aluminum alloy.
The third component will be a lightened gear configuration utilizing a high-strength C61
aerospace alloy to insure its integrity in the subassembly.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 273
w
•<
m
ff
3
2
02
02
02



Subsystem
3
03
03
03



Sub-Subsystem
00
02
07
07



Description
Gear Train Subsystem
All 9 thrust bearing in the gear train
Differential carrier housing
Differential carrier ring gear



Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation

Replace Steel thrust bearings with Dupont
(Vispel SP-21 D)
Replace ASTM A536, 80-55-06 differential
housing with aluminum housing
Replace 4140 differential ring gear with high
strength reduced mass C61 alloy



            Table F.3-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Gear Train Subsystem
F.3.3.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates

The mass reductions in this subsystem were gained by the material selection and gear
lightening techniques as  shown in Table F.3-10. The use of Vespel reduces the cost of
the bearings by 60 to 70% with a weight loss per bearing of more than 75%.

Using aluminum instead of cast iron on the differential carrier is a 40% weight saving
with a cost that is well within the realm of reason for this large of a weight loss.

Using  aerospace  gear  lighting  techniques on all  of  the  gears in  an  automotive
transmission should be the norm.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 274
                           Image F.3-3: Vespel Thrust Bearing

•2
(/}
ro
	
02
02
02


Subsystem |
03
03
03


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02


Description

Gear Train Subsystem
Planetary Gears
Carrier Gears


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A
X

X
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


0.263
3.227

3.490
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)


$26.05
-$145.74

-$119.68
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$98.91
-$45.16

-$34.29
(Increase)
Sub-
Subs./ Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.81%
35.74%

8.42%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.02%
0.19%

0.20%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

         Table F.3-10: Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Case Subsystem
     F.3.4    Internal Clutch Subsystem

F.3.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview

After a systematic investigation there were no opportunities for mass reduction or cost
benefits in this subsystem.
     F.3.5    Launch Clutch Subsystem
F.3.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.3-11, the most significant contributor to the mass of the Launch
Clutch  subsystem  is the  Torque  converter  itself. The case  subsystem  of the torque
converter is a welded construction with SAE 1018 steel as its raw material.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 275
                         Image F.3-4: Torque Converter Assembly
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
(f>
*<
cn.
CD
3

02
02


Subsystem

05
05


Sub-Subsystem

00
01


Description

Launch Clutch Subsystem
Torque Converter Asm

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


9.745

9.745
92.763
1711
10.51%
0.57%
        Table F.3-11: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Launch Clutch Subsystem
F.3.5.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Launch Clutch system  on this vehicle is  a direct result of the traditional style of
transmission that was selected for it. The  present torque converter is  an old style auto
industry standard that has been around since the 1950. Improvements on this unit will
lead to a lighter and better drive system.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 276
F.3.5.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
Although DCTs (Dual Clutch Transmissions) have increased in popularity, they are still
more expensive than torque converter style transmissions (depending, of course, on the
segment you are looking  at). DCTs are coming down in price, especially  with  the
introduction of dry twin-plate designs. They are  less complex than  a torque converter
automatic  with planetary gears, much lighter and there will be further price reductions
once they are produced in high volume, for instance when some of the new Chinese
manufacturing plants come on stream. For a new entrant into the automatic transmission
market with no legacy investment  in  planetary automatics,  it  is  an  attractive step.
Innovations in advanced engineering always come to the top.
F.3.5.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.3-12 shows the mass reduction ideas considered for the Launch Clutch system.
The Toyota gear train design is compact and demonstrates a conscious decision toward
light  weight. Replacing  the  industry standard steel torque converter with plastic  or
aluminum would be a huge improvement. Eliminating the torque converter completely by
using a DCT transmission would be the best idea.
Component/ Assembly
Torque Converter
Torque Converter
Torque Converter
Mass-Reduction Idea
Replace with Plastic
Converter using DuPont
Zytel®HTN51LG50HSL
BK083
Replace with DCT
transmission
Replace steel converter
with Atlas aluminum
component converter
Estimated Impact
75% weight save
100%
50% weight save
Risks & Trade-offs
and/or Benefits
application still in R&D
Low risk moderate cost
increase
Medium risk moderate
cost increase
 Table F.3-12: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Launch Clutch
                                      System
F.3.5.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The mass reduction ideas selected from this subassembly fell into the A group are shown
in Table F.3-13. Regarding the torque converter application, we have proposed using a
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 277

full Aluminum torque converter assembly in our system. Aluminum torque converters are
being used in off-road, racing and heavy  industrial equipment  and some  automotive
applications. The casted design of an aluminum turbine, impeller and stator reduce the
assemble step process  and make  for a simpler assembly.  There are companies in the
industry  like Alcast Company Aluminum Foundry that  have honed  the  process  of
producing the required quality components for the OEMs that produce these converters.
(f>
><
a
CD
3
2
02




Subsystem
5
05




Sub-Subsystem
00
01




Description
Launch Clutch System
Torque Converter




Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation

Replace Steel Torque converter with Aluminum




           Table F.3-13: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Launch Clutch System
F.3.5.6 Preliminary Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates

The mass reductions in this subsystem were gained by the material selection as shown in
Table F.3-14. The use of a 5083 Aluminum/Magnesium alloy will give us a 50 to 60%
weight loss. This application is in the field today with material and technology in place to
produce a good replacement to the traditional steel converter.
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 278
                         Image F.3-5: Aluminum Torque Converter
                                (Source : alcastcompany.com)

u>
•<
2-
0
3

02
02


Subsystem

05
05


Sub-Subsystem

00
01


Description

Launch Clutch Subsystem
Torque Converter Asm


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" CD


4.904

4.904
(Decrease)
t Cost
Impact
iirt-M
* (2)


$45.16

$45.16
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$9.21

$9.21
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs ./Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


50.32%

50.32%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.29%

0.29%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
  Table F.3-14: Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Launch Clutch System
     F.3.6    Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem
F.3.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.3-15, the most significant contributor to the mass of the Oil Pump and
Filter Subsystem is the Oil Pump unit itself. The pump unit is cast iron in our test vehicle.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 279
V)
><
a
CD
3

02
02
02
02


Subsystem

06
06
06
06


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
03


Description

Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem
Oil Pump Asm
Covers
Filters

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


4.646
1.666
0.214

6.526
92.763
1711
7.04%
0.38%
     Table F.3-15: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem
F.3.6.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The oil Pump is a traditional style cast iron pump that has been around for decades and is
a great candidate for new light weight materials that are on the market. There is no benefit
in this component staying cast iron.
F.3.6.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Every day, the auto industry embraces new and innovative technology that comes to them
from other sectors of commerce. In the case of the transmission oil pump, the  racing
industry has led the way in developing light-weight and efficient oil pumps. Aluminum,
aluminum-magnesium alloys, and even plastic polymers are available today. This will be
a great application match for mass weight reduction at a reasonable cost.
F.3.6.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.3-16 contains the mass reduction ideas considered for the Oil Pump and Filter
Subsystem. The use of Aluminum, Magnesium and Plastic are viable materials in this
application today.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 280
Component/ Assembly
Transmission Oil Pump
Transmission Oil Pump
Transmission Oil Pump
Mass-Reduction Idea
Replace cast iron pump
with Aluminum
Replace cast iron pump
with Magnesium
Replace cast iron pump
with Plastic
Estimated Impact
65% weight save
77% weight save
84% weight save
Risks & Trade-offs
and/or Benefits
Low risk moderate cost
increase
Low risk medium cost
increase
High risk low cost
  Table F.3-16: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for the Oil Pump and Filter
                                     Subsystem,
F.3.6.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The mass reduction ideas selected from this subassembly fell into the C group are shown
in Table F.3-17. TCI Automotive  has been  producing state of the art aluminum
components for the racing world since the late 60's and supplies light weight transmission
components to its customers. We can use mass production processes to lower the cost and
bring a light weight pump to the industry.
U)
*<
tfl
nT
3
2
02



Subsystem
6
06



Sub-Subsystem
00
01



Description
Oil Pump and Filter Subasystem
Oil Pump Assemble



Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation

Replace cast iron with aluminum



  Table F.3-17: Preliminary Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Oil Pump
                                and Filter Subsystem
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 281
                       Image F.3-6: Aluminum Oil Pump Assembly
                                  (Source: Samarins.com)
F.3.6.6 Preliminary Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates

The mass reductions in this subsystem were gained by the material selection as shown in
Table F.3-18. The use of an Aluminum  AA390 alloy will reduce the weight of the
assembly by 65% this application is used by racing component manufacturers to lighten
their transmissions and some OEM's with the same intent.

Subsystem

06
06
06
06


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
03


Description

Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem
Oil Pump Asm
Covers
Filters


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


C
C
C

C
Mass
Reduction
"kg" CD


1.034
0.000
0.000

1.034
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
iiq-ii
* (2)


$0.90
$0.00
$0.00

$0.90
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$0.87
$0.00
$0.00

$0.87
(Increase)
Sub-
Subs./ Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


22.26%
0.00%
0.00%

15.84%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.06%
0.00%
0.00%

0.06%
    "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
  Table F.3-18: Preliminary Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Launch
                                    Clutch System
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 282
     F.3.7    Mechanical Controls Subsystem

After a systematic investigation it is determined there are no opportunities for mass
reduction or cost benefits in this subsystem.
     F.3.8   Electrical Controls Subsystem

After a systematic investigation  it is determined there are no opportunities for mass
reduction or cost benefits in this subsystem.
     F.3.9   Parking Mechanism Subsystem

After a systematic investigation it is determined there are no opportunities for mass
reduction or cost benefits in this subsystem.
     F.3.10  Misc. Subsystem

After a systematic investigation it is determined there are no opportunities for mass
reduction or cost benefits in this subsystem.
     F.3.11   Electric Motor & Controls Subsystem

After a systematic investigation it is determined there are no opportunities for mass
reduction or cost benefits in this subsystem.
     F.3.12  Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem

F.3.12.1      Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.3-19, a floor-mounted manual shifter with a steel cable connecting it
to the transmission is what is presently in the vehicle, the floor unit itself is plastic and
steel. Our proposal will change it to a push button aluminum and plastic control.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 283
                               Image F.3-7: Shift Module
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
CO
*<
(/)
CD"
3

02
02


| Subsystem

20
20


[Sub-Subsystem

00
01


Description

Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem
Shift Module Assembly

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


2.482

2.482
92.763
1711
2.68%
0.15%
    Table F.3-19: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Driver Operated External Controls
                                      Subsystem
F.3.12.2
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
Toyota used their standard floor-mounted shifting system in the Venza. It is made up of a
floor console-mounted shift module assembly and a cable assembly that interfaces with
the transmission.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 284
F.3.12.3
Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
There are vehicles manufactures in the industry that have adopted the idea of electronic
shift controls. One is the Toyota-Tesla Rav4 E, for its light-weight and compact design.
F.3.12.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.3-20 is the compilation of the mass reduction ideas considered for the Driver-
operated External Controls subsystem. The presence  of more and  more electronics is
welcomed in today's state-of-the-art vehicles. We will see more electronic innovations in
coming models as today's customers expect this in a car.
Component/ Assembly
Shift Module
Shifter Cable
Shift Cable Bracket
Mass-Reduction Idea
Replace michanical unit
with electronic
Replaced by a
comunication wire
Replaced by a aluminum
bracket
Estimated Impact
70% weight save
70% weight save
30% weight save
Risks & Trade-offs
and/or Benefits
New tedhnology low
risk higher cost
Low risk cost decrease
Low risk moderate cost
increase
Table F.3-20: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Driver-Operated
                             External Controls Subsystem,
F.3.12.5
Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas
The mass-reduction ideas selected from this subassembly fell into the A group and are
shown in Table F.3-21. Components shown utilizing an electronic control will meet the
integrity needs of the system and fulfill the mass-reduction parameters
-------
                                                             Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                           March 30, 2012
                                                                               Page 285
CO
*<
1
2
02





Subsystem
20
20





Sub-Subsystem
00
01





Description
Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem
Shift Module





Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected
for Detail Evaluation

Replace with Electronic Control





  Table F.3-21: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem
F.3.12.6
Preliminary Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates
The mass reductions in this subsystem were gained by replacing Mechanical technology
with Electronic as shown in Table F.3-22.

u>
•<
2-
0
3

02
02


Subsystem

20
20


Sub-Subsystem

00
01


Description

Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem
Shift Module Assembly


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


C

C
Mass
Reduction
"kg" CD


1.726

1.726
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
iirt-M
* (2)


-$29.49

-$29.49
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


-$17.08

-$17.08
(Increase)
Sub-
Subs ./Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


69.55%

69.55%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.10%

0.10%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
   Table F.3-22: Preliminary Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Driver
                           Operated External Controls Subsystem
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 286
F.3.12.7
Total Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates
Add language in here that summarizes the technologies used in the subsystems and then
include the table  from the beginning of the document that summarizes the weight and
costs.

During the teardown and subsequent evaluation of the Transmission subsystem there were
components and materials that were candidates for change.

Materials such as  Magnesium, Aluminum, High Strength Steel Alloys and Thermoplastics
in our  component  analysis  helped  to  reduce weight  out  of our transmission mass.
Integrating these  materials into the OEM's material used  list is the challenge.  Only
through process development and test will the individual OE's embrace the new materials
and components that are available to them in the market place.

u>
•$
ro

02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02


Subsystem

00
01
02
03
05
06
07
08
09
20


Sub-Subsystem

00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00


Description

Transmission System
External Components
Case Subsystem
Gear Train Subsystem
Launch Clutch Subsystem
Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem
Mechanical Controls Subsystem
Electrical Controls Subsystem
Parking Mechanism Subsystem
Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select



C
X
A
A



X

X
Mass
Reduction
"kg" CD


0.000
7.745
3.490
4.904
1.034
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.726

18.900
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"(Ml W
* (2)


$0.00
-$1 1 .03
-$119.68
$45.16
$0.90
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$29.49

-$114.15
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$0.00
-$1 .42
-$34.29
$9.21
$0.87
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$17.08

-$6.04
(Increase)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.00%
31 .52%
8.42%
50.32%
15.84%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
69.55%

20.37%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.00%
0.45%
0.20%
0.29%
0.06%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.10%

1.10%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
          Table F.3-23: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Transmission System 2
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 287

F.4A Body Structure Subsystem

   F.4A.1  Subsystem Content Overview

The team evaluated the body system of a Toyota Venza using computer-aided engineering
(CAE). Noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH)  of the vehicle and crash load cases were
built  based  on  physical NVH test  requirements  and  regulatory crash  and safety
requirements  respectively. CAE baseline models for each of the NVH  and crash-load
cases were built and  simulated  to correlate the CAE results with the test  results  of a
similar vehicle (in this case, the 2009 Toyota Venza  with panoramic  roof). Upon
verifying the model quality based on EDAG CAE guidelines  and meeting the correlation
targets (<5% difference), the EDAG baseline model was treated as the baseline reference
for further development of NVH and crash-iteration models and lightweight optimization
processes.

The  project scope included the objective  of determining lightweight  design  possibilities
of the baseline vehicle. It consisted of optimizing the weight of the baseline model in the
areas of body structure,  closures,  and front bumper. EDAG expertise  and standards of
lightweight optimization processes were followed throughout the project.  The typical
lightweight optimization process followed is shown in Figure F.4A-1.
                         EDAG Lightweight Optimization Process
                          Structural
                          Variations
                           Design
                         Responses
                         Target and
                         Constrains
| 'Material Properties and
' substitution (HSS, Al.,..)
•Joining Technologies
| 'Material Thickness
•Tailor Blank Technology
| •System Targets
 •BIWNVH/StiKness
•Vehicle Targets
 • Full Vehicle Crash
 •Full Vehicle NVH
 •Weight Reduction
I 'Maintain Manufacturing costs
I •Manufacturability
                                                         All Technical
                                                         Requirements
                                                            met
                                                             Manufacturing ai
                                                              Cost Targets met
                  Figure F.4A-1: Lightweight Design Optimization Process
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 288
Based on EDAG lightweight optimization process standards and research materials[8]"[17],
the following weight reduction strategy was carried out:
      •  Change material gauges and grades
             Vary the combinations of part thicknesses and material grades within
                allowable limits
      •  Change joining technologies
             Convert spot-weld connections into laser-weld connections on the body
                structure
      •  Apply alternative materials
             Use aluminum alternatives for panel parts (closures) and bumpers
      •  Explore alternate manufacturing technologies
             Use tailor rolled blanks (TRB) instead of tailor welded blanks (TWB)
      •  Geometry changes
             Make minimum, if any, design changes needed to meet the performance
                targets
      •  Manufacturability constraints
             Incorporate simultaneously the manufacturability of the parts that are
                undergoing the changes, in each stage of the optimization process.
      •  Cost constraints
             Analyze cost impact due the changes in the optimization process
Even though by redesigning the body parts (geometry change), the potential for weight
reduction is increases significantly, since geometry change was not part of the project
scope,  weight  optimization was carried  out without undertaking any major design
changes.

The final acceptance of the weight reduction options was reviewed to ensure the changes
did not impact  performance  (required  to be within 5% of the  target).  The overall
principles followed during the study included:
      •  Minimize cost impact

      •  Minimize changes to the components

      •  Minimize the use of exotic materials

      •  Minimize the amount of redesign, retooling, or new processing
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 289
     F.4A.2 Lightweight Design Optimization Process
The  lightweight  design optimization process involved  identifying the components,
variables, and constraints to be included in the optimization iteration. A load path analysis
(as explained in Appendix B) was conducted on the baseline model to filter out the parts
of higher cross-section forces.

The optimization variables and constraints were defined as per EDAG 3G optimization
guidelines[2][3].  The variables were  gauge (part thickness), grade (material grade),  and
geometry (part shape). As previously mentioned, geometry change was not included in the
optimization; so the entire weight optimization cycle included the following steps:
      •  Identify components

      •  Select optimization variables

      •  Set up optimization model

      •  Perform computer automated optimization

      •  Extract optimized design variables (response surface)
                                                     h^v
      •  Validate optimized results

     F.4A.3 Gauge and Grade Optimization Model

A commercially available computerized optimization tool called HEEDS MDO was used
to build the optimization model.  The model consisted of 484  design variables, 7 load
cases (2 NVH + 5 crash), and 1 cost evaluation. The design variables included 242 gauge
variables and 242 grade variables for the identified parts. The load cases selected for
optimization were frontal impact with a flat rigid wall barrier, frontal impact with ODB,
side impact, roof crush, and rear impact. These load cases were linked in the optimization
process in  a  logical  order  of structural  and  crash requirement  targets.  A  typical
optimization model built in the HEEDS modeler is shown in Figure F.4A-2.

               Figure F.4A-2: Toyota Venza Body Weight Optimization Model
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 290
The objective, constraints, and responses considered for this optimization model are
found in the Table F.4A-1.
Objective: Minimize Total Weight
Parameter
Bending Stiffness
Torsion Stiffness
Frontal Flat
Frontal ODB
Side IfflS
Roof crush
Rear Impact
Cost
Requirement


FMVSS 208
FMVSS 208
HHS
FMVSS 216A
FMVSS 301

Response
Disp. @ Shock tower
Disp. @ Rocker
Max. Pulse
Dynamic Crush
Max. Dash Intrusion
Max. Pulse
Dynamic Crush
Max. Dash Intrusion
Intrusion Gap
Max. Load
Zonel Deformation
Zone2 Deformation
Total Material Cost
Constraints/ Target
< 0.36 mm
< 0.69 mm
35-38G
< 600 mm
< 100 mm
35-38G
< 600 mm
< 150mm
> 125 mm
> 47000 N
< 125 mm
> 350 mm
< $ 302 (+10%)
              Table F.4A-1: Optimization Objective, Response, and Constraints
-------
                                                                 Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                                 March 30, 2012
                                                                                     Page 291
      F.4A.4  Gauge and Grade Optimization Response Surface

The optimizer was set to  500 design iterations with the objective of minimizing the total
weight. The optimizer was checked for convergence of the solution  in the course of the
optimization cycle. After  11 design cycles (24 designs in the first cycle and 20 designs per
subsequent cycles), a response surface of 204 designs was found. The response surface
obtained for all the load  cases was investigated to determine the  best optimized design.
Figure F4A-3 shows the response surface output of the optimization cycle.
   ven/ajul_opt_2: Response Surface (Al toad cases)
                                                                           • massjotalvs. todma
                                                                           • massjotal vs. pulse jdb
                                                                             mj$sjoalvs.footjntnj2
                                                                           A massjotal vs. toe_ljntru2
                                                                           o massjotal vs. toe_c_ntni2
                                                                           D mas$jotalvs,toejjntnj2
                                                                             massjotal vs. pulse.fet
                                                                             massjotal vs. foot.ntnjl
                                                                           * massjotal vs. toeJjntrul
                                                                           » massjotal vs. toe_c_ttrul
                                                                           • massjotal vs. toe j.ntnjl
                                                                           • massjotal vs. b.ntru
                                                                           • massjotal vs. rear.ntrul
                                                                           • massjotal vs. rear.ntnrt
                                                                           o massjotal vs, rear.ntni]
                                                                           o massjotal vs. zoneljntm
                                                                           * massjotal vs. ;one2_ntru
                                                                           A massjotal vs. ZJspJeft
                                                                           A massjotalvs,Hod«_!d.l
                                                                           » massjotalvs, cost
                                                                           E Baselne
                                                                            Best Design
                    Figure F.4A-3: Response Surface Output from Optimizer
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 292
     F.4A.5  Gauge and Grade Optimization Results
The optimizer returned the optimized set of design variables  and the  mass optimized
NVH and crash models for bending,  torsion, frontal impact, frontal ODB, side impact,
roof crush resistance, and rear impact models. The responses  output by the optimizer,
however,  were mathematically predicted. As a result, further CAE simulations  were
performed using the optimized model to confirm the predicted  optimum design met the
targets.

     F.4A.6  Alternative Joining Technology

In the process of lightweight optimization, an exploration was made into the alternative
joining technologies for part assembly. One of the options considered was changing spot
welds to laser welds. The potential areas of applying laser welding were identified and the
existing spot welds were converted to laser welds. Figure F.4A-1 represents the areas in
green where the spot welds were replaced with laser welds.
                 Image F.4A-1: Laser Welds Application on Body Structure
     F.4A.7  Alternative Materials

Alternative material choices for an  automobile's body structure have been one  of the
recent considerations in building  a lightweight vehicle. Aluminum (Al) based materials
are proven for their better strength-weight ratio equivalent when compared to steel based
materials. [11] They are, therefore, good replacements for the steel grades of bigger panels
(Al). Considering the cost and manufacturing constraints, the selected closure and bumper
parts were changed to aluminum grade materials.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 293

The thickness was changed by incorporating EDAG expertise and performing further
CAE simulations while at the same time also meeting structural and crash performance
targets. This option was further supported by the work done by ThyssenKrupp [13] and
the Superlight-Car[14] projects. The  gauge and material maps of the closure parts are
shown in Images F.4A-2 and F.4A-3.
                  Image F.4A-2: Gauge Map of Optimized Closure parts
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 294
        Mild-Steel Group
                  Image F.4A-3: Material Map of Optimized Closure parts
     F.4A.8  Alternative Manufacturing Technology

Recent  advancements in manufacturing  technologies led to the conclusion alternative
manufacturing options should also be included in the lightweight design optimization
process.  One  such technology is the manufacturing  of hot stamped parts  of varied
thicknesses using tailor rolled blanks (TRB). In this technology, the blank is prepared by a
special rolling process which can produce varied thicknesses along the length of the blank
without needing any seam or laser welding or trimming processes. This is considered to
achieve better structural strength against weight of the part. For a baseline body structure,
the parts of tailored welded blanks (TWB) are good choices. Accordingly, considering the
cost  impact,  potential  TWB parts  were  identified and assessed for the possibility of
producing the same parts using TRBs. B-pillar, A-pillar, roof rail, and seat crossmembers
are examples of the parts which were assessed using TRB technology. The parts replaced
using TRB technology are shown in Image F.4A-4 and F.4A-5.
-------
                                               Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                               March 30, 2012
                                                                   Page 295
                                              A-Pill.ii. Roof Rail and
                                              B-Pillai Replaced with
                                              TRB'sof Hot Forming
                                              Steel Material Grade
                                              (HF1000/1500)
Image F.4A-4: Body Side Parts Replaced with TRB Parts
                                          Cross-Members Replaced
                                          WithRB'SOf DP500/700
                                          Material Grade
Figure F.4A-5: Crossmembers Replaced with TRB Parts
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 296
     F.4A.9  Geometry Change

In order to achieve the performance target specifically for the frontal impact load case,
the front rail subassembly had to be modified with crush initiators. Vertical slots were
introduced on the  right side outer front rail. The crush initiators are  shown in Image
F.4A-6.
                    Image F.4A-6: Design Change on Front Rail Right
Similarly, in order to achieve the performance target for the side impact load case, three
bulkhead  reinforcements were included in each  of the inner  rocker of driver and
passenger side. The bulkhead reinforcements are shown in Image F.4A-7. These design
changes  improved the frontal  crash  performance in  terms of  crash  pulse  and dash
intrusion, and improved side impact performance in terms of an increased intrusion gap.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 297
         Bulkhead
         Reinforcements
                                                   J
              Image F.4A-7: Design Change on Side Inner Rocker (Driver Side)
     F.4A.10  Optimized Body Structure

The  outcome  of the lightweight design optimization included the optimized vehicle
assembly and incorporated the following:
      •  Optimized gauge and material grades for body structure parts

      •  Laser welded assembly at shock towers, rocker, roof rail, and rear structure
         subassemblies

      •  Aluminum material for front bumper, hood, and tailgate parts

      •  TRBs on B-pillar, A-pillar, roof rail, and seat crossmember parts

      •  Design change on front rail side members

The  optimized gauge and grade  map on  the Toyota Venza body structure is shown in
Images F.4A-8 and F.4A-9.
-------
                                                      Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 298
 0.4 mm to 08 mm
                                1.21 mm to 1.60 mm     1.61 mm to 2.00 mm
               Image F.4A-8: Gauge Map of Optimized Model
         DP 300
DP 350
DP 500
              Figure F.4A-9: Material Map of Optimized Model
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 299

The major subassembly weights were calculated and tabulated with respect to the baseline
weights.  Table F.4A-2 lists the major subassembly weights of the optimized model
against the baseline model.
Area
System
Closures
BIW
BIW Extra
Bumper
Sub-system
Door Frt
Door RR
Hood
Tailgate
Fenders
Sub-Total
Underbody Asy
Front Structure
Roof Asy
BodysldeAsy
LadderAsy
Sub-Total
Radiater Vertical Support
Compartment Extra
Shock Tower Xmbr Plates
Sub-Total
Bumper fit
Bumper rear
Sub-Total
Edag Target System Total
Baseline
System Mass
53,2
42.4
17.8
15.0
6,8

40.2
42.0
31.3
161.9
102.6

0.7
4.5
3.1

5.1
2.4


Sub-Total
135.3
37S.O
8.2
7.5
528.9
Final Optimiied Model
System Mass
53,2
42.4
10.1
7.7
4.9

32.0
36.2
24.1
141 .5
90.2

0,7
3.2
4.4

4.7
2.4


Sub-Total
118.3
324.0
8.3
7.1
457.7
Weight Reduced
Percentage






13%





14%



-27,


5%
13%
                           Table F.4A-2: Optimized Weights
The       UVW      of       the       optimized      model       was       1,403
. 1 kg, which includes a combined 13% weight reduction from BIW, closures, and bumper
parts  (Table F.4A-2). It also includes a 20% mass reduction of the  rest of the non-
structural parts. This 20% reduction is an estimated weight reduction from trim and non-
structural parts. (See Appendix D - by FEV)

The final weight distribution of the optimized full vehicle is tabulated in Table F.4A-3,
showing the UVW of baseline and optimized models.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 300
Area
System
FEV Systems
-Chassis
- Powertrain
- Electrical
- Body Interior
Edag Target System Total
Closures
- Door Frt
- Door RR
-Hood
- Tailgate
- Fenders
BIW
- Underbody Asy
-Front Structure
- Roof Asy
- Bodyside Asy
- Ladder Asy
BIW Extra
- Radiater Vertical Support
* Compartment Extra
- Shock Tower Xmbr Plates
Bumper
- Front
-Rear
uvw
Baseline Model
Sub-Total
(kg)
1181.7
528.9
135.3
378.0
8.2
7.5
1710.6
Final Optimzied
Model
Sub- Total
(kg)
945.4
457.7
118.3
324.0
8.3
7,1
1403.1
Weight Reduced
Percentage

20%
13%
13%
14%
-2%
5%
18%
               Table F.4A-3—Final Weight Summary for Optimized Vehicle
From this it can be seen that an overall 18% weight reduction was achieved by weight
optimization.
     F.4A.11  Optimized Results

The  optimization  outcome  was  validated  by carrying out further NVH and crash
simulations on the  optimized model. The optimized NVH and crash models were directly
carried over from  the optimizer and appropriate load cases were set up. The following
sections explain the NVH and crash model results in comparison to the baseline results.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 301
F.4A.11.1 NVH Performance Results
The NVH model (containing only BIW parts and a few bolt-on parts as explained earlier)
was  once  again subjected  to static bending,  static  torsion,  and  modal  frequency
simulations by incorporating the optimization outcome. Table F.4A-4 lists the results of
the optimized model for bending  stiffness, torsion  stiffness,  and modal frequency load
cases.

Study Description

EDAG CAE Model
(Full Roof)
Baseline Model
EDAG CAE
Optimized Model
Percentage
Change

Overall
Torsion
Mode |Hz)

54.6


52.2
4A


Overall
Lateral
Bending
Mode (Hz)

34.3


32.7
A.I


Roar Fnd
Match-Boxing
Mode (Hz)

32.4


33.5
3.4

Overall
Vertical
Bending,
Rear End
Breathing
Mode (Hz)
41.0


40.6
.1.0


Torsion
Stiffness
(KN.m/rad)

1334.0


1333,8
0.0


Bending
Stiffness
(KN/m)

18204.5


17458.2
4.1


Weight
Test
Condition
(Kg)

407.7


356.9
.12.5


Weight BIW
(Kg)

378.0


323.9
•14.3


Comments

CAE Model of 2010
Full Roof Venza
Baseline Vehicle
Optimized CAE Model
Vehicle Configuration
Same as Baseline
Comparison between
Baseline and
Optimized Model
             Table F.4A-4—NVH Results Summary for Optimized BIW Model
From the table it can be seen the NVH performance of the optimized CAE model is very
similar to the baseline model in terms of modal analysis, whereas torsion and bending
stiffness meet the <5% comparison error requirement. The optimized model reflects an
overall reduction in stiffness due to gauge reduction throughout the BIW structure. This
reduction was considered acceptable relative to the amount of weight saving.

The total weight reduction in the optimized BIW is about 14.3% when compared to the
BIW weight of the baseline model.

F.4A.11.2 Crash Performance Results
The optimized crash model was validated further for the following five different crash
load cases and compared with the results of baseline models respectively.
   1) FMVSS 208—35 MPH flat frontal crash (US NCAP),

   2) Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB frontal crash (Euro NCAP/IIHS),

   3) FMVSS 214—38.5 MDB side impact,
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 302
   4) FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB rear impact,
   5) FMVSS 216a—Roof crush resistance (utilizing the more stringent IIHS roof crush
      resistance requirement).

The model set up and test requirements were maintained consistent to that of EDAG
baseline models, as explained earlier.

F.4A.11.2.1 FMVSS 208—35 MPH flat frontal crash (US NCAP)

        Deformation Mode

The deformation modes  at 100 msec (end of crash event) of the  optimized model were
compared to that of the baseline model. The deformation modes are presented in Images
F.4A-10 to F.4A-13. The left-hand side illustrations show the deformation modes of the
baseline model  and the right-hand side illustrations  show the deformation modes of the
optimized model.

Observing the exterior vehicle deformation mode comparisons in different views, the
optimized model shows similar characteristics in structural deformation.
               Baseline
Optimized
               Image F.4A-10: Deformation Mode Left Side View @ 100msec
-------
                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                          Page 303
 Baseline
Optimized
Image F.4A-11: Deformation Mode Right Side View @ 100msec
 Baseline
 Optimized
Figure F.4A-12: Deformation Mode Top Side View @ 100msec
Baseline
 Optimized
Figure F.4A-13: Deformation Mode Top Side View @ 100msec
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 304

The underbody structural deformation modes are compared as shown in Image F.4A-14.
It is  observed  the optimized model shows the same level of deformation as that  of the
baseline target. The engine compartment was well protected from significant deformation
in both the optimized and baseline models. From the deformation modes, it is also noted
the crush  energy is absorbed by the engine  compartment,  rails, and front cradle.  The
remaining crush is transferred to understructure members without any major failure  on the
engine compartment under-ladder structure.
                                                              Optimized
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 305
                Image F.4A-14: Deformation Mode Top Side View @ 100msec
         Crash Pulse

The velocity was differentiated to get pulses: 44.9G for the driver side and 43.4G for the
passenger  side. The baseline model  pulses are  45.5G and 41.2G for the driver and
passenger  sides, respectively. Figure  F.4A-4 shows the pulse  comparison between the
optimized  model  and the baseline model. For the  final  optimized model,  the vehicle
velocity was measured  at  the  driver  and  passenger side  rear  seat  cross members,
respectively.
              REAR SEAT XMBRLH-x acceleration
                                                        REAR SEAT XMBR RH - x acceleration
       0.01   0.02   0.03   0.04  0.05  0.06   0.07   0.08
                                                  0.01   0.02   0.03  0.04   0.05   0.06  0.07
             Driver side
                                                             Passenger side
     Optimized (Average pulse 44.2G)

     Baseline (Average pulse 43.4G)
              Figure F.4A-4 — Vehicle Pulse Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized
The optimized model pulse, then, met the performance  target requirement of baseline
model within a <5% difference.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 306
      Dynamic Crush and Dash Intrusions
The deformation indicator of the vehicle structure dynamic crush is compared as shown in
Figure F.4A-5. The optimized model  shows a shorter dynamic crush (565.0 mm) than
that of the baseline model (600.9 mm) at the same level  of body pulse. This is an
improvement from the baseline model showing better structural performance: It indicates
the optimized model retains a good level of vehicle dynamic stiffness even though there is
significant mass reduction.
                                                                    0.07
                                                                              0.08
             Figure F.4A-5: Dynamic Crush Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized
Another parameter of structural performance comparison is the time-to-zero velocity
(TTZV). TTZV is the time measured when the vehicle approaches zero velocity during
impact. The TTZV plot is shown in Figure F.4A-6.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 307
                 Figure F.4A-6: TTZV Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized
The TTZV of the  optimized model (56.4 msec) is less than that of the baseline model
(60.0 msec), showing a positive tendency for improved front-end stiffness.

For comparison purposes, the dash intrusions also were measured and are summarized in
Table F.4A-5.
Vehicle
Baseline
Optimized
Driver Footwell
(mm)
58.8
19.9
Driver Toe pan
Left (mm)
137.1
43.1
Driver Toe pan
center (mm)
157.1
74.1
Driver Toe pan
Right (mm)
102.9
82.4
             Table F.4A-5—Dash Intrusion Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 308

In the case of the optimized model, the dash panel footwell and toe pan intrusions were
significantly reduced when compared to that of the baseline model. This also indicates the
optimized model met the regulatory requirements (intrusions should be <100mm)[19] and
baseline targets, including improvements in the structural performance.

F.4A.11.2.2 Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB Frontal Crash (Euro NCAP/IIHS)

         Deformation Mode

The deformation modes  at 100 msec (end of crash event) of the optimized model were
compared to that of the baseline model. The deformation modes are presented in Images
F.4A-15 to F.4A-17. The left-hand side illustrations show the deformation modes of the
baseline model and the right-hand side illustrations show the deformation modes of the
optimized model.

Observing the exterior vehicle deformation mode comparisons in different views, the
optimized model shows similar characteristics of structural deformation.
                  Baseline
Optimized
                 Image F.4A-15: Deformation Mode Top View @ 140msec
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 309
                 Baseline
Optimized
                 Image F.4A-16: Deformation Mode ISO View @ 140msec
                  Baseline
Optimized
               Image F.4A-17: Deformation Mode Left Side View @ 140msec
The underbody structural deformation modes are compared as shown Images F.4A-18
and F.4A-19 where it can  be seen the optimized model  shows  the  same level  of
deformation as that  of the baseline target. The compartment area is well  protected from
significant deformation in both the optimized and baseline models. From the deformation
modes, it is also noted the crush energy is absorbed by the engine compartment, rails, and
front cradle. The remaining crush is transferred to understructure members without any
major failure on the compartment under-ladder structure.
-------
                                               Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                             March 30, 2012
                                                                Page 310
Image F.4A-18: Deformation Mode Bottom View @ 140msec - Baseline
 Figure F.4A-19: Deformation Mode Bottom View @ 140msec - Optimized
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 311
         Crash Pulse
Figure F.4A-7 shows the pulse  comparison  between  the  optimized model and the
baseline model. For the final optimized model,  the vehicle acceleration pulse target was
achieved as <42G for driver side and passenger side, measured at driver and passenger
side rear-seat crossmembers respectively.
        0.02   0.04    0.06   0.08
                    Time (sec.)
                              0 1
                                   0.12   0.14
0.02   0.04    0.06   0.08
            Time (sec.)
                                                                       0.1
                                                                            0.12   0.14
                Drivpr
   	Optimized (Average pulse 40.2G)
         Passeneerer
             Figure 1.9.26—Body Pulse Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized

In this case, the optimized model shows  a slightly better performance than the baseline
model in terms of crash pulse.
F.3.12.7.1    Dynamic Crush

The deformation indicator of the vehicle structure dynamic crash is compared in Figures
1.9.27 and 1.9.28. The  total dynamic crush shown in Figure 1.9.27 includes the barrier
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 312

deformation, also consistent for comparison purposes. Subtracting the barrier deformation
from the total  crush  (shown in Figure 1.9.28), the optimized model shows a shorter
dynamic crush (565.0 mm) than that of the baseline model (600.9 mm) at the  same level
of body pulse. This is an improvement from the baseline model showing better structural
performance: It indicates the optimized model  retains a good level of vehicle dynamic
stiffness even though there is significant mass reduction.
  600
            0.01
                      0.02
                               0.03
                                         0.04
                                       Time (sec.)
                                                   0.05
                                                            0.06
                                                                      0.07
                                                                               0.08
             Figure F.4A-7: Dynamic Crush Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized
Another  parameter of structural performance comparison is the time-to-zero  velocity
(TTZV).  TTZV is the time measured when the vehicle approaches zero velocity during
impact. The TTZV plot is shown in Figure F.4A-8.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 313
                 Figure F.4A-8: TTZV Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized
The TTZV of the  optimized model (56.4 msec) is less than that of the baseline model
(60.0 msec), showing a positive tendency for improved front-end stiffness.
For comparison purposes, the dash intrusions also were measured and are summarized in
Table F.4A-6.
Vehicle
Baseline
Optimized
Driver Footwell
(mm)
58.8
19.9
Driver Toe pan
Left (mm)
137.1
43.1
Driver Toe pan
center (mm)
157.1
74.1
Driver Toe pan
Right (mm)
102.9
82.4
              Table F.4A-6: Dash Intrusion Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized
In the case of the optimized model, the dash panel footwell and toe pan intrusions were
significantly reduced when compared to that of the baseline model. This also indicates the
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 314

optimized model met the regulatory requirements (intrusions should be <100mm)[19] and
baseline targets, including improvements in the structural performance.

F.4A.11.2.3  Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB Frontal Crash (Euro NCAP/IIHS)

         Deformation Mode

The deformation modes at 100 msec (end of crash event) of the optimized model were
compared to that of the baseline model. The deformation modes are presented in Images
F.4A-20 to F.4A-22. The  left-hand side illustrations show the deformation modes of the
baseline model and the right-hand side illustrations show  the deformation modes of the
optimized model.

Observing the exterior vehicle deformation mode  comparisons in different views,  the
optimized model shows similar characteristics of structural  deformation.
                  Baseline
Optimized
                 Image F.4A-20: Deformation Mode Top View @ 140msec
                 Baseline
 Optimized
                 Image F.4A-21: Deformation Mode ISO View @ 140msec
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 315
                  Baseline
Optimized
               Image F.4A-22: Deformation Mode Left Side View @ 140msec

The underbody structural deformation modes are compared  as shown Figures F.4A-23
and F.4A-24 where it  can be seen  the optimized  model shows the same level  of
deformation as that of the baseline target. The compartment area is well protected from
significant deformation in both the optimized and baseline models. From the deformation
modes, it is also noted the crush energy is absorbed by the engine compartment, rails, and
front cradle. The remaining crush is transferred  to understructure members without any
major failure on the compartment under-ladder structure.
           Image F.4A-23: Deformation Mode Bottom View @ 140msec - Baseline
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 316
          Image F-4A-24: Deformation Mode Bottom View @ 140msec - Optimized
      Crash Pulse

Image F.4A-25 shows  the  pulse  comparison between the  optimized  model and the
baseline model. For the final optimized model, the vehicle acceleration pulse target was
achieved as <42G for driver side and passenger side, measured at driver and passenger
side rear-seat crossmembers respectively.
A summary of Euro NCAP performance measurements is provided in Tables F.4A-6 and
F.4A-7.
No.
1
2
Frontal crash Measurements
Dynamic Crush (mm)
UVW Weight (kg)
Baseline
1071.2
1710.6
Optimized
1006.0
1403.1
         Table F.4A-7: Dynamic Crush, Baseline vs. Optimized Model for Euro NCAP
-------
                                                      Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                   March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 317

Vehicle

Baseline
Optimized
Driver
Footrest
(mm)
133.7
32.3
Driver Toe
pan Left
(mm)
171.2
51.5
Driver Toe
pan center
(mm)
169.9
59.4
Driver Toe
pan Right
(mm)
75.9
23.8
         Table F.4A-8: Dash Intrusions, Baseline vs. Optimized Model for Euro NCAP
Based on the analysis, the optimized model meets the frontal offset impact performance
requirements.
F.4A.11.2.4  FMVSS 214—38.5 MPH MDB side impact

        Deformation Mode

The deformation modes of the side impact optimized model and the baseline model are
shown in Images F.4A-25 to F.4A-27. Image F.4A-25 shows the global deformation of
the driver side. It indicates both the baseline and the  optimized models have similar
deformation.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 318
                                 Baseline Model
                                Optimized Model
        Figure F.4A-25: Global Deformation Modes of Baseline and Optimized Models
Image F.4A-26 shows front and rear door deformation modes at the impact area of B-
pillar. It is observed the optimized model shows similar characteristics of deformation at
the impact area.
                 Baseline
Optimized
 Image F.4A-26—Deformation Modes of Front and Rear Doors of Baseline and Optimized Models
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 319

Similarly, Image F.4A-27  shows the same characteristics of rear door  aperture area
deformations for both the baseline and the optimized models.
                                                                  	!—I
                 Baseline
                                     Optimized
     Image F.4A-27—Rear Door Aperture Deformations of Baseline and Optimized Models

         Body Intrusion

The key performance requirement of the side structure intrusion of the optimized model
was compared with the baseline model. Image F.4A-28 shows a relative intrusion of the
optimized model at the B-pillar and side rocker sections with respect to the undeformed
model.  The sectional  contour  in red  indicates the deformed shape and the sectional
contour in black indicates the undeformed shape.
     B-Pillar Intrusions of Optimized
 Zone 1
 Zone 2H
 Zone 3
f Relative Displacements of B-pillar points
  @ B-pillar Inner panel
                                                                     Section
                                                                     Section
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 320

      Image F.4A-28—Side Structure Intrusion Plot of Optimized Model @ B-pillar Section
A summary of the relative intrusions of the B-pillar of the optimized model is shown in
Table F.4A-8.

Measured
Location
Intrusion
(mm)
Zone 1
Upper
-1.3
Lower
46.0
Zone 2
Upper
87.9
Middle
120.7
Lower
150.6
Zone 3
Upper
155.4
Lower
108.0
        Table F.4A-8—Optimized model, Relative Intrusions of B-Pillar for FMVSS 214
As explained in section  18.4, the maximum side structure intrusion of 155.4mm is less
than the test results. It is also less than the baseline results of 184mm, so the side structure
intrusion performance of the optimized model meets the baseline target.

In order to have a better perspective of the comparison, the optimized model result is
overlaid on top of the baseline model result. Image F.4A-29 shows the intrusion contours
of both  the optimized and  the baseline models.  The contours in  red represents the
deformation of the optimized model and the contours in black represents  the deformation
of the baseline model.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 321
    Comparison of B-Pillar Intrusions : Baseline vs. Optimized

                                                       BASELINE
                                                       Optimized
       Image F-4A-29: Side Structure Intrusion Plots of Optimized and Baseline Models

A comparison of B-pillar intrusions of the baseline model  and the optimized model is
shown in Table F.4A-9.  The negative sign  indicates the optimized  model  shows less
deformation than the baseline.

Measured
Location
Intrusion
(mm)
Zone 1
Upper
-6.0
Lower
-18.0
Zone 2
Upper
-30.0
Middle
-35.0
Lower
-34.9
Zone 3
Upper
-16.0
Lower
19.8
 Table F-4A-9—Comparison of B-Pillar Intrusions of Baseline and Optimized Models for FMVSS
                                        214
From the comparison in Table F.4A-9, it is observed the optimized model deforms less
compared to the baseline model; the optimized model leaves a greater gap between the B-
pillar and the seat structure. This is a positive indicator of side-impact performance.
F.4A.11.2.5  FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB Rear Impact
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 322
         Deformation Mode
The deformation modes of the rear impact simulation of the optimized model are shown
in Images F.4A-30 to F-4A-32. Similar to the baseline model, these deformation modes
indicate the rear structures protect the fuel tank system well  during the crash event. In
Figure F.4A-38, the rear door area shows no jamming shut of the door opening.

The skeleton view of the rear inner structure deformation view in Image F.4A-31 shows
the rear underbody was involved resulting in maximizing the crush energy absorption and
minimizing the deformation of the rear door and fuel tank mounting areas.
           Image F.4A-30: Deformation Mode of Optimized Model, Left Side View
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 323
   Image F.4A-31: Deformation Mode of Optimized Model Rear Structure Area, Left Side View

The bottom view of the rear underbody structure around the fuel tank area at the end of
crash (100 msec) is shown Images F.4A-32 and F.4A-33. This deformation mode shows
the rear rail structure and the rear suspension mounting are  also intact to protect the fuel
tank system.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 324
         Figure F.4A-32: Deformation Mode of Optimized Model, Bottom View
Figure F.4A-33: Deformation Mode of Optimized Model Rear Structure Area, Bottom View
      Fuel Tank Integration
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 325

The fuel tank integrity of the optimized model is further analyzed by its plastic strain plot
and is compared to the baseline model. The fuel tank system strain plot was monitored as
one of the necessary parameters in a rear impact scenario. Figure F.4A-34 shows  the
comparison of the top and bottom of the fuel tank system's strain plot after the crash.
      No Damages on Fuel Tank (Plastic Strain < 20%)
Plastic Strain @ Strap < 20%
         I
                                      Baseline
                                     Optimized
                 Image F.4A-34: Comparison of Fuel Tank System Integrity

Compared to the baseline model, the optimized model also indicates no significant risk of
fuel system damage as the maximum strain amount is less than 20% of the entire fuel tank
system's plastic strain. It thus meets the baseline target in terms of fuel tank integrity.

         Structural deformation

The rear impact structural performance of the optimized model is  further compared with
the baseline model in terms of zonal deformation and rear door opening area deformation.
Image F.4A-35 shows different deformation zones of the  rear end of the vehicle. The
structural deformations measured at these locations are  listed  and compared to  the
baseline model in Table F.4A-10.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 326
           Image F.4A-35: Structural Deformation Measuring Area in Rear Impact
Model

Baseline
Optimized
Under Structure Zone Deformation (mm)
Zone-1
133.9
108.8
Zone-2
301.7
345.7
Zone-3
0
0
Zone-4
0
0
Door Opening (mm)
Beltline
1.8
1.1
Dogleg
0
0
               Table F.4A-10: Summary of Structural Deformation Measuring
Based on our acceptance criteria that the rear door must be capable of opening after the
impact event and there must be fuel system integrity,  the optimized model is judged
acceptable. The increase in intrusion value in zone 2 is related to the reduced gauges in
the rear structure.
F.4A.11.2.6  FMVSS 216a—Roof Crush Resistance

         Deformation Mode

The driver side roof crush deformation mode of the optimized model was compared with
the baseline model. The roof crush deformation  mode at 140 msec after crush event is
shown in Figure F.4A-36. It is noted that, similar to the baseline model, most of the
deformation is concentrated on the roof rail, the A-pillar, and the B-pillar of the load side.
The other neighboring structures remained undeformed. The optimized model structure
thus has the same level of roof crush resistance performance as the baseline model.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 327
    •L,
                Baseline
Optimized
                    Figure F.4A-36: Deformation Mode of Roof Crush

         Structural Strength

The  strength of the roof rail and the B-pillar structure in terms of rear passenger head
protection during rollover scenario is determined by the maximum plastic strain plot and
platen force vs. displacement. Image F.4A-37 shows plastic strain distribution of the roof
and B-pillar structures of the optimized model. The maximum plastic strain over the roof
rail and B-pillar parts are within the 20% limit, the same as the baseline model.
-------
                             1
                              WM»
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 328

                      .
       Image F.4A-37: Plastic Strain Contour of Side Upper Structure in Optimized Model
Similar to the baseline model, using four times UVW criteria, the  optimized model is
evaluated for its roof crush resistance strength.  The force vs. displacement curve of the
platen is illustrated in Figure F.4A-9.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 329
         Criteria for Baseline :
               67.0 kN
                                                         ••-\7-fS*^—y*jm

/ \L_

Criteria
for
55.

Optimized :
1 kN



                                                          100
                                                                     120
                                                                                i :
                  Figure F.4A-9: Roof Crush Load vs. Displacement Plot


As explained in Section F.4A.10, the UVW of the optimized roof crush resistance model
is 1,403.1 kg. From Figure F.4A-9, it is observed the maximum load (65.4 kN) is greater
than four times UVW (55.1  kN) within the platen displacement of 127 mm. Therefore,
the optimized model also meets both FMVSS 216a and IIHS requirements.

A comparative summary of the  optimized model's roof crush performance is found in
Table F.4A-11.
Model
Name
Baseline
Optimized
UVW (kg)
UVW
1710.6
1403.1
Delta
n/a
307.4
BIW, Closures Weight (kg)
BIW, Closures
528.9
457.7
Delta
n/a
71.2
Force
Criteria
(kN)
67.0
55.1
Max Load
(kN)
86
65.4
            Table.F.4A-ll—Summary of Roof Crush Load vs. Displacement Plot
     F.4A.11 Cost Impact

The  necessary cost constraints were included in the weight optimization cycle to be
consistent with each  of the strategies applied. The gauge and grades were modified
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 330

accordingly, while opting for different alternatives such as laser welded assembly and
TRB parts. The costs of the changes were obtained based on engineering estimates of the
original design cost. The following cost factors were included in the estimation.
                   •  Manufacturing CO2 emissions

                   •  Material price

                   •  Labor cost

                   •  Energy cost

                   •  Equipment cost

                   •  Tooling

                   •  Building

                   •  Maintenance

                   •  Overhead

EDAG standards and best practices were followed in performing the cost estimate  with
the following general assumptions:
                   1.  Cost of money = 8%

                   2.  Production Volume = 200,000 / year

                   3.  Equipment life = 20 years
   ^
                   4.  Product life = 5 years

In addition to these  factors, the cost changes in assembly due to the  change of laser-
welded  assembly and  introduction  of rocker bulkhead reinforcements  (Ref.  Section
F.4A.9) also were estimated. The weight and cost impact of the optimized changes is
shown in Table F.4A-12.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 331
Description
Body Structure Subsystem
Underbody Asy
Front Structure Asy
Roof Asy
Bodyside Asy
Ladder Asy
Bolt on BIP Components
Body Closure Subsystem
Hood Asy
Front Door Asy
Rear Door Asy
Rear Hatch Asy
Front Fenders
Bumpers Subsystem
Front Bumper Asy
Rear Bumper Asy
Totals
Estimated
Mass
Reduction
"Kg"

8.1
5.7
7.2
17.8
11.7
-0.1

7.7
0.0
0.0
7.2
2.0

0.4
0.0
67.7
"+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
"+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Estimated
Cost
Impact "$"

-5.81
-7.03
4.55
-82.41
-4.72
-14.75

-39.11
0.00
0.00
-29.96
-21.85

-10.71
0.00
-211.80
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
"$/Kg"

-0.72
-1.23
0.63
-4.63
-0.40
147.50

-5.08
0.00
0.00
-4.16
-10.93

-26.78
0.00
-3.13

               Table F.4A-12: Weight and Cost Impact of Optimized Vehicle

The cost impact of assembling the parts due to laser welding is shown in Table F.4A-13.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 332
Assembly Cost Going from Spot Welds to Laser Welds
Assembly
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Total
Assembly
Front Shock Tower
Rear Shock Tower
Body Side Rear
Front Rail Lower
Front Rail Upper
Shotgun
Roof
B-Pillar
Rear Structure

Assembly
cost
$0.84
$1.00
$1.05
$0.84
$0.68
$0.12
-$0.22
$0.85
$0.89
$6.05
                Table F.4A-13: Cost Impact of Part Laser Welded Assembly

The  cost  impact of  introducing rocker bulkhead reinforcements  is  shown  in  Table
F.4A.14.
Assembly Cost Adding Rocker Reinforcements
Assembly
Number
10
Total
Assembly
New Rocker Reinforcements

Assembly
cost
$13.58
$13.58
                Table F.4A.14: Cost Impact of Part Laser Welded Assembly
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 333
From the information in the tables, the overall weight savings on the Toyota Venza is
about 67.7 kg, with a manufacturing cost increase of $211.80 and an assembly cost
increase of $19.63.
     F.4A.12 Summary

In summary, the 2010  Toyota Venza was  studied for potential weight reduction  by
utilizing  EDAG lightweight design optimization  procedures. The performance of the
lightweight vehicle was verified by applying CAE  principles. The necessary vehicle data
was  collected from completely disassembling a 2010  Toyota Venza. Weight reduction
was  optimized while maintaining safety performance regulations  and requirements. The
weight reduction optimization was  carried out in stages based on  EDAG  lightweight
optimization  strategies.  The result  of the weight optimization  was  a  17.4% weight
reduction on a  BIW only (Table  F.4A-2)  and  a  16.0%  weight reduction including
closures  and bumpers (Table  F.4A-3), while  still meeting the structural performance
targets. Additionally,  an estimated  20%  weight reduction  of non-structural parts was
included  on the full vehicle weight  structure. The  overall weight reduction of 19% was
achieved.

The  cost impact of the  changes that took place in the lightweight design optimization
process was also analyzed. The changes were mostly to body parts,  thus the difference
was estimated to be an increase of $229.66 in manufacturing costs  (Table F.4A-12) and a
$6.05 increase in assembly costs of the body parts (Table.F.4A-13).
     F.4A.13  Future Trends and Recommendation
   ^^^
Common practices followed in automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) are
within   the   strategies   of   component   integration,    functionality   tweaking,
innovative/alternative materials use, manufacturing technology advancements, and cost-
weight optimization. EDAG's principle of continual research enabled an exploration of
alternatives beyond common practices. The lightweight optimization study of the Toyota
Venza utilized most of them. There are, however,  additional  possibilities of weight
reduction:

   •  Exploration of alternative materials for subsystems
   •  Exploration of alternative technologies for subsystems
   •  Optimization of the topology of load path subsystems
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 334

   •  Executive-level vehicles (low volume) are currently manufactured using aluminum
      materials in order to create a super light vehicle, but with the associated higher
      costs.
Volkswagen  Audi  is   the  recent success story,  however,  of  utilizing  aluminum
alternatives. [8] An attempt was made in the Toyota Venza study to use aluminum as an
alternative  material for  the front bumper, hood, and tailgate parts. This resulted in a
savings  of 17 kg (13%), with a  cost increase of $26.58/kg. In  a similar approach,
aluminum can be used for door parts. A test of replacing the door materials in the CAE
model has shown a weight savings of about 25%.

Magnesium (Mg) based materials  are also proven for their better strength-weight ratio
equivalent when compared to steel based materials[ll]. A similar test of replacing steel
materials by  magnesium material  on the front module of the Toyota Venza revealed
approximately 57.26% weight savings with 100% cost increase. The use of magnesium as
a viable alternative will be  a consideration in future research. Another  area where
magnesium has the potential to be used is the powertrain housing. [21]

Utilizing a carbon fiber, the proposition of composite  materials is one of the emerging
ideas in building lightweight vehicles.  Currently,  the utilization  of fiber-composite
materials for supporting  body parts has been limited to special series, as well as premium
and  racing models. [22]  Assuming a positive  cost impact  due to  an improvement in
efficiency,  research into using  composite materials  for  auto body parts would  be
worthwhile.

Another candidate for alternative materials is long-fiber reinforced thermoplastics (LFT).
Today,  most  LFT end products are  produced for the  automobile industry. [23] These
molded  parts include body panels, sound shields, front-end assemblies, structural body
parts, truck panels and housings, as well as doors, tailgates, and fender (wing) sections.
LFT could be tried on these parts of the Toyota Venza.

The  use of TRB is yet  another example of a recent development in the  manufacturing
process. It is expected TRB will replace parts manufactured with tailor-welded blanks.
Recently, major American and European automotive OEMs have  introduced TRB-based
parts. They are currently applied on the simple stamped parts of high strength steel. Based
on EDAG's experience  of TRB  trials in other programs,  extending the  TRB appln to
chassis  member, frames, crossmembers, etc., is recommended. From the experience of
applying TRB in the  Toyota Venza study, it  is expected  significant cost  and weight
savings  will be achieved.

Topology optimization is a computer-simulation based design optimization method used
to determine  optimized structural load paths in a pre-specified three-dimensional space.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 335

This technique helps to optimize load path parts at the design level.  Since any major
design change is  beyond  the scope  of this  project,  design optimization  was  not
undertaken. The potential of weight reduction by design optimization is significant (about
10 - 17% based on EDAG's proven expertise in the Future  Steel Vehicle program).[24]
This is a clear motivation to attempt topology optimization techniques to achieve further
weight reduction in the Toyota Venza.
F.4B  Body System Group B

Body System Group B includes the subsystems shown in Table F.4B-1. The largest mass
contributors are the Seating, Interior Trim, and Instrument Panel/Console subsystems. As
seen in  Table F.4B-2, a substantial amount of mass (41.98 kg) is reduced from Body
System  Group B. This provides a cost savings of $122.98 and a dollar per kilogram
savings  of $2.93/kg. The largest contributor of this mass and cost reduction is the Seating
subsystem,  followed by the Interior Trim and the Instrument Panel subsystems.


><
(/)
ft-
CD
3

W
03
03
03
03
03
03






ST
><
w
CD

w
05
06
07
10
12
20




U)
7
V)
c
ST
w
CD
3
~oo
00
00
00
00
00
00






Description


Body System (Group -B-)
Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)
Sealing Subsystem
Seating Subsystem
Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem

Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =

System &
Subsystem
Mass
"kg"

	
65.202
4.502
8.226
92.548
32.688
17.438

220.604
1711
12.90%
           Table F.4B-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Body System Group B
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 336

03
•<
at
5T
~03
03
03
03
03
03
03


Subsystem
00
05
06
07
10
12
20


Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
00
00


Description
Body System (Group -B-)
Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)
Sealing Subsystem
Seating Subsystem
Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
	
A
A
A
A
C
D

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" CD

8.924
0.268
2.029
23.392
6.330
1.039

41.982
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 337
                          Image F.4B-1: Toyota Venza Interior
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
F.4B.1.2  Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Industry trends for mass reduction in the interior include many different considerations
due to the fact that the interior trim is made up  of many different components  and
materials. Among the ways to reduce mass includes reducing the density of the vinyl trim
or the thickness of the vinyl trim. Mass density can be reduced by using PolyOne foaming
additives or the MuCell® foaming  process for the  vinyl trim injection molding. Using
carbon fiber as a replacement for vinyl trim results in mass reduction, although doing so
will add  cost to the  interior due to carbon fiber's limited availability and raw material
cost. Products  and techniques  using light-weight wood,  wood fiber, or foam  with a
laminated interior surface treatment also involve added processing.

MuCell®  by  Trexel™  is  a  microcellular  foam  injection  molding process  for
thermoplastics materials that injects  nitrogen bubbles into the plastic during the injection
stage  of the molding  process.  MuCell® by Trexel™ is  used in many applications,
automotive, medical  and the packaging industry. The process is currently used by major
OEM's like, Audi, Ford, BMW and VW. The quality advantages of the MuCell Process
are complemented by certain direct economic advantages, including the ability to produce
20-33% more parts per hour on a given molded machine, and the ability to mold parts on
lower tonnage machines as a result  of the viscosity reduction and the elimination of the
packing requirement that accompanies the use of supercritical gas.

MuCell® has an added capital cost to a standard injection molding machine, but with this
process a smaller machine can be used and a faster cycle time can be realized.  MuCell®
also provides  for a reduction in the amount of plastic used, which offers an  overall
-------
                                                Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                            March 30, 2012
                                                               Page 338

material savings. MuCell® is not recommended for Class "A" surfaces; however, all non-
Class "A" surfaces were quoted with a 10% mass reduction.

  Why is Microcellular Foam Different?
    Microcellular foaming is a
    technology for
       Putting small cells into a thin wall
       plastic part
    Primarily using nitrogen as
    the foaming agent
       Sometimes carbon dioxide
    Direct addition of physical
    foaming agent provides a
    high level of expansion
    pressure
                                              '
              The MuCell Process

 •  Dissolving an SCF into a polymer reduces the material viscosity
 •  Viscosity changes
      10% to 15% for a 30% glass fiber reinforced semi-crystalline engineering resin
      159/b to 25% for an amorphous resin
 •  Reduced injection pressures at equal conditions of temperature
   and speed
 •  Improved flow lengths
 •  Cell growth provides final packing of the part
      Reduces residual stress patterns by eliminating traditional pack and hold phase
      Results in improved part dimensions
 *  Cycle time  reduction due to shorter pack/hold and increase mold
   contact
           Figure F.4B-1: MuCell® by Trexel™ Foaming Process Presentation
-------
                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                            March 30, 2012
                                                                Page 339
(MuCell® presentation information provided by Trexel™)
                          Application:   Rear Door Carrier

                         Manufacturer:   JCI/Mercedes Benz

                              Benefits:
                                       • Thinner wall (1.8 mm to 2.0 mm)
                                       • 1:1 wall to rib ratio
                                         >50% cycle time reduction (MuCell •
                                         Tandem-MoW)
                                       • High dimensional stability
-------
                   Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                   March 30, 2012
                                       Page 340
  Application:   Climate Control Cover

Manufacturer:   Valeo (Ford)
     Benefits:
                Reduced injection pressure and
                lower melt temperatures open the
                process window for in-mold
                decorating
                10% weight/material reduction
                23% cycle time reduction
                Required clamp tonnage reduction
                from 250 tons to 75 tons
                Eliminates read-through of the
                back surface features so there are
                no sink marks
-------
               Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                             March 30, 2012
                                 Page 341
  Automotive

  Application:    Trunk Liner

Manufacturer:    VW

     Benefits:
                  Weight reduction of 10%
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 342
                                                 Automotive

                                                 Application:   Interior Door Trim

                                               Manufacturer:   VW
                                                    Benefits:
                                                              Wall to rib thickness 1:1
                                                              allowed for a 50% reduction
                                                              in nominal wall thickness
                                                              Consolidation of parts by
                                                              eliminating read through
                                                              from energy absorbing ribs
                                                              Elimination of separate
                                                              energy absorbing module
                                                              Weight reduction from
                                                              foaming and  redesign of
PolyOne has a foaming agent incorporated into pellets which can be added directly into a
standard mold machine plastic hopper and mixed with base  material plastic pellets to
provide the proper ratio of foaming agent to the base material. PolyOne can be used on
Class "A" surfaces: all class "A" surfaces using PolyOne were quoted with  a 10% mass
reduction.
PolyOne Corporation is a global supplier of polymer materials, services, and solutions.
PolyOne  specializes  in performance  materials,  colors and additives,  thermoplastic
elastomers, coatings  and resins, and inks, among other things. The industries they serve
are vast,  including  building  and  construction,  electrical  and electronics,  healthcare,
industrial, packaging, and transportation.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 343

Of particular interest to this  study is PolyOne's OnCap™ Chemical Foaming Agents
(CFAs), which is a  part of its OnCap™ Additives product line. This line is part of
PolyOne's Global Color, Additives & Inks business unit. In typical  industry use, these
CFAs provide a multitude of benefits to improve polymer processing in a variety of
situations. They can also reduce the weight of the plastic part to which they are added.
CFAs are formulated products that will decompose in a polymer during processing at a
specific temperature and liberate a gas that will form a controlled cellular structure in the
solid phase of the polymer.

(Ref. http://www.polyone.com/en-
us/docs/Documents/OnCap%20Chemical%20Foaming%20Agents.pdf)

PolyOne's CFAs can effectively reduce the mass of plastic parts both with and without
Class "A" surface finishes. For this  study, however, the most  significant advantage of
CFAs is the former.  Therefore, PolyOne's CFAs were applied to  numerous Class "A"
surface-finished  plastic parts  in  this  study. PolyOne  Corporation provided  generic
feedback and advice regarding the amount of weight reduction feasible for plastic parts.
These CFA application guidelines included considerations for a respective part's material,
geometry, and application. In general, a 10% weight reduction was applied to parts for
which a CFA was used. Higher mass reduction  may be possible for many components,
but would require a detailed analysis on the component and its use in order to safely apply
such savings. Instead, a conservative  estimate was applied based on PolyOne's expertise
where parts' properties would not be  adversely affected. For parts with a non-Class "A"
surface finish, a weight reduction in the 20-30% range is possible.

The use of CFAs for light-weighting  must be addressed on a part-by-part basis. Several
variables must be taken into account  for each component to understand the impact mass
reduction  will  have on  the  final part's processing  and  performance.  A feasibility
breakdown provided by PolyOne is presented here, indicating guidelines and stipulations
for the most common plastics used in the Toyota Venza:
20% Talc-filled Polypropylene (PP-GF20)

   •  Talc can influence the success of the CFA. Based on the grade and particle size
      talc can improve cell  size or potentially increase the rate of splay. The grain can
      help reduce the visual  defects.

   •  Class "A" surface finish can be  difficult to maintain. This will depend upon the
      geometry of and the gate location on the part.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 344

      Potential weight reduction would be more in the 5-10% range at 1-3% LDR.

      Above 10% will begin to reduce the physical properties and affect the Class "A"
      surface finish.

      Due to polypropylene's shrinkage rate, the CFA will fill the cavity: weight loss is
      reduced due to the complete fill of the cavity.

      It does aid in sink mark removal at lower 0.5-1% CFA loadings.

      Fob/One™ CFA CC10117068WE  or CC10122763WE would be suggested for
      polypropylene.

      Surface texture can potentially hide the effects of a CFA so various grain options
      should be explored.
                                                   ^S,          /
Polycarbonate / Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (PC/ABS)

   •  This resin  could  achieve a  10-15% weight  reduction.  Careful selection of the
      proper CFA is required since the alloyed blends can have different ratios. Testing
      with the high heat CC10153776WE and CC10117068WE would be recommended.

   •  Class "A" surface finish can be difficult to maintain above 10%. This will depend
      upon the geometry of and the gate location on the part.

   •  Surface texture can potentially hide the effects of a CFA so various grain options
      should be explored.
Polyamide 66 (PA66)

   •  Processing with the high heat CFA CC10153776WE would be recommended.

   •  Class "A" surface finish can be difficult to maintain. This will depend upon the
      geometry of and the gate location on the part.

   •  Potential weight reduction would be more in the 5-10% range.

   •  Above 10% will begin to reduce the physical properties and affect the Class "A"
      surface finish.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 345
20% Glass-filled Polyamide (PA-GF20)

   •  Processing with the high heat CFA CC10153776WE would be recommended.

   •  Glass will reduce the success of the CFA due to potential cell coalescence causing
      larger voids.

   •  Class "A" surface finish can be difficult to maintain. This will depend upon the
      geometry of and the gate location on the part.

   •  Potential weight reduction would be more in the 5-10% range.

   •  Above 10% will begin to reduce the physical properties and affect the  Class "A"
      surface finish.
15% Glass-filled / 25% Mineral-filled Polyamide 6 (15G/25M PA6)

   •  Processing with the high heat CFA CC 10153776WE would be recommended.

   •  Glass will reduce the success of the CFA due to potential cell coalescence causing
      larger voids.

   •  Class "A" surface finish can be difficult to maintain. This will depend upon the
      geometry of and the gate location on the part.

   •  Potential weight reduction would be more in the 5-10% range.

   •  Above 10% will begin to reduce the physical properties and affect the  Class "A"
      surface finish.
High-Density Polyethylene / Polypropylene (HDPE/PP)

   •  This resin could achieve a  10-15% weight reduction.  CC10117068WE and
      CC 10122763 WE are potential CFAs depending upon part geometry.
-------
                                                                Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                               March 30, 2012
                                                                                   Page 346

       Class A  surface finish can be difficult to maintain above  10%.  This will depend
       upon the geometry of and the gate location on the part.

       Surface texture can potentially hide the effects of a CFA so various grain options
       should be explored.

       Above 10% will begin to reduce the physical properties and affect the Class "A"
       surface finish.
PolyOne's Chemical Foaming  Agents are  currently used in  production in  industrial
housings and structural foam applications, but not in the automotive industry. Its CFAs,
however,  are currently undergoing testing by automotive OEMs  and can  be feasibly
implemented by the 2017 model year.

Please  refer  to PolyOne's  Technical Data  Sheets  in  Appendix XX.XX for more
information.
F.4B.1.3   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Some ideas that were considered for weight reduction on the interior trim are shown in
Table F.4B-3.
 Component/Assembly
  Interior trim with class
     "A" surface
  Mass-Reduction Idea
     Carbon fiber
Estimated Impact
 10 to 20% Mass
   Reduction
                                    Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
                                     High cost of raw material, high cost of
  Interior trim with class
     "A" surface
Laminated surface to wood
	underlayment	
 10 to 20% Mass
   Reduction
                                   Added processing, Wood underlayment
                                   	availability	
  Interior trim with class
     "A" surface
Laminated surface to wood
 10 to 20% Mass
   Reduction
                                      Added processing, Wood fiber
  Interior trim with class
Laminated surface to foam
 15 to 25% Mass
  Interior trim with class
                                           high processing cost

                                     No added capital equip, needed, Faster
  Interior trim with non-
   class "A" surface
                   PolyOne® foaming process
 MuCell® gas foaming
	process
                        10% Mass
                        Reduction
                Added capital equip., faster cycle time
   Carpet floor mats

 Retractable cargo cover
   Reduce total weight

 Replace heavy pull cover
    with pull screen
 20 to 30% Mass
 ___^eduction___
 50 to 65% Mass
   Reduction
                                   Less material, may have durability issues,

                                   Diff. product for same function, may have
                                   	customer preference issues	
  Table F.4B-3: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Interior Trim
                                and Ornamentation Subsystem
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 347
F.4B.1.4  Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The mass reduction ideas selected for the Interior Trim  and Ornamentation subsystem
were those to use the PolyOne foaming process for Class  "A"-surfaced injection-molded
parts and the MuCell® foaming process for injection molded parts without a Class "A"
surface. All PolyOne and MuCell® deductions are conservative at a 10% mass reduction
per part. With proper engineering of the parts, however, up to 30% weight reduction may
be achieved.

The rear luggage pull screen was replaced with  a lightweight cargo net. This could be
considered an inferior replacement of the original part, however, if weight reduction is an
OEM priority, replacing the  cargo  screen can be  done  without dramatically affecting
functionality and looks. In order to reduce the density (thickness) of the floor mats from
22oz carpet to 14 oz carpet, proper OEM testing will have to be done (Table F.4B-4).
-------
Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
              March 30, 2012
                  Page 348
t£
CO
CD"
3

03
03

03

03

03

03

03

03
03

03
_
03

03

03

Subsystem

05
05

05

05

05

05

05

05
05

05
_
05

05

05

Sub-Subsystem

00
01

03

04

05

06

07

08
09

10
IT
12

13

14

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Main Floor Trim

Headliner Assembly

Sun Visors

Front RH & LH Door Trim Panel

Rear RH & LH Door Trim Panel

Pillar Trim Lower

Load Compartment Side Trim
Rear Closure Interior Trim Panel

Cargo Retention
"^TlWlviate^OEM
Load Compartment Floor Trim

Pillar Trim Upper

Load Compartment Transverse Trim

Mass-Reduction Ideas
Selected for Detail
Evaluation


PolyOne® Class "A"
Surfaces
MuCell® Non-Class "A"
Surfaces
PolyOne® Class "A"
Surfaces
MuCell® Non-Class "A"
Surfaces
PolyOne® Class "A"
Surfaces
MuCell® Non-Class "A"
Surfaces
PolyOne® Class "A"
Surfaces
MuCell® Non-Class "A"
Surfaces
PolyOne® Class "A"
Surfaces
MuCell® Non-Class "A"
Surfaces
PolyOne® Class "A"
Surfaces
MuCell® Non-Class "A"
Surfaces
PolyOne® Class "A"
Surfaces
MuCell® Non-Class "A"
Surfaces
PolyOne® Class "A"
Surfaces
MuCell® Non-Class "A"
Surfaces
Replace heavy pull cover
with pull screen
Reduce total weight
PolyOne® Class "A"
Surfaces
MuCell® Non-Class "A"
Surfaces
PolyOne® Class "A"
Surfaces
MuCell® Non-Class "A"
Surfaces
PolyOne® Class "A"
Surfaces
MuCell® Non-Class "A"
Surfaces
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 349

Table F.4B-4: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
F.4B.1.5   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates

Table F.4B-5 shows the 8.924kg weight and $37.72 cost reductions per sub-subsystem.
In this  Interior Trim and  Ornamentation subsystem, Polyone®  used on all  of the
subsystems Class "A" surface interior trim is 4.18kg of the total weight savings and $7.21
cost savings. MuCell® used on all non-Class "A" surface trim provides 1.31kg of the
total weight savings and $2.96 of the cost savings. The 10% plastic mass reduction in the
parts is replaced with a chemical foaming agent (CFA) or Nitrogen gas, which adds to a
faster cycle time and a lower press tonnage for the weight and cost reductions. The lighter
cargo cover provides  2.62kg of the total weight savings and  $25.50 of the cost savings.
Reducing the floor mat carpet fiber weight from 22oz to 14oz  is .81kg for the total weight
saved and $2.05 of the total cost.

g
sa
CD
~Q3
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03


Subsystem
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05


Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15


Description
Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Main Floor Trim
NVH Pads
Headliner Assembly
Sun Visors
Front RH & LH Door Trim Panel
Rear RH & LH Door Trim Panel
Pillar Trim Lower
Load Compartment Side Trim
Rear Closure Interior Trim Panel
Cargo Retention
Floor Mats - OEM
Load Compartment Floor Trim
Pillar Trim Upper
Load Compartment Transverse Trim
Carpet Support


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select

A

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
__A__
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)

0.075
0.000
0.010
0.067
0.726
0.689
0.289
3.842
0.027
0.161
0.809
1.077
0.275
0.858
0.021
8.924
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
n QII
* (2)

$0.26
$0.00
$0.17
$0.19
$1.31
$1.41
$0.54
$27.15
$0.12
$0.64
$2.05
$2.05
$0.58
$1.13
__J9JLL_
$37.72
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg

$3.44
$0.00
$17.30
$2.88
$1.80
$2.05
$1.87
$7.07
$4.33
$4.01
$2.53
$1.90
$2.13
$1.31
$5.15
$4.23
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"

1.27%
0.00%
0.18%
6.60%
10.71%
10.30%
19.90%
34.68%
9.93%
9.99%
11.95%
20.00%
15.65%
16.77%
5.33%

13.69%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.04%
0.04%
0.02%
0.22%
0.00%
0.01%
0.05%
0.06%
0.02%
0.05%
0.00%

0.52%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 350

     Table F.4B-5: Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Interior Trim and
                             Ornamentation Subsystem.
     F.4B.2  Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)

F.4B.2.1  Subsystem Content Overview

As Table F.4B-6 shows, the Sound and Heat Control subsystem (Body) includes the Heat
Insulation Shields - Engine Bay, Noise Insulation - Engine Bay, and Engine Compartment
Trim sub-subsystems.
CO
><
(/)
1— 1-
CD

03
03
03
03





Subsystem

06
06
06
06





Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
03





Description

Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)
Heat Insulation Shields - Engine Bay
Noise Insulation, Engine Bay
Engine Compartment Trim

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


2.553
0.421
1.528

4.502
220.604
1711
2.04%
0.26%
  Figure F.4B-6: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Sound and Heat Control Subsystem
                                      (Body)
F.4B.2.2  Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

Due to the large amounts of heat given off by the engine, heat shields are used to protect
components and bodywork from  heat  damage.  Along with protection, effective heat
shields  can provide  a  performance  benefit  by reducing  under-hood  temperatures,
therefore reducing  the air intake temperatures.  There are two main types of automotive
heat shields: rigid  and flexible. The rigid heat shields, once made from solid  steel, are
now often  made from aluminum.  Some high-end rigid heat shields are made out of
aluminum  sheet or  other  composites,  with a thermal barrier, to  improve  the heat
insulation. A flexible heat  shielding is normally made from thin aluminum foils, sold
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 351

either flat or in a roll, and is  formed at installation. High-performance, flexible heat
shields sometimes include extras, such as insulation. Image F.4B-2 shows the under-hood
heat and engine shields of the Toyota Venza.
                   Image F.4B-2: Toyota Venza Heat and Engine Shields

                                 (Source: FEV Photo)
F.4B.2.3  Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Mass reduction industry trends on the heat shields show using a high-temperature plastic
incorporating the MuCell® foaming process and engineering geared for this  process
reduce the weight by up to  30%. Noise shields vary from two layers of perforated metal
with high-temperature foam in between, to a very dense  tar-like substance between the
layers of body metal.
F.4B.2.4  Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table  F.4B-7 shows the ideas  for mass reductions  on the Sound and Heat  Control
subsystem (Body). Reductions were made on the heat shields/engine compartment trim,
but none on the noise shields.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 352
Component/Assembly
Interior trim with non-
class "A" surface
Mass-Reduction Idea
MuCell® gas foaming
process
Estimated Impact j
10% Mass |
Reduction !
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Added capital equip., faster cycle time,
lower cost
Table F.4B-7: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Sound and Heat
                              Control Subsystem (Body)
F.4B.2.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table  F.4B-8 shows the weight deduction idea used for the  Sound and Heat Control
Subsystem (Body) is based on the MuCell® foaming process for injection molded parts.


tp
CO
CD"
3


03
03


CO
o-
co
><
CO
CD


06
06
ro

a~
r'o
c
o-
co
•35
CD"
3

00
03



Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description



Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)
Engine Compartment Trim


Mass-Reduction Ideas
Selected for Detail
Evaluation



MuCell® Non-Class "A"
Surfaces
   Table F.4B-8: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)
F.4B.2.6  Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates

Table F.4B-9 shows the .268kg weight and the $.38 cost reductions per sub-subsystem.
Using MuCell® on the Engine Compartment Trim sub-subsystem is 100% of the weight
and cost savings. As stated in the Interior section, the reduction of the 10% plastic mass in
the parts is replaced with a chemical foaming agent or Nitrogen gas, adding to a  faster
cycle time and lower press tonnage for the weight and cost reductions.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 353

CO
C£
CD"
3

03
03
03
03


Subsystem

06
06
06
06


Sub- Subsystem

00
01
02
03


Description

Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)
Heat Insulation Shields - Engine Bay
Noise Insulation, Engine Bay
Engine Compartment Trim


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A

A
Mass
Reduction
"k9" d)


0.000
0.000
0.268

0.268
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
IIQII
* (2)


$0.00
$0.00
$0.38

$0.38
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$0.00
$0.00
$1.40

$1.40
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.00%
0.00%
17.54%

5.95%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.00%
0.00%
0.02%

0.02%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

   Table F.4B-9: Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Sound and Heat Control
                                   Subsystem (Body)
     F.4B.3  Sealing Subsystem

F.4B.3.1   Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.4B-10 displays what is  included in the  Sealing subsystem: Front Side Door
Dynamic  Weatherstrip, Static Sealing,  Rear  Side  Door  Dynamic Weatherstrip, Hood
Dynamic Weatherstrip, and Fender Seals sub-subsystems.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 354

CO
of
3


03
03
03
03
03
03






CO
^.
1
0)
3

07
07
07
07
07
07






CO
CO
c
sr

CD"

00
01
02
03
04
05








Description



Sealing Subsystem
Front Side Door Dynamic Weatherstrip
Static Sealing
Rear Side Door Dynamic Weatherstrip
Hood Dynamic Weatherstrip
Fender Seals

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


1.709
4.792
1.427
0.124
0.175

8.226
220.604
1711
3.73%
0.48%
          Table F.4B-10: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Sealing Subsystem
F.4B.3.2  Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
                                                  v
The  Venza has typical sealing/weather-stripping.  Automotive sealing/weather-stripping
must endure extreme hot and cold temperatures, be resistant to automotive liquids such as
oil, gasoline, and particularly windshield washer fluid, and must resist years of full sun
exposure. Automotive sealing/weather-stripping is commonly made of EPDM, TPE, TPO
polymers. Image F.4B-3 shows the Toyota Venza's door weather stripping
-------
                                                      Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                   March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 355
                  Image F.4B-3: Toyota Venza Door Weather Stripping

                                (Source: FEV Photo)
F.4B.3.3  Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Mass reduction industry trends for sealing/weather-stripping show that TPE-v or
TPV thermoplastic  polyurethanes, thermoplastic copolyester and thermoplastic
polyamides can be used to replace EDPM. These materials are 10 to 25% lighter.
F.4B.3.4  Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

     Table F.4B-11 contains the ideas considered for mass reductions on the Sealing subsystem.
-------
                                                                      Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                                            Page 356
C£mpon£n^^
Front Side Door
Dynamic Weatherstrip
Static Sealing
Rear Side Door Dynamic
____Weatherstrip 	
Hood Dynamic
™™™™™Yy!§§SHr§SiEL™™™_,
Fender Seals
Use TPV
Use TPV
Use TPV
Use TPV
Use TPV
Estimated Impact
25% Mass
Reduction
25% Mass
Reduction
25% Mass
Reduction
25% Mass
Reduction
25% Mass
Reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Lower cost for material and processing
Lower cost for material and processing
Lower cost for material and processing
Lower cost for material and processing
Lower cost for material and processing
     Table F.4B-11: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Sealing
                                              Subsystem
F.4B.3.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Jyco thermoplastic vulcanizates (TPV) weather-stripping materials and technologies were
selected in consideration of weight savings and cost savings with a lighter,  greener, cost
effective product.
A new, better material: TPV. Jyco was founded by pioneers of seal design
and processing technologies that have become industry standards. The
Team was a multi year recipient of the GM Supplier of the Year Award, as
well as top technology awards from other Fortune 50 industry leaders. Jyco
was founded on the potential of a relative new material to weathersealing, a
plastic-rubber compound known as thermoplastic vulcanizates (TPV). This
material promised advantages over traditional thermoset rubbers: processing
with the ease and economies of plastic, reducing weight and costs, yet
performing as well or better than the EPDM rubber  that dominated the
weather sealing business. In 2000, TPV seals were being used by several
Japanese and European  OEMs, but the compound was virtually unknown to
the North American automotive industry. From its inception, Jyco structured
its manufacturing operations around state-of-the-art TPV processing
equipment, By doing so. they avoided the capital burden, transitional pains,
and retooling that other sealing suppliers face in adapting EPDM systems to
processing TPV.


Greener seals: Unlike EPDM, TPV is recyclable. Production scrap can be
directly reprocessed. The manufacturing process itself is free of VOCs and
particulate emissions characteristic of EPDM processing.
Nimbleness: As a lean, technology-driven company with few layers at the
top end - general managers and department heads report directly to the
CEO and COO - Jyco's nimble structure has always allowed the company to
incorporate process improvements, respond to market changes, and develop
new products with exceptional speed.
-------
                                                                                 Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                                                          Page 357
Lead by Jyco. TPV sealing systems quickly gained the interest of North American OEMs.
Through innovations such as their own JyRex'" TPV compound, product design and foam
extrusions. Jyco's annual revenues increased an average of 55% per year between 2001  and
2007. Jyco had become a global leader in TPV sealing technology for the automotive, with
joint venture operations in China, Europe and Latin America, The global automotive industry
recognized Jyco as the only TPV supplier TS.'ISO/16949/9000 certified for design, testing and
manufacturing, as well as for innovations such as their JyGreen"1-' technology for recycling
rubber automobile tires into high performance TPV sealing system. The Society of Plastics
Engineers presented Jyco with their 2004 Environmental Innovation of the Year award. The
Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters honored Jyco with the "Canadian Automotive Supplier
Innovation" award in 2005.  Frost & Sullivan has named JYCO the receipent of the 2009
North American Technology Innovation  of the Year Award for Automotive Sealing
Technologies.
                                                   TPV VI EPDM
                                            MANUFACTURING PROCESS FLOW
                                                           •Energy Usage
                                                           -TO: 80NVA
                                                           •El-uu 250 hVA
                                                           •Emissions into Environment
                                                           -TO, No VOCs* & low carbon dioxide
                                                               VOC* & higher carbon dioxide
                                                               Organ* Compound
                                                                                        •Material Movements
                                                                                        -TPV: 290 ft
                                                                                        -EPDW 930 ft

                                                                                        •Manufacturing Time
                                                                                        -TPV < 1 Hour
                                                                                        -EPOM: > 1 Day

                                                                                        •MoW Time
                                                                                        -nv 30 SBC
                                                                                        -EPDU 120 sec
  V  :  A
 EPDM
                                                                 TPV -GREEN MANUFACTURING PROCESS & PRODUCTS
V»A  ;
t
                                                 tr
                                                                                     c
                                                                                                 >V
                        The global leader in TPV solutions for automotive sealing systems.
                                                                                    (OJYCO
                                       Figure F.4B-2: Jyco Presentation

                                   (Allpresentation information supplied by Jyco)
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 358

£>
CO
CD"
3

~03
03
03
03
03
03

CO
o-
•£
CO
5T
3

1J7
05
05
05
05
05
CO
o-
co
o-
CO
a
CD
3
w
01
02
03
04
05


Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description


Sealing Subsystem
Front Side Door Dynamic Weatherstrip
Static Sealing
Rear Side Door Dynamic Weatherstrip
Hood Dynamic Weatherstrip
Fender Seals

Mass-Reduction Ideas
Selected for Detail
Evaluation

	
Use TPV
Use TPV
Use TPV
Use TPV
Use TPV
           Table F.4B-12: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Sealing Subsystem
F.4B.3.6  Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates

Table F.4B-13 shows the 2.029kg weight and  the $15.70  cost  reductions  per sub-
subsystem. Using  the Jyco TPV material and process provided 100% of the weight and
cost savings per the Sealing subsystem.
^^^
V)
1
CD
3

03
03
03
03
03
03


Subsystem

07
07
07
07
07
07


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
03
04
05


Description

Sealing Subsystem
Front Side Door Dynamic Weatherstrip
Static Sealing
Rear Side Door Dynamic Weatherstrip
Hood Dynamic Weatherstrip
Fender Seals


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A
A
A
A
A

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


0.427
1.198
0.356
0.030
0.018

2.029
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
IIQII
* (2)


$4.21
$7.17
$3.75
$0.29
$0.29

$15.70
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$9.85
$5.98
$10.53
$9.44
$16.36

$7.74
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


25.00%
25.00%
24.95%
24.54%
10.13%

24.67%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.02%
0.07%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%

0.12%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 359

     Table F.4B-13: Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Sealing Subsystem
     F.4B.4  Seating Subsystem

F.4B.4.1  Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.4B-14 shows included in the Seating subsystem are the Front Drivers Seat, Front
Passengers  Seat, Rear 60% Seat, and Rear 40% Seat sub-subsystems.

CO
-<
(/)
1— 1-
CD



03
03
03
03
03





CO
c
ST
><
en
CD
3

10
10
10
10
10





CO
O"
CO
5T
><
w
i— i-
CD

00
01
02
03
04







Description



Seating Subsystem
Frt Drivers Seat
Frt Passenger Seat
Rear 60% Seat
JRearj4pj&jE^^ ___________
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


26.907
22.754
26.481
.._JM3L_,
92.548
220.604
1711
41.95%
5.41%
         Table F.4B-14: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Seating Subsystem
F.4B.4.2  Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Venza front and rear seat frames are a complex array of stamped and welded parts to
construct the back and bottom frames for all four seat groups. The foam is then placed on
the back and bottom frames over steel springs. The covering is then added over the foam.
The covering can be made from number of different materials: cloth, leather, or a blend.
The Images F.4B-4 through F.4B-10 show the seat and seat frames for the Toyota Venza.
-------
                                                     Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                   March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 360
                      Image F.4B-4: Front Seat Frame

                            (Source: FEV Photo)
Image F.4B-5: Front Passenger Seat  Image F.4B-6: Front Passenger Seat Frame

                                        (without tracks and active head rest)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 361
                               (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
                                                              Seat "split" line
                         Image F.4B-7: Rear 60% & 40% Seat
                                 (Source: FEV Photo)

The rear seat is split into two parts: the 60% portion is split to include the center arm rest
section while the 40% portion composes the remainder of the  rear seat.

The 40% rear seat frame  (Image F.4B-8)  shows the two independent bottom frames.
When the fold flat seat back is moved down the bottom seat frame moves outward, this is
to give the seat back more room to fold flat. Also in Image F.4B-9 is the bottom  frame2
removed from the bottom frame 1.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 362
                          Image F.4B-8: Rear 40% Seat Frame
                                  (Source: FEV Photo)
                 Image F.4B--9: Bottom pivot frame for the rear 60% seat;
                          both 40% & 60% have these frames
                                  (Source: FEV Photo)
                       Image F.4B-10: Rear 60% seat back frame
                                 (Source: FEV Photo)

With all of the stampings and weldings in the front and rear seat frames, the weight can
be considerable, not counting the tooling and capital cost that goes with them. This is why
a Thixomolding® one-piece magnesium bottom or back  frame can save a considerable
amount of  money in  piece  price.  The  example used for the  calculations  was  a
Thixomolded Lexus seat back
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 363
F.4B.4.3  Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
A lot of attention is placed on the automobile seats for the weight that they contribute to
the  overall vehicle weight, especially the high weight of the frames.  In today's market,
more and more emphasis  is placed on reducing  seat weight. Therefore, many different
types of seat frame constructions are  emerging, such as those  of high-strength steel,
carbon fiber, plastics, cast magnesium, and aluminum.
F.4B.4.4  Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Reviewing the best option for removing seat frame mass, an in-depth study has to be done
looking at current materials and processes. Plastic is less weight and cost, but unproven
for durability, safety, and overall performance. Welded stamped and steel tube is proven,
and is today's market mainstay.  While it is lower in cost,  it is not the  best option for
reducing weight. Welded  stamped  aluminum  provides  a  good weight  savings,  but
aluminum  is   expensive  in  comparison  to  alternative  material  selections  and
manufacturing costs. Cast aluminum offers the weight savings again, but not the best cost
savings-to-weight ratio.  Carbon fiber offers the best weight savings, but its availability
and cost of material and manufacturing put this technology out of reach for the near-term.
Cast magnesium offers  a proven track record for durability and safety  as well as cost
savings. A new technology from Thixomat® for injection molding of magnesium stands
out as a preferred manufacturing process.

Other ideas for seat weight reductions include using different types of foam for the seats,
such  as  soy or pine wood.  After reviewing  these types  of foam, however, it  was
determined that  they did not provide a substantial weight  savings. They also are  not
readily available for mass production. The  costs of these materials are  also very high.
Their manufacturing process may actually add to greenhouse gas emissions, as well as
being non-recyclable. Different types of manufacturing and welding were looked at as
well for reducing weight and cost.

When analyzing the various options for seat mass reduction, the same solution was used
for the front seat backs  and seat bottoms: using  the Thixomolded® Magnesium process.
This process was also used for the 60/40 rear seat backs. The rear seat bottom solution
that  provided the  best cost  to  weight improvement  came from  The  Woodbridge
Company®.  Woodbridge® has developed an EPP foam process and seat design that was
selected based on weight reduction and manufacturing cost.

Recliner mechanisms contribute a considerable amount of weight to the overall seat
weight total. These were resized using the Lear EVO™ Mini recliner  for all seats to
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 364


reflect the overall reduction in the weight of the seat backs. Table F.4B-15 shows some
of the ideas considered.
Component/Assembly
Frt Seat Bottom & Back
Frames
Frt Seat Bottom & Back
Frames
Frt Seat Bottom & Back
Frames
Frt Seat Bottom & Back
Frames
Frt Seat Bottom & Back
Frames
Frt Seat Bottom & Back
Frames
Rear 60/40 Back
Frames
Bottom & Back Frames
Bottom & Back Frames
Bottom & Back Frames
Air Bag Sensor
Foam Cushions
Foam Cushions
Foam Cushions
Brkts, Armrest RR Seat
All plastic parts
All plastic parts
Mass-Reduction Idea
Composite Seat Frame
((Carbon))
Cast aluminum seat frames
Hydro-form seat frame
tubes
Plastic
Cast Mag
Reduce size of recliner
mechanism using Lear
EVO™ Mini Recliner
Stamped AL-6022-T4
Laser/Resistance/Friction
stir weld instead of mig__
Use Velcro to attach fabric
to frame
Eliminate center cross rod
on lower 60% frame
Replace strain gauges with
_jres^i£e^ejTsjtJvejT]at__
Use pine wood based foam
	
Use soy based foam
Use NuBax® foam insert
Make out of ABS
Use MuCell® for non-class
A surface
Use Polyone® for class A
surface
Estimated Impact
20 to 30% Mass
Reduction
10 to 20% Mass
Reduction
10 to 20% Mass
Reduction
20 to 30% Mass
Reduction
20 to 30% Mass
Reduction
35% Mass
Reduction
10 to 20% Mass
^™™™J5^HEy°Jl™™™™,
2 to 5% Mass
Reduction
NA
NA
5 to 10% Mass
Reduction
5 to 10% Mass
Reduction
5 to 10% Mass
Reduction
5 to 10% Mass
___Red^ictoT___
5 to 10% Mass
Reduction
10% Mass
Reduction
10% Mass
Reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Material not readily available and higher
cost for material
Higher material and processing costs
Higher processing and capital costs
Warranty and safety issues
High material cost and porosity issues
Higher cost than conventional recliners
high costs for tooling, processing and
material
Not enough weight save for capital and
process investment
No advantage
After review this was feasible
Not app. For weight distribution weight
calibration
Expensive and not avail.
Expensive and not avail.
Remove active head rest
No cost increase
No cost increase
No cost increase
    Table F.4B-15: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Seating
                                      Subsystem
F.4B.4.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.4B-16 contains the mass-reduction ideas selected for the Seating subsystem
-------
                                                 Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                March 30, 2012
                                                                    Page 365
CO
•35
5T
3
___
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
0^
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
_
03
03
03
03
03

Subsystem
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
JO.
10
10
10
Ji
10
10
10
10
_
10
10
10
10
10

Sub-Subsystem
00
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02^
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
_
03
03
03
03
03

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Seating Subsystem
Front Drivers Seat
Front Drivers Seat ((Seat Back & Seat Bottom))
Front Drivers Seat ((Seat Back & Seat Bottom))
Front Drivers Seat ((Seat Bottom))
Front Drivers Seat
Front Drivers Seat
Front Passenger Seat
Front Passenger Seat ((Seat Back & Seat Bottom))
Front Passenger Seat ((Seat Back & Seat Bottom))
Front Passenger Seat
Front Passenger Seat
Rear 60% Seat
Rear 60% Seat ((Seat Back & Seat Bottom))
Rear 60% Seat ((Seat Back))
Rear 60% Seat ((Seat Bottom))((Weight and cost w60%
seat))
Rear 60% Seat
Rear 60% Seat
Rear 40% Seat
Rear 40% Seat ((Seat Back & Seat Bottom))
Rear 40% Seat ((Seat Back))
Rear 40% Seat ((Seat Bottom))
Rear 40% Seat
Rear 40% Seat

Mass-Reduction Ideas
Selected for Detail
Evaluation
	
Thixomold® Mag Seat Back
& Bottom
LearEVO™ Mini Recliner
ProBax® Structural Foam
Insert
MuCell® Non-Class "A"
Surfaces
PolyOne® Class "A"
Surfaces
Thixomold® Mag Seat Back
& Bottom
LearEVO™ Mini Recliner
MuCell® Non-Class "A"
Surfaces
PolyOne® Class "A"
Surfaces

LearEVO™ Mini Recliner
Thixomold® Mag Seat Back
~^\ftfo^^
Foam
MuCell® Non-Class "A"
Surfaces
PolyOne® Class "A"
Surfaces
LearEVO™ Mini Recliner
Thixomold® Mag Seat Back
Woodbridge® PU/EPP
Foam
MuCell® Non-Class "A"
Surfaces
PolyOne® Class "A"
Surfaces

Table F.4B-16: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Seating Subsystem
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 366
Magnesium was chosen as the best option going forward in the  study, many tier one
suppliers use magnesium  in  seat frame  applications  and using magnesium is a well
accepted material for the front seats back and bottom frames. Magnesium  was also
selected for the back frame of the rear 60/40 seat. Magnesium is 75% lighter than steel
and 33% lighter than aluminum. Magnesium is the lightest structural material (1.8g/cm3).
Magnesium is the eighth most abundant element in the Earth's crust. The attributes behind
selecting Mg are:

   •  High impact resistance

   •  High strength-to-weight ratio

   •  Can be cast and molded to net shape

   •  Excellent dimensional stability/repeatability

   •  Abundant material supply

   .  100% recyclable

The Thixomolding® process of injection-molding magnesium provides reductions in cost
compared to magnesium die casting, and  the weight reduction gained by replacing steel
with magnesium make  it an attractive  option. Following are some  facts about the
Thixomolding® process.

   •  Thixomolding® is an environmentally friendly, high-speed, net-shape, semisolid,
      magnesium injection molding process;

   •  In a single step, the process transforms room-temperature magnesium chips, heated
      to a semi-solid slurry inside a barrel and screw, into precision-molded components;

   •  No  sintering or debinding steps  are  required  as in the MIM (metal injection
      molding) process to complete the densification process;

   •  Thixomolded® components, after air cooling, are ready for trimming and assembly
      or secondary  operations;

   •  50% lower porosity than die  cast makes them good candidates for coating or
      plating without blistering or out gassing;

   •  Superior mechanical properties and faster cycle rates compared with die casting;

   •  EMI-RFI shielding;
-------
                                                   Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                 March 30, 2012
                                                                    Page 367

High strength-to-weight ratio;

Dent resistance and good machine ability;

Heat transfer capability;

No surface sinks at wall junctions;

Wide variety of surface finishes available;

Low draft (zero draft possible, 0.5° to 2° typical);

Environmentally friendly process with  foundry-free environment liquid-free - no
molten metal handling;

Excellent dimensional repeatability,  tight tolerances and the ability to mould  thin
walls;

Better ductility;

Longer  die life, due to lower temperature of material entering mould, and reduced
gate velocities;

Environmentally friendly production - worker safe and friendly, cooler work area,
no  global-warming  SF6  cover  gas, no dross  or  sludge (unlike  Mg foundry
operations);

Net or near net-shape parts with little, if any, machining;

No heat treatment required;

Higher metal yield, hence lower costs;

New part design,  consolidating  several parts  into  one  molding and integrating
multiple functions.
-------
                                                                    Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                                         Page 368
                                    Automate vacuum
                                    convoying system
    Mod
                   Non-
                   relurn
                   valve     \        \    Highspeed
              Sluny      Hsaier bands  Screw   injection system
rotary
drive
Foinieily pioducei! as stamped steel, this jtiototvpe
Thixomolded magnesium seat back measures 18" x 22
\-T and is contiasteil against a pan of plieis to give an
idea of ielaiive sue. Hy switching to Thixomolded mag-
nesium, weight was (educed appioximately 35 pei cent
to 2.2 kilos and paitsiequned foi the assembly weie cut
fioni 13 to 3. The finished paiI is as moulded, and has a
i-MI load stmigth of about 4500 Mm.
Manu'actur nc Method
Thixomolding
Foreign aluminum die caster
Domestic aluminum die caster
Zinc die caster
Relative Component Cost
100%
145%
172%
241%
                             Figure F.4B-3: Thixomolding® examples

                          (Allpresentation material supplied by Thixomolding®)

(Front seat specific) As part of the front seat frames weight reduction, the Lear EVO™
Mini Recliner were selected to replace the current Venza recliner mechanisms. The Lear
EVO™ provides 35% weight reduction and uses 50% less packaging space.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 369
          Image F.4B-11: Lear EVO® Recliner   Image F.4B-12: Toyota Venza recliner
                     (Source: Lear™ web site)        (Source: FEV Photo)
                                 o
LEAR.
CORPORATION
Also included was the ProBax® structural foam insert. This technology used in testing
with three global automotive OEMs allows for the removal of the active head rest as well
as the lumbar system. No change to the current fir and or function of the seat was made
using the ProBax foam insert. The  following are  other advantages to using the ProBax®
system:

   •  ProBax® requires no changes to the existing seat frame, vehicle homologation, or
      occupant restraint systems;

   •  ProBax® seating concept tested and patented in 2001;

   •  Feasibility confirmed for principal production processes - molded foam,  foam in
      place, cut foam;

   •  Technology now available in automotive industry, U.K.  and U.S. contract seating
      (healthcare, corporate, educational) and private aircraft;

   •  First product launch - 2006MY Lotus Elise;
-------
                                                   Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                 March 30, 2012
                                                                     Page 370
                      Image F.4B-13: Lotus Elise Seat
                          (Source: Supplied by EPA)

Currently in testing with three global Automotive OEMs;

ProBax® insert supports ischial tuberosities to rotate occupant pelvis forward;

Support occupant skeletal structure - not musculature;

Prevent slumped posture (kyphotic spine);

Promote correct posture (lordotic spine);

Increase blood flow with  less muscle fatigue:  See ProBax  web  site  for
documentation.
ProBax Foam insert
Without ProBax
With ProBax
   ProBax® reduces distance from cranium to head restraint by improving posture
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 371
                           Figure F.4B-4: ProBax® System
              (All ProBax® presentation material and information provided by ProBax®)



      Removal / reduction of lumbar and active head rest mechanisms
                  Image F.4B-14:Top of Toyota Venza Active Head Rest

                       Image F.4B-15: Bottom of Toyota Venza Active Head Rest
              (Source: FEV Photo)                        (Source: FEVPhoto)
      Removal of additional components

      Reduction in production time

      Reduction of warranty costs

      Reduction in vehicle weight

      Overall weight reduction from the Lotus Elise seat resulting from introduction of
      ProBax®  technology .8kg

      This equals 15-20$ per vehicle savings over all
(Rear seat specific) Looking at the back seat frame bottom, The Woodbridge Group™ has
a PU/EPP foam process that was reviewed for weight and manufacturing. This process
removes the  welded steel  frame and replaces  it with a PU/EPP  foam  structure. The
welded  steel frame structure that was in the Toyota Venza was a carry over seat from the
Toyota  Highlander. Even though the carry over of the seat saved Toyota in  a unique
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 372

design and manufacturing costs it was very heavy and not designed for the Toyota Venza
application.
[yyj THE WOODBRIDGE GROUP
Mastering Science To Serve Our Customers
    The StructureLite Concept
Traditional Seat Cushion Design
StructureLite Seat Cushion Design
                          Eliminate Heavy Fabricated
                                Steel Frame

                           Eliminate Hog Ring Trim
                                  Assembly

                         Insert Cored Structural Foam
                                   Frame

                          20% - 40% Weight Savings

                           Reduced Assembly Cost
-------
Manufacturing  Process
       1. MOLD STRUCTURELITE USING EXPANDED
          BEAD STEAM CHEST PROCESS
      S. REMOVE ASSEMBLY
           FROM TOOL
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 373
2. ASSEMBLE ATTACHMENTS
  3. INSERT STRUCTURELITE INTO
   UDOF POLYURETHANE TOOL*
                                                 4. POUR POLYURETHANE
                                                   CLOSE TOOL
                                                   CURE POLYURETHANE ON
                                                   STANDARD RACETRACK LINE
                                     Examples
              Figure F.4B-5:The Woodbridge Group™ Concept and Process
           (Allpresentation material and information provided by The Woodbridge Group™)

 Economics

 •   Reduced trim assembly labor
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 374

   •  No tooling required for trim assembly

   •  Eliminate steel welding and fixtures

   •  BIW savings from integration of anti-sub feature


   Market Examples

   •  Kia TF  30% weight save

   •  Chevy Impala weight save 4kg
                                            ^^^^
   •  Porsche Cayenne weight save 10.5kg


   Conclusion

   •  Structural foam concept results in weight savings of 20% - 40%

   •  System designed to pass FMVSS 207 requirements

   •  Engineered for comfort

   •  Overall  system cost savings

   •  Several variants currently in production


F.4B.4.6  Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates

Table F.4B-17 shows the 22.908kg weight and $83.44 cost reductions per sub-subsystem.


Front Drivers Seat

Back Frame

For  the  front  drivers seat back frame  going from welded  steel construction to a
Thixomolded magnesium injected frame, the weight savings was 1.313kg. The frame,
however, needed new upper recliner mounting brackets welded to the new recliners and
bolted to the magnesium back frame. This added .749kg back in, for a final welded steel-
to-a-Thixomolded injection magnesium back frame total weight savings of .563kg. The
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 375

cost for going to the Thixomolded magnesium frame and adding in the brackets is an
increase of $10.07.
Bottom Frame

The addition of the NuBax foam insert to the bottom frame is a 2.158kg weight savings
due to the ability to remove the active head rest assembly and the lumbar system.  This
also  gives  a  cost decrease of $24.57. Although  the  NuBax systems data show the
possibility and potential of removing the active head rest and lumbar systems, it has not
yet been done in production.

The bottom frame going from a welded steel construction to a Thixomolded injection
molded magnesium frame is a 2.213kg decrease in weight. Plus, with the new Lear EVO
recliners, another .296kg savings can be found.

The bottom recliner brackets, as with the back frame, will have to be added  at a .749kg
increase,  for a total  decrease in weight  for the bottom  seat frame of 1.76kg and a cost
increase of $5.30
Front Drivers Seat Trim

The front seat trim also used the PolyOne for Class "A" surfaces (.206kg/$.38 cost and
weight savings) and MuCell® for non-Class "A" surfaces (.028kg/$.15 weight and cost
savings)  for a total front driver seat weight savings of 4.715kg and a  cost savings  of
$9.73.
Front Passenger Seat

Back Frame

For the front passenger seat back frame,  going from welded  steel construction to a
Thixomolded magnesium injected frame, the weight savings was 1.313kg. The frame,
however, needed new upper recliner mounting brackets welded to the new recliners and
bolted to the magnesium back frame. This added .749kg back in. For a welded steel to a
Thixomolded injection magnesium back frame total weight savings of .564kg. The cost
for going to the Thixomolded magnesium frame and adding in the brackets is a $10.06
cost increase.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 376
Bottom Frame

The addition of the NuBax foam insert to the bottom frame is a 1.349kg weight savings
due to the ability to remove the active head rest assembly. This also is a cost decrease of
$16.21. Although the NuBax systems data shows the possibility and potential of removing
the active head rest system, it has not yet been done in production.

The bottom frame, going from a welded steel  construction to a Thixomolded  injection
molded magnesium frame, is a 2.006kg decrease in weight. Plus, with the new Lear EVO
recliners, another .252kg savings can be found.

The bottom recliner brackets,  as with the back frame,  will have to be added at  a .749kg
increase, for a total decrease in weight for the bottom seat frame of 1.509kg - but with a
cost increase of $10.19. The cost increase is larger than the front driver seat due to more
magnesium used for the bottom frame.
Front passenger seat trim

The front passenger seat trim also used the PolyOne for Class "A" surfaces (.200kg/$.48
weight and cost savings) and MuCell for non-Class "A" surfaces (.018kg/$.062 weight
and cost savings) for a total front passenger seat weight savings of 3.638kg and a cost
increase of $3.49
Rear 60% Seat

Back Frame

For the rear 60%  seat portion back frame,  a welded steel construction changed to a
Thixomolded magnesium injected frame that will be bolted to the BIW and not to the rear
60% seat base and bottom, a weight savings of 3.622kg can be achieved. The arm rest
bracket was also changed  from a stamped steel bracket to  ABS plastic, with an added
30% volume of plastic for strength. The arm rest bracket is a non-critical load part with a
.439kg weight savings.

The  overall weight decrease/savings for  a welded steel back frame construction to a
Thixomolded injection magnesium back frame with an added weight decrease/savings  of
the arm rest bracket a total weight savings  of 4.061kg and a cost savings of $14.94 can be
achieved.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 377
Bottom & Base Frame

For the base and bottom frames to be calculated, the rear seat 40% and 60% base and
bottoms had to be added together. Using the Woodbridge Group™ PU/EPP foam process
(as shown in section 5.3B.4.5) the overall savings are 9.289kg weight and $67.28 cost.
Rear 60% seat trim

The rear 60% seat trim also used the Polyone for Class "A" surfaces (.083kg/$.25 weight
and cost savings) and MuCell for non-Class "A" surfaces (.117kg/$.41 weight and cost
savings) for a total rear 60% seat and the 40% rear seat base and bottom weight savings
of 13.551kg and a cost savings of $82.87
Rear 40% Seat

Back Frame

For the rear seat 40% portion of the back frame, which is a welded steel construction,
being changed to a Thixomolded magnesium injected frame that will be bolted to the
BIW and not to the rear 40% seat base and bottom, the weight saved was 1.35kg with a
$4.94 cost increase.
Rear 40% seat trim

The rear 40% seat trim also used the PolyOne for Class "A" surfaces (.05kg/$.08 weight
and cost savings) and MuCell for non-class "A" surfaces (.089kg/$.302 weight and cost
savings) for a total rear 40% seat back and trim weight savings of 1.488kg and a cost
increase of $4.56.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 378

CO
1
CD
3
"03"
03
03
03

03




Subsystem
10
10
10
10

10




Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03

04




Description
Seating Subsystem
Seat Drivers Frt
Seat Passenger Frt
Seat Rear 60%
Seat Rear 40% ((Weight & Cost reduction of
40% seat base & bottom w/60% Seat, the weight
and cost save calculated here is for the rear 40%
seat back & trim only))



Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select

A
D
A

D


A

Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)

4.715
3.638
13.551

1.488


23.392
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
IIQII
* (2)
	
$9.73
-$3.49
$82.87

-$4.56


$84.55
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
	
$2.06
-$0.96
$6.12

-$3.06


$3.61
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
	
17.53%
15.99%
51.17%

9.07%


25.28%

Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
	
0.28%
0.21%
0.79%

0.09%


1.37%

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

     Table F.4B-17: Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Seating Subsystem
     F.4B.5  Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem

F.4B.5.1   Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.4B-19,  the Instrument Panel and Console subsystem has four sub-
subsystems  containing  mass.  The  primary ones  are the  Cross-Car Beam  (CCB),
Instrument Panel Main Molding, and Center Stack sub-subsystems. The CCB includes the
beam and all welded brackets. It serves as the primary mounting  structure for all
Instrument Panel sub-assemblies and modules like the HVAC Main Unit,  radio,  glove
box, center stack, and steering wheel. The Instrument Panel Main Molding  includes the
instrument panel trim and other plastic covers and structural  components that surround
the  dash.  The Center Stack  sub-subsystem is made up of the center console and center
stack (connects the IP to the center console).
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 379
V)
><
cn.
oT

03
03
03
03
03


Subsystem

12
12
12
12
12


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
03
06
18


Description

Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
Cross-Car Beam (IP) (CCB Beam and welded brackets)
Instrument Panel Main Molding
Applied Parts - (IP) (Access Panels)
Center Stack (Center Console)

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


10.366
11.838
0.008
10.476

32.688
220.604
1711
14.82%
1.91%
    Table F.4B-18: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Instrument Panel and Console
                                     Subsystem
F.4B.5.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza has a traditional steel CCB with welded brackets and fixtures as shown
in Image F.4B-16. The beam has two sections with different diameters. Components are
mostly welded together with some use of fasteners.
                      Image F.4B-16: Toyota Venza Cross-Car Beam
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 380
The Instrument Panel Base Dash,  shown in Image F.4B-17 and Image  F.4B-18,  is a
polypropylene and polyethylene talc-filled blend. There is a polyurethane foam (Image
F.4B-19) under the skin cover. The glove box assembly and all lower dash trim also make
up the Instrument Panel Main Molding sub-sub system. The majority of the glove box and
dash trim parts has a Class "A" surface finish and is either talc-filled polypropylene or
nylon.
                  Image F.4B-17: Top of Dash, IP Base with Skin Cover
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 381
                        Image F.4B-18: Bottom of Dash, IP Base
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
                  Image F.4B-19: Dash, IP Base with Skin Cover Removed
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
The  Center Stack sub-subsystem  of the  Instrument  Panel includes  the  entire Center
Console and the trim that connects the instrument panel to the console. The Center Stack
Trim includes several storage compartments, cup holders, and accessory power outlets.
The  Center Stack includes some  non-Class "A" parts  made  of ABS, but is mostly
composed of Class "A" surface parts made of talc-filled PP or nylon.
F.4B.5.3  Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

The  most notable opportunity for  light-weighting the Instrument Panel and  Console
subsystem is with the CCB. There are a variety of light-weighting technologies and ideas
being applied to CCBs throughout the  industry.  Traditionally, CCBs have been rolled
steel products, but this  is starting to transform. Mubea, Inc. is a company that specializes
in Tailor Rolled Products. They use specialty rolling equipment that varies the thickness
of a single piece so that thick sections are  only applied where  structurally necessary
(Figure F.4B-5). Other sections of the same  beam are manufactured to be thinner, thus
saving weight compared to a traditional CCB. Utilizing this technology  not only saves
weight, but the reduced raw  material cost will  offset the  additional processing cost,
resulting in a near cost-neutral exchange. Tailor Rolled Beams are  currently used on the
CCBs of BMW's 1, 3, 5, and 7 Series vehicles.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 382
             Figure F.4B-6: Illustration of Mubea's Tailor Rolled Blank Process
                 (Source: Mubea http://www.stahl.karosserie-netzwerk.info/59.htm)
Automakers have also begun  using  alternative materials on  cross-car beams. These
include  the use of both  aluminum  and magnesium. The McLaren  MP4-12C  uses
aluminum CCBs,  and  the Jaguar XKR, BMW X5, and BMW X6 all use magnesium.
Chrysler has also  embraced non-ferrous CCBs, using magnesium in the Dodge Caliber
and on numerous  Jeep models. The magnesium CCB from the  2010 Dodge Caliber 2.4
R/T is shown in Image F.4B-20. This magnesium beam differs significantly in design and
manufacturing process than the baseline Venza beam in Image F.4B-16. The magnesium
beam is a one-piece die casted component while the steel beam is a multi-piece rolled,
stamped, and welded assembly.

The Stolfig® Group in Europe conducted a comparison of three CCBs as shown in Image
F.4B-21. The weight savings associated with aluminum and magnesium beams compared
to steel  is  immediately apparent, but of course this mass reduction is not without a cost
penalty.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 383
                                 (a) Front View
                                 (b) Back View

           Image F.4B-20: Dodge Caliber Magnesium Cross-Car Beam

                                 (Source: A2macl
http://www.a2macl. com/A utoreverse/reversepart. asp ?productid= 150&clientid= 1 &producttype=2)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 384
                                             Material: Steel
                                             Thickness: 1.0 mm
                                             Mass: 8.54 kg
                                             Material:
                                             Aluminum
                                             Thickness: 1.5 mm
                                             Mass: 4.41 kg
                                             Material:
                                             Magnesium
                                             Thickness: 1.7mm
                                             Mass: 3.22kg
              Image F.4B-21: CCB Examples Compared by the Stolfig® Group
                (Source: Stolfig http.V/www.stolfig. com/lang/en/services/carbeam.php)
Concerning the plastic components that make up the IP Subsystem, the use of Trexel's
MuCell® technology is beginning to be used by Ford to reduce the weight of plastic parts.
Also, Fob/One's Chemical Foaming Agents (CFAs) are capable of reducing the mass of
plastic components while attempting to maintain a Class "A" surface finish.  See Section
5.3B. 1.1 of this report for more information on these technologies.

SABIC® is a materials supplier with much of their focus on plastics. They are one of the
largest plastics suppliers in the world and provided numerous mass reduction ideas across
all systems of the vehicle, one of which is the Instrument Panel subsystem.  SABIC's long
glass fiber polypropylene (LGF-PP), Stamax®, is a material used on instrument panels to
maintain rigidity requirements while also reducing weight. According to SABIC®, a mass
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 385

reduction of 30% is attainable as the use of LGF-PP allows the wall thickness of the
Instrument Panel Dash Base to be reduced to 2 mm (the thickness of the Venza IP  is 3
mm).  The  rigidity is maintained over  a wide temperature range. Instrument Panel
thicknesses as thin as 1.8 mm are currently in production. LGF-PP has a higher modulus
than talc-filled PP,  and  the  use of advanced engineering simulation  (Autodesk®
Moldflow® software) and FEA allow SABIC® to achieve such mass reduction.
F.4B.5.4  Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Ideas that were considered to reduce the Instrument Panel and Console subsystem mass
are compiled  in Table F.4B-20. For  the  CCB,  aluminum and magnesium  material
changes  were judged along with  Mubea's TRB technology. For the plastics parts,
Chemical Foaming Agents and MuCell® were options along with SABIC's Stamax® for
the Instrument Panel Dash.
Component/Assembly
Cross-Car Beam
Cross-Car Beam
Cross-Car Beam
Plastic Components
(non-Class A surface
finish)
Plastic Components
(Class A surface finish)
Instrument Panel Plastic
Core
Mass-Reduction Idea
Tailor Rolled Beam
Change material to
Aluminum
Change material to
Magnesium
MuCell®
PolyOne Chemical
Foaming Agent
SABIC's LGF-PP
(Stamax®)
Estimated Impact
10% mass reduction
30-50% mass
reduction
40-60% mass
reduction
10% mass reduction
10-20% mass
reduction
30% mass reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Low cost increase, in production on
BMW 1, 3, 5, & 7 Series
Moderately high cost, used in low volume
production on McLaren MP4-12C
High cost, used in high volume
production on Dodge Caliber, Jeep
Grand Cherokee, BMW X5 & X6
Low cost, MuCell used in high volume
production by Ford
Low cost, CFA for PP currently under test
for use in high volume production
vehicles
Moderately high cost, used on high
volume production vehicles
  Table F.4B-19: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Instrument
                            Panel and Console Subsystem
F.4B.5.5  Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The three sub-subsystems that mass reduction ideas were applied to are shown in Table
F.4B-20. Magnesium was selected to be used for the CCB. While high in material cost,
magnesium offers a substantial weight savings and, after evaluation, was favorable to the
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 386

aluminum CCB and Mubea's TRB process. Magnesium beams are also in current use by
multiple OEMs. The  multi-piece steel CCB was reduced to a two-component assembly
with the magnesium  beam.  The magnesium beam was manufactured using die  casting,
which  lends itself to component  integration.  The Tailor  Rolled Blank CCB  for this
particular vehicle did not result in a favorable dollar-per-kilogram ratio. For typical steel
CCBs,  Mubea's process is  competitive; however,  for  the  Toyota Venza,  Mubea
determined that there  were no potential weight savings without a significant cost penalty.

Some general  assumptions  were initially  applied to convert  the  CCB from  steel  to
magnesium.  In particular, the  gauge of the material was doubled to account for the
reduced strength magnesium exhibits compared to steel. Magnesium's yield strength is in
the 200-275 MPa range depending on the alloy used. A common steel used for a CCB is
HSLA  420,  which exhibits a  yield strength of around 420-550 MPa.  For the rough
assumptions in this analysis, the increase in thickness of the  magnesium CCB would
increase its moment  of inertia, thereby making up  for the relatively low strength  of
magnesium compared to steel. In  order to validate this, mathematical modeling would
need to be conducted  based on the testing requirements for the CCB. Such an engineering
analysis was beyond  the scope of this study. In light of this, the benchmarking results
were cross-referenced. The  Dodge Caliber's magnesium beam is 5.6 kg  and the BMW
X5's is 5.8 kg. In reality, the magnesium CCB will take a much different shape than the
baseline steel one as illustrated in the pictures in the previous sections. It was determined
that using the mass of existing magnesium CCBs would be a secure approach as opposed
to the mass that resulted using the thickness increase assumptions. Therefore, an average
of these two numbers was used for the Venza's redesigned CCB resulting in a final mass
of 5.7 kg, saving approximately 4 kg versus the baseline  steel beam. The magnesium
CCB was not considered in the NVH or crash analyses performed.

SABIC's Stamax® LGF-PP  was applied to the Dash Instrument Panel Base as it yielded a
30% weight reduction. MuCell® was used on eligible plastic parts that had a non-Class
"A" surface finish to reduce  the weight by 10%. Fob/One's CFAs were applied to eligible
plastic parts that had Class A surface finishes resulting in a 10% mass reduction per part.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 387
OT
*<
B)
0

03
03
03
03
03

| Subsystem

12
12
12
12
12

Sub-Subsystem

00
01
03
06
18

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
Cross-Car Beam (IP) (CCB Beam
and welded brackets)
Instrument Panel Main Molding
Applied Parts - (IP) (Access Panels)
Center Stack (Center Console)

Change CCB from steel to magnesium
SABIC's Stamax LGF-PP applied to Dash Core. MuCell® and
PolyOne CFA on non-Class A and Class A parts, respectively.
n/a
MuCell® and PolyOne CFA on non-Class A and Class A parts,
respectively.

  Table F.4B-20: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Instrument Panel and
                                Console Subsystem
                                                       ^^
F.4B.5.6  Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.4B-21  shows the weight savings for the ideas applied to the Instrument Panel
and Console Subsystem as well as their cost impact. As seen in the first line of this table,
the magnesium CCB generates a cost increase of $11.57 and saves approximately 4 kg.

The Instrument Panel Main Molding sub-subsystem includes the  Instrument Panel Dash
Base, to which the Stamax® LGF-PP was applied, and it accounted for 70% of the 1.627
kg weight saved. The remaining 30% of the mass reduction was reduced by applying
PolyOne's CFAs. The  Stamax LGF-PP raises  the cost of this sub-subsystem  by over
$3.30, but the cost is decreased  to  a $2.38 hit when the CFA is applied to the other
components in the sub-subsystem.

The Center Stack sub-subsystem resulted  in a cost savings because  only MuCell® and
PolyOne's CFAs were applied. Even though both of these technologies initially add cost,
the mass reduction from the parts  results in a lower material cost, which typically leads to
an overall cost savings. PolyOne's  CFAs contribute to 95% of the 0.728  kg weight
savings and to 90% of the $1.46 cost savings. The rest is accounted for by MuCell®.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 388

w
•<
2-
0
3

03
03
03
03
03


Subsystem

12
12
12
12
12


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
03
06
18


Description

Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
Cross-Car Beam (IP)
Instrument Panel Main Molding
Applied Parts - (IP) (Access Panels)
Center Stack (Center Console)


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


D
C

A

C
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (D


3.975
1.627
0.000
0.728

6.330
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 389
V)
><
cn.
oT

03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03


Subsystem

20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
03
06
08
10
13
14
15
18


Description

Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
Seat Belt Assembly Front Row
Passenger Airbag / Cover Unit
Restraint Electronics (Crash Sensor and Airbag Cables)
Seat Belts - Second Row
Front Side Airbag (Side Seat Airbags)
Deployable Roll Bar Systems (Air Curtains)
Inflatable Knee Bolster or Active Leg Protection (Driver Knee Airbag)
Tether Anchorages - Non Integrated
Steering Wheel Airbag

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


4.250
2.427
0.232
3.353
0.862
3.186
2.024
0.006
1.097

17.438
220.604
1711
7.90%
1.02%
    Table F.4B-22: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Occupant Restraining Device
                                    Subsystem
F.4B.6.2  Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The  Toyota Venza represents  a conservative  approach to the design  of the  airbag
modules. Steel is used for nearly all of the housings and brackets as shown for the
Passenger Side Airbag Housing  in Image  F.4B-22 and  Image F.4B-23. The  airbag
material itself is a standard nylon fabric (used on most airbags in the industry) and dual-
stage airbag inflators are  used (Image F.4B-24  and Image F.4B-25). As  a result of the
metal housings used in  the baseline  Steering  Wheel Airbag, numerous fasteners are
necessary to  assemble  components together as pointed out in Image F.4B-25. These
include screws, rivets, studs, nuts, and springs.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 390
    Image F.4B-22: Toyota Venza Passenger Side Airbag Housing (without airbag)
                             (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
     Image F.4B-23: Toyota Venza Passenger Side Airbag Housing (with airbag)
                             (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.4B-24: Toyota Venza Passenger Side Airbag Housing (rear view with inflator)
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 391
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Despite the numerous fastening commodity components in the Steering Wheel Airbag
(Image F.4B-25), it is initially a lightweight design. The main housing is die cast from
magnesium and is even lighter than many plastic housings.
                                                                    Spring Assembly
                                                                       (Qty:3)
    Image F.4B-25: Toyota Venza Steering Wheel Airbag Assembly, showing various fasteners
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
F.4B.6.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Plastic airbag housings are used on many high volume vehicle applications.  DSM
Engineering Plastics  is a  global plastics  supplier and  specializes in metal to plastic
replacements in automotive applications. Their Akulon® products, glass fiber reinforced
glass-filled polyamide, have been used on many driver and passenger air bag housings for
all of the  domestic OEMs over the last  10 years. An example of a steel to plastic airbag
housing is shown in  Image F.4B-25. As  seen, the design remains quite similar when
changed from a multi-piece  steel unit to a single-piece  injection-molded housing. This
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 392

allows for easy integration into an existing product line. Image F.4B-25, in fact, displays
the baseline Toyota Venza Passenger Side Airbag Housing next to  a rendering of a very
similar design when converted to plastic. This resemblance reinforces the applicability of
a plastic injection molded airbag for the Venza.
  Image F.4B-26: Passenger Side Airbag Housings, Fabricated Steel Assembly (left) and Injection
                             Molded Plastic Component (right)
                   (Source: Images Courtesy of DSMEngineering Plastics & Takata)
Image F.4B-27: Toyota Venza's Steel Airbag Housing (left) and Plastic Airbag Housing Rendering
                                         (right)
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 393
                            (Left Picture Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
                 (Right Picture Source: Photo Courtesy of DSMEngineering Plastics)
Takata Corporation, a leading global  supplier of automotive safety systems, provided
significant mass-reduction  ideas  for  the  airbag modules for this study.  The most
innovative of which was its Vacuum Folding Technology (VFT). VFT is a process that
allows the bags to be packed much more tightly than airbags traditionally have been by
pulling a vacuum during its packaging. The surrounding components (housings, covers,
etc.) can then be made smaller and, therefore, with lighter weight. A size reduction of 30-
60% is typically observed accompanied by a mass reduction of around 20-35%.  A size
comparison of a standard airbag module versus a VFT is illustrated in Image F.4B-28.
           Image F.4B-28: Standard Airbag Module (left) and VFT Module (right)
                             (Source: Photo Courtesy of Takata)
To keep the  airbag tightly packed in a low-pressure state,  it is sealed in a multi-layer
plastic foil as shown in Image F.4B-28. This foil is the only added component in a VFT
airbag module and weighs only a few grams.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 394
    Lower Foil
                                                            Highly  compressed
                                                            cushion pack
             Cushion
             Retention
             Ring
Upper Foil
                           Image F.4B-29: VFT Airbag Foil
                             (Source: Photo Courtesy ofTakata)
The VFT airbag meets all required FMVSS and other safety standards and won a Society
of Plastics Engineers award in 2010 and a Pace Award in the Process category for VFT in
April of 2011. This VFT technology has already been applied to the Ferrari 458 Italia and
McLaren MP4-12C (Image F.4B-30), which are both low-volume production vehicles. In
2012, a high-volume vehicle will be released utilizing Takata's VFT airbag.
   Image F.4B-30: VFT Airbag used in Ferrari 458 Italia (left) and McLaren MP4-12C (right)
                             (Source: Photo Courtesy ofTakata)
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 395
In addition to mass reduction, Takata's VFT airbag module also provides styling benefits
allowing the steering wheel designer more  freedom as the  airbag module decreases in
size. Smaller airbag modules may also allow for a possible standardization of hardware as
surrounding components can become more  common in size due to the now-predictable
size of a VFT airbag.

Takata shed light upon single-stage airbag inflators, which will likely replace dual-stage
inflators in the near future. Dual-stage inflators were used to vary the force and speed at
which the airbag deployed based on the size and orientation of the person in the seat. This
will no longer be necessary, however, as the airbags themselves are passively adapting to
the passenger allowing the inflators to revert to a smaller and lighter single-stage design
as shown in Image F.4B-31. The inflators shown are from the same vehicle generation
and application for the purposes of a direct and fair comparison. The dual-stage inflator in
picture (a) of Image  F.4B-30 weighs 415  grams compared to  340 grams, which is the
mass  of the single-stage inflator in picture (b). The diameter of each inflator is the same,
but the height of the single-stage is 6.8 mm less than the dual-stage.
                    (a) Dual-stage Inflator
(b) Single-stage Inflator
            Image F.4B-31: Comparison of Dual and Single-Stage Airbag Inflators
                             (Source: Photo Courtesy of Takata)
Takata has also been utilizing plastic airbag housings. They have worked with DSM
Engineering Plastics to use the 40% glass-filled  polyamide (as shown earlier for the
passenger airbag housing in Image F.4B-23 and Image F.4B-24) for steering wheel
airbag housings also. A high volume production example is shown in Image F.4B-32,
which is currently being produced for the Chevrolet Cruze. By going to a plastic housing,
assembly becomes less  complicated. A plastic housing can snap  to the mating plastic
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 396

cover eliminating the need for fastening components thus simplifying design, reducing
mass, and reducing cost.
             Image F.4B-32: Steering Wheel Airbag Housing for Chevrolet Cruze
                       (Source: Part Courtesy ofTakata, FEV, Inc. Photo)
F.4B.6.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Mass reduction  ideas  that  were  considered for the  Occupant  Restraining  Device
subsystem are shown in Table F.4B-23. Converting the Venza's  steel airbag housing
assemblies for the passenger side, driver's side knee, and steering wheel were all options
as proposed by  DSM.  Takata's  ideas  noted in the previous  section were also all
considered. PolyOne's Chemical Foaming Agent (reference Section 5.3B.1.1 for detailed
information) was  considered for the Driver's Side Knee Airbag Cover. Lotus Engineering
did not apply any light-weighting ideas to the safety systems. Note that the estimated
mass reduction percentages in  Table F.4B-23 are relative to the component(s) for that
line item, not relative to the entire airbag assembly.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 397
Component/Assembly
Passenger's Side Airbag
Housing
Driver's Side Knee
Airbag
Driver's Side Knee
Airbag Cover
Steering Wheel Airbag
Steering Wheel Airbag
Steering Wheel Airbag
Steering Wheel Airbag
Mass-Reduction Idea
Change from fabricated
steel assembly to single
piece injection molded
DSM Akulon part
Change from welded steel
assembly to single piece
injection molded DSM
Akulon part
Apply PolyOne CFA to
plastic cover
Use Takata's Vacuum
Folding Technology to
reduce size
Replace dual-stage inflator
with single-stage
Change from
magnesium/steel housing
to single piece injection
molded part
Replace complex spring
mechanism & bracket for
horn with singe trace horn
system
Estimated Impact
50% mass reduction
50% mass reduction
10% mass reduction
20 - 35% mass
reduction
20% mass reduction
5- 10% mass
reduction
80% mass reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Potential cost save, used on numerous
high volume production applications
Potential cost save, used on numerous
high volume production applications
Low cost, CFA for PP currently under test
for use in high volume production
vehicles
Moderately high cost, used on low
volume production Ferrari 458 Italia and
McLaren MP4-12C
To be used on 2013 model year car
according to Takata
Allows part integration and reduction in
fasteners, currently used in Chevrolet
Cruze
Reduces fasteners and other horn
bracket components, easily integrates
with plastic housing, in production on
multiple Nissan and Toyota models
   Table F.4B-23: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Occupant
                             Restraining Device Subsystem
F.4B.6.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

All ideas that were considered for weight savings for this subsystem from Table F.4B-23
were  applied as shown  in Table F.4B-24.  There were no ideas  for parts in the  sub-
subsystems, which contain an "n/a" designation.  Each of the ideas that were applied are
either being used in high-volume production currently or will be soon.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 398
OT
*<
B)
0

03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03

| Subsystem

20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

Sub-Subsystem

00
01
03
06
08
10
13
14
15
18

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
Seat Belt Assembly Front Row
Passenger Airbag / Cover Unit
Restraint Electronics (Crash Sensor
and Airbag Cables)
Seat Belts - Second Row
Front Side Airbag (Side Seat Airbags)
Deployable Roll Bar Systems (Air
Curtains)
Inflatable Knee Bolster or Active Leg
Protection (Driver Knee Airbag)
Tether Anchorages - Non Integrated
Steering Wheel Airbag

n/a
DSM's Akulon® (PA6) replaces steel for housing.
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
DSM's Akulon® (PA6) replaces steel for housing. PolyOne's
Chemical Foaming Agent applied in plastic cover.
n/a
Takata's VFT process used to decrease airbag packaging size
thereby allowing a size/mass reduction of surrounding
components. Use single-stage inflator instead of dual-stage.
Convert housing to DSM's Akulon® (PA6). Simplify horn
spring assembly.

  Table F.4B-24: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Occupant Restraining
                                 Device Subsystem
F.4B.6.6  Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

The estimated mass reduction and associated cost impacts are shown in Table F.4B-25
for the Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem.

The single idea in the Passenger Airbag/Cover Unit sub-subsystem was to replace the
multi-piece steel Passenger Side Airbag Housing with a one piece injection molded PA6-
GF40 part. This resulted in a 0.483 kg weight save at a $0.72 cost increase as shown in
the table.

The Inflatable  Knee  Bolster  sub-subsystem included  two mass reduction  ideas. The
Driver's Side Knee Airbag Housing was converted to  plastic and a Chemical Foaming
Agent was applied to its  already plastic cover. The mass reduction due to the steel to
plastic housing conversion accounts for 95% of the 0.377 kg saved and increased the cost
by $0.47. Applying the CFA reduced the cost by $0.06  resulting in an overall $0.41 cost
hit for this sub-subsystem.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 399

All of the modifications imposed on the Steering Wheel Airbag saved 0.2 kg and caused
an overall cost increase of $1.75 for the sub-subsystem as seen in the last line of Table
F.4B-25. There were four separate ideas  applied to the Steering Wheel Airbag. The
breakdown on a percentage basis of how much each contributed to the 0.2 kg savings is
shown in Figure F.4B-6.
              Single Trace Horn
                   29%
                                                       Inflator Down-size
                  Plastic Housing                               41%
                      20%

            Figure F.4B-6: Breakdown of Steering Wheel Airbag Mass Reductions
It should be noted that the Vacuum Folding Technology applied to the Steering Wheel
Airbag can also be applied to other airbag modules throughout the vehicle and will likely
be done so on future  vehicles although it  is not currently in production and was  not
performed in this study.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 400

w
•<
2-
0
3

03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03


Subsystem

20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
03
06
08
10
13
14
15
18


Description

Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
Seat Belt Assembly Front Row
Passenger Airbag / Cover Unit
Restraint Electronics (Crash Sensor and Airbag
Cables)
Seat Belts - Second Row
Front Side Airbag (Side Seat Airbags)
Deployable Roll Bar Systems (Air Curtains)
Inflatable Knee Bolster or Active Leg Protection
(Driver Knee Airbag)
Tether Anchorages - Non Integrated
Steering Wheel Airbag


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select



C




C

X

D
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (D


0.000
0.483
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.377
0.000
0.200

1.060
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 401
V)
><
cn.
oT
3

03
03
03
03
03


Subsystem

00
08
08
08
08


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
04
07


Description

Body System (Group -C-)
Exterior Trim and Ornamentation
Rear View Mirrors
Front End Modules
Rear End Modules

Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsystem
Mass
"kg"


13.383
2.760
5.033
5.390

26.566
1711
1.55%
            Table F.4C-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Body System Group C
The main contributor to the mass reduction and cost savings was the Exterior Trim and
Ornamentation subsystem, with the front and rear fascias attributing nearly all savings for
the Body System Group C.

•2
1
3

03
03
03
03
03


Subsystem

00
08
08
08
08


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
04
07


Description

Body System (Group -C-)
Exterior Trim and Ornamentation
Rear View Mirrors
Front End Modules
Rear End Modules


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A
A
A
A

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg"(D


1.147
0.218
0.514
0.514

2.393
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
llrt;ll
* (2)


$2.31
$0.73
$2.24
$2.32

$7.60
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$2.01
$3.35
$4.36
$4.51

$3.18
(Decrease)
System/
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


4.32%
0.82%
1 .93%
1 .93%

9.01%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.07%
0.01%
0.03%
0.03%

0.14%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
             Table F.4C-2: Mass Reductions and Cost Impact for System Group C
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 402

     F.4C.1  Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem

F.4C.1.1   Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.4C-3 identifies the most significant contributor to the mass of the Exterior Trim
and Ornamentation subsystem as the lower exterior trim finishers. The rocker trim and all
lower door finishers, upper exterior and roof finishers, rear closure finisher, emblems,
rear spoiler, cowl vent grill assembly, and subsystem attachments make up the rest of the
weight.


CO
><
-------
                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                           March 30, 2012
                                                               Page 403
 Image F.4C-1: Exterior Trim - Lower Exterior Finisher
                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.4C-2: Exterior Trim - Cowl Vent Grill Assembly
                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
      Image F.4C-3: Exterior Trim - Rear Spoiler
                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 404
                      Image F.4C-4: Exterior Trim - Radiator Grill
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.4C.1.3  Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Down-gauging material thickness is the most common method used to reduce the weight
of the exterior trim. Designing in reinforcements while varying material thickness for the
whole component or the thickness of a  specific section, can provide a significant mass
reduction.

Another  common industry method for mass reduction  is  to change  materials and
processes for selected  components. The most promising emerging technology for hard
trim is gas  assist injection molding. The  PolyOne  and the  MuCell® processes were
reviewed.

The PolyOne process can use (parts  redesigned for PolyOne process can  provide
additional mass reductions) existing tooling with varying modifications for each unique
solution.  Unique gases and materials are used to aerate plastic as it is injected into the tool
cavity. This  aeration or "foaming" process reduces  mass by replacing solid material with
air.  This  process has the potential to reduce mass by up to 30% when  applied to larger
Class A surface parts or non-Class A surface components.

The MuCell® process, a licensed technology, utilizes unique tooling to aerate plastic as
the  plastic is injected into the tool cavity. The MuCell® foaming process also allows for
faster fill times  in  tooling cavities due to the reduced material viscosity. The  current
MuCell® process  cannot create a Class A surface  components. This process has the
potential  to reduce mass by up to 30% when applied to non-Class A surface components
or grained panels. The Trexel Mucell®  foaming process reduces the material thickness
necessary to meet mold fill requirements  and allows a higher ratio  of rib thickness to
material thickness without creating sink marks in the show surface.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 405
F.4C.1.4  Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.4C-4 compiles the mass reduction ideas considered for the Exterior Trim and
Ornamentation subsystem.
Component/Assembly
Radiator Grill
Radiator Grill
Radiator Grill
Lower Exterior Finishers
Lower Exterior Finishers
Lower Exterior Finishers
Upper Exterior Finishers
Upper Exterior Finishers
Upper Exterior Finishers
Rear Closure Finishers
Rear Closure Finishers
Rear Closure Finishers
Emblems
Emblems
Rear Spoiler
Rear Spoiler
Rear Spoiler
Cowl Vent Screen
Cowl Vent Screen
Mass-Reduction Idea
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Mold in Color
Material Change
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Mold in Color
Material Change
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Mold in Color
Material Change
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Mold in Color
Material Change
Decals
Mold in Feature then Paint
or Apply Decal
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Mold in Color
Material Change
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Material Change
Estimated Impact
10% -20% Mass
Savings
0- 10% Mass
Savings
0- 10% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
0- 10% Mass
Savings
0- 10% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
0- 10% Mass
Savings
0-10% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
0- 10% Mass
Savings
0-10% Mass
Savings
20% Mass Savings
0-10% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
0-10% Mass
Savings
0-10% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
0-10% Mass
Savings
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
reduction
Low Cost, Little Mass Savings Potential
Low Cost, Durability Issues
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
reduction
Low Cost, Little Mass Savings Potential
Low Cost, Durability Issues
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
reduction
Low Cost, Little Mass Savings Potential
Low Cost, Durability Issues
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
reduction
Low Cost, Little Mass Savings Potential
Low Cost, Durability Issues
Low Cost, Aesthetically Unappealing,
Durabilty Issues
Low Cost, Aesthetically Unappealing
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
reduction
Low Cost, Little Mass Savings Potential
Low Cost, Durability Issues
Low or No Cost Impact with Mass
reduction
Low Cost, Durability Issues
 Table F.4C-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Exterior Trim
                             and Ornamentation Subsystem
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 406
F.4C.1.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The mass reduction ideas selected that fell into the "Ae" group are shown in Table F.4C-
5.
0>
(fl
ST

"03
'osT
03
03
03
03
03
Subsystem

'08
*OT
'08
'08
'08
'08
(08
Sub-Subsystem

'00\
01
'02
'04
'07
14
15
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description

Exterior Trim and Ornamentation
Lower Exterior Finishers
Upper Exterior and Roof Finishers
Rear Closure Finishers
Rear Spoiler
Cowl Vent Screen
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

™™™™™™™™J£°!yO!}!LP!H^
PolyOne Process - Injection Molding
PolyOne Process - Injection Molding
™™™™™™™™Jl!°!yJ3!!£^
PolyOne Process - Injection Molding
PolyOne Process - Injection Molding
     Table F.4C-5: Summary of mass-reduction concepts selected for the Exterior Trim and
                              Ornamentation Subsystem
F.4C.1.6  Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates

The  PolyOne process was utilized  on the  Exterior Trim and Ornamentation sub-
subsystems listed in Table F.4C-6. This resulted in a mass savings of 1.147 kg and a cost
savings of $2.31.The changes to emblems were not implemented since there were wear
and durability issues with the decal life and performance.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 407

w
•<
2-
0
3

03
03
03
03
03
03
03





Subsystem

08
08
08
08
08
08
08





Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
04
07
14
15





Description

Exterior Trim and Ornamentation
Radiator Grill
Lower Exterior Finishers
Upper Exterior and Roof Finishers
Rear Closure Finisher
Rear Spoiler
Cowl Vent Grill Assembly





Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A
A
A
A
A
A




A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


0.155
0.463
0.090
0.145
0.190
0.104




1.147
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 408
(f>
*<
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 409
F.4C.2.3  Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
Down-gauging the material thickness is the most common method used to reduce mass.
Designing in reinforcements while varying thickness for the whole  component or the
thickness of a specific section, can provide a significant mass reduction.

Another common industry method is to  change materials and manufacturing processes.
These  component processes  are  altered based  on materials  technology  and process
production for interior/exterior hardware. The most promising  emerging technology for
hard trim is gas assist injection molding.

The PolyOne and the MuCell® processes were reviewed: These processes are outlined in
Exterior Trim & Ornamentation, Section F.4B.1.2.
F.4C.2.4  Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.4C-8 compiles the mass reduction ideas considered for the Rear View Mirrors
subsystem.
Component/Assembly
Inside Rear View Mirror
Outside Rear View
Mirror - Left
Outside Rear View
Mirror - Right
Trim Cover- Inside Rear
View Mirror
Mass-Reduction Idea
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Estimated Impact
10% -20% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
' Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
Reduction
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
Reduction
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
Reduction
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
Reduction
   Table F.4C-8: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Rear View
                                 Mirrors Subsystem
F.4C.2.5  Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected
The mass reduction ideas selected that fell into the "Ae" group are shown in Table F.4C-
9.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 410


OT
B)
0
3



03
03
03

r/>
c
cr
tn
•s
0)
3


09
09
09
OT
c
OT
c
|

(f
3

00
02
02



Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description




Rear View Mirrors Subsystem
Outside Rear View Mirror - Left
Outside Rear View Mirror - Right



Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation





Gas Assist Injection Molding
Gas Assist Injection Molding
Table F.4C-9: Summary of mass-reduction concepts selected for the Rear View Mirrors Subsystem
F.4C.2.6  Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts and Cost Impacts

The PolyOne gas assist system was utilized for all components in Table F.4C-10. This
resulted in a mass savings of .218 kg and a cost savings of $0.73.
w
•2
1
3

03
03
03


Subsystem

09
09
09


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02


Description

Rear View Mirrors
Outside Rear View Mirror - Left
Outside Rear View Mirror - Right


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A
A

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (D


0.109
0.109

0.218
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 411


balance of the mass for this subsystem. The front bumper analysis was done along with
the Body in White and resides in Body System -A-.
(f>
*<
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 412
F.4C.3.2  Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The materials and thickness used are in common use by many automobile manufacturers
and their suppliers.
F.4C.3.3  Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Down-gauging the material thickness is the most common method used to reduce mass.
Designing in reinforcements while varying material thickness for the whole component or
the thickness of a specific section, can provide a significant mass reduction.

Another common industry method is to  change materials and manufacturing processes.
These  component  processes  are  altered based  on materials  technology  and process
production for interior hardware. The most promising emerging technology for hard trim
is gas assist injection molding.

The PolyOne and the MuCell® processes were reviewed: These processes are outlined in
Exterior Trim & Ornamentation 1.1.2.
F.4C.3.4  Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.4C-12 compiles the mass reduction ideas considered for the Front End Module
subsystem.
Component/Assembly
Front Fascia
Front Fascia Attachment
Brackets
Mass-Reduction Idea
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Estimated Impact
10% -20% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
reduction
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
reduction
   Table F.4C-12: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Front End
                                 Module Subsystem
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 413
F.4C.3.5  Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected
The mass reduction ideas selected that fell into the "Ae" group are shown in Table F.4C-
13.

O)
*<
1
3



03
03

OT
c
cr
(ft
sr
3


23
23

c
cr

cr
(/)
t
3

00
02



Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description




Front Module Subsystem
Module - Front Bumper and Fascia



Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation





PolyOne Process - Injection Molding

    Table F.4C-13: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected for the Front End Module
                                      Subsystem
F.4C.3.6  Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

The PolyOne gas assist system was utilized for all components in Table F.4C-14. This
produced a mass savings of .514 kg and a cost savings of $2.24 primarily from the front
fascia.

•2
(/}
ro

03
03


Subsystem

23
23


Sub-Subsystem

00
02


Description

Front End Module
Module - Front Bumper and Fascia


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" CD


0.491

0.491
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Mrt-ii
* (2)


$2.23

$2.23
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$4.54

$4.54
(Decrease)
Subsys./
Sub-
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


9.76%

9.76%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.03%

0.03%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Table F.4C-14: Summary of Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact for the Front End Module Subsystem
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 414


     F.4C.4  Rear End Module Subsystem


F.4C.4.1  Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.4C-15 illustrates that the most significant contributor to the mass of the  Rear
End Module subsystem  is the rear fascia.  The rear reflectors, rear energy absorber,
attachment brackets, and attachments make up the balance of the mass  for this subsystem.
(f>
I
CD"
3

03
03
03


Subsystem

24
24
24


Sub-Subsystem

00
02
99


Description

Rear End Module Subsystem
Module - Rear Bumper and Fascia
Rear Bumper Fascia - Attachments

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


5.293
0.097

5.390
26.57
1711
20.29%
0.32%
    Table F.4C-15: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Rear End Module Subsystem
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 415
                             Image F.4C-7: Rear Fascia
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.4C.4.2  Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The materials and thickness used are in common use by many automobile manufacturers
and their suppliers.
F.4C.4.3  Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Down-gauging the material thickness is the most common method used to reduce mass.
Designing in reinforcements while varying material thickness for the whole component or
the thickness of a specific section, can provide a significant mass reduction.

Another common industry method is to  change materials and manufacturing processes.
These  component  processes  are  altered based  on materials  technology  and process
production for interior hardware. The most promising emerging technology for hard trim
is gas assist injection molding.

The PolyOne and the MuCell® processes were reviewed: These processes are outlined in
Exterior Trim & Ornamentation, Section  5.3B.1.2.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 416
F.4C.4.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Component/Assembly
Rear Fascia
Rear Fascia Attachment
Brackets
Mass-Reduction Idea
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Estimated Impact
10% -20% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
reduction
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
reduction
Table F.4C-16: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Rear End Module
                                     Subsystem
F.4C.4.5   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected

The mass reduction ideas selected that fell into the "Ae" group are shown in Image F.4C-
17.


OT
B)
0
3



03
03


r/>
c
cr
0)
•s
0)
3


24
24

OT
c
OT
c
|

of
3

00
02




Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description




Rear Module Subsystem
Module - Rear Bumper and Fascia




Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation





PolyOne Process - Injection Molding

Table F.4C-17: Summary of mass-reduction concepts selected for the Rear End Module Subsystem
F.4C.4.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

The PolyOne gas assist system was utilized for all components in Table F.4C-18.  The
end result is a mass savings of .514 kg and a cost savings of $2.32. Most of the savings is
attributable to the rear fascia.
-------
                                                             Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                            March 30, 2012
                                                                                Page 417

w
•<
2-
0
3

03
03


Subsystem

24
24


Sub-Subsystem

00
02


Description

Rear End Module Subsystem
Module - Rear Bumper and Fascia


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


0.514

0.514
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 418

Ornamentation  Subsystem.. Most of the  savings is attributable to the lower exterior
finishers.

u>
•<
2-
0
3

03
03
03
03


Subsystem

09
09
09
09


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
99


Description

Rear View Mirror Subsystem
Inside Rear View Mirrors
Outside Rear View Mirrors
Trim Cover - Inside Rear View Mirror Wiring


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select



A


A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)



0.218


0.218
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 419

w
•<
2-
0
3

03
03
03
03
03


Subsystem

24
24
24
24
24


Sub-Subsystem

00
02
02
02
02


Description

Rear End Module
Brackets - Side
Brackets - Upper Side
Rear Bumper Fascia Assembly
Rear Bumper Fascia - Punch OutTrim Pad


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A
A
A
A

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg"(D


0.010
0.004
0.486
0.014

0.514
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
llrt;ll
* (2)


$0.02
$0.02
$2.22
$0.07

$2.32
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$2.00
$5.00
$4.57
$5.00

$4.51
(Decrease)
Subsys./
Sub-
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.19%
0.07%
9.02%
0.26%

9.54%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.00%
0.00%
0.03%
0.00%

0.03%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
The PolyOne gas assist system was utilized for all components in Table X. The end result
is a mass savings of .514 kg and a cost savings of $2.33.  The bulk of the savings is
attributable to the rear fascia assembly.
F.4D  Body System Group D

Group D of the Body system includes the Glazing; Handles, Locks , Latches; Rear Hatch
Lift Assembly; and Wipers & Washers subsystems, as shown in Table F.4D-1. The most
significant contributor to this system's mass is the Glazing subsystem, which accounts for
approximately 75% of the system mass. The Liftgate Modules, Wiper and Cowl Modules,
and Door Modules subsystems are not applicable. The Toyota Venza was broken down
such  that  these  modules  are  integrated into other subsystems. For example,  the
Windshield Wipers  are part of the Wipers  and Washers  subsystem as  opposed to  the
Wiper and Cowl Modules subsystem.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 420
V)
><
cn.
oT

03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03


Subsystem

00
11
14
15
16
25
28
33


Sub-Subsystem

00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00


Description

Body System (Group -D-) Glazing and Body Mechatronics Modules
Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem
Handles, Locks, Latches, and Mechanism Subsystem
Rear Hatch Lift Assembly Subsystem
Wipers and Washers Subsystem
Liftgate Modules
Wiper and Cowl Modules
Door Modules

Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsystem
Mass
"kg"


48.010
4.934
4.556
5.960
0.000
0.000
0.000

63.460
1711
3.71%
         Table F.4D-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for the Body System Group D


As shown in Table F.4D-2, the mass reduction ideas applied to the Glazing subsystem
resulted in the greatest  weight  reduction  for  Body  System Group D.  The Glazing
Subsystem was the largest mass contributor and therefore had more opportunity to reduce
weight. The overall weight savings for Body System Group D is  6.153 kg with a cost of
$15.25. Approximately 10% of the Body System Group D mass was reduced.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 421

w
•<
2-
0
3

03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03


Subsystem

00
11
14
15
16
25
28
33


Sub-Subsystem

00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00


Description

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select

Body System (Group -D-) Glazing & Body Mechatronics
Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism
Subsystem
Handles, Locks, Latches, and Mechanism
Subsystem
Rear Hatch Lift Assembly Subsystem
Wipers and Washers Subsystem
Liftgate Modules
Wiper and Cowl Modules
Door Modules


D


A




C
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (D


6.062
0.000
0.000
0.091
0.000
0.000
0.000

6.153
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 422
V)
><
cn.
oT

03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03


Subsystem

11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
03
05
11
12
13
14
16
17
19
20


Description

Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem
Windshield and Front Quarter Window (Fixed)
First Row Door Window Lift Assy (Window Regulators)
Back and Rear Quarter Windows (Fixed)
Second Row Door, Qtr & Rear Closure Window Lift Assy (Window
Regulators)
Back Window Assy (Backlight, Rear Hatch Glass)
Front Side Door Glass
Rear Side Door Glass
Switch Pack - Front Door (Window Up/Down Controls)
Switch Pack - Rear Door (Window Up/Down Controls)
Front Side Doors Glass Runs & Belts
Rear Side Doors Glass Runs & Belts

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


15.730
3.132
2.134
3.131
7.036
8.850
6.590
0.373
0.244
0.464
0.327

48.010
63.460
1711
75.65%
2.81%
Table F.4D-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism
                                    Subsystem
F.4D.1.2  Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The 2010 Toyota Venza's glass  is representative of today's typical industry standards.
This includes a laminated glass front windshield, tempered side windows, and a tempered
rear window. The windshield  is  approximately 5 mm thick, the front side windows a
nominal 4.85 mm thick,  and the rear side windows and the backlight are nominally 3.85
mm. The fixed quarter windows  are tempered glass as well and are a nominal 4.85 mm
thick  in the front and 3.85  mm in the rear. Each window regulator (Image F.4D-1)
contains a motor/gearbox assembly and a galvanized steel stamped linkage assembly that
bolts to two clips (Image F.4D-2) attached to the window.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 423
                     Image F.4D-1: Toyota Venza Window Regulator.
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

                                    Window Clips
          Image F.4D-2: Window Clips on Front Side Door Window of Toyota Venza.
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Laminated glass, as used on the windshield, is a type of safety glass that holds together
when shattered. Front windshields use  laminated glass exclusively because in the event
the glass breaks it is held in place by an interlayer, typically of polyvinyl butyral (PVB),
between two layers  of glass (Image F.4D-3). Laminated glass is typically used when
there is a possibility of human impact or where the glass could fall if shattered. The PVB
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 424

interlayer also gives the glazing a much higher sound  insulation rating, due to the
damping effect, and blocks 99% of incoming UV radiation.
                                 Glass  Interlayer     Glass
              Image F.4D-3: Exploded View of Laminated Glass Cross-Section.
            (Source: Thermal Windows, Inc. http://www.thermahvindows.com/ThermalSafe.htm)
The side windows and backlight also follow industry convention, which is the use of
tempered glass. The brittle nature of tempered glass causes it to shatter into small oval-
shaped pebbles when broken.  This eliminates the danger of sharp edges.  Due to this
property along with its strength,  tempered glass is often referred to as safety glass. It is
also less expensive  than laminated glass.  Tempered glass, however,  does not have the
favorable acoustic properties that laminated glass exhibits.
F.4D.1.3  Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

The industry is  beginning to use laminated glass,  similar to  what is used  for  the
windshield, for the side windows. Guidelines for this were provided by NSG Group-
Pilkington,  a leading  international supplier  of  glass both within and  outside  of  the
automotive industry. Pilkington pioneered float manufacturing, the process by which most
glass in the world is manufactured today. It also stands out as a leader in the automotive,
building, and specialty glass glazing industry. For side laminated windows, Pilkington
provided data indicating that the inner and outer glass layers can be reduced in thickness
to 1.6  mm since  the plastic interlayer provides additional strength. Applying laminated
glass to the four side  windows can provide considerable weight savings and favorable
acoustic properties, but with  a significant cost impact. Nonetheless,  it is a proven
technology that is currently being used  in many high-production vehicles including  the
Jaguar XJ, Mercedes R-class. It is  also used in the front doors of the Chevrolet Malibu,
Chevrolet Equinox, and Ford Taurus, to name a few.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 425

Pilkington also suggests down-gauging the tempered glass thickness as another method to
reduce the vehicle glass  overall weight.  The  standard  side window tempered glass
thickness in Europe is  3.15 mm and in Japan it is 2.6 mm.  Vehicles sold in the United
States typically have slightly higher window thicknesses for NVH purposes, so reducing
the window thickness does pose a trade-off: there will be  increased sound transmittance
through the windows (mostly apparent in the front of the vehicle). Currently in the U.S.,
however, the Honda Accord, Chevrolet Cobalt,  and Toyota Tacoma all have 3.15  mm-
thick side windows. There  is a slight cost increase when the windows are down-gauged as
a result of more expensive  processing.

One of the most notable trends to lower glazing weight is to transition away from glass
and use polycarbonate  (PC) for windows.  This  is an expensive  option, but it can yield
substantial  weight  savings. PC  is  a thermoplastic, which can be  molded  and/or
thermoformed into a variety of shapes and  still act as a clear, transparent window. Aside
from weight savings, it also has attractive aesthetic and styling properties as many more
shapes can be achieved than with glass.  Moreover, the  use of PC for windows has
favorable thermal insulation characteristics and excellent impact resistance.

In order for PC  windows  to be useful on a vehicle, two types  of coatings need to be
applied: Weather and plasma. Exatec®, LLC,  a subsidiary of  SABIC, is the leading
supplier of these coatings. The weather coating helps resist the elements and damage
caused by UV radiation. The revolutionary plasma coating  developed by Exatec® also
increases abrasion resistance. The plasma coating is the most recent development, capable
of meeting and  exceeding the ECE  R43, FMVSS  205,  JIS R 3212,  and ANSI  26.1
standards. Even with these two coatings, however, polycarbonate is still only applicable
for non-moving window applications (not including the windshield). Therefore, front and
rear fixed quarter windows and the backlight are all  potential candidates for PC. The
Smart Fortwo, Chevrolet Corvette, and the Porsche 911 GT3 RS 4.0 are all examples of
production vehicles that use polycarbonate glazing.

Exatec® highlighted that  the  real benefit of polycarbonate is realized when taking
advantage of the integration opportunities. When a PC window is injection-molded, the
surrounding plastic components can be integrated with it  in a two-shot mold, reducing
what were numerous components into one piece.  The most  prominent opportunity for this
is with the backlight. The hatchback European version of the Honda Civic integrates the
backlight and spoiler into  one large injection molded piece  as shown in Image F.4D-4.
This can be a styling, aerodynamic, and potential cost reduction advantage as well as a
weight-savings opportunity.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 426
Image F.4D-4: European Honda Civic Backlight/Spoiler Integration through Use of Polycarbonate

 (Source: Wheel-O-Sphere http://www.wheelosphere.org/2012-honda-civic-spied-in-europe/european-honda-civic-
                                  hatchback-rear-view/)
F.4D.1.4  Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.4D-4 shows the mass-reduction ideas considered for the Glazing subsystem. The
industry trends provided by Pilkington regarding the use of laminated glass for side
windows and to reduce the gauge of the tempered side windows were each considered.
Pilkington also suggests reducing just the inner glass layer of the laminated windshield as
a method to lighten the weight of the windshield,  also included  in  Table F.4D-4.
Replacing  the  quarter  windows and  rear backlight with polycarbonate were also
considered. Additional ideas are also applied that are not necessarily motivated by current
industry trends. For example, the window  regulator linkages are galvanized steel. The
idea to go to aluminum was judged and analyzed.

The Lotus Engineering study did not apply mass reduction ideas to the Glazing system.
Polycarbonate was mentioned as a possible substitute that the industry is taking into
account, but this was not included in their final mass reduction results.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 427
Component/Assembly
Backlight
Backlight
Backlight
Windshield
Front/Rear Fixed
Quarter Windows
Front/Rear Fixed
Quarter Windows
Front/Rear Side Door
Windows
Front/Rear Side Door
Windows
Window Regulator
Linkage Assembly
Window Regulator
Linkage Assembly
Mass-Reduction Idea
Reduce thickness from
3.85 mm to 3.15 mm
Replace with polycarbonate
glazing
Replace tempered glass
with laminated glass
Reduce inner glass layer
thickness to 1.6 mm
Reduce thickness from
4.85 (front) and 3.85 (rear)
to 3.15 mm
Replace with polycarbonate
glazing
Reduce thickness from
4.85 (front) and 3.85 (rear)
to 3.15 mm
Replace tempered glass
with laminated glass
Make out of aluminum
instead of steel
Make out of plastic/steel
combination
Estimated Impact
17% mass reduction
45% mass reduction
25% mass reduction
10% mass reduction
10% mass reduction
30% mass reduction
20-30% mass
reduction
25-40% mass
reduction
60% mass reduction
40% mass reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Low cost increase, in production on
Dodge Durango
High cost increase, in production on
European Honda Civic
High cost increase
Low cost increase, increased sound
transmittance to passengers
Low cost
High cost increase, in production on
Smart For Two
Low cost increase, increased sound
transmittance to passengers, was in
production on Chevrolet Cobalt
High cost increase, in production on
Jaguar XJ
Moderate cost increase
Low cost increase, in production on
Chevrolet HHR
Table F.4D-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Glass (Glazing),
                          Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem.
F.4D.1.5  Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The mass reduction ideas selected are shown in Table F.4D-5. Reducing the thickness of
the tempered Rear Side Windows, Backlight, and the two Rear Quarter Windows to 3.15
mm was  chosen. Reducing window gauge was the most favorable option from a cost-per-
mass perspective, compared to using laminated or polycarbonate windows. The 3.15 mm
thickness is used on production cars sold in the United States. The thickness of the Front
Side Windows and the Front Quarter Fixed windows, however, was not reduced. It was
determined that the unfavorable NVH effects would be classified as decontenting. If this
option were chosen, then an additional 3 kg would have been saved. NVH conditions are
more severe at the front of the car since wind makes contact here and it is also closest to
the powertrain. Noises caused by these things are much less apparent in the  rear of the
vehicle, especially on a larger car like the Toyota Venza.  It is common for OEMs to
design the front windows to be thicker than the rear for these reasons.Polycarbonate and
laminated windows are worthy options, but deemed as  too pricey for the constraints of
this study. If an in-depth engineering analysis were performed on a backlight/rear hatch
lift assembly polycarbonate integration, then the cost may be reduced. Such an analysis,
however, was beyond the scope of this study.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 428

The inner glass layer of the laminated windshield was reduced in thickness to 1.6 mm. It
was  determined that this  would not result in adverse acoustic effects  since the PVB
interlayer of the  laminated  glass  is  an outstanding sound  insulator.  The  Window
Regulators were constructed of aluminum instead of steel. The new aluminum linkages
were assumed to increase in gauge to support the same bending stresses as on the baseline
steel pieces. The thickness of the aluminum linkage was multiplied by 1.55, which was
estimated to increase the section modulus of the beam  to make up  for aluminum's lower
yield strength (compared to steel).

V)
*<
a
(D
3


03
03
n?

03

03

03
03
03
n?

03

03
03


OT
1
*<
1


11
11
11

11

11

11
11
11
11

1 1

11
11

en
ub-Sub
in
*<
U)
of
3

00
01
n?

05

11

12
13
14
1fi

17

19
20


Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description



Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation



Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem
Windshield and Front Quarter
Window (Fixed)
First Row Door Window Lift Assy
(Window Regulators) ^1
Back and Rear Quarter Windows
(hixed)
Second Row Door, Qtr & Rear
Closure Window Lift Assy (Window
Regulators)
Back Window Assy (Backlight, Rear
Hatch Glass)
Front Side Door Glass
Rear Side Door Glass
Switch Pack - Front Door (Window
Up/Down Controls)
Switch Pack - Rear Door (Window
Up/Down Controls)
Front Side Doors Glass Runs & Belts
Rear Side Doors Glass Runs & Belts

Reduce windshield inner layer thickness from 2.1 to 1.6mm
Fabicate window regulator linkages out of aluminum instead of
steel
Reduce quarter window thickness from 3. 85 to 3.15mm

Fabicate window regulator linkages out of aluminum instead of

Reduce backlight thickness from 3. 85 to 3.15mm
n/a
Reduce glass thickness from 3. 85 to 3.15mm




n/a
n/a

  Table F.4D-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Glass (Glazing), Frame,
                               and Mechanism System.
F.4D.1.6  Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

The mass reduction and cost impact results for the Glazing subsystem can be seen in
Table  F.4D-6. The  greatest weight  savings  came  as  a result of down-gauging  the
thickness of the glass  on the Venza in various  sub-subsystems. Decreasing the thickness
of the inner glass layer of the laminated windshield saved 1.559 kg at a cost of $1.68. The
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 429

Rear Side Windows, Rear Quarter Fixed Windows, and the Backlight collectively saved
2.624 kg by being reduced to a 3.15 mm thickness and cost an additional $9.25 to do so.
Reducing the thickness of the glass saved some on material cost (since less material is
used); however, it increased the processing cost. When thinner glass is produced, the float
manufacturing line has a lower output per unit time. Therefore, the cost of the equipment
is  not  being paid off as fast. Additionally,  when tempering thinner  glass  additional
cooling equipment is  needed  to complete the  tempering  process in time, which the
supplier may not already have and would increase the cost of the glass.

Using  aluminum in place of  steel for the  Window  Regulator Linkages  for all four
regulators resulted in a total weight savings of 1.878 kg at a cost of $4.74. The Window
Regulator Linkages were more expensive due to material cost.

u>
•<
2-
0
3

03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03


Subsystem

00
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
03
05
11
12
13
14
16
17
19
20


Description

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select

Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem
Windshield and Front Quarter Window (Fixed)
First Row Door Window Lift Assy (Window
Regulators)
Back and Rear Quarter Windows (Fixed)
Second Row Door, Qtr & Rear Closure Window
Lift Assy (Window Regulators)
Back Window Assy (Backlight, Rear Hatch Glass)
Front Side Door Glass
Rear Side Door Glass
Switch Pack - Front Door (Window Up/Down
Controls)
Switch Pack - Rear Door (Window Up/Down
Controls)
Front Side Doors Glass Runs & Belts
Rear Side Doors Glass Runs & Belts


C
C
D
C
D

D





D
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (D


1.559
0.939
0.230
0.939
1.218
0.000
1.176
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

6.062
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 430

     F.4D.2  Handles, Locks, Latches & Mechanisms Subsystem.

F.4D.2.1  Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.4D-7 illustrates that the Latches are the most significant contributor to the mass
of the Handles, Locks, Latches, Frame, & Mechanisms subsystem. This includes the front
doors, rear  doors, and the rear hatch. The handle assemblies and the prop rod provide the
remainder of the subsystem weight.
V)
><
<2.
CD
3

03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03


Subsystem

14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14


Sub-Subsystem

00
04
04
05
13
13
19
99


Description

Handles, Locks, Latches and Mechanisms Subsystem
Latch Assembly - Front Side Doors
Latch Assembly - Rear Side Doors
Latch Assembly - Rear Hatch
Handle Pull, Carrier and Closeout - Front Side Doors
Handle Pull, Carrier and Closeout - Rear Side Doors
Prop Rod - Hood
Subsystem Attachments

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


1.180
1.038
1.056
0.666
0.579
0.346
0.069

4.934
63.46
1711
7.77%
0.29%
 Table F.4D-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Handles, Locks, Latches and Mechanisms
                                    Subsystem.
-------
                                      Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                         Page 431
    Image F.4D-5: Door Latch Mechanism
           (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.4D-6: Outer Door Handle and Carrier
           (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 432
F.4D.2.2  Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Toyota Venza utilizes the Smart key entry system. This allows the driver to keep the
key fob in their pocket when unlocking, locking and starting the  vehicle.  The key is
identified via one of several antennas in the car's bodywork and a radio pulse generator in
the key housing. The vehicle is automatically unlocked when the door handle, rear hatch
release, or an exterior button is pressed. This system also disengages the immobilizer and
activates  the engine  without inserting  a  mechanical key,  provided the  driver has the
electronic key inside  the car. This is done by pressing a starter button on the Instrument
panel.

 The Venza has a mechanical back up system, in the form of spare key blades supplied
with the vehicle and stored in the electronic keys. The result is an approach to the use and
activation of the Handles, Locks, Latches and Mechanisms which is more electrical in
nature  than  traditional subsystems using mechanical keys or Remote  Keyless Entry
(RKE).
F.4D.2.3  Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Smart Keys were introduced by Mercedes-Benz in 1998. It was a plastic key to be used in
place of the traditional metal key. Electronics that control  locking  systems  and the
ignitions made it possible to replace the traditional key with a computerized "Key." This
system is considered a step up from remote keyless entry. The Smart Key adopts the
remote control buttons  from keyless entry into  the Smart  Key fob. Some  vehicles
automatically adjust settings based on the smart key used to unlock  the car: user
preferences  such  as seat positions, steering  wheel  position,  exterior  mirror  settings,
climate control temperature settings, and stereo presets are popular adjustments, and some
models such as the Ford Escape even have settings which can prevent the vehicle from
exceeding a maximum speed when a certain key is used to start it.

              Manufacturers' Keyless Authorization Systems Names:
         •  Acura: Keyless Access System

         •  Audi: Advanced Key

         •  BMW: Comfort Access

         •  Cadillac: Adaptive Remote Start & Keyless Access

         •  Ford: Intelligent Access with push-button start or Ford MyKey
-------
                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                         Page 433


General Motors: Passive Entry Passive Start

Hyundai: Proximity Key

Infiniti: Infiniti Intelligent Key with Push Button Ignition

Jaguar Cars: Smart Key System

Jeep Sentry Key Immobiliser System "SKIS"

KIA: Keyless Entry

Lexus: SmartAccess System

Lincoln: Intelligent Access System

Mazda: Advanced Keyless Entry & Start System

Mercedes-Benz: Keyless Go integrated into SmartKeys

Mini:  Comfort Access

Mitsubishi Motors: FastKey

Nissan: Intelligent Key

Porsche: Porsche Entry & Drive System

Renault: Hands Free Keycard

Ssang Yong: Smart Key System

Subaru: Keyless Smart Entry With Push-Button Start

Suzuki: SmartPass Keyless entry & starting system

Toyota: Smart Key System

Volkswagen: Keyless Entry & Keyless Start or KESSY

Volvo: Personal Car Communicator "PCC"  and Keyless  Drive or
Keyless Drive

                  (Table Source: Wikipedia)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 434
F.4D.2.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table  F.4D-8 compiles the mass reduction ideas considered for  the Handles, Locks,
Latches,  Frame, & Mechanisms Subsystem. Emphasis was placed on materials and
processing to create mass reduction ideas.

The  Venza  production closure  latches,  hinges  and related  mounting  hardware were
retained; the Venza hardware mass was used for these components. Ancillary sub-system
masses, which include handles,  latches and locks were not changed because these are
typically core components shared corporate wide.
Component/Assembly
Hood Stand
(Prop Rod)
Hood Stand
(Prop Rod)
Door Handles
Door Handles
Door Lock Housings
Mass-Reduction Idea
Replace Hood Stand with
Gas Springs
Replace Hood Stand -
Hood Front with Hood
Stand - Hood Side
Manufacture from Plastic
Manufacture with Carbon
Fiber
Manufacture Comonents
from Structural Plastic
Estimated Impact
20% Mass Savings
10% Mass Savings
10% Mass Savings
15% Mass Savings
60% Mass Savings
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Higher Cost, Mass Savings vs Hood
Stand Questionable
Low Cost, Location on Side a Marketing
and Service Issue
Low Cost, Ancillary and Esthetic
Degrade, Wear and Warranty Issues
High Cost, After Market, Wear and
Warranty issues
Low Cost, Wear and Safety Issues
 Table F.4D-8: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Handles, Locks,
                          Latches & Mechanisms Subsystem
F.4D.2.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The mass reduction ideas selected that fell into the "Ae" group are shown in Table F.4D-
9.
OT
*<
B)
0

03





| Subsystem

14





Sub-Subsystem

00





Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

Handles, Locks, Latches and Mechanisms Subsystem None Selected










-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 435

    Table F.4D-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Handles, Locks, Latches & Mechanisms
                                 Subsystem Analysis
F.4D.2.6  Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

There was potential shown for mass reduction within this subsystem. Each idea had its
own inherent risk or concern. This approach to component changes in the Handles, Locks
& Latching  subsystem resulted in the decision to not recommend any mass reduction
initiatives at this time. Most mass savings and cost impacts were modest yet posed risks to
durability, aesthetics, and safety.
                                                    \
                                                 |^^  >
     F.4D.3  Rear Hatch Lift Assembly Subsystem

F.4D.3.1  Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.4D-10, the most significant contributor to the mass of the Rear Hatch
Lift  Assembly subsystem is the  rear hatch lift mechanism. The trim, switches, sensor,
switch, and attachments provide the rest of the subsystem weight.
(f>
*<
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 436
                       Image F.4D-7: Rear Hatch Lift Mechanism
                             (Source: FEV, Inc. photrograph)

F.4D.3.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza utilizes the Smart key entry system. It allows the driver to keep the key
fob in their pocket when unlocking, locking and starting the vehicle. The key is identified
via one of several antennas in the car's bodywork and a radio pulse generator in the key
housing. The vehicle is automatically unlocked when the door handle, hatch release, or an
exterior button is pressed.

The Venza has a mechanical back up system, in the form of spare key blades  supplied
with the vehicle  and stored in the electronic keys. The result is an approach to the use and
activation of the Handles, Locks, Latches and Mechanisms which is more electrical in
nature  than traditional  subsystems using mechanical  keys  or Remote  Keyless  Entry
(RKE).
F.4D.3.3  Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Most Rear  lift mechanisms are based on the chain lift concept. Toyota and other upper-
end companies now use a more  complex, but mass-reduced, gear design to  operate the
rising and lowering features of the rear hatch door.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 437
F.4D.3.4  Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.4D-11  compiles the mass reduction ideas considered for the Rear Hatch Lift
Assembly Subsystem. Emphasis was placed  on materials and processing to create mass
reduction ideas.
Component/Assembly
Rear Hatch Lift
Mechanism
Rear Hatch Lift
Mechanism
Rear Hatch Lift
Mechanism
Rear Hatch Lift
Mechanism
Mass-Reduction Idea
Use Single Motor and
Mechanism to Operate
Rear Latch and Lift
Functions
Eliminate Power Features
for Automatic Lift and
Automatic Latch
Hatch Mass Reduction
Drives Downsizing of Lift
Mechanism
Manufacture Components
from Structural Plastic
Estimated Impact
50% Mass Savings
10% Mass Savings
10% Mass Savings
15% Mass Savings
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Different Functions Drive Components
and Motors That are Not Interchangable
Low Cost, Functional Degrade
Low Cost, Could Affect Functionality
Low Cost, Wear and Load Bearing
Issues
 Table F.4D-11: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Rear Hatch Lift
                                 Assembly Subsystem
F.4D.3.5  Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
O)
*<
1

03





| Subsystem

15





Sub-Subsystem

00





Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

Rear Hatch Lift Mechanism





Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

None Selected





 Table F.4D-12: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Rear Hatch Lift Assembly Subsystem Analysis
F.4D.3.6  Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

There was potential shown for mass reduction within this subsystem.  Each idea had its
own inherent risk  or  concern.  This  approach  to  component changes in the  rear lift
mechanism resulted in the decision to not recommend any mass reduction initiatives at
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 438

this time. Most mass savings and cost impacts were modest yet proposed risks to both
durability and safety.
     F.4D.4 Wipers and Washers Subsystem

F.4D.4.1  Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.4D-13 identifies the most significant contributor to the mass of the Wipers and
Washers  subsystem as the Front Wiper Assembly (includes linkage, bracket,  arms and
blades). The Rear Wiper Assembly (includes bracket,  arm and blade), the Container
Assembly - Solvent Bottle, sensors, hoses, nozzles, and attachments provide the rest of
the subsystem weight.
(f>
I
CD"
3

03
03
03
03


| Subsystem

16
16
16
16


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
08
99


Description

Wipers and Washers Subsystem
Wiper Motor Assembly - Front
Wiper Motor Assembly - Rear
Misc.

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


4.000
1.028
0.930

5.958
63.46
1711
9.39%
0.35%
    Table F.4D-13: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Wipers and Washers Subsystem.
-------
                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                March 30, 2012
                                                    Page 439
Image F.4D-8: Front Wiper Assembly
       (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.4D-9: Rear Wiper Assembly
       (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 440
                             Image F.4D-10 Solvent Bottle
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.4D.4.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The wipers combine two mechanical systems to perform their task: an electric motor and
worm gear reduction provides  power to the  wipers.  A linkage converts the rotational
output of the motor  into the  back-and-forth motion of the  wipers.  The  worm gear
reduction can multiply the torque of the motor by 40 times, while  slowing the output
speed of the electric motor by 40 times as well. The output of the gear reduction operates
the linkage that moves the wipers back  and forth.  A lever arm  is attached to the output
shaft of the gear reduction; the lever arm rotates as the wiper motor turns. The lever is
connected to a rod and the rotational motion of the lever moves the rod back and forth.
The longer rod is connected to a shorter rod that actuates the wiper blade on the driver's
side. Another linkage transmits the force from the driver-side to  the passenger-side wiper
blade.
F.4D.4.3  Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Some of the different wiper blade schemes used by various Automotive Manufacturers:
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 441

Pivot Points - Many  vehicles have  similar wiper designs:  Two blades which move
together to  clean the windshield.  One of the blades  pivots from a point close to the
driver's side of the car,  and the other blade pivots from near the middle of the windshield.
This is the "Tandem System." This design clears most of the windshield that is in the
driver's field of view.

There are other designs used on some automobiles. Mercedes uses a single wiper arm that
extends and retracts as it sweeps  across the window - Single Arm (Controlled). This
design also provides good coverage, but is more complicated than the standard dual-wiper
systems. Some systems use wiper blades mounted on opposite sides of the windshield and
move in opposing directions. Other vehicles have a single wiper mounted in the middle.
Blades - The beam (flat) blade wiper blade is the main trend in wiper blade design. The
market drivers  are product quality and durability. The contact pressure over the wiper
blade element is no longer distributed by the claws of the wiper bracket, but by a spring
specifically designed to optimize wiper blade contact with the windshield.
       Beam (Flat) Blade                                          Conventional Blade
Drive Units - Another trend is the fact that many wiper systems are being controlled by
electronic drive units which determine the arc of wipe and speed. There are few wiper
systems that solely  move  the wiper blades back and forth without  electronic  speed
control, except on some entry level vehicles.

Direct drive systems for windshield wipers are currently in production by Bosch  and
Valeo for a number of recently launched carlines. The two drives  of a dual motor wiper
system do  not require an additional mechanical linkage and are therefore  smaller than
traditional wiper systems. The mass of each unit is approximately half a liter.  The new
Bosch direct drive system needs up to 75 percent less space and is over a kilogram lighter
than standard drive and linkage systems. Each wiper has its own compact drive motor and
is mounted directly on the  drive shaft, which makes the new system easier to integrate
into  vehicles. Since  the direct drives require no linkage, there is  more room  for other
components in the engine compartment. An electronic control unit takes the place  of the
mechanical linkage.  The control unit synchronizes the two drives by monitoring the
position of the two wiper arms. Each drive unit consists of a mechatronic drive that can
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 442

run either backwards or forwards. Specifications for the sweep angle and rest position are
programmable. This allows the wiper systems to be designed symmetrically for right and
left hand drive since the blade alignment is controlled by the software.
F.4D.4.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.4D-14 compiles the mass-reduction ideas considered for the Wiper & Washers
subsystem.
Component/Assembly
Front Washer and
Wiper Assembly
Front Washer and
Wiper Assembly
Front Washer and
Wiper Assembly
Front Washer and
Wiper Assembly
Front Wiper Arms
Front Wiper Arms
Front Wiper Arms
Front Wiper Arms
Front Wiper Arms
Front Wiper Arms
Rear Wiper Assembly
Rear Wiper Assembly
Solvent Body
Mass-Reduction Idea
Use More Plastic Parts or
Castings
Use Lighter Materials to
Mount the Motor to the
Assembly
Use Bayonet Wiper Module
Installation
Use Direct Drive Motor
Scheme. Ref. Ford Focus
Use Injection Molded Arms
Use Carbon Fiber Arms
Use Aluminum Arms
Use Overmolded Plastic
Arms
Use Fiberglass Arms
Place Holes in Arms
Use Lighter Materials to
Mount the Motor to the
Assembly
Mount Rear Wiper Motor to
Glass - Eliminate Mounting
Brackets
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Estimated Impact
10% -20% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
20% Mass Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
0 - 10% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Wear and Durability Issues
Durability Issues
Blade Attachment Process - No
Significant Mass Savings
Electronic Control of Arm Positon and
Sweep, More Compact in Size than
Mass and Lends Itself to Platform
Sharing
NVH, Wear and Durability Issues
High Cost, NVH, Wear and Durability
Issues
High Cost, NVH, Wear and Durability
Issues, Billet Aluminum Arms used on
Vintage Hot Rods
Eliminate Paint and Corrosion Protection
NVH, Wear and Durability Issues
NVH, Wear and Durability Issues
Durability Issues
Brackets Replaced by Reinforcements or
Built into Assembly
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
reduction
    Table F.4D-14: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Wipers &
                                 Washers Subsystem
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 443

F.4D.4.5  Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The mass-reduction ideas selected for detailed analysis are shown in Table F.4D-15.
V)
*<
1

03

03



Subsystem

16

16



Sub-Subsystem

00

99



Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

Wipers and Washers Subsystem

Container Assembly - Solvent Bottle



Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation



PolyOne Process - Injection Mold



     Table F.4D-15: Summary of mass-reduction concepts selected for the Wipers & Washers
                                      Subsystem
F.4D.4.6  Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

u>
•<
2-
0
3

03
03


Subsystem

16
16


Sub-Subsystem

00
99


Description

Wipers and Washers Subsystem
Container Assembly Solvent Bottle


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


0.091

0.091
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 444

Rear Wiper system is close in mass to the Ford Fiesta Rear Wiper Assembly. There was
potential shown for mass reduction within this subsystem.
•2
(/}
ro

03





Subsystem

16





Sub-Subsystem

01





Description

Wipers and Washers - Front
Front Wiper Assembly (Includes Linkage and
Brackets)
Front Hoses and Nozzles
Front Arms & Blades

Mass (kg) Front Wipers and Washers
Venza: Tandum
Drive, Standard
Blades with
Traditional "Hook
" Style
Attachment,


2.623
0.061
1.316

4.000








Fiesta: Tandum
Drive, Beam
Blades with
"Bayonet" Style
Attachment


5.003
0.064
1.224

6.291








Focus: Direct
Drive, Beam
Blades with
"Bayonet" Style
Attachment


2.589
0.064
1.224

3.877
  Table F.4D-17: Summary of Mass Benchmarking for the Front Wipers & Washers Subsystem
w
•<
2-
0
3

03





| Subsystem

16





[sub-Subsystem

08





Description

Wipers and Washers - Rear
Rear Wiper Assembly (Includes Brackets)
Rear Hose and Nozzle
Rear Arm & Blade

Mass (kg) Front Wipers and Washers
Venza: Tandum
Drive, Standard
Blades with
Traditional "Hook
" Style
Attachment


0.715
0.121
0.192

1.028








Fiesta: Tandum
Drive, Beam
Blades with
"Bayonet" Style
Attachment


0.841
0.073
0.192

1.106








Focus: Direct
Drive, Beam
Blades with
"Bayonet" Style
Attachment


N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000
   Table F.4D-18: Summary of Mass Benchmarking for the Rear Wipers & Washers Subsystem
Component changes in the Wipers and Washers subsystem are not recommended at this
time. These systems were left intact except for the application of the PolyOne process for
the solvent bottle.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 445


F.4E Body System Group A

     F.4E.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Table  F.4E-1 shows that the most  significant nonmetallic contributor to the  Body
Structure subsystem mass is the Rear Wheelhouse Arch Liners (Image F.4E-1).
V)
><
a
CD
3

03
03


| Subsystem

01
01


Sub-Subsystem

00
07


Description

Body Structure Subsystem
Rear Wheelhouse Arch Liners

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


1.460

1.460
517.860
1711
0.28%
0.09%
      Table F.4E-1: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Body Structure Subsystem
                      Image F.4E-1: Rear Wheelhouse Arch Liner
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 446
F.4E.1.1 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The materials and thickness used are in common use by many automobile manufacturers
and their suppliers. They finish off the  wheel wells  as well as protect the wheelhouse
from noise and damage caused by rocks, debris, tires and conditions caused by inclement
weather.
F.4E.1.2 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Down-gauging the material thickness is the most common method used to reduce mass.
Designing in reinforcements while varying material thickness for the entire component or
the thickness of a specific section can provide a significant mass reduction.

Another common industry method is to  change materials and manufacturing processes.
These  component  processes  are altered based  on materials  technology and process
production for interior hardware.

Fiber lined wheelhouse arch liners are being utilized to further reduce NVH that emanates
from the wheelhouse areas. They are useful in achieving cab acoustics targets while
meeting durability standards.

Spray on products  are also  being tested as a viable alternative to traditional wheelhouse
arches, but  as of yet do not provide  enough protection  or noise reduction to warrant
consideration in this study.

The most promising emerging technology for hard trim is gas assist injection molding.
The PolyOne and the MuCell® processes were reviewed: These processes are outlined in
Exterior Trim &  Ornamentation.
F.4E.1.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table  F.4E-2 compiles  the mass reduction ideas considered for the Body Structure
subsystem. Emphasis was placed on materials  and processing to create mass reduction
ideas.
Component/Assembly
Rear Wheelhouse Arch
Liners
Mass-Reduction Idea
Gas Assist Injection
Molding
Estimated Impact
10% -20% Mass
Savings
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
Reduction
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 447

  Table F.4E-2: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Nonmetallic
                       Components of the Body Structure Subsystem
F.4E.1.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected

The mass reduction idea selected that fell into the "A" group is shown in Table F.4E-3.

O)
*<
£
3



03
03
OT
c
cr
0)
(D
3


01
01
c
cr

|

of
3

00
07


Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description




Body Structure Subsystem
Rear Wheelhouse Arch Liners


Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation





PolyOne Process - Injection Molding
 Table F.4E-3: Summary of mass-reduction concepts selected for the nonmetallic Components of
                             the Body Structures Subsystem
F.4E.1.5   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

The PolyOne gas assist system was utilized for all components, as shown in Table F.4E-
4. The mass was reduced .043 kg and cost decreased $0.21.
^^^
u>
•<
2-
0
3

03
03

Subsystem

01
01

Sub-Subsystem

00
07

Description

Body Structure Subsystem
Rear Wheelouse Arch Liners

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (D


0.043
0.043
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 448

     F.4E.2 Front End Subsystem

F.4E.2.1  Subsystem Content Overview

Table F.4E-5 demonstrates that the most significant nonmetallic contributors to the Front
End subsystem mass are the Rock Shields and the Front Wheelhouse Arch Liners (Image
F.4E-2).


(f)
ciT
3


03
03
03






V)

%
i-i-
CD
3

02
02
02





m
cr

c
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 449
F.4E.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The materials and thickness used are in common use by many automobile manufacturers
and their suppliers. They finish off the  wheel wells  as well as protect the wheelhouse
from noise and damage caused by rocks, debris, tires and conditions caused by inclement
weather.

F.4E.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Down-gauging  the material thickness is  the most common method used to  reduce mass.
Designing in reinforcements while varying material thickness for the entire component or
the thickness of a specific section can provide a significant mass reduction.

Another common industry method is to  change materials and manufacturing processes.
These  component  processes  are  altered based on materials  technology and  process
production for interior hardware.

Fiber lined wheelhouse arch liners are being utilized to further reduce NVH that emanates
from the wheelhouse areas. They are useful in achieving cab acoustics targets while
meeting durability standards.

Spray on products  are also being tested  as a viable alternative to traditional wheelhouse
arches, but  as  of yet do not provide enough protection  or noise reduction to  warrant
consideration in this study.

The most promising emerging technology for hard trim is gas assist  injection molding.
The PolyOne and the MuCell® processes were reviewed: These processes are outlined in
Exterior Trim & Ornamentation.
F.4E.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 450
Component/Assembly
Front Wheelhouse Arch
Liners
Rock Shields
Mass-Reduction Idea
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Estimated Impact
10% -20% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
reduction
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
reduction
  Table F.4E-6: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Nonmetallic
                         Components of the Front End Subsystem
F.4E.2.5 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected

The mass reduction ideas selected that fell into the Ae group are shown in Table F.4E-7.

O)
*<
£
3



03
03
03
OT
c
cr
U>
ff
3


02
02
02
c
cr

cr
(/)
t
3

00
04
10


Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description




Front End Subsystem
Front Wheelhouse Arch Liners
Under Engine Closures or Rock
Shields


Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation





PolyOne Process - Injection Molding
PolyOne Process - Injection Molding
Figure 5.4E-7: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected for the Nonmetallic Components of
                               the Front End Subsystem
F.4E.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

The  PolyOne  gas  assist system was utilized for all components in Table F.4A-8. The
resulting mass reduction is 0.172 kg and a $0.55 cost decrease.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 451

w
•<
2-
0
3

03
03
03

Subsystem

02
02
02

Sub-Subsystem

00
04
10

Description

Body Structure Subsystem
Front Wheelhouse Arch Liners
Under Engine Closures or Rock shields

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A
A
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


0.069
0.103
0.172
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 452

(ft
^<
(/>
»-§-
CD
3

04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04




(f)
c
O"
w
*<
w
CD
3

00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07



(f)
5T
C/)
c
cr
w
•<
w
»-§-
CD
3
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00





Description


Suspension System
Front Suspension Subsystem
Rear Suspension Subsystem
Shock Absorber Subsystem
Wheels And Tires Subsystem
Suspension Load Leveling Control Subsystem
Rear Suspension Modules
Front Suspension Modules
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =

System &
Subsystem
Mass
"kg"

24.416
33.194
23.749
42.945
141.815
0.000
0.000
0.000
266.120
1711
15.56%
           Table F.5-0-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for the Suspension System
The Final Calculated Results Summary for the entire Toyota Venza Suspension system is
shown in Table F.5-2. This combination of proposed solutions was selected for this cost
group  due to  the  significant weight  savings  calculated to  be  obtained (approximately
69.445kg) while also allowing for lower overall costs (approximately $ 135.93).
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 453

OT
•<
fr
ST
3


'04
'04
'04
'04
'04
'04
'04
'04

Subsyste
3

roo
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07

Sub-Subsys
ST
3
roo
'00
'00
'00
'00
'00
'00
"00

Description



Suspension System
Front Suspension Subsystem
Rear Suspension Subsystem
Shock Absorber Subsystem
Wheels And Tires Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Lew=l
Select







Suspension Load Lewsling Control Subsystem
Rear Suspension Modules
Front Suspension Modules




Mass
Reduction
"kg" (i)




14.182
8.320
14.111
32.833
' 0.000
' 0.000
' 0.000
69.445
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
"$" (2)




-$5.74
$4.91
$57.99
$78.77
0.000
0.000
0.000
$135.93
(Decrease)
Awsrage
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg



-$0.40
$0.59
$4.11
$2.40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.51
(Decrease)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"



55.40%
41.53%
35.88%
25.69%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
26.47%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"



0.83%
0.49%
0.82%
1.92%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.06%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
r(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

           Table F.5-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Suspension System
     F.5.1    Front Suspension Subsystem

F.5.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Image F.5-1 shows the major suspension components in the Front Suspension subsystem
and their location and position relevant to one another as located on the vehicle front end.
             Image F.5-1: Front Suspension Subsystem Relative Location Diagram
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 454

                            (Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)

As shown in Image F.5-2, the Front Suspension subsystem major components consists of
the  Front Control Arms,  Front Knuckle Assemblies, Front Stabilizer Bar, Bushings &
Mounts and the miscellaneous attaching components.
           Image F.5-2: Front Suspension Subsystem Current Major Components
                                (Source: FEVInc photo)
As  seen in Table F.5-3,  there  are  three  sub-subsystems  that make  up the Front
Suspension  subsystem:  the  Front Suspension Links/Arms Upper  and  Lower, Front
Suspension Knuckle Assembly, and the Front Stabilizer (Anti-Roll) Bar Assembly.  The
most significant mass contributor within this subsystem was found to be within the Front
Suspension Knuckle Assembly (approx 37.6%), followed closely by the Front Suspension
Links/Arms Upper and Lower (approx 35.0%), and then the Front Stabilizer (Anti-Roll)
Bar Assembly (approx 27.4%).
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 455


U)
ft-
CD
3

04
04
04
04







U)
g.
w
CD
3
01
01
01
01






U)

U)
c
1

CD"
3
00
02
04
05









Description


Front Suspension Subsystem
Front Suspension Links/Arms Upper and Lower
Front Suspension Knuckle Assembly
Front Stabilizer (Anti-Roll) Bar Asm

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =

Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"

11.614
12.494
9.086

33.194
266.120
1711
12.47%
1.94%
      Table F.5-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Front Suspension Subsystem
F.5.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza's Front Suspension subsystem (Image F.5-3) follows typical industry
standards for design and performance. This includes a focus on strength and durability
with least material cost. Steel is the material of choice with most components. Welding
and  assembly  of multiple components  is  automated  and requires careful  setup,
maintenance, and observation to assure quality. Toyota also focuses on providing similar,
if not identical, components across all platform variants to take advantage of economies
of scale for minimizing production costs. This approach, however, is not optimal for
design efficiency based on applications and does not allow for maximum weight-versus-
performance efficiency.

The Front Suspension subsystem  contains a  variety of sub-assemblies  and components
with a variety of noteworthy characteristics. The Ball Joint Sub-Assembly (Image F.5-5)
has a cast steel base plate socket while the spindle is forged steel. Both are machined and
assembled with other various assembled components. The Ball Joint Sub-Assembly
Fasteners (Image F.5-6) are typical cold headed steel fabrications. The Control  Arm
Assembly (Image F.5-4) is made up of many components assembled to the  control arm.
The  Control  Arm Sub-Assembly (Image F.5-7) is composed of several components,
including the Control Arm (Image F.5-8), which is made from various stamped  steel
pieces welded together at  several locations.  The Control  Arm Mounting Shaft (Image
F.5-9) is a single-piece steel design. The Steering Knuckle (Image F.5-10) is cast iron
and precision machined. The Stabilizer Bar system (Image F.5-11) contains the Stabilizer
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 456

Bar, Bar Mounts, Mount Bushings, and Link Assemblies. The Stabilizer Bar (Image F.5-
12) is  a solid steel bar bent into shape and pinched  flanges with punched holes for
mounting points. The Stabilizer Bar Mounts (Image F.5-13) are of standard construction
with stamped steel brackets. The Stabilizer Bar  Mount  Bushings (Image F.5-14) are
molded rubber isolators.  The Stabilizer Link Assemblies (Image F.5-15) are standard
steel design. The steel components include the link rod, link cup diameters, cup bottom
plates and ball studs.
            Image F.5-3: Front Suspension Subsystem Current Assembly Example
                      (Source http://www. vehicledynamicsinternational. com)


F.5.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Automakers are deploying a wide variety of low mass materials in new vehicle models
regarding all subsystems including suspensions. Implementations have been documented
showing reduced  component mass for the same functionality using alternative materials
such as high-strength  steel, aluminum,  magnesium, plastics  and polymer composites.
Design  approaches for the active components of suspensions are primarily focused on
higher strength steels with lower part volume and high  strength aluminum. Also, some
notable  ventures  are  into  limited  applications  of  magnesium, long fiber  polymer
composites, and in rare cases, carbon fiber and titanium. The progress has been slow over
the years because of the typically higher resultant costs relative to steel.  However, recent
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 457

studies have shown cost comparisons near parity with well designed parts using alternate
materials, primarily high strength steel.

Another significant consideration should be the secondary mass-reduction effects - weight
reductions  for  all  other  vehicle  subsystems.  Less total  vehicle  mass  reduces  the
suspension loading and provides opportunities to further reduce suspension mass.

In the last decade, basalt fiber has  emerged as a contender in the fiber reinforcement of
composites. Proponents of this technology claim their products offer performance similar
to S-2 glass fibers at a price point  between S-2  glass and E-glass, and  may offer
manufacturers a less-expensive alternative to carbon fiber for products in which the latter
represents over-engineering and much higher cost.

Another  technology that  bears  watching  is bulk compound  molding  using  polymer
material that is filled with long carbon fiber.

Applications  of  basalt fiber  and bulk molded carbon fiber  will be  delayed  into the
indefinite future because of limited production capacity. However, the continental United
States has very large deposits of basalt, including the upper peninsula of Michigan. Basalt
fiber research, production and most marketing efforts are based in countries  once aligned
with the Soviet bloc. Companies  currently involved in production and marketing include
Kamenny  Vek  (Dubna,  Russia),  Technobasalt  (Kyiv, Ukraine),  Hengdian Group
Shanghai  Russia &  Gold  Basalt  Fibre Co.  (Shanghai,  China),  and OJSC Research
Institute  Glassplastics and Fiber (Bucha,  Ukraine).  Basaltex, a division  of Masureel
Holding (Wevelgem, Belgium), Sudaglass  Fiber Technology Inc. (Houston, Texas),  and
Allied Composite Technologies LLC (Rochester Hills, Michigan).
F.5.1.3.1     Front Control Arm Assembly

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Control Arm Assembly (Image F.5-4) is a multi-
piece assembly, with the major components made from steel and assembled together. The
total mass of this  assembly is 5.81kg.  This assembly  consists  of the following
components: Ball Joint Assembly, Ball Joint Fasteners and a Control Arm Sub-Assembly.
The arm sub-assembly is made up of a Control Arm Sub-Assembly, Rubber Isolator (with
a steel ID insert) and the Lower Bushing & Shaft.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 458
                Image F.5-4: Front Control Arm Current Assembly Example
        (Source: http://www.piranamotorsports.com/servlet/the-990/Toyota-Sienna-2004-2005/Detail)


F. 5.1.3.1.1   Front Ball Joint Sub-Assembly

             The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Ball Joint Assembly (Image F.5-5) is a
             multi-piece  design assembly.  The base plate socket is cast steel while the
             spindle is forged steel. Both are machined  and assembled with various
             components for the  socket boot, retaining ring, castle  nut,  zerk fitting,
             grease, etc.  The overall assembly has a mass of 0.896kg. No other viable
             high volume manufactured alternate designs were found to substitute. Due
             to performance requirements for loading and  strength,  no cost effective
             material substitutions were identified  for  replacement.  Therefore it was
             determined  that  a sizing  and  normalization  activity would need  to  be
             performed based on GVW to see if any opportunities exist.
                       Image F.5-5: Front Ball Joint Sub-Assembly
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 459
                      (Source :\\ttp://www. laauto. com/lA/BalUoint/Toyota)
F. 5.1.3.1.2   Front Ball Joint Fasteners

             The OEM Toyota Venza Ball Joint design utilizes bolt fasteners,  Image
             F.5-6,  in a  standard  attachment  configuration to the Control Arm Sub-
             Assembly. In the  design utilized there are two  pressed in flanged bolts
             secured with hex nuts. While these items are of minimal weight contributors
             there are other  designs that use mechanical rivets to  attach the ball joint.
             This fastener  design has less  assembly  process time and  less  costly
             components  but results in a less serviceable front suspension assembly.
             Each  OEM  chooses  their own  design based on  these  trade-offs and
             historical warranty data. The fasteners are  common  steel  and have  a
             combined mass  of 0.190kg.
               Image F.5-6: Front Ball Joint Sub-Assembly Fastener Example
                      (Source :\\ttp://www. laauto. com/lA/BalUoint/Toyota)
F. 5.1.3.1.3   Front Control Arm Sub-Assembly

             The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Control Arm Sub-Assembly (Image
             F.5-7) is  a multi-piece assembly, with  major  components  made from
             stamped steel and welded together. It has a total mass of 3.821kg. The rest
             of the sub-assembly is two hard-rubber isolators (one with a steel ID insert)
             and the Control Arm Mounting Shaft with bushing.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 460
              Image F.5-7: Front Control Arm Current Sub-Assembly Example
             (Source: http://www. autopartsexpress. com/Parts/TOYOTA_Control_Arm. html)


F.5.1.3.1.3.1                             Front Control Arm

                   The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Control Arm Sub-Assembly
                   (Image  F.5-8) is a multi-piece  assembly.  The various pieces  are
                   made from stamped steel and welded together at several locations. It
                   has a mass of 3.106kg. Traditionally control arms have been made
                   from either welded steel assemblies or from being cast out of iron.
                   This allows for adequate strength and component life without using
                   more  expensive  processes or materials.  Now with  advances  in
                   materials and processing  methods, other choices are available that
                   have  become more  cost effective  and  are being  utilized  in
                   aftermarket and  high performance applications as well  as  OEM
                   vehicle markets. Among some of these alternate mediums are Al, Ti,
                   Steel, Mg  and MMC. Forming methods now include sand casting,
                   semi-permanent metal molding, die casting, machining from billet,
                   and welded fabrications.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 461
               Image F.5-8: Front Control Arm Current Component Example
             (Source: http://www. autopartsexpress. com/Parts/TOYOTA_Control_Arm. html)


                   While  these alternatives now are designed with the strength and
                   performance required,  they do add  a significant cost-versus-mass
                   increase. However, the weight savings achieved is quite substantial
                   and assists with reducing vehicle requirements for suspension loads,
                   handling, ride  quality, engine hp requirements, etc. Other advanced
                   development  includes  using bulk molding compound  using long
                   randomly oriented carbon fiber continues to be of interest due to the
                   ability to easily mold it into complex shapes.
F.5.1.3.1.3.2                              Front Control Arm Mounting Shaft

                   The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Control Arm Mounting Shaft
                   is  a  single-piece  steel design with a mass  of 0.390kg. Mounting
                   shafts (Image F.5-9) have normally been made from various grades
                   of cast iron for  adequate strength and function. Now, with advances
                   in materials and processing methods, other choices are available and
                   being utilized in aftermarket and high performance applications as
                   well  as OEM  vehicle  markets.  Among  some  of these alternate
                   mediums are Al, Ti, Steel and Mg. Forming and fabrication methods
                   include casting, forging and billet machining.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 462
        Image F.5-9: Front Control Arm Mounting Shaft Current Component Example
              (Source: http://autoparts2k. com/moog-control-arm-bushings-lower-k20003 7)/


F.5.1.3.2     Front Steering Knuckle

The  baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Steering Knuckle  (Image F.5-10) is a single
piece cast iron knuckle of a  standard  design configuration with  a mass  of 5.865kg.
Knuckles are historically made from cast iron for strength  and function. Over  the  last
several years, advances in alternative materials and processing methods have made new
choices available. Rather than cast iron only, Al alloys are now a common choice and are
used in high-volume applications by many OEMs. This allows not only similar functional
performance, but substantial weight savings along with minimal, if any, cost increase.
                 Image F.5-10: Front Steering Knuckle Current Component
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 463
                          (Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)
F.5.1.3.3     Front Stabilizer Bar System

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Stabilizer Bar system (Image F.5-11) is standard
design and construction  composed of  solid steel  forged bar,  molded rubber mount
bushings, steel  stamped brackets, and miscellaneous fasteners. Together, this system has
an overall mass of  approximately 9.086kg.  The  stabilizer bar  system has  recently
undergone some changes relative to design, materials, and processing. Steel bars are now
made with a hollow design as well as with alternative materials. Mounting Bushings are
being made  with various plastics in order to increase  rigidity  and life. Brackets  and
mountings are now being made from new casted, forged and molded processes as well as
with new materials such as Al, Ti, Mg, and fiber-reinforced plastics.
              Image F.5-11: Stabilizer Bar System Current Component Example
                (Source: http://www.hotchkis.net/6472_gm_abody_extreme_sway_bar_set.html)
Another trend in suspension  stabilization technology  is integrating  more  and more
electronics.  Electronic dampers allow a wide range between maximum and minimum
damping levels and adjust instantly to ensure ride comfort and firm vehicle control. By
integrating  mechanical and electronic functions within  the  shock  absorber system,
automakers  can improve handling and potentially reduce costs as technologies mature.

BMW has  redesigned a  standard  suspension piece to resolve  some past suspension
problems. While roll bars—or sway bars—help control vehicle pitch,  they  are also a
detriment to ride quality because they transmit vibrations from one side of the vehicle to
the other.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 464

To remedy this problem, BMW has developed Active Roll Stabilization (Image F.5-12)
for its 7-series vehicles. On these vehicles, roll bars have evolved into two-piece hydro
mechanical parts. Now, when one side of the vehicle noses sharply into  a turn or drops
down to meet the road, a hydraulic motor located between the bars turns the roll bar on
the other side  of the vehicle in a counter rotation motion, thereby keeping the entire
vehicle flat.

Since the roll bar is separated into two pieces, vibrations from one side are no longer
transmitted to the other. That allows the two sides of the vehicle to be truly independent.
The result is a vehicle with improved handling and no trade off in ride comfort while also
allowing a potential reduction in vehicle front end mass.
                    ^r^^B           %
                   Image F.5-12: BMW Active Roll Stabilization System
       (Source : http:/Avww.search-autoparts.com/searchautoparts/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=68222)
F. 5.1.3.3.1   Front Stabilizer Bar

             The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front  Stabilizer Bar (Image F.5-13) is
             standard construction with a  solid steel  bar bent into shape and pinched
             flanges  with punched holes for mounting points. This bar has a mass of
             7.099kg. The stabilizer bar has  begun being  redesigned in  recent years.
             Design, materials and processing changes  now allow hollow designs as well
             as using alternative materials such as Al, Ti, HSS  and fiber reinforced
             composites. While these  materials  can effect performance and  handling
             under various conditions, significant mass savings can also be achieved.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 465
                     Image F.5-13: Stabilizer Bar Current Component
                           (Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)
F. 5.1.3.3.2   Front Stabilizer Bar Mountings

             The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Stabilizer Bar Mountings (Image
             F.5-14) are of standard construction. There are two stamped steel brackets,
             one bracket nesting inside the other when assembled. They have a mass of
             0.62kg. These brackets have had some changes in design, materials and
             processing recently. Various configurations include  alternate materials for
             Al, Mg, HSS and plastics. Among the process variations for manufacturing
             are casting, molding, and forging.
                Image F.5-14: Stabilizer Bar Mounting Current Components
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 466
                                (Source: FEVInc Photos)
F. 5.1.3.3.3   Front Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings

             The baseline OEM Toyota  Venza  Front  Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings
             (Image F.5-15) are of standard design made of molded rubber. They have a
             mass  of 0.091kg. Mounting bushings have  had some  changes in design,
             materials, or processing recently. Most changes are material differences and
             it is now common that nylons and urethanes are used by many OEMs and
             nearly all  after-market  manufacturers.  While there  is only  a  minimal
             accomplishment in  mass savings, there is a cost  savings and functional
             performance enhancement that is realized.
              Image F.5-15: Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushing Current Components
   (Source: http://www.wundercarparts.com/item.wws?sku=K90546&itempk=777630&mfr=MOOG&weight=3)
F. 5.1.3.3.4   Front Stabilizer Link Sub-Assembly

             The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Stabilizer Link Sub-Assembly is
             standard steel construction and has a mass of 0.400kg. This link assembly
             (Image F.5-16) has had little change in design, materials, or processing in
             recent years. Most are of steel construction components - link rod, link cup
             diameters, cup bottom plates, and ball studs. The other components include
             the rubber boots, retaining rings, fastening nuts, and grease. Little has been
             done to change the basic design of these units, but some manufacturers are
             beginning to use alternative materials.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 467
                 Image F.5-16: Front Stabilizer Link Current Sub-Assembly

 (Source:http://www.autopartsrwarehouse.com/details/QQToyotaQQVenzaQQMoogQQSway_Bar_LinkQQ2010QQ
                                    MOK90344.html)
F.5.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Brainstorming activities generated  the ideas  shown in  Table  F.5-4 for  the  Front
Suspension subsystem  and their various  components. The majority  of these mass
reduction ideas offer alternatives to  traditional steel parts and assemblies.  They include
part modifications, material substitutions, processing and fabrication differences, and the
use  of alternative  parts  currently  in production and used  on other  vehicles and
applications.  Our  team  approach  to  idea  selection  used  judgment from extensive
experience and research to prepare a list of the most promising ideas.
-------
                                Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                              March 30, 2012
                                                  Page 468
Component/ Assembly
Mass Reduction Idea
Front Suspension Subsystem
Ball Joint Fasteners

Control Arm Mounts

Control Arm Mounting Shaft

Control Arms

Frt Stabilizer Link Asms

Knuckles
Rivet ball joints & eliminate
fasteners

Control Arm Mounts - Use
through bolt & nut design and
eliminate heavy anchor rods

Al forging

Pulltrude control arms
Al (cast) control arms
Make Bottom arms out of
Titanium (sheet)
Replace from 2005 VW
Passat (mass:8.66-7.54 &
cost:0.98)
Al (sheet) weld fab control
arms
SS stamped & welded fab
control arms
Mg cast control arms
HSS stamped control arms
Combination. Replace from
Passat & chg to Al Welded
Fabrication.

Make Frt Stabilzer Link Asm
RH&LH out of Forged Al
Make Frt Stabilzer Link Asm
RH & LH out of Titanium
Replace from 2005 VW
Passat (mass:0.86-0.69 &
cost:0.96)

Replace from 2005 VW
Passat (is Al) (mass:5.95-3.50
& cost: 1.65)
Normalized Cast Aluminum
Estimated Impact

10-20% wt save

1 0% wt save

60-70% wt save

20-30% wt save
30-40% wt save
40-50% wt save
10-20% wt save
60-70% wt save
20-30% wt save
30-40% wt save
10-20% wt save
70-80% wt save

60-70% wt save
40-50% wt save
20-30% wt save

30-40% wt save
30-40% wt save
Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits

Low Cost. In production -
automotive.

Not feasible - no room for
design chg.

Higher Cost. Auto production
C5 Corvette.

Not analyzed due to low ranking
score
Higher Cost. Auto production C5
Corvette.
High Cost. Low production -
auto racing.
Low Cost. In production - VW
Passat.
Higher Cost. Auto production
BMW&GM.
Higher Cost.
High Cost. Low production -
auto.
Higher Cost. Auto production.
Higher Cost. Auto production -
VW.

Higher Cost. Low volume
production - racing.
High Cost. Low volume
production - off-road.
Low Cost. In production - VW
Passat.

High Cost. In production - VW
Passat.
Higher Cost. Auto production -
VW&GM.
Table F.5-4 continued on next page
-------
                                Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                              March 30, 2012
                                                  Page 469
Stabilizer Bar

Stabilizer Bar Mounts

Stabilizer Bar Mount
Bushings

Strut Modules & Wheel
Carriers

Front Suspension System
Make stabilizer bars hollow
Make stabilizer bars out of
Aluminum (solid)
Make stabilizer bars out of
Titanium (hollow)
Glass/Epoxy Filament winding
(solid)
Carbon/Epoxy Filament
winding (solid)
Replace from 2005 VW
Passat (hollow) (mass:6.09-
3.09 & cost:0.82)
Make stabilizer bars out of
Aluminum (hollow or tubular)
Combination. Replace from
Passat & chg to Al (hollow).

Make stabilizer bar mountings
out of cast aluminum
Make stabilizer bar mountings
out of sheet stamped
aluminum
Make stabilizer bar mountings
out of cast magnesium
Overmold stabilizer bar
mountings
Use hook & bolt design on
stabilizer mounting bracket to
eliminate (1) fastener
Combination. Cast Al &
Overmolded.

Make stabilizer bushings out of
nylon

Lt wt suspension composite
strut module with integrated
wheel carrier

Optimize for downsized (non-
hybrid) powertrain, smaller
wheels-See Future Steel
Vehicle: 25-33% reduction
30-40% wt save
40-50% wt save
60-70% wt save
70-80% wt save
60-70% wt save
40-50% wt save
50-60% wt save
60-70% wt save

30-40% wt save
30-40% wt save
40-50% wt save
5-1 0% wt save
5-1 0% wt save
40-50% wt save

5-1 0% wt save

40-50% wt save

20-30% wt save
Higher Cost. Auto production
BMW&GM.
High Cost. Low production.
High Cost. Low production -
auto racing
Higher Cost. Auto production
BMW & Audi
High Cost. Low production -
auto racing
Low Cost. In production - VW &
BMW.
Mod Cost. Development for low
production.
Moderate Cost.

High Cost. Low production -
auto
High Cost. Low production -
auto racing
High Cost. Low production -
auto racing
In production - VW & BMW.
In production - GM.
Higher Cost. Low production
European Auto.

High Cost. Low production -
auto racing

High Cost. Development

Idea to all encompassing for
scope of project - done instead
with specific components
Table F.5-4 continued on next page
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 470
Balljoints

Dust Covers

Mass Damper

Replace from 2005 VW
Passat (mass: 1.97-1. 32 &
cost:0.93)

Replace from 2005 VW
Passat (mass:0.00-0.75 &
costx)

Replace from 2005 VW
Passat (mass: 1. 30-0.00 &
costx)

40-50% wt save

Lotus idea - wt
increase.

100% wt save

Low Cost. In production - VW
Passat.

Not implemented due to wt
increase. In production - VW
Passat.

In production - VW Passat.

 Table F.5-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Front Suspension
                                      Subsystem
F.5.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.5-5 shows a subset of the ideas generated from  the brainstorming  activities.
These ideas were selected for detailed evaluation of both the mass savings achieved and
the manufacturing cost. Several ideas  suggest  alternative materials as well  as part
substitutions from other vehicle designs, such as those currently being used on the VW
Passat (as determined in the March 2010 Lotus Report).
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 471
CO
-<
en
CD"
3
04
04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04
Subsystem
01
01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01
Sub-Subsystem
00
00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Front Suspension Subsystem
Ball Joint Fasteners

Control Arm Mounting Shaft

Control Arms

Frt Stabilizer Link Asms

Knuckles

Stabilizer Bar

Stabilizer Bar Mounts

Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings

Strut Modules & Wheel Carriers

Balljoints
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation

Rivet ball joints & eliminate fasteners

Al forging

Combination. Replace from Passat & chg to Al
Welded Fabrication.

Make Frt Stabilzer Link Asm RH & LH out of
Forged Al

Normalized Cast Aluminum

Combination. Replace from Passat & chg to Al
(hollow).

Make stabilizer bar mountings out of cast
magnesium

Make stabilizer bushings out of nylon

Lt wt suspension composite strut module with
integrated wheel carrier

Replace from 2005 VW Passat (mass: 1.97-1. 32 &
cost:0.93)
Table F.5-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Front Suspension Subsystem Analysis
The new mass-reduced front suspension system configuration (Image F.5-17) is still that
of typical vehicle designs utilized by nearly all OEMs. The mass  reductions achieved
were done so by improving and replacing individual sub-assemblies and components. The
overall design and function remains the same, thus eliminating drastic revisions that will
cause significant vehicle interface redesigns.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 472
            Image F.5-17: Front Suspension Rotor Mass Reduced System Example

                      (Source http://www. vehicledynamicsinternational. com)
F.5.1.5.1
Front Control Arm Assembly
The  solutions chosen for implementation  on the final Front Control Arm Assembly
(Image F.5-18) are a  combination of  multiple  ideas  across  several different  sub-
assemblies and components. The total mass of this new sub-assembly is 4.33 kg. These
ideas included modifications to design, material utilized, and processing methods required
to the following  sub-assemblies  and components:  Ball Joint  Assembly,  Ball Joint
Fasteners, and a Control Arm Sub-Assembly. The Arm Sub-Assembly  is made up of a
Control Arm, Rubber Isolator (with a steel ID insert), and the Lower Bushing & Shaft.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 473
             Image F.5-18: Front Control Arm Mass Reduced Assembly Example
         (Source: http://www.amazon.com/Dorman-521-026-Front-Lower-Control/dp/B0049E2L2I)


F. 5.1.5.1.1   Front Ball Joint Sub-Assembly

             The solution used for the Ball Joint Assembly (Image F.5-19) is the sub-
             assembly  substitution from the VW Passat application. No other viable
             high-volume  manufactured  alternate  designs were found for substitution.
             Due  to  loading and strength performance requirements, no cost-effective
             material substitutions were identified for replacement. Therefore,  it was
             determined that a sizing and normalization activity would be applied based
             on GVW.  The overall sub-assembly has a 0.60kg replacement mass.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 474
                 Image F.5-19: Front Ball Joint Mass Reduced Sub-Assembly
                       (Source :http://www. laauto. com/lA/BalUoint/Toyota)
F. 5.1.5.1.2    Front Ball Joint Fasteners

             The answer  implemented for Ball Joint Fasteners (Image F.5-20) was to
             eliminate the bolts used in  the standard  attachment configuration to the
             Control  Arm Sub-Assembly. Rivets  replaced these  bolts for simpler and
             easier assembling  process  time as well as a small weight savings. These
             new rivets have a new net mass of 0.102kg.
         Image F.5-20: Front Ball Joint Sub-Assembly Mass Reduced Fastener Example
             (Source: http://www.ecklerscorvette.com/corvette-ball-joint-rivet-set-lower.html)
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 475

            F. 5.1.5.1.3   Front Control Arm Sub-Assembly

            The new Front Control Arm  Sub-Assembly (Image F.5-21) is still a multi-
            piece assembly; however, now with the major components being made from
            forged aluminum together. This design utilizing Al for the control arm is
            now very common in the industry and used by nearly all major  OEMs, in
            particular  GM,   BMW, Mercedes, Toyota,  Honda,  and Audi.  This
            component has  a total mass of 3.73 kg. The rest of the sub-assembly
            consists of two hard-rubber  isolators (one with a steel  ID insert)  and  the
            Control Arm Mounting Shaft with bushing.
          Image F.5-21: Front Control Arm  Mass Reduced Sub-Assembly Example
         (Source: http://www.amazon.com/Dorman-521-026-Front-Lower-Control/dp/B0049E2L2I)


F.5.1.5.1.2.1    Front Control Arm

                  The solution for Front Control Arm Sub-Assembly (Image F.5-22)
                  is still  a single  piece  forged  aluminum component.  Due to the
                  replacement of steel with Al, an additional material volume of 30-
                  40% was made. This design, utilizing Al for the control arm, is now
                  very common in the industry and used by nearly all major OEMs, in
                  particular GM, BMW,  Mercedes,  Toyota,  Honda, and Audi. This
                  cast component has a total mass of 2.74kg.

                  Traditionally control arms have been made from either welded steel
                  assemblies or from being cast out of iron. This allowed for  adequate
                  strength and component life without using more expensive processes
                  or  materials.  Now  with advances  in  materials  and  processing
                  methods, other choices are available  that have become more cost
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 476

                   effective and are often being utilized in aftermarket and by OEMs.
                   Among  some of these alternate mediums are Al, Ti, Steel and Mg.
                   Forming methods now include  sand casting,  semi-permanent metal
                   molding, die casting, machining from billet, and welded fabrications.
            Image F.5-22: Front Control Arm Mass Reduced Component Example
         (Source: http://www.amazon.com/Dorman-521-026-Front-Lower-Control/dp/B0049E2L2I)


                   The  weight savings achieved  is quite substantial  and assists with
                   reducing vehicle requirements for  suspension  loads, handling, ride
                   quality,  engine hp requirements, etc.  Consideration  must still  be
                   given to adequate validation testing to fit this  solution to particular
                   vehicle requirements.
F.5.1.5.1.2.2                              Front Control Arm Mounting Shaft

                   The  change utilized on the Front Control Arm  Mounting  Shaft
                   (Image F.5-23) is to now use forged Al instead of a steel component.
                   Due  to  the  replacement of steel  with  Al,  an additional material
                   volume of 20-30% was  made. Mounting shafts have normally been
                   made from various grades of steel for adequate strength. Now, with
                   advances in materials and processing  methods, other choices  are
                   available and  being  utilized in  aftermarket and high-performance
                   applications  as well as in some OEM vehicle markets. Among some
                   of these alternate are Al and Ti. Forming and fabrication methods
                   include forging and  billet machining. This new component had a
                   mass of 0.18kg.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 477
          Image F.5-23: Front Control Arm Mounting Shaft Mass Reduced Example

(Source: http://www.track-star.net/store/corvette-c6-z06-suspension/pfadt-racing-spherical-bushing-set-2006-2011-
                                       c6-z06)
F.5.1.5.2
Front Steering Knuckle
The new Front Steering Knuckle  (Image F.5-24) is a component substitution from the
VW Passat application.  In addition to this the material will be changed to Al as well. Due
to the replacement of steel with Al, an additional material volume of 20% was made. Al
alloys  are now a common choice and are  used in high volume applications by many
OEMs, including GM, BMW, Audi, Honda, Toyota, Ford, and Chrysler. Due to loading
and strength performance requirements, proper validation testing would be required
dependent  on  the  application.   Therefore,  it  was determined  that  a  sizing  and
normalization activity would be applied based on GVW. The overall sub-assembly has a
replacement mass of 2.71kg.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 478
              Image F.5-24: Front Steering Knuckle Mass Reduced Component

                          (Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)
F.5.1.5.3
Front Stabilizer Bar System
The proposed Front Stabilizer Bar system (Image F.5-25)  is of standard configuration
with a different design and construction. Rather than solid steel forged bar composition
with molded rubber mount bushings and steel stamped brackets, it is now a hollow Al bar
with cast Mg mounting brackets  and nylon bushings. Together, this  new system has
reduced mass to a total of 3.297kg.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 479
             Image F.5-25: Stabilizer Bar System Mass Reduced System Example
          (Source: http://www. tundraheadquarters. com/blog/toyota-tundra-trd-parts-accessories)
F. 5.1.5.3.1   Front Stabilizer Bar
             The mass reduced Front Stabilizer Bar (Image F.5-26) is now of hollow
             design with Al material. Additional material volume of 40-45% was added
             for increasing the bar strength relative to steel as well as increasing the bar
             diameter by 50% to allow an adequate cross-section relative to being hollow
             versus solid.  Hollow stabilizer bars are  becoming  common  on many
             European vehicles and beginning to being utilized in North America.  This
             new bar now has a mass of 2.16kg. As with other suspension components,
             proper validation must be performed based  on the vehicle performance
             requirements.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 480
              Image F.5-26: Stabilizer Bar Mass Reduced Component Example

           (Source: http://www.i-club. com/forums/suspension-brakes-handling-wheels-tires-162)


F. 5.1.5.3.2    Front Stabilizer Bar Mountings

             The  new Front Stabilizer Bar Mountings (Image F.5-27) are now mad of
             die cast Mg brackets. Due to the replacement of steel with Al, an additional
             material volume of 50-60% was made. They have a mass of 0.335kg. These
             brackets have  progressed with some  changes  in design, materials,  and
             processing. These designs include alternate materials for Al, Mg, HSS, and
             fiber plastics. Among the  process variations for manufacturing include
             casting, molding, and forging.
          Image F.5-27: Stabilizer Bar Mounting Mass Reduced Component Example
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 481

     (Source: http://www. tickperformance. com/products/UMI-Heavy-Duty-Billet-A luminum-Rear-S\vay-Bar-
                                     Mounts.html)
F. 5.1.5.3.3   Front Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings

             The redesigned Front Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings (Image F.5-28) are of
             standard design but utilize an alternate material of nylon versus rubber.
             They have  a  mass of 0.086kg.  Many aftermarket  as  well  as  OEM
             manufacturers  now utilize this  new  material  choice  for  many vehicle
             applications.  This is  due to improved  handling  performance, increase
             component life and even a small amount of mass reduction.
       Image F.5-28: Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushing Mass Reduced Component Example
              (Source: http://www. suspensionconnection. com/cgi-bin/suscon/18-1116. html)


F. 5.1.5.3.4   Front Stabilizer Link Sub-Assembly

             The new Front Stabilizer Link  Sub-Assemblies (Image F.5-29)  are now
             redesigned using cast Al construction for a 0.298kg mass. Due to the
             replacement of steel with Al, an  additional material volume of 60-70% was
             made. This link assembly eliminates several components and a great deal of
             assembly and machining for a  simplified  design. Components combined
             include: link rod, link cup diameters, and cup bottom plates.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 482
              Image F.5-29: Front Stabilizer Link Mass Reduced Sub-Assembly
                        (Source: http://www. mjmautohaus. com/catalog/VW)
F.5.1.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.5-6 shows the results  of the mass reduction ideas that were  evaluated for the
Front Suspension subsystem. These ideas resulted in an overall subsystem mass savings
of 14.182kg and a cost increase  differential of $5.74.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 483

OT
*<
tfl
(D
F04
r04
04
'04
'04



Subsystem
"01
"01
01
'01
'01



Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
03
04



Description


Front Suspension
Front Road Spring
Front Suspension Links/Arms Upper &
Lower
Front Suspension Knuckle Assembly
Front Stabilizer Bar Assembly



Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Le\«l
Selec
t


A
A
C

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (1)

0.000
1.934
6.759
5.489

14.182
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)


$0.00
-$0.65
$6.78
-$11.87

-$5.74
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg

$0.00
-$0.34
$1.00
-$2.16

-$0.40
(Increase)
"(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
r(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Sub-
Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"

0.00%
39.31%
62.70%
65.93%

Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.00%
0.11%
0.40%
0.32%

55.40% I 0.83%



       Table F.5-6: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Front Suspension Subsystem
     F.5.2    Rear Suspension Subsystem
F.5.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview

The Image F.5-30 pictorial diagram represents the major suspension components in the
Rear  Suspension subsystem and their relative location  and position  relevant to one
another as located on the vehicle rear end.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 484
            Image F.5-30: Rear Suspension Subsystem Relative Location Diagram
                             (Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)


As  seen  in  Image F.5-31, the  Rear  Suspension subsystem consists  of the major
components of the Rear Arms - Upper and Lower,  Rod Arms,  Rear Carrier Assemblies,
Rear Stabilizer Bar, Bushings and Mounts, and the miscellaneous attaching components.
      Image F.5-31: Rear Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem Current Major Components
                                (Source: FEV, Inc Photo)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 485
As  seen in Table F.5-7, the three sub-subsystems that make up  the Rear Suspension
subsystem are:  the Rear Suspension Links/Arms Upper and Lower; Rear Suspension
Knuckle Assembly; and Rear Stabilizer (Anti-Roll) Bar Assembly. The most significant
contributor to the mass of the Rear Suspension subsystem is the Knuckle Assembly
(approx 47.8%), followed closely by Links/Arms Upper and Lower (approx 35.7%) and
then the Stabilizer Bar (approx 16.5%).
CO
><
en
ff
3
04
04
04
04


Subsystem
02
02
02
02


Sub-
Subsystem
00
02
03
05


Description
Rear Suspension Subsystem
Rear Suspension Links/Arms Upper and Lower
Rear Suspension Knuckle Assembly
Rear Stabilizer (Anti-Roll) Bar Asm

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"

8.479
11.341
3.929

23.749
266.120
1711
8.92%
1.39%
      Table F.5-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Rear Suspension Subsystem
F.5.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

As with the front suspension, the Toyota Venza's rear suspension system follows typical
industry standards. See Section F.4.1.2 for additional information.

The Toyota Venza's Rear Suspension subsystem,  Image F.5-32, follows typical industry
standards for design  and performance. This includes a focus on strength and durability
with least material cost. Steel is the  material of choice with most components,  with
welding and  assembly being done on multiple  components. Toyota  also  focuses on
providing  similar if not  identical  components  across  all platform variants  to  take
advantage of economies of scale in minimizing production costs. This approach, however,
is  not optimal  for  design efficiency based  on  applications  and does not allow for
maximum weight-versus-performance efficiency.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 486

The  Rear Suspension subsystem contains  a variety of sub-assemblies and components
with a variety of noteworthy characteristics: The Rear Arm #1 Assembly (Image F.5-33)
is a steel welded fabrication with two assembled rubber isolators, as is the Rear Arm #2
Assembly (Image F.5-34). The Rear Rod Assembly (Image F.5-35) is made from various
steel pieces are welded together and assembled with two rubber isolators. The Bearing
Carrier Knuckle (Image F.5-36) is cast iron and precision machined. The Stabilizer Bar
system (Image F.5-37) contains the Stabilizer Bar, Bar Mounts, Mount Bushings and
Link Assemblies. The Stabilizer Bar (Image F.5-38) is a solid steel bar bent into shape
and pinched flanges with punched holes for mounting points. The Stabilizer Bar Mounts
(Image F.5-39) are standard construction with stamped steel brackets. The Stabilizer Bar
Mount Bushings (Image F.5-40)  are molded rubber  isolators. The Stabilizer  Link
Assemblies (Image F.5-41)  are standard steel design. The steel components include the
link rod, link  cup diameters, cup bottom plates, and ball studs.
            Image F.5-32: Rear Suspension Subsystem Current Assembly Example
                 (Source http.V/www.bestcarsguide. com/what-is-rear-end-suspension)
F.5.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Automakers are deploying a wide variety of low-mass materials in new vehicle models
regarding all subsystems, including suspensions. Implementations have been documented
showing reduced component mass for the same functionality using alternative materials
such as high-strength steel,  aluminum, magnesium, plastics,  and polymer composites.
Design  approaches for the active components of suspensions are primarily focused on
higher strength steels with lower part volume and high-strength aluminum. Also, some
notable  ventures  are  into limited applications of magnesium,  long  fiber  polymer
composites, and in rare cases, carbon fiber and titanium. The progress has been slow over
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 487

the years because of the typically higher resultant costs relative to steel. However, recent
studies have shown cost comparisons near parity with well designed parts using alternate
materials, primarily high strength steel.

Another significant consideration should be the secondary mass-reduction effects - weight
reductions for all other vehicle  subsystems.  Less total  vehicle  mass reduces  the
suspension loading and provides opportunities to further reduce suspension mass.
F.5.2.3.1     Rear Arm Assembly #1

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Arm Assembly #1 (Image F.5-33) is a multi-piece
assembly with the major portions being made from steel tubing welded together. The total
mass of this assembly is 0.826kg. This assembly also consists of two rubber isolators with
metal ID  sleeves.  No other viable  high  volume manufactured alternate designs were
found to  substitute.  Due to loading and strength  performance requirements, no cost-
effective material substitutions were identified. Therefore, it was determined that a sizing
and normalization activity would  need to be performed based on GVW to see if any
opportunities exist.
                      Image F.5-33: Rear Arm #1 Current Assembly
           (Source: http://www. streetperformance. com/auto/2000-toyota-camry-ce/trailing-arm)

                  7
F.5.2.3.2     Rear Arm Assembly #2
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Arm Assembly #2 (Image F.5-34) is a multi-piece
assembly, with the major portions being made from steel tubing welded together. The
overall assembly mass is 1.130kg.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 488
                  Image F.5-34: Rear Arm #2 Current Assembly Example
           (Source: http://www. streetperformance. com/auto/2000-toyota-camry-ce/trailing-arm)
F.5.2.3.3
Rear Rod Assembly
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Control Arm Sub-Assembly (Image F.5-35) is a
multi-piece assembly with  major  components made  from  steel  tubing  and  welded
together. It contains  an installed threaded insert for adjustability.  This unit has a total
mass  of 1.222kg. The rest of the sub-assembly is two hard-rubber isolators (one with a
steel ID insert) and the Control Arm Mounting Shaft with bushing.

                    Image F.5-35: Rear Rod Current Assembly Example
         (Source: http://www.ebay. com/itm/REAR-SUSPENSION-LEFT-LA TERAL-LINK-TOYOTA)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 489
F.5.2.3.4     Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle
The  baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle (Image  F.5-36) is a
single piece cast iron knuckle of a standard design configuration with a mass of 5.282kg.
Knuckles  are historically made from cast iron for strength and function. Over the last
several years, advances in alternative materials and processing methods have  allowed new
choices to be available. Rather than cast iron only, Al alloys are now a common choice
and are used in high volume applications  by many OEMs. This allows not only similar
functional performance but substantial weight savings along with minimal, if any, cost
increase.
              Image F.5-36: Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle Current Component
                          (Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)
                  T

F.5.2.3.5     Rear Stabilizer Bar System

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Stabilizer Bar system (Image F.5-37) is standard
design and  construction  composed of solid  steel forged bar, molded rubber-mount
bushings,  steel-stamped brackets,  and miscellaneous fasteners.  Together, this system has
an overall mass of approximately 3.929kg. The stabilizer bar system has undergone some
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 490

changes relative to design, materials, and processing recently. Steel bars are now being
made with a hollow design as well as with alternative materials. Mounting Bushings are
now made  with  various plastics in order to increase rigidity and  life. Brackets  and
mountings are now being made from new casting, forging, and molding processes as well
as utilizing new materials such as Al, Ti, Mg and fiber-reinforced plastics.
              Image F.5-37: Stabilizer Bar System Current Component Example
             (Source: http://www.hotchkis.net/6472_gm_abody_extreme_sway_bar_set.html)
F. 5.2.3.5.1    Rear Stabilizer Bar
             The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Stabilizer Bar (Image  F.5-38)  is
             standard construction with solid steel bar  bent into  shape and pinched
             flanges with punched holes for mounting points. This bar has  a mass of
             2.880kg. The stabilizer bar has undergone redesign in recent years: Design,
             materials, and processing changes now allow for hollow designs as well as
             using  alternative  materials  such as  Al,  Ti, HSS, and fiber-reinforced
             composites. While these materials  can effect performance  and handling
             under various conditions, significant mass savings is also achieved.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 491
                 Image F.5-38: Stabilizer Bar Current Component Example
                     (Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F.5.2.3.5.2    Rear Stabilizer Bar Mountings

             The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Stabilizer Bar Mountings (Image
             F.5-39) are of standard  stamped  steel construction  and have  a mass  of
             0.127kg. These brackets have had some recent changes in design, materials
             and processing, including alternate configurations with materials  such  as
             Al, Mg, HSS,  and plastics. Process variations for manufacturing include
             casting, molding, and forging.
                Image F.5-39: Stabilizer Bar Mounting Current Components
                                 (Source: FEV Inc Photo)
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 492
F.5.2.3.5.3   Rear Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings
             The baseline OEM Toyota Venza  Rear Stabilizer Bar Mount  Bushings
             (Image F.5-40) are of standard design made of molded rubber. They have a
             mass of 0.073kg. Mounting bushings have had some  changes in design,
             materials or processing recently. Most changes are material differences and
             it is now common that nylons and urethanes are used by many OEMs and
             nearly  all  after-market manufacturers.  While  there is  only a  minimal
             accomplishment in mass savings, there is a cost savings  and functional
             performance enhancement that is realized.
              Image F.5-40: Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushing Current Components
   (Source:http://www.wundercarparts.com/item.wws?sku=K90546&itempk=777630&mfr=MOOG&weight=3)


F. 5.2.3.5.4   Rear Stabilizer Link Sub-Assembly

             The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Stabilizer Link Sub-Assembly is
             standard steel construction and has a mass  of 0.2974kg. This link assembly
             (Image F.5-41) has had little change in design, materials or processing  in
             recent years. Most are of steel construction components - link rod, link cup
             diameters, cup bottom plates, and ball studs.  The other components include
             the rubber boots, retaining rings, fastening  nuts, and grease. Little has been
             done to change the basic design of these units, but some manufacturers are
             beginning to use alternative materials.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 493
                  Image F.5-41: Rear Stabilizer Link Current Sub-Assembly

 (Source:http://www.autopartsrwarehouse.com/details/QQToyotaQQVenzaQQMoogQQSway_Bar_LinkQQ2010QQ
                                     MOK90344.html)
F.5.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

The brainstorming activities generated the ideas shown in Table F.5-8 for the Rear
Suspension subsystem and its various components. The majority of these mass reduction
ideas offer alternatives to steel with material substitutions, part modifications, processing
and fabrication differences, and the use of alternative parts currently in production and
used on other vehicles and applications.
-------
                                Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                              March 30, 2012
                                                  Page 494
Component/ Assembly
Mass Reduction Idea
Rear Suspension Subsystem
Rear Arm Asm #1

Rear Arm Asm #2

Rear Rod Asm

Rear Suspension System

Frt Stabilizer Link Asms

Knuckles
Make LH Rear Arm Asm out of
Forged Aluminum Bars
Make LH Rear Arm Asm out of
Steel Tube
Make LH Rear Arm Asm out of
Titanium (Hollow)
Replace from 2005 Alfa
Romeo 147 (mass:3.128-
3.119&cost:0.95)

Make RH Rear Arm Asm out
of Forged Aluminum Bars
Make RH Rear Arm Asm out
of Steel Tube
Make RH Rear Arm Asm out
of Titanium (Hollow)
Replace from 2005 Alfa
Romeo 147 (mass:3.119-
2.856 & cost:0.99)

Make Rear Rod Asm out of
Forged Aluminum Bars
Make Rear Rod Asm out of
Steel Tube
Make Rear Rod Asm out of
Titanium (Hollow)
Replace from 2005 Alfa
Romeo 147 (mass:2.366-
2.061 & cost:0.99)

Lightweight elastomeric rear
suspension system OCX
ESX3

Make Frt Stabilzer Link Asm
RH & LH out of Forged Al
Make Frt Stabilzer Link Asm
RH & LH out of Titanium
Replace from 2005 Alfa
Romeo 147 (mass:0.620-
0. 586 & cost: 1.00)

Replace from 2005 Alfa
Romeo 147&AI
(mass: 11.1 60-3.820 &
cost: 1.00)
Normalized Cast Aluminum
Estimated Impact

40-50% wt save
30-40% wt save
20-30% wt save
5-1 0% wt save

40-50% wt save
30-40% wt save
20-30% wt save
5-1 0% wt save

40-50% wt save
30-40% wt save
20-30% wt save
5-1 0% wt save

20-30% wt save

60-70% wt save
40-50% wt save
20-30% wt save

30-40% wt save
30-40% wt save
Kisk & I rade-otts and/or
Benefits

Higher Cost. In Production -
Auto.
In Production - Most Auto
Makers
Low production - auto racing
In production - Alfa Romeo.

Higher Cost. In Production -
Auto.
In Production - Most Auto
Makers
Low production - auto racing
In production - Alfa Romeo.

Higher Cost. In Production -
Auto.
In Production - Most Auto
Makers
Low production - auto racing
In production - Alfa Romeo.

In production - GM C5 Corvette.
Not implemented due to
complexity of system validation
& scope of work req'd.

Higher Cost. Low volume
production - racing.
High Cost. Low volume
production - off-road.
Low Cost. In production - Alfa
Romeo.

High Cost. In production - Alfa
Romeo.
Higher Cost. Auto production -
VW&GM.
Table F.5-8 continued on next page
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 495
Stabilizer Bar

Stabilizer Bar Mounts

Stabilizer Bar Mount
Bushings

Strut Modules & Wheel
Carriers

Rear Suspension System

Mass Damper
Make stabilizer bars hollow
Make stabilizer bars out of
Aluminum (solid)
Make stabilizer bars out of
Titanium (hollow)
Replace from 2005 Alfa
Romeo 147 (mass:2.866-
2.344 & cost: 1.00)
Make stabilizer bars out of
Aluminum (hollow or tubular)

Make stabilizer bar mountings
out of cast aluminum
Make stabilizer bar mountings
out of sheet stamped
aluminum
Make stabilizer bar mountings
out of cast magnesium
Overmold stabilizer bar
mountings
Use hook & bolt design on
stabilizer mounting bracket to
eliminate (1) fastener
Combination. Cast Al &
Overmolded.

Make stabilizer bushings out of
nylon

Lt wt suspension composite
strut module with integrated
wheel carrier

Replace dual coil spring
system w/ traverse leaf spring
(and anti-roll bar, mounts &
links and two control arms)

Replace from 2005 Alfa
Romeo 147 (mass:1.263-
0.000 & costx)
30-40% wt save
40-50% wt save
60-70% wt save
40-50% wt save
50-60% wt save

30-40% wt save
30-40% wt save
40-50% wt save
5-1 0% wt save
5-1 0% wt save
40-50% wt save

5-1 0% wt save

40-50% wt save

30-40% wt save

1 00% wt save
Higher Cost. Auto production
BMW&GM.
High Cost. Low production.
High Cost. Low production -
auto racing
Low Cost. In production - Alfa
Romeo, VW& BMW.
Mod Cost. Development for low
production.

High Cost. Low production -
auto
High Cost. Low production -
auto racing
High Cost. Low production -
auto racing
In production - VW & BMW.
In production - GM.
Higher Cost. Low production
European Auto.

High Cost. Low production -
auto racing

High Cost. Development

Not analyzed - out of scope of
study due to magnitude of
design changes & validation rqd.

In production - Alfa Romeo.
Table F.5-8: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Rear Suspension
                                      Subsystem
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 496
F.5.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.5-9 shows  a subset of the ideas generated from the brainstorming activities.
These ideas were selected for detailed evaluation of both the mass savings achieved and
the manufacturing cost. Also included are part substitutions from other vehicle designs
such as those currently in use in the Alfa Romeo 147 (as determined in the March 2010
Lotus Report).
CO
-<
a
CD
04
04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04
Subsystem
02
02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02
Sub-Subsystem
00
00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Rear Suspension Subsystem 4
Rear Arm Asm #1

Rear Arm Asm #2

Rear Rod Asm

Frt Stabilizer Link Asms

Knuckles

Stabilizer Bar

Stabilizer Bar Mounts

Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation

Replace from 2005 Alfa Romeo 147 (mass:3.128-
3.119&cost:0.95)

Replace from 2005 Alfa Romeo 147 (mass:3.119-
2.856 & cost:0.99)

Replace from 2005 Alfa Romeo 147 (mass:2.366-
2.061 & cost:0.99)

Make Frt Stabilzer Link Asm RH & LH out of
Forged Al

Replace from 2005 Alfa Romeo 147 & Al
(mass:11. 160-3.820 &cost:1. 00)

Make stabilizer bars out of Aluminum (solid)

Combination. CastAI & Overmolded.

Make stabilizer bushings out of nylon
 Table F.5-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Rear Suspension Subsystem Analysis
The new mass-reduced Rear Suspension system (Image F.5-42) configuration is still that
of typical vehicle designs  utilized by nearly all  OEMs. The mass reductions achieved
were done so by improving and replacing individual sub-assemblies and components. The
overall design and function remains the same thus eliminating drastic revisions causing
significant vehicle interface redesigns.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 497
            Image F.5-42: Rear Suspension Rotor Mass Reduced System Example
       (Source http://www. wired, com/images_blogs/autopia/2010/09/lamborghini-miura-sv-05.jpg)
¥.5.2.5.1
Rear Arm Assembly #1
The solution chosen for implementation on the final Rear Arm #1 Assembly (Image F.5-
43) was the normalization of size from an Alfa  Romeo 147 arm assembly. This allowed
for both a mass and  cost reduction.  The total mass of this replacement assembly is
0.764kg.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 498
F.5.2.5.2
      Image F.5-43: Rear Arm #1 Mass Reduced Assembly
       (Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)


Rear Arm Assembly #2
The solution chosen to be implemented on the final Rear Arm #2 Assembly (Image F.5-
44) was the normalization of size from an Alfa Romeo 147 arm assembly. This allowed
for both mass and cost reduction.  The total mass of this replacement assembly is 1.574kg.
                   Image F.5-44: Rear Arm #2 Mass Reduced Assembly
                     (Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F.5.2.5.3
Rear Rod Assembly
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 499

The solution chosen to be implemented on the final Rear Rod Assembly (Image F.5-44)
was the normalization of size from an Alfa Romeo 147 arm assembly. This allowed for
both a mass and cost reduction. The total mass of this replacement assembly is 1.518kg.
                    Image F.5-45: Rear Rod Mass Reduced Assembly
                    (Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F.5.2.5.4
Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle
The new Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle (Image F.5-48) is combination of a component
substitution from the Alfa Romeo 147 Knuckle (Image F.5-46) application and utilizing
an Al knuckle (Image F.5-47). Al alloys are now a common choice and are used in high-
volume applications by many OEMs, including GM, BMW, Audi, Honda, Toyota, Ford,
and Chrysler. The replacement of steel with Al, an additional material volume of 10-20%
was made. Due to  loading and strength performance requirements, proper validation
testing would be required dependent on the application. Therefore, it was determined that
a sizing and normalization activity would be applied based on GVW. The overall sub-
assembly has a replacement mass of 2.620kg.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 500
      Image F.5-46: Rear Carrier Alfa Romeo
       (Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)
                                Image F.5-47: Rear Bearing Al Carrier
                                  (Source: http://forums, vwvortex. com)
       Image F.5-48: Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle Mass Reduced Component Example
               (Source: http://www.factoryfive.com/table/ffrkits/GTM/donorpartslist.html)
F.5.2.5.5
Rear Stabilizer Bar System
The proposed Rear Stabilizer Bar  system (Image F.5-49) is of standard configuration
with a different design and construction.  Rather than solid steel forged bar composition
with molded rubber mount bushings and steel stamped brackets, it is now a hollow Al bar
with cast Mg mounting brackets and  nylon bushings. Together, this new system  has
reduced mass to a total of 2.205kg.
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                           March 30, 2012
                                                                               Page 501
              Image F.5-49: Stabilizer Bar System Mass Reduced System Example
           (Source: http://www. tundraheadquarters. com/blog/toyota-tundra-trd-parts-accessories)

F.5.2.5.5.1    Rear Stabilizer Bar

              The mass-reduced Rear Stabilizer Bar (Image F.5-50) is now made with an
              Al  material.  Additional  material  volume  of 35-45%  was  added  for
              increasing the bar strength relative to steel. This new bar now has a mass of
              1.410kg. As with other suspension components, proper validation must be
              performed based on vehicle performance requirements.
               Image F.5-50: Stabilizer Bar Mass Reduced Component Example
 (Source: http://www. i-club.com/forums/suspension-brakes-handling-wheels-tires-162/racecomps-fmancial-crisis-
                             buy-parts-help-economy-sale-192991/)
F.5.2.5.5.2   Rear Stabilizer Bar Mountings
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 502

             The new Rear Stabilizer Bar Mountings (Image F.5-51) are now made of
             die cast Mg brackets. Due to the replacement of steel with Al, an additional
             material volume of 150-160%  was made. They have a mass  of 0.112kg.
             These brackets have had some  progress with changes in design, materials,
             and processing. These designs include alternate materials for Al, Mg, HSS,
             and fiber plastics. Among the process variations for manufacturing include
             casting, molding, and forging.
          Image F.5-51: Stabilizer Bar Mounting Mass Reduced Component Example
     (Source: http://www. tickperformance. com/products/UMI-Heavy-Duty-Billet-A luminum-Rear-Sway-Bar-
                                    Mounts, html)
F.5.2.5.5.3   Rear Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings

             The redesigned Rear Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings (Image F.5-52) are of
             standard  design but  utilize an  alternate material of nylon versus rubber.
             They have  a mass of  0.070kg. Many  aftermarket as  well  as OEM
             manufacturers now utilize this  new  material choice for  several vehicle
             applications.  This is due to improved handling performance,  increase
             component life, and even a small amount of mass reduction.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 503
        Image F.5-52: Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushing Mass Reduced Component Example
                 (Source: http://www.suspensionconnection.com/cgi-bin/suscon/18-1116.html)


F. 5.2.5.5.4   Rear Stabilizer Link Sub-Assembly

             The new Rear Stabilizer Link  Sub-Assemblies (Image F.5-53) are now
             redesigned using cast Al construction for a mass  of 0.262kg.  Due to the
             replacement of steel with Al, an additional material volume of 40-50% was
             made. This link assembly eliminates several components and a great deal of
             assembly and machining for a  simplified design.  Components combined
             include: link rod, link cup diameters, and cup bottom plates.
              Image F.5-53: Rear Stabilizer Link Mass Reduced Sub-Assembly
                       (Source: http://www. mjmautohaus. com/catalog/lW)
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 504
F.5.2.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
Table  F.5-10 shows the results of the mass  reduction ideas evaluated  for the Rear
Suspension subsystem, which resulted in a subsystem overall mass savings of 8.32kg and
a cost savings differential of $-4.91.


CO
to
3



r04
'04
04

'04
'04
'04





CO
U)



r02
'02
0?

'02
'02
'02




CO
c
CO
c
cr
CO
5T
d

roo
'01
0?

'03
'04
'05






Description




Rear Suspension
._J3§!!L[?°§!lJ2^^
Rear Suspension Links/Arms Upper &
Lower
Rear Suspension Knuckle Assembly
_J5eajrJ5tebj^^
Heavy Truck Lifting Mechanism



Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

Idea
Level
Selec
t




A

A
X


A


Mass
Reduction
"ka" ,^





0.000
0.995

5.765
1.560
0.000

8.320
(Decrease)

Cost
Impact
ncr>ii •
9 (2)




$0.00
$2.31

$9.46
-$6.86
$0.00

$4.91
(Decrease)

Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg




$0.00
$2.32

$1.64
-$4.39
$0.00

$0.59
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"



0.00%
6.03%

62.53%
57.55%
0.00%

41.53%

r(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase

Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"




0.00%
0.06%

0.34%
0.09%
0.00%

0.49%


T(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
      Table F.5-10: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Rear Suspension Subsystem
     F.5.3    Shock Absorber Subsystem
F.5.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Image F.5-54 represents the major strut assembly components in the Shock Absorber
subsystem. There are separate assemblies for the front and the rear of the vehicle. Each
group has some small differences in design but share the same basic component layouts.
These include the Shock tower Sub-assemblies, Upper and Lower Strut Mounts, Coil
Springs,  Upper  and Lower Spring Seats,  Upper and Lower Spring Isolators, and
associated hardware and fasteners.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 505
                                       BOOT
                                                  LOWER SPRING SEAT
                 COIL SPRING
                                 LOWER SPRING ISOLATOR
          UPPER SPRING SEAT
                                  UPPER STRUT MOUNT (ASSEMBLY)
  Image F.5-54: Front & Rear Shock Absorber Subsystem, Current Sub-Assembly Components
                         (Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)
As  seen in  Image  F.5-55, the Rear Strut Damper subsystem consists of the major
components  of the Rear Shock Tower, Shock Piston Shaft, Shock Lower Mount, Lower
Mount Fasteners, Rear Coil Spring, Bump Stop/Jounce Bumper, Upper Strut Mount,
Upper and Lower Isolators, and the Shock Tower Boot.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 506

          Image F.5-55: Rear Strut / Damper Subsystem Current Major Components
                               (Source: FEVInc Photo)

As  seen  in  Image F.5-56, the Front Strut Damper  subsystem consists of the major
components  of the Rear Shock Tower, Shock Piston Shaft, Shock Lower Mount, Lower
Mount Fasteners, Rear Coil Spring,  Bump Stop/Jounce  Bumper, Upper Strut Mount,
Upper and Lower Isolators, and the Shock Tower Boot.
         Image F.5-56: Front Strut / Damper Subsystem Current Major Components
                                (Source: FEV Inc Photo)
It can be seen in Table F.5-11 that the Shock Absorber subsystem consists of the Front
and the Rear Strut/Damper Assemblies. The most significant contributor to the mass of
the Shock Absorber subsystem is the Front Strut/Damper Assembly (approx  51.5%),
followed closely by the Rear Strut/Damper Assembly (approx 48.5%).
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 507
CO
><
a
CD
3
04
04
04


Subsystem
03
03
03


Sub-
Subsystem
00
01
02


Description
Shock Absorber Subsystem
Front Strut / Damper Asm
Rear Strut / Damper Asm

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"

22.121
20.824

42.945
266.120
1711
16.14%
2.51%
      Table F.5-11: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Shock Absorber Subsystem
F.5.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza's Rear Strut/Damper (Image F.5-57)  and Front Strut/Damper Sub-
systems (Image F.5-58) represent typical  industry standards. This includes a focus on
functional performance  and durability with least material cost.  Toyota also focuses on
providing  similar, if not identical, components  across all platform variants to take
advantage of scaling economies and minimize production and purchasing costs.

     Image F.5-57: Rear Strut Module Assembly Subsystem Current Configuration Example
(Source:http://www.carbodyparts.net/1998_toyota_camry/shock_absorber_and_stmt_assembly^front_passenger_si
                                   de-rept280504.html)
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 508
    Image F.5-58: Front Strut Module Assembly Subsystem Current Configuration Example

(Source:http://www.carbodyparts.net/1998_toyota_camry/shock_absorber_and_strut_assembly^front_passenger_si
                                  de-rept280504.html)
F.5.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Basic trends in shock absorber technology include low mass materials where function is
not deteriorated. Also, high strength steel is used for mass reduction of springs, notably in
Alfa Romeo and BMW vehicles.

Another trend in shock  absorber technology is integrating more and more electronics.
Electronic dampers allow a large range between maximum and minimum damping levels
and  adjust instantly to  ensure  ride comfort and firm vehicle  control. By integrating
mechanical and electronic functions within the shock  absorber system, automakers can
improve handling and potentially reduce costs as technologies mature.

Delphi  developed  the  MagneRide  concept  (Image  F.5-59)  in  which  a Magneto-
Rheological (MR) fluid passes through an orifice that can  be  "restricted" by applying an
electric field. The MagneRide system produces a mechanically simple but very responsive
and controllable damping action without any valves. A synthetic hydraulic oil contains
suspended iron particles. When surrounded by a magnetic field, these particles realign,
changing the viscosity of the fluid.

These  MR shocks  and  struts feature  a  tube that rides on a stationary internal  piston
containing  an electromagnet.  When current  is fed to the  magnet, the surrounding MR
fluid instantaneously changes viscosity to resist the tube/piston movement in a  way that
best copes with road conditions. According to Delphi, within a millisecond,  the fluid
transforms from the consistency of mineral oil to compensate for low dampening  forces to
a thin jelly consistency for high dampening.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 509

Because the viscosity of the MR fluid can be infinitely varied through changes in the
current, Delphi shocks and struts are designed to provide far greater dampening range
compared with conventional shocks. This translates into a smoother, more responsive
ride. Because the tube is the only moving part, the shock is more trouble-free and should
not wear out as quickly as conventional shocks. Among other advantages, Delphi says its
new technology reduces suspension weight and overall costs.
                   Image F.5-59: Delphi MagneRide (MR) Strut System
       (Source: http://www. search-autoparts. com/searchautoparts/article/articleDetail.jsp ?id= 68222)
F.5.3.3.1
Strut / Damper Module Assemblies
The  baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear  and Front Strut/Damper Module Assemblies
(Image F.5-57 and Image F.5-58, respectively) are multi-piece designs of stamped steel
fabrications welded into a sub-assembly along with various molded and sub-assembled
components  that are then filled with fluid and  charged to pressure. The primary sub-
assemblies and components  that were  investigated for implemented changes include:
Shock Tower Sub-Assembly (Image F.5-60) and the attached components of the interior
Strut Piston  Shaft (Image F.5-6) and the  Strut Lower Mount (Image F.5-62); the Strut
Dust Cover and the Strut Lower Mount Fasteners (Image F.5-63); the Bump Stop and the
Jounce Bumper components  (Image  F.5-64); the  Boot, Tower Cover  (Image F.5-65),
along with the Upper Spring Insulator (Image F.5-66), and the Lower Spring Insulator
(Image F.5-67); the Coil  Spring (Image F.5-68); the Spring Upper Seat (Image F.5-69);
and the Strut Top Mount  (Image F.5-70). These overall strut assemblies have a mass of
14.386kg and 13.150kg for the Rear and Front Struts, respectively.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 510

Many high-performance and luxury vehicle models, such as BMW, Mercedes, Audi, and
even some within GM, have began utilizing alternate materials and designs in order to
improve mass and expense across many of these components within these  assemblies.
These individual components are reviewed and shown individually here in greater detail:
F. 5.3.3.1.1   Shock Tower Sub-Assemblies

             The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front  Shock Tower  Sub-
             Assemblies (Image F.5-60) are multi-piece sub-assemblies of stamped steel
             and welded fabrications with various brackets and fasteners added. These
             sub-assemblies have a mass of 3.489kg for the Rear Shocks and 3.364kg for
             the Front Shocks. Some vehicle models and manufacturers are now utilizing
             alternate  materials (HSS, Al and  Ti)  and  design  changes  for  these
             components allowing for some mass savings in the assembled units.
          Image F.5-60: Rear & Front Shock Tower Current Sub-assembly Example
                     (Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F.5.3.3.1.1.1                             Strut Piston Shafts

                   The current OEM Toyota Venza Strut Piston Shafts (Image F.5-61),
                   located inside the  shock  tower sub-assemblies, are single piece
                   designs for steel machined components. These components  have a
                   mass of 1.143kg for the Rear Piston Shafts and 1.085kg for the Front
                   Piston Shafts.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 511
         Image F.5-61: Rear & Front Strut Piston Shaft Current Component Example
                                (Source: FEVInc, Photo)
F.5.3.3.1.1.2
                       Strut Lower Mounts

The  baseline  OEM  Toyota Venza  Rear and  Front Strut  Lower
Mounts (Image F.5-62) are multi-piece designs with two stamped
steel components,  each welded together  to the lower shock tower
outer diameter. These sub-assemblies have a mass of 1.13kg for the
Rear Lower Mounts and 1.05kg for the Front Lower Mounts.
        Image F.5-62: Rear & Front Strut Lower Mount Current Component Example
                     (Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F. 5.3.3.1.2   Strut Lower Mount Fasteners

             The  baseline  OEM Toyota  Venza  Rear and  Front  Strut Lower Mount
             Fasteners (Image F.5-63)  are cold-headed steel components. These parts
             have a mass of 0.39kg for both the rear and front struts, respectively. Some
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 512

             vehicle models and manufacturers have begun utilizing alternate materials
             for some of these fasteners  depending on vehicle  loading  requirements
             during normal operation.
         Image F.5-63: Rear & Front Mount Fasteners Current Component Examples
                      (Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)


F. 5.3.3.1.3    Strut Bump Stops and Jounce Bumpers

             The  baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front  Strut Bump  Stops and
             Jounce  Bumpers (Image F.5-64)  are molded plastic  components.  These
             components have a combined mass of 0.08kg for the Rear Struts and 0.07kg
             for the Front Struts.  There are  no alternate materials found  to use to
             effectively  replace  these parts.   So no  significant   savings  could  be
             specifically identified.
     Image F.5-64: Rear & Front Bump Stop / Jounce Bumper Current Component Example
                         (Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 513
F. 5.3.3.1.4   Strut Boots, Tower Cover
             The current OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Strut Boot Tower Covers
             (Image F.5-65) are single-piece molded plastic components, with a mass of
             0.06kg for the Rear Boots and 0.04kg for the Front.
      Image F.5-65: Rear & Front Strut Boot, Tower Covers Current Component Example
                     (Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)


F. 5.3.3.1.5   Strut Upper Spring Isolators

             The  OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front  Strut Upper Spring Isolators
             (Image  F.5-66) are single-piece molded rubber components.  These parts
             have a mass of 0.25kg for  the Rear Upper Isolators and  0.17kg  for the
             Front.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 514

     Image F.5-66: Rear & Front Strut Upper Spring Isolator Current Component Example
                     (Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F. 5.3.3.1.6    Strut Lower Spring Isolators

             The  current OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Strut Lower  Spring
             Isolators (Image  F.5-67) are  single-piece molded rubber  components.
             These  parts have  a mass of 0.172kg  for  the Rear Lower Isolators and
             0.082kg for the Front.
     Image F.5-67: Rear & Front Strut Lower Spring Isolator Current Component Example
                        (Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)


F.5.3.3.1.7    Strut Coil Springs

             The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Strut Coil Springs (Image
             F.5-68) are single-piece,  steel hot-wound coil springs. These  components
             have a mass  of 3.003kg  for the Rear Springs and 3.336kg for the Front
             Springs.  Some vehicle models  and manufacturers are utilizing alternate
             materials and making design changes for springs to include HSS and other
             steel alloy variations. Other materials, including long fiber polymers, have
             been successfully implemented for leaf spring applications but not for coil
             configurations in automobiles.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 515
          Image F.5-68: Rear & Front Strut Coil Spring Current Component Example
                     (Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)


F.5.3.3.1.8   Strut Spring Upper Seats

             The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Strut Spring Upper Seats
             (Image F.5-69) are single-piece, stamped steel platforms that are assembled
             to the strut shock tower. These components have a mass of .655kg for the
             Rear Upper Seats and 0.532kg for the  Front Upper Seats. Some vehicle
             models  and manufacturers  have  utilized alternate  materials  for  these
             components, including HSS, Al, Ti, Mg and Plastics.
       Image F.5-69: Rear & Front Strut Spring Upper Seat Current Component Example
                             (Source: March 2010 Lotus Report)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 516
F. 5.3.3.1.9   Strut Top Mount Sub-Assemblies
             The baseline OEM Toyota Venza  Front Shock  Tower Sub-Assemblies
             (Image F.5-70) are multi-piece assemblies of stamped steel and welded
             fabrications with various brackets and fasteners added.  This  sub-assembly
             has a mass of 1.25kg. Some vehicle models and manufacturers are utilizing
             alternate materials and design changes for these components that allow for
             some mass savings once the unit is assembled. The materials  include HSS,
             Al, and Ti as well as some development work in polymers.
            Image F.5-70: Front Strut Top Mount Current Sub-Assembly Example
                            (Source: March 2010 Lotus Report)
F.5.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

The brainstorming activities generated the ideas shown below in the tables for both of the
Rear  Strut/Shock Absorber  sub-subsystem (Table  F.5-12)  and the Front Strut/Shock
Absorber/Damper sub-subsystem (Table F.5-13). The majority of these mass-reduction
ideas  are related to technologies in production on other vehicles and alternatives to steel.
This includes part modifications, material substitutions,  and use  of parts currently in
production on other vehicles.
-------
                                Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                               March 30, 2012
                                                   Page 517
Com ponent/ Assem bly
Shock Absorber Su bsystem
Mass Reduction Idea

Rear Strut/Damper Assy Sub-Subsystem
Shock Absorber

Shock Tower
Strut Piston Shaft

Dust Cover Strut
Strut Mount

Bump Stop
Stell - Proprietary technology -
Active Continuously varible
shock absorber (2.39kg)
Substituting monotube for twin
tube shocks
Replace from 2005 Alfa
Romeo 147 (mass:10.815-
7.716&cost:1.00)

AL-356-T6 AL-6022-T4
AM50 (2.8kg)
Carbon Fiber Damper
(reduces weight by 50% vs.
aluminum)
Eliminate spring cap and/or
isolator (must be carbon fiber
damper)
Replace from 2005 Alfa
Romeo 147 (mass:6.138-
5.760 & cost:0.99)

High strength steel
Bilstein lightweight strut
system - Hollow Shaft - Rear

Replace from 2005 Alfa
Romeo 147 (mass:0.308-
0.052 & cost:0.66)

Aluminum (sheet) Strut
Mounts
Aluminum (cast) Strut Mounts
Titanium (sheet) Strut Mounts
HSS Strut Mounts
Mg Strut Mounts

Replace from 2005 Alfa
Romeo 147 (mass:0.093-
0.026 &cost:0.91)
Estimated Impact


10-20% wt save
0-10% wt save
20-30% wt save

20-30% wt save
20-30% wt save
50% wt save
1 00% wt save
1 0-20% wt save

10-20% wt save
No change

60-70% wt save

40-50% wt save
30-40% wt save
20-30% wt save
10-20% wt save
50-60% wt save

70-80% wt save
Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits


Not enough inof to evaluate - not
analyzed.
Considered decontenting - not
analyzed
In production - Alfa Romeo.

Not enough info to cost analyze
Not enough info to cost analyze
Not enough info to cost analyze
Not enough info to cost analyze
In production - Alfa Romeo.

Low volume production
Already Bilstien w/ hollow shafts

Low Cost. In production - Alfa
Romeo.

Low volume production -
motorcycles
Low volume production -
motorcycles
Low volume production - auto
racing
In production - auto.
Low volume production - auto
racing

Lower Cost. In production - Alfa
Romeo.
Table F.5-12 continued on next page
-------
                                Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                               March 30, 2012
                                                   Page 518
Jounce Bumper

Boot, Tower Cover

Mounting Fasteners

Upper Spring Insulator

Lower Spring Insulator
Replace from 2005 Alfa
Romeo 147 (mass:0.083-
0.044 & cost:0.98)

Replace boot material (NR)
with TPO
Replace from 2005 Alfa
Romeo 147 (mass:0.013-
0.013&cost:1.00)

Use a single fastener on strut
to knuckle mounting
Reduce lower strut mounting
bolt & nut size
Use 6082T6 Al Alloy Tower
Bolts

Replace from 2005 Alfa
Romeo 147 (mass:0.000-
0.083 & costx)
Make upper seat spring
isolator out of plastic

Replace from 2005 Alfa
Romeo 147 (mass:0.058-
0.105 &cost:1. 06)
Make lower seat spring
isolator out of plastic
40-50% wt save

0-5% wt save
Lotus idea - no
change

50% wt save
20-30% wt save
20-30% wt save

Lotus idea - wt
increase.
0-5% wt save

Lotus idea - wt
increase.
0-5% wt save
In production - Alfa Romeo.

Lower Cost. In production - auto
In production - Alfa Romeo.

2 required for orientation &
stabilization - not evaluated
In production GM
Low volume production - auto

In production - Alfa Romeo.
In production -Auto

In production - Alfa Romeo.
In production -Auto
Table F.5-12 continued on next page
-------
                                Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                               March 30, 2012
                                                   Page 519
Component/ Assembly
Shock Absorber Subsystem
Mass Reduction Idea

Front Strut/Damper Assy Sub-Subsystem
Shock Absorber

Shock Tower

Strut Piston Shaft

Dust Cover

Dust Cover

Strut Mount
Stell - Proprietary technology -
Active Continuously varible
shock absorber (2.39kg)
Substituting monotube for twin
tube shocks
Replace from 2005 VW
Passat (mass:1 1.56-7.81 &
cost:1.00)

AL-356-T6 AL-6022-T4
AM50 (2.8kg)
Carbon Fiber Damper
(reduces weight by 50% vs.
aluminum)
Eliminate spring cap and/or
isolator (must be carbon fiber
damper)
Replace from 2005 VW
Passat (mass:5.88-3.8 &
cost:0.95)

High strength steel
Bilstein lightweight strut
system - Hollow Shaft

Replace from 2005 VW
Passat (mass:0.21-0.07 &
cost:0.71)

Replace from 2005 VW
Passat (mass:0.09-0.02 &
cost:0.85)

' Aluminum (sheet) Strut
Mounts
Aluminum (cast) Strut Mounts
Titanium (sheet) Strut Mounts
HSS Strut Mounts
Mg Strut Mounts
Estimated Impact


10-20% wt save
0-1 0% wt save
20-30% wt save

20-30% wt save
20-30% wt save
50% wt save
100% wt save
1 0-20% wt save

10-20% wt save
No change

60-70% wt save

70-80% wt save

40-50% wt save
30-40% wt save
20-30% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
50-60% wt save
Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits


Not enough inof to evaluate - not
analyzed.
Considered decontenting - not
analyzed
In production - VW Passat.

Not enough info to cost analyze
Not enough info to cost analyze
Not enough info to cost analyze
Not enough info to cost analyze
Lower Cost. In production - VW
Passat.

Low volume production
Already Bilstien w/ hollow shafts

Low Cost. In production - VW
Passat.

Low Cost. In production - VW
Passat.

Low volume production -
motorcycles
Low volume production -
motorcycles
Low volume production - auto
racing
In production - auto.
Low volume production - auto
racing
Table F.5-12 continued on next page
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 520
Jounce Bumper

Boot, Tower Cover

Strut Top Mount

Mounting Fasteners

Spring Isolator

Upper Spring Seat
Replace from 2005 VW
Passat (mass:.07-.05 &
cost:0.99)

Replace boot material (NR)
with TPO

Replace from 2005 VW
Passat - use Al metals
(mass: 1 .23-0.33 & cost:1 .47)

Reduce lower strut mounting
bolt & nut size
Use a single fastener on strut
to knuckle mounting
Use 6082T6 Al Alloy Tower
Bolts

Make lower seat spring
isolator out of plastic

Replace from 2005 VW
Passat - use nylon (mass:0.54-
0.12&cost:0.31)
20-30% wt save

0-5% wt save

70-80% wt save

20-30% wt save
50% wt save
20-30% wt save

0-5% wt save

60-70% wt save
In production - VW Passat.

Lower Cost. In production - auto

High Cost. In production - VW
Passat.

In production GM
2 required for orientation &
stabilization - not evaluated
Low volume production - auto

In production - Auto

Low Cost. In production - VW
Passat.
  Table F.5-12: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Front Strut /
                            Shock / Damper Sub-Subsystem
F.5.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The  next two tables  show the subsets of the ideas generated from the brainstorming
activities  listed  in the previous chart for the Rear  Strut/Shock Absorber/Damper sub-
subsystem (Table F.5-13) and the Front Strut/Shock Absorber/Damper sub-subsystem
(Table F.5-14).
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 521
CO
-<
en
CD"
3
04
04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04
Subsystem
03
03

03

03

03

03

03

03

03

03

03

03
Sub-Subsystem
01
01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Shock Absorber Subsystem
Rear Strut/Damper Assy Sub-Subsy
Shock Absorber

Shock Tower

Strut Piston Shaft

Dust Cover Strut

Strut Mount

Bump Stop

Jounce Bumper

Boot, Tower Cover

Mounting Fasteners

Upper Spring Insulator

Lower Spring Insulator
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation
stem
Replace from 2005 Alfa Romeo 147 (mass:10.815-
7. 71 6 & cost: 1.00)

Replace from 2005 Alfa Romeo 147 (mass:6.138-
5.760 & cost:0.99)

High strength steel

Replace from 2005 Alfa Romeo 147 (mass:0.308-
0.052 & cost:0.66)

HSS Strut Mounts

Replace from 2005 Alfa Romeo 147 (mass:0.093-
0.026 &cost:0.91)

Replace from 2005 Alfa Romeo 147 (mass:0.083-
0.044 & cost:0.98)

Replace boot material (NR) with TPO

Use 6082T6 Al Alloy Tower Bolts

Make upper seat spring isolator out of plastic

Make lower seat spring isolator out of plastic
Table F.5-13: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Shock Absorber Subsystem (Rear
                    Strut / Damper Assembly Sub-Subsystem) Analysis
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 522
CO
*<
1
04
04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04
Subsystem
03
03

03

03

03

03

03

03

03

03

03

03

03
Sub-Subsystem
02
02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Shock Absorber Subsystem
Front Strut/Damper Assy Sub-Subs;
Shock Absorber

Shock Tower

Strut Piston Shaft

Dust Cover

Dust Cover

Strut Mount ^^

Jounce Bumper

Boot, Tower Cover

Strut Top Mount

Mounting Fasteners

Spring Isolator

Upper Spring Seat
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation
/stem
Replace from 2005 VW Passat (mass: 11. 56-7. 81 &
cost: 1.00)

Replace from 2005 VW Passat (mass:5.88-3.8 &
cost:0.95)

High strength steel

Replace from 2005 VW Passat (mass:0.21-0.07 &
cost:0.71)

Replace from 2005 VW Passat (mass:0.09-0.02 &
cost:0.85)

HSS Strut Mounts

Replace from 2005 VW Passat (mass:. 07-. 05 &
cost:0.99)

Replace boot material (NR) with TPO

Replace from 2005 VW Passat - use Al metals
(mass:1. 23-0.33 & cost: 1.47)

Use 6082T6 Al Alloy Tower Bolts

Make lower seat spring isolator out of plastic

Replace from 2005 VW Passat - use nylon
(mass:0. 54-0.12 & cost:0.31)
 Table F.5-14: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Shock Absorber Subsystem (Front
                    Strut / Damper Assembly Sub-Subsystem) Analysis
The  solution  for  the  mass  reduced Rear Strut/Damper  (Image  F.5-71) and  Front
Strut/Damper (Image F.5-72) sub-systems are shown as represented by the configuration
utilized in  an assembly  replacement from the Alfa  Romeo  147  and  VW Passat,
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 523

respectively. The changes made at the individual component and sub-assembly levels are
each explained in greater detail.
  Image F.5-71: Rear Strut Module Assembly Subsystem Mass Reduced Configuration Example
                     (Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
  Image F.5-72: Front Strut Module Assembly Subsystem Mass Reduced Configuration Example
                     (Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)


F.5.3.5.1     Strut / Damper Module Assemblies

The  solutions  chosen to implemented  on the Rear and  Front Strut/Damper  Module
Assemblies (Image F.5-71 and Image F.5-72, respectively) range across several different
components and sub-assemblies. Although the overall design and function of the strut
modules remain the  same, small changes were  instituted across the  entire unit. The
effected designs are detailed in the following for each area of redesign  and change. The
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 524

primary sub-assemblies and components that were investigated for implemented changes
include: Shock Tower Sub-Assembly (Image F.5-73) and the attached components of the
interior Strut Piston Shaft (Image F.5-74) and the Strut Lower Mount (Image F.5-75);
the Strut Dust Cover and the Strut Lower Mount Fasteners (Image F.5-76); the  Bump
Stop and the Jounce Bumper components (Image F.5-77); the Boot, Tower Cover (Image
F.5-78) along with the Upper Spring Insulator (Image F.5-79),  and the Lower Spring
Insulator (Image F.5-80).  The  Coil Spring (Image  F.5-81), the Spring Upper Seat
(Image F.5-82), and the Strut Top Mount (Image F.5-83). These new mass reduced strut
assemblies now have a mass of 15.628kg for the Rear Struts and  13.205kg for the Front
Struts.
F. 5.3.5.1.1    Shock Tower Sub-Assemblies

            The new redesigned Rear and Front Shock Tower Sub-Assemblies (Image
            F.5-73) are still multi-piece sub-assemblies of stamped steel and welded
            fabrications with  various  brackets and  fasteners.  Although  alternate
            materials (HSS, Al and Ti) are available, they were not selected in the
            vehicle solution matrix for implementation. Instead, a replacement and size
            normalization was selected by utilizing the  shock tower sub-assembly from
            the Alfa Romeo 147. These new scaled sub-assemblies now have a net mass
            of 5.112kg for the Rear Shocks and 3.651kg for the Front Shocks
       Image F.5-73: Rear & Front Shock Tower Mass Reduced Sub-assembly Example

           (Source: http://www.ioffer.eom/c/Auto-Parts-Accessories-35000/1995%20-?view=0)
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 525
F.5.3.5.1.1.1                             Strut Piston Shafts
                  The mass reduction change for Strut Piston Shafts (Image F.5-74),
                  located inside the shock tower sub-assemblies,  is a replacement of
                  the standard low-carbon steel with HSS material. The new, stronger
                  shaft allows for a smaller diameter component (approximately 5%),
                  creating some mass savings. The new shaft has a mass of 1.019kg for
                  the Rear Piston Shafts and 0.727kg for the Front Piston Shafts.
      Image F.5-74: Rear & Front Strut Piston Shaft Mass Reduced Component Example
                    (Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)


F.5.3.5.1.1.2                             Strut Lower Mounts

                  The change for the Rear & Front Strut Lower Mounts (Image F.5-
                  75) are  still multi-piece designs with two stamped steel components,
                  each welded together to the lower shock tower outer diameter. The
                  standard steel has now been upgraded to HSS, allowing for a thinner
                  component  (approximately 5%) with equal performance strength.
                  These sub-assemblies now have a new mass of 1.012kg for the Rear
                  Lower Mounts and 0.646kg for the Front Lower Mounts.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 526
      Image F.5-75: Rear & Front Strut Lower Mount Mass Reduced Component Example
            (Source: http://www.ioffer.com/c/Auto-Parts-Accessories-35000/1995%20-?view=0)
                                               ^ys>          /

F. 5.3.5.1.2   Strut Lower Mount Fasteners

             The solution found for the Rear  & Front  Strut Lower Mount Fasteners
             (Image F.5-76) is  to switch material from steel to Al components. Due to
             the replacement of steel with Al, an additional material volume of 30-40%
             was made. In order to maintain functional integrity, the bolt diameter size
             was increased significantly. Nonetheless, this still  resulted in a net  mass
             decrease with a mass of 0.170kg for both the rear and front strut fasteners,
             respectively.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 527

      Image F.5-76: Rear & Front Mount Fasteners Mass Reduced Component Examples
                     (Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F. 5.3.5.1.3   Strut Bump Stops and Jounce Bumpers

             The change for the Rear & Front Strut Bump Stops and Jounce Bumpers
             (Image  F.5-77)  are  made  by  replacing  and  normalizing  the  same
             components from the VW Passat bumpers. These  new scaled components
             have a combined mass of 0.041kg for the Rear Struts and 0.050kg for the
             Front Struts. There are no alternate materials found to effectively replace
             these parts other than the component exchange methodology.
  Image F.5-77: Rear & Front Bump Stop / Jounce Bumper Mass Reduced Component Example
                    (Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)


F. 5.3.5.1.4   Strut Boots, Tower Cover

             The solution for the Rear & Front Strut Boot Tower Covers (Image F.5-78)
             is implemented by replacing the current material with TPO polymer, single-
             piece molded components.  There is no reinforcement implemented with this
             material change. These parts have a mass of 0.010kg for the Rear Boots and
             0.041kg for the Front.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 528
   Image F.5-78: Rear & Front Strut Boot, Tower Covers Mass Reduced Component Example
                     (Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)


F. 5.3.5.1.5   Strut Upper Spring Isolators

             The mass change implemented for the Rear  & Front Strut Upper  Spring
             Isolators (Image F.5-79) is  by replacing the  single-piece  molded  rubber
             component with a polymer material. There is no reinforcement implemented
             with this material change. These parts have a new reduced mass of 0.042kg
             for the Rear Upper Isolators and 0.165kg for the Front.
  Image F.5-79: Rear & Front Strut Upper Spring Isolator Mass Reduced Component Example
                     (Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F. 5.3.5.1.6   Strut Lower Spring Isolators

             The mass change  implemented for the Rear & Front Strut Lower  Spring
             Isolators (Image F.5-80) is  by replacing the  single-piece  molded  rubber
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 529

             component with a polymer material. There is no reinforcement implemented
             with this material change. These parts have a new reduced mass of 0.123kg
             for the Rear Lower Isolators and 0.082kg for the Front.
  Image F.5-80: Rear & Front Strut Lower Spring Isolator Mass Reduced Component Example
                     (Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)


F.5.3.5.1.7   Strut Coil Springs

             The selected solution for the Rear & Front Strut Coil Springs (Image F.5-
             81) is to replace and scale the coil spring from the Alfa Romeo 147 (rear)
             and the VW Passat (front). The springs are still both single piece coil
             springs, but are  now made from HSS and cold-wound to produce a smaller
             diameter and stronger design. The replacement of steel with HSS allowed a
             size reduction of approximately  5-10% volume reduction due to increase
             strength.  These new components have  a mass of 1.600kg for  the Rear
             Springs and 1.792kg for the Front.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 530
       Image F.5-81: Rear & Front Strut Coil Spring Mass Reduced Component Example
                     (Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)


F. 5.3.5.1.8   Strut Spring Upper Seats

             The solution chosen for the Rear & Front Strut Spring Upper Seats (Image
             F.5-82) is to replace the single-piece, stamped  steel piece with a molded
             glass-filled nylon design from the Mazda 5. Due to the replacement of steel
             with GF Nylon, an additional material volume of 30-40% was made. These
             vehicle  platforms have approximately the same GVW, so  it is a direct
             replacement not requiring scaling. These components have  a reduced mass
             of 0.655kg for the Rear Upper Seats and 0.160kg for the Front Upper Seats.
    Image F.5-82: Rear & Front Strut Spring Upper Seat Mass Reduced Component Example
                             (Source: March 2010 Lotus Report)
F.5.3.5.1.9   Strut Top Mount Sub-Assemblies
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 531

             The  selected mass reduction for the  Strut  Top Mount Sub-Assemblies
             (Image  F.5-83) is a multi-piece assembly of stamped  steel and welded
             fabrication.  The  new  replacement is  from  a VW  Passat with  size
             normalization as well as Al material instead of steel. Due to the replacement
             of steel with Al, an additional material volume of 20-30% was made. These
             redesigned sub-assemblies have a new mass of 0.655kg for the Rear Struts
             and 0.411  64kg for the Front Struts.
         Image F.5-83: Front Strut Top Mount Mass Reduced Sub-Assembly Example

(Source:http://performanceshock.comfmdex/manufacturers_id/19?zenid=c4c5cb77d94ed8395449208159712883)
F.5.3.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.5-15 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated for the
Strut/Shock Absorber/Damper Sub-subsystem. This resulted in a subsystem overall mass
savings of 14.111 kg and a cost savings differential of $-57.99.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 532

OT
*<
tfl
(D
'04
r04
'04
'04




Subsystem
03
03
03
03




Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03



Description


Shock Absorber Subsystem
^JElHJLSllHLLSSJIlE^L^^IQM^L™™™™™
Rear Strut / Damper Assembly
^jA^tjve^Danigening 	



Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Le\«l
Selec
t



A
A


A

Mass
Reduction
"kg" (1)



9.326
4.785
0.000

14.111
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)



$26.10
$31.89
$0.00

$57.99
(Decrease)
A\«rage
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg



$2.80
$6.66
$0.00

$4.11
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"



40.56%
30.91%
0.00%

35.88%

Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"



0.55%
0.28%
0.00%

0.82%

   (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
   r(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
 Table F.5-15: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Shock Absorber Subsystem (Rear & Front
                        Strut / Damper Assembly Sub-Subsystem)
     F.5.4   Wheels and Tires Subsystem

F.5.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Image F.5-84 shows the relative location of the Road Wheel & Tire Sub-Assemblies and
the Spare Wheel & Tire Sub-Assembly on the vehicle chassis. The current OEM Toyota
Venza Wheel and Tires  subsystem have a total mass of 4.658kg.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 533
                   Image F.5-84: Road Wheel & Tire Position Diagram
         (Source: http://boronextrication. com/files/2010/11/201 l_Honda_CR-Z_Chasis_Layout.jpg)
These pictures represent the major  sub-assemblies and components in the Wheels and
Tires subsystem. These include the Road Wheel and Tire Assembly (Image F.5-85) and
the Spare Wheel and Tire Assembly (Image F.5-88). The current OEM Toyota Venza
Wheels and Tires subsystem have a total mass of 141.815kg.

In Table F.5-16, the Wheels and Tires subsystem consists of the Road Wheels and Tire
Assembly sub-subsystem and the  Spare  Wheel and Tire Assembly sub-subsystem. The
most significant contributors to the mass of this subsystem are the Road Wheels and Tire
Assembly sub-subsystem (approx  86.4%) and the Spare Wheel and Tire Assembly sub-
subsystem (approx 13.6%).
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 534
CO
><
a
CD
3
04
04
04


Subsystem
04
04
04


Sub-
Subsystem
00
01
02


Description
Wheels And Tires Subsystem
Road Wheels and Tire Assembly
Spare Wheel and Tire Assembly

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"

122.597
19.218

141.815
266.120
1711
53.29%
8.29%
     Table F.5-16: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Wheels and Tires Subsystem
F.5.4.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza's Wheels and Tires subsystem represents typical industry standards.
This includes a focus on style, functional performance and durability with least material
cost. Toyota also concentrates on providing similar, if not identical, components across all
platform variants to take advantage of scaling economies to minimize production  and
purchasing costs.
F.5.4.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

The March 2010 Lotus report describes  several industry examples, including Alcoa
aluminum forged wheels, carbon fiber composites, two-piece low-mass wheels, Michelin
Tweel, and Active Wheel designs.

New proprietary magnesium alloys are being developed for racing applications, including
wheels and lug nuts, with claims of matching the strength of steel with impressive mass
reduction.
As mentioned in Section 5.4.1.3, basalt fiber is a potential low-cost substitute for carbon
fiber when production capabilities can support automotive quantities.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 535
F.5.4.3.1
Road Wheel & Tire Assemblies
The Venza uses four standard Road Wheel & Tire Assemblies (Image F.5-85) with radial
molded tires mounted on an Al cast rims.  The current OEM Venza Road Tire Assembly
sub-subsystem has a total mass of 120.99kg.
                   Image F.5-85: Road Wheel & Tire Current Assembly
                            (Source: March 2010 Lotus Report)
F. 5.4.3.1.1   Road Wheels
            The Toyota Venza OEM Road Wheels (Image F.5-86) are single-piece cast
            Al design. The size of the OEM wheel used on the Venza is  19"  outer
            diameter x 7.5" width. Although alternate materials (Mg, GF Polymers, and
            Carbon Fiber) exist and are used by some aftermarket manufacturers, they
            are uncommon and very ineffective  for cost in most applications. The
            current Venza Road Wheels (4pcs) have a total mass of 61.20kg.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 536
                     Image F.5-86: Road Wheel Current Component
                            (Source: March 2010 Lotus Report)
F. 5.4.3.1.2   Road Tires Sub-Assembly

             The Toyota Venza OEM Road Tires (Image F.5-87) are multi-layer design
             of various materials all over-molded NR. The size of the OEM tire used on
             the Toyota Venza is P225/60R19. Alternate material variations are used for
             the internal layers as well as the final over-molding compound. However,
             manufacturers use these variables to help tune  a  specific tire design to the
             performance  desired for  a particular vehicle  application. The following
             image shows a common tire design,  features, and its associated naming
             nomenclature. No significant material developments exist that allow any
             appreciable   weight  savings   while  maintaining  a  standard  design
             configuration. The current Venza Road Tires (4pcs) have a total mass of
             59.52kg.
-------
                                                             Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                           March 30, 2012
                                                                               Page 537
                            Tr.-.td Arr.i
                                            Rib
                                                        Bead Chaffers
                                                        Bead
               Image F.5-87: Road Wheel Current Component Design Example
 (Source: http://www.vbattorneys.com/practice_areas/defective-product-lawyer-product-liability-attorney-houston-
                                        texas.cfm)
F.5.4.3.2
Spare Wheel & Tire Assembly
The Spare Wheel & Tire Assembly (Image F.5-88) is a typical narrow, short side-walled,
molded  spare tire mounted on a large diameter, stamped steel wheel  assembly. The
current OEM Toyota Venza Spare Tire Assembly sub-subsystem has a mass of 19.176kg.
                Image F.5-88: Spare Wheel & Tire Current Assembly Example
                 (Source:http://media.photobucket.com/image/toyota%20spare%20tire/)
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 538
F.5.4.3.2.1   Spare Wheel
             The Toyota Venza OEM Spare Wheel (Image F.5-89) is large diameter and
             narrow, stamped steel fabrications. Although alternate materials (Al, Mg,
             GF Polymers, and Carbon Fiber) exist, they are not typically used for spare
             wheels due to lack of mass versus cost reduction. Therefore, they are not
             used by any manufacturer even though they could easily be used if chosen.
             The current OEM Toyota Venza Spare Wheel has a mass of 10.731kg.
                 Image F.5-89: Spare Wheel Current Component Example
                (Source: http://media.photobucket.com/image/toyota%20spare%20tire/)
F.5.4.3.2.2   Spare Tire Sub-Assembly
             The Toyota Venza OEM Spare Tire (Image F.5-90) is multiple layers of
             steel and plastic, over-molded by NR. Alternate material variations are used
             for the internal and external layers, but manufacturers use these variables to
             help tune  a  specific tire design to  the  desired performance. The current
             OEM  Toyota Venza Spare Tire Sub-Assembly has a mass of 8.435kg.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 539
F.5.4.3.3
    Image F.5-90: Road Wheel Current Component Example
   (Source: http://media.photobucket.com/image/toyota%20spare%20tire/)



Lug Nuts
The Lug Nuts, or Wheel Fastener Nuts, (Image F.5-91) are a typical cold-headed steel
configuration with a stamped steel,  chrome-plated shell pressed over the nut surface. The
current OEM Toyota Venza Lug Nuts (20pcs) have a mass of 1.406kg.
                       Image F.5-91: Lug Nut Current Components
                                 (Source: FEVInc. Photo)
F.5.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

The  brainstorming activities for the Wheels and  Tires subsystem generated the ideas
shown in Table  F.5-17.  The majority  of these  mass-reduction ideas are related to
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 540


technologies in production on other vehicles and size  alternatives. There are also ideas
that cover part design modifications as well as material substitutions.
-------
                                Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                               March 30, 2012
                                                   Page 541
Component/ Assembly
Mass Reduction Idea
Wheels and Tires Subsystem
AIITires(P225/60R19)

All Wheels (19x7.5)

Lug Nuts

Spare Tire Wheel
Low rolling resistance tires
Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass:14. 880-13. 200 &
cost:0.98)

Ultra-Lt Wt Forged Al Wheels
(Cross-spoked)
Lt Wt Wheels (hybrid glass &
carbon fiber composite w/
steel)
Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass: 1 5.300-8.600 &
cost:0.93)
Upsize wheels from 1 5 x 6 to
19x7.5
Upsize wheels from 1 5 x 6 to
19x7.5
See 17-in alum (see FEV/EPA
Fusion HEV)

Make lug nuts out of
magnesium
Make lug nuts out of aluminum
Use conical lug nuts -
Eliminate flange on hub
Combination. Make lug nuts
out of magnesium using
conical design.

Add lightening holes in spare
tire rim
Make spare tire rim out of
aluminum
Lt Wt Wheels (hybrid glass &
carbon fiber composite w/
steel : 41 % wt red vs Al
wheels)
Eliminate spare tire and use
run-flat tires
Make rim out of Al and make
like wagon wheel
Downsize - Replace from 2008
Toyota Prius (mass:10.731-
9.731 &cost:1.00)
Estimated Impact

5% Susp Sys wt
save
5-1 0% wt save

10-15% wt save
30-40% wt save
40-50% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
20-30% wt save

50-60% wt save
30-40% wt save
0-5% wt save
55-65% wt save

5-1 0% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
30-40% wt save
1 00% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits

Not used due to EPA matrix:
save 1 .5-4.5% of all gasoline
consumption (-
5%gvw=+3%mpg)
In production - Toyota.

In production - Mercedes
Brabaus SLS AMG
Low vol production - military
applications
In production - Toyota.
Not analyzed - already
implemented on vehicle
Not analyzed - already
implemented on vehicle
Not analyzed - Al wheels already
implemented

In production - BMW
Development
In production - most auto
manufacturers
Low volume production

In production - most auto
manufacturers
Low production - auto
Low vol production - military
applications
In production - GM C5 Corvette
Not analyzed - wagon spoke
steel wheels normally from steel
for strength
In production - Toyota.
Table F.5-17 continued on next page
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 542
Spare Tire

Spare Tire/Wheel

Wheels

Al Air Suspension system

All rotational components
(tires, wheels, etc)

All Suspension components
Make honeycomb spare tire
Smaller/less rubber
Downsize - Replace from 2008
Toyota Prius (mass:8.435-
7.435 & cost:0.98)

Eliminate spare tire & wheel
Eliminate jacking harware by
removing spare tire
Eliminate spare tire hold down
Combinination. Eliminate
spare tire & wheel, jacking
hardware and spare hold down

Optimize for downsized (non-
hybrid) powertrain, smaller
wheels-See Future Steel
Vehicle

Al 4-corner air system (idea
80) utilizes enhanced bonding
& adhesive eliminating all
welding

Weight reduction in "un-
sprung" mass has multipilying
of being equivalent to 3-5
times effect vs "sprung" mass

Convert to It wt Al 4-corner air
system w/ It wt dampers,
mounts & air springs
20-30% wt save
5-1 0% wt save
1 0-20% wt save

1 00% wt save
1 00% wt save
1 00% wt save
1 00% wt save

20-30% wt save

1 0-20% wt save

30-40% wt save

20-30% wt save
Not analyzed - non-pneumatic,
not legal for road use in US
Low volume production
In production - Toyota.

In production - most auto
manufacturers
In production - auto
In production - auto
In production - auto

Not analyzed - out of scope of
study due to magnitude of
design changes & validation rqd

Not analyzed - out of scope of
study due to magnitude of
design changes & validation rqd

No answer from EPA as to
credit being allowed

Not analyzed - out of scope of
study due to magnitude of
design changes & validation rqd
Table F.5-17: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Tires and Wheels
                                     Subsystem
F.5.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.5-18 shows the mass reduction ideas for the major components of the Wheels
and  Tires subsystem  that  were  chose  for  detailed  evaluation.  Included  are  five
components that are being redesigned and changed in order to achieve mass reductions.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 543
#
en
CD"
3
04
04

04

04

04

04
Subsystem
04
04

04

04

04

04
Sub- Subsystem
01
01

01

01

01

01
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Wheels and Tires Subsystem
AIITires(P225/60R19)

All Wheels (19x7.5)

Lug Nuts

Spare Tire Wheel

Spare Tire
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation

Replace from 2008 Toyota Prius (mass: 14. 880-
1 3. 200 & cost: 0.98)

Replace from 2008 Toyota Prius (mass: 15. 300-
8.600 & cost:0.93)

Combination. Make lug nuts out of magnesium
using conical design.

Eliminate spare tire and use run-flat tires

Downsize - Replace from 2008 Toyota Prius
(mass:8. 435-7. 435 & cost:0.98)
    Table F.5-18: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Wheels and Tires Subsystem
                                      Analysis
The mass saving solutions selected for the various components within the Wheel and Tire
Subsystem  are  primarily by  component  substitution  from  the  Toyota  Prius  as
recommended in the March 2010 Lotus Report. The details of these changes vary greatly
and are summarized in greater detail below.
F.5.4.5.1
Road Wheel & Tire Assemblies
The  solution selected for the Road Wheel & Tire Assemblies (Image F.5-92) is  to
substitute the current OEM units with those from the Toyota Prius. This would change the
effective mass without altering the effective design content or visual aspect in relation to
the vehicle appearance. Both vehicles have Al cast rims and similar tire profiles. The new
implemented Road Wheel & Tire Assemblies (4 pieces) have a total mass of 92.010kg.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 544
                 Image F.5-92: Road Wheel & Tire Mass Reduced Assembly
                     (Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F. 5.4.5.1.1    Road Wheels
             The chosen mass reduction for the Road Wheels (Image F.5-93) is still
             using an Al cast wheel design but instead substitute the Toyota Prius Road
             Wheel in its place. The size of wheel used on the Prius is a  16.5"  outer
             diameter x 7.0" width. This size was normalized up to a 19" OD in order to
             maintain the styling and appearance of the current Venza vehicle.  This new
             Road Wheel (4 pieces) has a total mass of 38.00kg.
                   Image F.5-93: Road Wheel Mass Reduced Component
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 545
                     (Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F. 5.4.5.1.2   Road Tire Assembly
             The solution selected for the  Road Tire Assemblies (Image F.5-94)  is a
             substitution of the Toyota Prius tire as a replacement. The size of the tire
             used on the Prius is P185/65R16.  This  size  was  normalized up  to a
             P225/60R19 in order to maintain the  appearance and handling function of
             the current Venza vehicle. The new Road Tire Assemblies (4 pieces) have a
             net mass of 52.80kg.
                     Image F.5-94: Road Tire Mass Reduced Assembly
                     (Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F.5.4.5.2      Spare Wheel & Tire Assembly

The solution implemented for the Spare Wheel & Tire Assembly (Image F.5-95) is
substituting a Toyota Prius unit in its place. The design configuration and construction are
the same and will not affect function or performance. Both use an over-molded spare tire
mounted on a large-diameter, stamped steel wheel assembly. The mass-reduced Prius
Spare Tire Assembly has a mass of 17.176kg.
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 546
                 Image F.5-95: Spare Wheel & Tire Mass Reduced Assembly

                      (Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F.5.4.5.2.1    Spare Wheel
             The new redesigned Spare Wheel (Image F.5-96) is still a multi-piece sub-
             assembly of stamped steel and welded  fabrications. This wheel  is being
             directly replaced with the Toyota Prius spare wheel. The new mass-reduced
             Spare Wheel has a mass of 9.731kg.
                    Image F.5-96: Spare Wheel Mass Reduced Assembly

                      (Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F. 5.4.5.2.2    Spare Tire
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 547

             The mass-reduced Spare Tire Assembly (Image F.5-97) is  achieved  by
             replacing the Venza tire with the Prius tire. This results in a new mass of
             7.435kg.
                   Image F.5-97: Road Wheel Mass Reduced Component
                     (Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F.5.4.5.3
Lug Nuts
The  Lug Nuts (Image  F.5-98)  are standard steel configuration, as is true with most
OEMs. The new solution implemented for these fasteners is to use Mg material with a
conical interface design. Due to the replacement of steel with Mg, an additional material
volume of 30-40% was made. This style is commonly used by aftermarket manufacturers
due to tremendous weight savings and reduction to unsprung rotational mass.  The new
Lug Nuts (20pcs) are calculated to have a net mass of 0.494kg.
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 548
                 Image F.5-98: Lug Nut Mass Reduced Component Examples
           (Source: http://www.amazon.com/Drop-Engineering-ALG-RD-152-Aluminum-Thread)
F.5.4.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.5-19 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated for the
Wheels and Tires subsystem. The implemented solutions resulted in a subsystem overall
mass savings of 32.833kg and a cost decrease differential of $78.77.




OT
|


r04
'04
'oT
'04




OT
c
•f


r04
'04
"04"
'04



OT
c
cr
C/)
c
cr
0)
sr
3
00
'01
02
"04





Description



Wheels and Tires Subsystem
^J^pjadJWhejeJs^^^
^Jj^areJWhejE^^
Tire Pressure Warning & Adjust




Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea

Idea
Level
Selec
t



A


A


Mass
Reduction
"ka" ,^



_30J333_
2.000
0.000

32.833
(Decrease)

Cost
Impact
$ (2)



_$78.51_
$0.26
$0.00

$78.77
(Decrease)

Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg



.™J>2J?L_
$0.13
$0.00

$2.40
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


_2a08%_
10.41%
0.00%

25.69%


Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"



_180%_
0.12%
0.00%

1.92%

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

       Table F.5-19: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Brake Actuation Subsystem
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 549
F.6    Driveline System

As shown in Table F.6-1, the Driveline system is made up of six subsystems: Driveshaft,
Rear Drive Housed Axle, Front Drive Housed Axle, Front Drive Half Shafts, Rear Drive
Half Shafts, and 4WD Driveline Control. The Driveshaft, Rear Drive Half-Shafts, and the
4WD Driveline Control subsystems are not applicable to this study as the Toyota Venza is
a front-wheel-drive  vehicle.  The  Rear Drive Housed Axle subsystem is comprised
primarily of the Rear Wheel Bearing and Hub Assemblies. The Front Drive Housed Axle
subsystem contains the Drive Hubs. The Front Drive Half Shafts subsystems contain the
right and left half-shafts along with the carrier bearing.

In comparing the three subsystems, the greatest mass is located in the Front Drive Half-
Shafts subsystem.
(f>
I
S"
3

05
05
05
05
05
05
05


Subsystem

00
01
02
03
04
05
07


Sub-Subsystem

00
00
00
00
00
00
00


Description

Driveline System
Driveshaft Subsystem
Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem
Rear Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem
4WD Driveline Control Subsystem

Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsystem
Mass
"kg"


0.000
8.631
6.354
18.672
0.000
0.000

33.657
1711
1.97%
              Table F.6-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Driveline System
Table F.6-2 shows the calculated mass-reduction results for the ideas generated related to
the Driveline system. A mass savings  of 1.503kg was realized with a cost increase of
$0.16, resulting in a cost increase of $0.11 per kg.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 550

CO
*<
£2.
0

05
05
05
05
05
05
05


Subsystem

00
01
02
03
04
05
07


Sub-Subsystem

00
00
00
00
00
00
00


Description

Driveline System
Driveshaft Subsystem
Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem
Rear Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem
4WD Driveline Control Subsystem


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select




A
C



B
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


0.000
0.000
0.733
0.770
0.000
0.000

1.503
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)


$0.00
$0.00
$1.54
-$1.70
$0.00
$0.00

-$0.16
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$0.00
$0.00
$2.10
-$2.21
$0.00
$0.00

-$0.11
(Increase)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.00%
0.00%
1 1 .54%
4.12%
0.00%
0.00%

4.47%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.00%
0.00%
0.04%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%

0.09%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
         Table F.6-2: Calculated Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Driveline System
     F.6.1    Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
                                                       h^v
F.6.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.6-3, the only contributor to the mass of the Front Drive Housed Axle
subsystem is the Front Drive Unit. The Front Drive Unit contains the left- and right-hand
drive hub assembly (Image F.6-1) and associated hardware.
V)
•-<
1

05
05


Subsystem

03
03


Sub-Subsystem

00
04


Description

Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Front Drive Unit (Drive Hubs)

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


6.354

6.354
33.657
1711
18.88%
0.37%
    Table F.6-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 551
                        Image F.6-1: Front Drive Hub Assembly
                                  (Source: FEVphoto)
F.6.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza Front Drive Housed Axle subsystem follows typical industry standards
in that there is nothing new, eye catching, or unique. The Front Drive Hubs (Image F.6-2)
are forged and machined to OEM specifications.
     F.6.2    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
F.6.2.1 Drive Hubs

Drive hubs (Image F.6-2) for cars will continue to require high-strength parts to provide
reliable, safe functionality as a driveline part. Steel forgings produce advantageous grain
flow for superior strength compared to castings and fully machined billets. Compared to
castings,  forgings offer  high strength/weight ratios and  high impact resistance. Heat
treatment is usually required to maintain dimensional stability.

Although carbon fiber parts are in use for hubs, they currently appear only in Formula 1
race cars and some of the very low production volume supercars. Applications of carbon
fiber hubs  in regular production cars will require significant development of low cost
production methods  and much larger  material  availability.  A technology that  bears
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 552

watching is bulk compound molding using polymer material that  is filled with  long
carbon fiber. The hope is that low-cost, low-mass carbon fiber parts can be made  with
strength equivalent to steel.

In the last decade, basalt fiber has emerged as a contender in the fiber reinforcement of
composites. Proponents of this technology claim their products offer performance similar
to S-2 glass fibers at a price between S-2 glass and E-glass, and may offer manufacturers
a less expensive alternative to carbon fiber.

Applications of basalt fiber and bulk-molded carbon fiber will be delayed into the
indefinite future because of limited production  capacity. However, the continental United
States has very large deposits of basalt. Michigan, in fact, in its upper peninsula, is among
the continental states that contain basalt deposits. Basalt fiber research,  production and
most marketing efforts  are  based in countries once aligned with the Soviet  bloc.
Companies currently involved in basalt production and marketing include Kamenny Vek
(Dubna,  Russia), Technobasalt (Kyiv, Ukraine),  Hengdian  Group Shanghai Russia &
Gold Basalt Fibre Co. (Shanghai, China), OJSC Research Institute Glassplastics and Fiber
(Bucha,  Ukraine), Basaltex,  a division  of Masureel Holding (Wevelgem, Belgium),
Sudaglass Fiber Technology Inc. (Houston, Texas), and Allied Composite Technologies
LLC (Rochester Hills, Michigan).

Simple part modification can also be applied to the front and rear hubs as seen on the
2011 Toyota Sienna. The Sienna achieved weight reduction by drilling holes between
each tire stud, scallops and  reduced thickness  of the wheel mounting  flange. In the
absence of lighter material options, scallops were applied to the front hub flange as  seen
in Image F.6-3.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 553

                             Image F.6-2: Front Drive Hub
                                  (Source: FEVphoto)


     F.6.3    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.6-4 shows the mass reduction ideas considered from the brainstorming activity
for the Front Axle Hub.
Component/Assembly! [lass-Reduction Idea I Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Front .Axle Hub
i Scallop front axle hubs j 20% Weight Save
i Drill Vi Holes in front axle! ,
i ; 3% Weight Save
i hubs ;
i Go to a 4 stud design i .
i .= •,, 30% Weight Save
i instead of 5 studs i
i Make outof6AL4V i _
i T., ... ; 50% Weight Save
: Titanium Alloy i
10% Cost Increase
Minimal Cost Increase
Low Production Application
300% Cost Increase
 Table F.6-4: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Front Drive Housed
                                   Axle Subsystem
     F.6.4    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.6-5 shows  the  selected mass reduction ideafor the  Front Drive Housed Axle
subsystem for detailed  evaluation  of both  mass  savings achieved  and the  cost  to
manufacture.


CO
5T
d


05
05


m
c
cr
U)
a
(D
3


03
03

rn
c
cr
m
c
cr
U)
a
0
3

00
04




Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description



Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Front Drive Unit




Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation




Scallop front axle hubs

  Table F.6-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem Analysis
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 554
F.6.4.1 Front Drive Unit
The solution chosen to be implemented on the Front Drive Unit (Image F.6-3) was the
idea that reduced the  most mass with the lowest possible  cost impact. Scalloped hubs
(Image F.6-3) allow for additional mass savings with no cost impact since the material is
removed during the forging process.
                            Image F.6-3: Front Axle Hub
                                   (Source: FEV)
     F.6.5    Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.6-6 shows the evaluated mass reduction results for the Front Drive Housed Axle
subsystem, which totaled an overall subsystem mass savings of 0.733kgand a cost savings
of $1.54.

The Front Drive Unit sub-subsystem includes the Front Axle Hub, which was changed
from a solid flange design to a multi-scallop design and accounts for 100% of the 0.733
kg weight  save. The Front Drive Unit sub-subsystem reduces the cost of this  sub-
subsystem by $1.54.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 555

CO
*<
1
3

05
05


Subsystem

03
03


Sub-Subsystem

00
04


Description

Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Front Drive Unit


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


0.733

0.733
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
IKtll
* (2)


$1.54

$1.54
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$2.10

$2.10
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs./ Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


11.54%

11.54%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.04%

0.04%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
   Table F.6-6: Calculated Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Results for Front Drive
                                 Housed Axle Subsystem
     F.6.6    Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem
F.6.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Image F.6-4shows  the  entire Front Right-hand Drive  Half Shaft system  and how the
individual parts connect to each other. The bearing shown at the left side of the photo is
housed inside the Bearing Carrier (Image F.6-5).
                                Image F.6-4: Half Shafts
                                   (Source: FEVphoto)
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 556
                             Image F.6-5: Bearing Carrier
                                  (Source: FEVphoto)


Table F.6-7 shows the mass breakdown of the Front Drive Half Shafts subsystem. This
subsystem  contains  the  Front Half-Shaft sub-subsystem, which includes  Half Shafts,
Bearing Carrier, Bearing Carrier Bolt, and Mounting Fasteners.
3ys


tr
uo

Sub
em


U4
U4

Sub
;yst


uu
U I

Subsystem
sm
Description


ont urive naiT-onaTts oiiDsysten
rront Halt onatt (nait onans, bearing uarrier)


Total System Mass —


Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"ka"



lo.u/z
4O PiT"}

OO.UOI
•17-1 -1
PP Aftn/
«j«j.tu To
     Table F.6-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 557

     F.6.7    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza Front Drive Half-Shafts subsystem follows typical industry standards
as it has nothing new, out of the ordinary, or unique. The right-hand half-shafts are steel
and have been weight-reduced for the most part.  The bearing carrier housing is cast iron.
It is machined to accept the carrier bearing and provide a suitable mounting surface.  The
bearing carrier has a steel Ml0-1.25 bolt fastened to the side - which adds no value or
benefit.
     F.6.8    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

A company called Precision Shaft Technologies has developed a lightweight, one-piece
driveshaft for racing featuring forged 7075 aluminum tube yoke bonded into pultruded
carbon fiber tubing. Cost will be a deterrent for some time to come regarding application
to regular car production.
F.6.8.1 Right-Hand Half Shaft

The Front RH Drive  Shaft (Image F.6-6) was found to offer further weight reduction
opportunity as it is the only solid shaft in the Front RH Driveshaft system. All other shafts
in the Driveshaft system have been light weighted by the use of tubing.
                           Image F.6-6: Front RH Driveshaft
                                  (Source: FEVphoto)
F.6.8.2 Bearing Carrier

The Bearing Carrier, Figure 1-14, was found to offer further weight reduction as it is cast
iron.  There are several  examples  of bearing  carriers  being manufactured  from cast
aluminum.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 558
                              Image F.6-7: Bearing Carrier
                                   (Source: FEVphoto)
F.6.8.3 Bearing Carrier Bolt

The Bearing Carrier Bolt (Image F.6-8) was found to provide further weight reduction
opportunity as it is not utilized in this Venza model.
                            Image F.6-8: Bearing Carrier Bolt
                                   (Source: FEV photo)
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 559

     F.6.9    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

The Front Drive Half-Shafts subsystem summary chart Table F.6-8 shows  several mass
reduction ideas that suggest changing components from steel to titanium, magnesium, or
aluminum components.
Component'Assembly


Axle Half-Shaft


Bearing Carrier

Bearing Carrier Bolt
Mass-Reduction Idea
Make axle shafts out of
carbon fiber pulltrusion
Makeoutof6AL4V
Titanium Alloy (solid)
Makeoutof6AL4V
Titanium Alloy (tubular or
hollow)
Hollow out non hollow
shaft
Make bearing carrier out
of cast aluminum instead
of cast steel
Make out of Al forged
6061-T6
Go to a 3 hole mounting
design instead of 4 holes
Replace carrier bearing
bolt with plastic plug
Estimated Impact
60% Weight Save
40% Weight Save
40% Weight Save
6% Weight Save
60% Weight Save
60% Weight Save
20% Weight Save
70% Weight Save
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Significant cost increase
Significant cost increase
Significant cost increase
Cost Increase
50% Cost Savings
50% Cost Savings
Cost Save, Unproven Capability
Cost Save
 Table F.6-8: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Front Drive Half-
                                  Shafts Subsystem
     F.6.10  Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.6-9 shows ideas selected for detail evaluation.
V)
•-=:
CD
&
3

05
05
05
05

Subsystem

04
04
04
04

Sub-
Subsystem

00
01
01
01

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description

Front Drive Half -Shafts Subsystem
Front Half shaft
Bearing Carrier - Center .Axle
Bearing Carrier -Center Axle

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation


Hollow out non-hollow shaft
Replace bearing carrier bolt with plastic plug
Make out of forged aluminum 6061-T6

   Table F.6-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem Analysis
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 560
F.6.10.1
RH Half Shaft
The solution selected for implementation on the Front RH Driveshaft (Image F.6-9) is
hollowing out the driveshaft.
                           Image F.6-9: Front RH Driveshaft
F.6.10.2      Bearing Carrier

The solution selected for implementation on the Bearing Carrier (Image F.6-10) is to cast
the housing out of aluminum instead of steel.

                             Image F.6-10: Bearing Carrier
                                   (Source: FEVphoto)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 561
F.6.10.3      Bearing Carrier Bolt

The solution selected for implementation on the Bearing Carrier Bolt is to replace the bolt
with a push-in plastic plug (Image F.6-11).
                           Image F.6-11: Push-in plastic plug
                                  (Source: FEVphoto)
     F.6.11   Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.6-12 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas applied to the Front Drive
Half-Shafts subsystem as well as the cost impact which totaled an overall subsystem mass
savings of 0.770kg and a cost hit of $1.70

The Front Half Shaft sub-subsystem includes the Front Drive Shaft, which was drilled out
and accounts for 33% of the  0.770  kg weight save. The remaining 67% of the mass
reduction was reduced  by changing the Bearing Carrier from a cast iron design to a cast
aluminum design.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 562

CO
*<
1
3

05
05


Subsystem

04
04


Sub-Subsystem

00
01


Description

Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem
Front Half Shaft


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


C

C
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


0.770

0.770
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
IKtll
* (2)


-$1.70

-$1.70
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


-$2.21

-$2.21
(Increase)
Sub-
Subs./ Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


4.12%

4.12%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.04%

0.04%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Table F.6-10: Calculated Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Results for the Front Drive Half-Shafts
                                     Subsystem
F.7    Braking System

As  shown in Table F.7-1,  the Brake  system is composed  of six  subsystems:  Front
Rotor/Drum and Shield; Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield; Parking Brake & Actuation; Brake
Actuation; Power  Brake;  and  Brake  Controls  Subsystems.  In  comparing  the  six
subsystems, the greatest mass is located in the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield subsystem
with approximately 38.45%.
CO
*<
(/)
CD"
3

06
06
06
06
06
06
06




Subsystem

00
03
04
05
06
07
09




|Sub-Subsystem

00
00
00
00
00
00
00




Description

Brake System
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
Brake Actuation Subsystem
Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic)
Brake Controls Subsystem



Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsystem
Mass
"kg"


32.971
22.470
13.405
5.536
2.829
8.527



85.740
1711
5.01%
            Table F.7-0-2: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for the Braking System
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 563
The  Final Calculated Results Summary for the entire Toyota Venza Brake system  is
shown in Table F.7-2. This combination of proposed solutions were selected for this cost
group due to the significant weight savings that were calculated to be obtained (approx
40.089kg) while also allowing for lower overall costs (approximately $116.24).


o>
nT
3

'06
'06
'06
'06
'06
'06
'06


Subsystem

roo
r03
'04
r05
'06
r07
'09

rn
ub-Subsyste
=J
roo
roo
'00
roo
'00
roo
'00


Description


Brake System
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
Brake Actuation Subsystem
Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic)
Brake Controls Subsystem

r(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas

Idea
Level
Select


A
A
A
A
A

A

Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)



16.599
9.676
9.635
2.984
1.196
0.000
40.089
(Decrease)

Cost
Impact
"$" (2)



-$6.07
$6.08
$82.98
$31.90
$1.35
' 0.000
$116.24
(Decrease)

Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg



-$0.37
$0.63
$8.61
$10.69
$1.13
$0.00
$2.90
(Decrease)

Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction



50.34%
43.06%
71.88%
53.90%
42.25%
0.00%
52.29%

Vehicle
Mass
Reduction



0.97%
0.57%
0.56%
0.17%
0.07%
0.00%
2.34%

"(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
            Table F.7-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Braking System
     F.7.1    Front Rotor/ Drum and Shield Subsystem
F.7.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview

This pictorial diagram, Image F.7-1, represents the major brake components in the Front
Rotor/Drum and Shield subsystem and their relative location and position relevant to one
another as located on the vehicle front corner.
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                           March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 564
                                                        Inspection hole for
                                                        checking pad thickness
                Wheel
                stud
                    Brake disc
                    or rotor
atilating slots
       Image F.7-1: Front Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem Relative Location Diagram

                        (Source: http://www.motorera.com/dictionary/di.htm)
As seen in Image  F.7-2,  the  Front Rotor/Drum and Shield subsystem consists of the
major components  of  the Front  Rotor, the  Front Splash Shield, the  Front Caliper
Assembly,  the Front  Caliper Mounting and  miscellaneous  Anchor  and  Attaching
components.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 565

      Image F.7-2: Front Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem Current Major Components
                                (Source: FEVInc photo)


Table F.7-3 indicates the two sub-subsystems that make-up the Front Rotor/Drum and
Shield subsystem. These  are the Front Rotor and Shield sub-subsystem and the Anchor
and Attaching Components  sub-subsystem. The most significant contributor to the mass
within this subsystem was found to be within the Front Rotor and Shield  Sub-subsystem
(approx 57.6%).


O3
1
3

06
06
06







ro
c
CT
9.
V)
oT
3
03
03
03






O3
C
CT
03
c
O"
(/>
*<
i
3
00
01
02









Description


Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Front Rotor and Shield
Front Caliper, Anchor and Attaching Components

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =

Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"

18.922
13.925

32.847
85.740
1711
38.31%
1.92%
     Table F.7-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Front Rotor / Drum and Shield
                                    Subsystem
F.7.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza's Front Rotor and Shield subsystem (Image F.7-3) follows typical
industry standards for  design and performance.  The Rotors (Image F.7-4)  are single
piece, vented design cast out of grey iron and manufactured to SAE specifications. The
Splash Shields  (Image F.7-5) are typical stamped  and vented steel fabrications. The
Caliper Assembly (Image F.7-6) is composed of several components. These include: The
Caliper Housings  (Image  F.7-7)  which are high  nickel content cast iron with  the
appropriate  machining. The Caliper Mountings,  (Image F.7-8) are  cast  iron and
machined. The Brake Caliper Assembly houses the Brake Pads and Pistons. The Caliper
Pistons (Image F.7-9) are molded phenolic glass-filled plastic with  standard seal
configurations.  The Brake Pads (Image F.7-10) are of standard construction with steel
backing plates and friction pad materials. The current OEM Toyota Venza Front Brake
Corner Assembly, example shown below, has a mass of 35.88kg.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 566
               Image F.7-3: Front Brake System Current Assembly Example
                       (Source: http://www. imakenews. com/tituswillford)
F.7.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
F.7.1.3.1
Rotors
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Rotor (Image F.7-4) is a single piece, vented
design cast out of grey iron and has a mass of 8.92kg. Many high performance and luxury
vehicle models have  began utilizing alternate  rotor designs in order to  improve both
performance  and  economy.  Two-piece  rotor  assemblies are now  found  in many
Mercedes', BMW's, Audi's, Corvette's, and  Porsche's  across multiple platforms and
models. This  two-piece  configuration was  also mentioned in the March 2010 Lotus
Report. Besides OEM's, there are aftermarket suppliers that use this design. Brembo and
Wilwood are two such companies that have  used this rotor design in various production
applications.  This two-piece  design usually  utilizes an Aluminum  Center Hub (or Hat)
along with a disc braking surface (typically cast iron or steel).
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 567
                      Image F.7-4: Front Rotor Current Component
                          (Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)

The Rotor Center (Hat) can be made from several material choices including Aluminum
(Al), Titanium (Ti), Magnesium (Mg), Grey  Iron or Steel (Fe) and manufactured from
cast forms or billet machined from solid.

The Rotor disc surfaces are also able to be made from various materials and processing
methods. These include Aluminum Metal Matrix Composites (Al/MMC), MMC, Ti and
Fe. Even Carbon / Ceramic matrices have been  used to produce rotors of less mass.
Processing  includes casting vented or solid disc plates and the machining cross-drilled
plates, slotted plates and scalloped disc diameter (both ID and OD) profiles.

Some race cars and airplanes use brakes with  carbon fiber discs and carbon fiber pads to
reduce weight. For these systems, wear rates tend to be high, and braking may be poor or
"grabby" until the brake is heated  to  the proper operating  temperature.  Again, this
technology adds  substantial costs if considered  for regular  high volume automotive
production capacities.
F.7.1.3.2     Splash Shields
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Splash  Shield is a multi-piece welded, vented
design, stamped of common steel and has a mass of 0.435kg. A majority of splash shields
(or dust shields) (Image F.7-5) are made from stamped, light gage steel. Some are vented
or slotted for reduced material usage and increased weight savings.  Alternative materials
are now beginning to be examined for use  to further reduce weight contribution. These
include Al, high strength steels and even various reinforced plastics.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 568
F.7.1.3.3
     Image F.7-5: Front Splash Shield Current Component
                    (Source: FEVInc photo)



Caliper Assembly
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Caliper Assembly is a multi-piece assembly with
the major components being made from cast iron and has a mass of 5.957kg. Traditionally
caliper assemblies, Image F.7-6, are comprised of several components. These include:
Housing, Mounting, Mounting Attachment Bolts (2), Inboard Brake Pad & Shim Plate,
Outboard Brake Pad & Shim Plate, Pistons (2), Piston Seal Ring (2), Piston Seal Boots
(2), Mounting Slide Pins (2), Mounting Slide Pin Boots (2), Housing Bleeder Valve and
Housing Bleeder Valve Cap.
                      Image F.7-6: Front Caliper Current Assembly
         (Source: http://cdnO.autopartsnetwork.com/images/catalog/brand/centric/640/14144280.jpg)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 569
F. 7.1.3.3.1   Housings
             The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Caliper Housing is a single piece
             cast iron design and has a mass of 3.832kg. Traditionally caliper housings,
             Image F.7-7,  have been made  from various grades of  cast iron.  This
             allowed for adequate strength while also acting as a heat sink to assist in the
             brake  cooling  function. Now with advances in materials  and processing
             methods,  other choices are available and being utilized in aftermarket and
             high performance applications as well as  OEM vehicle markets. Among
             some of these alternate mediums  are Al,  Ti, Steel, Mg and MMC. Forming
             methods now include sand cast, semi-permanent metal molding, die casting
             and machining from billet.
                 Image F.7-7: Front Caliper Housing Current Component
                                (Source: FEVInc photo)
             While  these  alternatives  now  are  designed  with  the  strength  and
             performance required, they do add a significant cost-versus-mass increase.
             However the weight  savings achieved is quite  substantial and assists with
             reducing vehicle requirements for suspension loads, handling, ride quality,
             engine  hp requirements, etc. Other advanced development includes using
             bulk molding  compound using  long randomly oriented carbon fiber
             continues to be of interest due to the ability to  easily mold it into complex
             shapes. However, temperature extremes encountered by brake components
             and the current cost of the material will be serious challenges for some time
             to come.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 570
F. 7.1.3.3.2   Mountings
             The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Caliper Mounting (or Bracket) is a
             single piece cast iron design and has a mass of 1.671kg. Caliper mountings
             (Image F.7-8) have normally been made from various grades of cast iron
             for adequate strength and function. Now with advances in  materials and
             processing  methods  other choices are  available  and  being  utilized in
             aftermarket and high performance applications as well as  OEM vehicle
             markets. Among some of these alternate mediums are Al, Ti,  Steel and Mg.
             Forming and fabrication methods include casting and billet machining.
                 Image F.7-8: Front Caliper Mounting Current Component
                                (Source: FEVInc photo)
F.7.1.3.3.3   Pistons
             The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Caliper Pistons are a single piece
             phenolic glass-filled  design and have a mass of 0.127kg. Caliper pistons
             (Image F.7-9) commonly are made from various alloys of steel for function
             and heat resistance.  Now advances  alternative materials and processing
             methods allow new choices to be available. Rather than metallics only (Al,
             Steel, Ti) being utilized there are Phenolic glass-filled plastics that are used
             in high volume by OEMs. These are molded to near net shape with minimal
             machining required, saving both material and processing time while saving
             significant mass.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 571
                  Image F.7-9: Front Caliper Piston Current Components
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F. 7.1.3.3.4   Brake Pads
             The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Caliper Brake Pads are of standard
             construction with steel backing plates and friction pad materials. They have
             a mass of 0.957kg. The brake pads, Image F.7-10, has had little change in
             design,  materials or processing in recent years.  Most have steel backing
             plates with a molded  friction material  attached  to them. Various size
             braking surfaces and  molded shapes are the common variations  across
             different vehicle platforms. Most material differences are focused only in
             the friction material going from traditional asbestos  now to semi-metallic
             and full metallics as  well as various ceramic  compounds. While these
             friction  materials greatly affect performance and vehicle stopping distances
             under various conditions, little is accomplished in saving mass and reducing
             material weight.
                Image F.7-10: Front Caliper Brake Pad Current Components
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 572
                                 (Source: FEVInc. photo)
F.7.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.7-4 shows the mass reduction ideas considered from the brainstorming activity
for the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem and their various components. These
ideas include  part  modifications, material substitutions, processing  and fabrication
differences, and use of alternative parts currently in production and used on other vehicles
and applications.
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 573
Component/ Assembly
Mass Reduction Idea
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rotor

Splash Shield
Vent (slot) front rotors
Cross-Drill front rotors
vehicle mass reduction (34%)
tr\ —f -i r\\
Two piece Rotor - Al light-
weight center (hat) with
Iron/Steel/CF outer surface
(disc) w/ T-nut fasteners
Change Material for Rotors -
AI/MMC
Downsizing based on Rotor
fins
Clearance mill openings (rotor
ID scalloping) around hat
perimeter on rotor disc ID
Clearance mill space (rotor
OD scalloping) around disc
OD perimeter
Clearance drill holes in rotor
top hat surface to reduce wt (5
-9/16"dia. X.25DP)
Increase slots around rotor hat
perimeter (OD) 50% (10 -
.625Wide x 1.125Long x .25
Dp)
Chg from straight to directional
vanes btwn rotor disc surfaces
Make brake rotors out of
ceramic
Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass:17.820-12.811 &
cost:0.96)
Combine 16, 18, 41, 45, 52,
51 , 60, 62, 64 & 66. Modify
rotors with slotting, cross-
drilling, 2-pc design, Al Hat,
downsize from Prius, chg mat'l
to AI/MMC, chg fin design
(directional), rotor ID & OD
scalloping, holes in rotor top
hat surface & side perimeter.

Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass:0. 893-0. 388 &
cost:0.93)
Make splash shield out of
plastic
Combination. Replace from
Prius & make out of plastic.
Make splash shield out of HSS
Make splash shield out of
Aluminum
Make splash shield out of
Titanium
Estimated Impact

0-5% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
30-40% wt save
20-30% wt save
40-50% wt save
0-5% wt save
20-30% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
5-10% wt save
0-5% wt save
0-5% wt save
50-60% wt save
v
30-40% wt save
60-70% wt save

50-60% wt save
60-70% wt save
70-80% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
30-40% wt save
20-30% wt save
Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits

Low production - auto
In Production - Most Auto
Makers
Lower Cost. In production - auto
In Production - Merc, BMW,
Audi
High Cost. In Production - racing
/ aftermarket
Low production - auto
In Production - Merc, BMW,
Audi
In Production - Motorcycles
In Production - Merc, BMW,
Audi
In Production - Most Auto
Makers
' In Production - Merc, BMW,
Audi
In Production - racing
Lower Cost. In Production -
Toyota
High Cost. Various partial
combinations in production by
various high performance sports
car manufacturers

Lower cost. In Production -
Toyota
Low Cost. Low production - auto
Lower Cost. Need development
Higher Cost. Low production -
auto
Higher Cost. Low production -
auto
High Cost. In Production - racing
Table F. 7-4 continued on next page
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 574

Brake Pads

Calipers

Caliper Mounting Bracket


Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass:2.004-1 .377 &
cost:0.98)
Combination. Replace from
Prius and use thinner pad
materials
Make brake pad wear material
thinner

Caliper Downsizing based on
vehicle mass reduction
Change Material for selectively
reinforced calipers (AI/MMC)
Make caliper assembly out of
cast magnesium
Make caliper assembly out of
cast aluminum
Make caliper assembly out of
forged aluminum
Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass: 12.071 -7.41 3 &
cost:0.96)
Combination. Replace from
Prius, downsize for mass
reduction & chg mat'l to cast
Mg

Caliper Downsizing based on
vehicle mass reduction
Change Material for selectively
reinforced calipers (AI/MMC)
Make caliper assembly out of
titanium
Make caliper assembly out of
cast magnesium
Make caliper assembly out of
cast aluminum
Make caliper assembly out of
forged aluminum
Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass: 12.071 -7.41 3 &
cost:0.96)
Combination. Replace from
Prius, downsize for mass
reduction & chg mat'l to cast
Mg


30-40% wt save
40-50% wt save
5-1 0% wt save

1 0-20% wt save
20-30% wt save
40-50% wt save
20-30% wt save
30-40% wt save
30-40% wt save
60-70% wt save

1 0-20% wt save
20-30% wt save
40-50% wt save
40-50% wt save
20-30% wt save
30-40% wt save
30-40% wt save
60-70% wt save


In Production - Toyota
Lower Cost. Low production -
auto
Low production - auto

In Production - Most Auto
Makers
High Cost. In Production - racing
High Cost. In Production - auto
Higher Cost. In production - auto
Higher Cost. In production - auto
Lower cost. In Production -
Toyota
High Cost. Low production -
auto

In Production - Most Auto
Makers
High Cost. In Production - racing
High Cost. In Production - racing
High Cost. In Production - auto
Higher Cost. In production - auto
Higher Cost. In production - auto
Lower cost. In Production -
Toyota
High Cost. Low production -
auto

Table F.7-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Front Rotor /
                             Drum and Shield Subsystem
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 575
F.7.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table  F.7-5 shows the mass  reduction  ideas for the Front Rotor/Drum  and Shield
subsystem that were selected for detailed  evaluation of both the mass savings achieved
and the cost to  manufacture them.  Several  ideas suggest  plastics and  magnesium as
alternate materials. Also, included are part substitutions from other vehicle designs such
as those currently in use on the Toyota Prius (as determined in the March  2010 Lotus
Report).
CO
*<
en
CD"
3
06
06

06

06

06

06
| Subsystem
03
03

03

03

03

03
Sub-Subsystem
00
00

00

00

00

00
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rotor

Splash Shield

Brake Pads

Calipers

Caliper Mounting Bracket
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation

Combination. Modify rotors with slotting, cross-
drilling, 2-pc design, Al Hat, downsize from Prius,
chg mat'l to AI/MMC, chg fin design (directional),
rotor ID & OD scalloping, holes in rotor top hat
surface & side perimeter.

Combination. Replace from Prius & make out of
plastic.

Combination. Replace from Prius and use thinner
pad materials

Combination. Replace from Prius, downsize for
mass reduction & chg mat'l to cast Al

Combination. Replace from Prius, downsize for
mass reduction & chg mat'l to cast Al
   Table F.7-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Front Rotor / Drum and Shield
                                 Subsystem Analysis
F.7.1.5.1
Rotors
The solution(s) chose to be implemented on the final Front Rotor Assembly (Image F.7-
22) was the combination of multiple individual brainstorming ideas. These ideas included
the following  modifications to component  design,  material  utilized  and processing
methods required:
             Two-piece Assembled Rotor Design, Image F.7-11
-------
                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                           Page 576

   o  Hat Fastened to Rotor Disc w/ T-Nuts and Bolts

      (Increased Process Time but Allows Better Hat Material Choices for
      Mass Savings)

   o  Manufacturers and OEMs include: Chevy, Mercedes, Audi,  BMW,
      Wilwood, Brembo
      Image F.7-11: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
     (Source: http://www. wilwood. com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdj)
Al Hat (Material Substitution), Image F.7-12

   o  Die Cast to Near-Net Shape

      (Mass  Savings even with increased material volume of 20-30%,
      Decreased Processing Time, Rapid and Increased Heat Dissipation)

   o  Manufacturers and OEMs include: Chevy, Mercedes, Audi, BMW,
      Wilwood, Brembo, Motorcycles
-------
                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                            Page 577
      Image F.7-12: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
     (Source: http://www. wilwood. com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdj)
Al / MMC Disc Surfaces (Material Substitution), Image F.7-13
   o  SPMM Cast to Near-Net Shape
      (Drastic Mass Savings even with increased material volume of 10-
      20%, Heat Resistant, Improved Rotor Life, Reduced Cracking and
      Deformation)
   o  Manufacturers  and OEMs include:  GM  EV1, Plymouth Prowler
      Mercedes,  Audi,  BMW, Porsche,  Ferrari,  Lamborghini,  Lotus,
      Wilwood, Brembo, Motorcycles

      Image F.7-13: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
     (Source: http://www. wilwood. com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdj)
Cast Directional Cooling Fins Between Disc Surfaces, Image F.7-14
   o Casting Process Change. Enhanced Disc Cooling.
      (Acts  as Centrifuge  Air  Pump:  Maximum  Air Circulation  for
      Increased Cooling.  This is Required Due  to Less Rotor Material
      Mass Available to Absorb Heat.)
   o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Porsche,
      Ferrari, Lamborghini, Wilwood, Brembo
-------
                                                      Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 578
               Image F.7-14: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source :http://www. highperformancepontiac. com/tech/hppp_l 101_brake_rotor_guide/photo _03.html)

                                               k^^
     •   Disc Surface Slotting, Image F.7-15

            o  Slight Mass Savings and Improved Brake Pad Performance

               (Release Trapped Heat, Gas, and Dust from Disc Surface)

            o  Manufacturers  and  OEMs   include:  Chevy,  Pontiac,  Cadillac,
               Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Wilwood,
               Brembo, Motorcycles
               Image F.7-15: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
 (Source: http://www. highperformancepontiac. com/tech/hppp_l 101_brake_rotor_guide/photo_l 3.html)
-------
                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                            Page 579
Disc Surface Cross-Drilling, Image F.7-16
   o  Improved Disc Cooling and Mass Savings
      (Disperse Built-Up Heat and Gases)
   o  Manufacturers  and  OEMs  include:  Chevy,  Pontiac,  Cadillac,
      Mercedes, Audi,  BMW, Porsche,  Ferrari, Lamborghini, Wilwood,
      Brembo, Motorcycles
      Image F.7-16: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
       (Source: http://www.pap-parts, com/products, asp ?dept=2 732)

Down-sizing Based on the Scaling Utilizing the 2008 Toyota Prius, Image
F.7-17
   o  Ratio Vehicle Net Mass and Rotor Size versus Prius Specs (Lotus) to
      Reduce Rotor Size and Material Usage.
      (Mass Savings Due to Less Material Usage)
-------
                                             Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                              Page 580
Image F.7-17: Front Rotor Size Normalization Mass Reduced Component
                     (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
  Scallop Rotor OD, Image F.7-18

     o  Improve Braking Performance and Mass Savings

     o  Manufacturers and OEMs include: Wilwood, Brembo, Numerous
        Motorcycle Applications
        Image F.7-18: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
       (Source: http://www.wilwood. com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdj)
  Scallop Rotor ID, Image F.7-19

     o  Improve Braking Performance and Mass Savings

     o  Manufacturers  and  OEMs  include:   Audi,  Mercedes,  BMW,
        Wilwood, Brembo, Numerous Motorcycle Applications
-------
                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                              Page 581
      Image F.7-19: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
     (Source: http://www. clubcobra. com/fomms/kirkham-motorsports/)


Cross-Drill Hat OD, Image F.7-20

   o  Improved Drum Surface Cooling and Mass Savings
      Image F.7-20: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
       (Source http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=238563)
Drill Holes in Hat Top Surface, Image F.7-21

   o  Improved Drum Surface Cooling & Mass Savings

   o  Manufacturers  and  OEMs   include:  Audi,  Mercedes,  BMW,
      Wilwood, Brembo
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 582
                   Image F.7-21: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
                   (Source: http://www.pic2/ly.com/Wihvood+Rotor+Hats.html)


The final Front Rotor Assembly (Image F.7-22) is the approximate design configuration
based on the above combined ideas. This redesigned Front Rotor solution has a calculated
mass of 4.552kg. Although nearly all of these individual mass reduction ideas have been
implemented by plenty of manufactures and OEMs individually, none have been utilized
all at once in a single vehicle application. Therefore, the appropriate amount of industry
testing and validation must be performed by any vehicle manufacturer in order to fit this
design to  a particular vehicle application. Concerns  to be addressed would  include the
normal list of topics that are determined  with any braking system. These would include
some of the following requirements:

          •  Cracking and Deformation Resistance

          •  Degassing, Glazing and Debris Control

          •  Brake Pad Wear

          •  Cooling (Heat Dissipation) Performance

          •  Disc Heat Capacity versus Warping

          •  Quality & Geometric Tolerance:

                o  Dimensioning,   Surface   Finish,   Lateral  Runout,    Flatness,
                   Perpendicularity & Parallelism

          •  Rotor Braking Surface Wear
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 583
             Rotor Life and Durability vs. Warranty

             Braking Performance vs. Component Longevity

             NVH Testing vs. Functional Performance

             Rotor Assembly (Disc & Hat) Balancing
               Image F.7-22: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component Example

        (Source: http://www. dsmtuners. com/fomms/blogs/secongendsm/2176-wilwood-brake-kit. html)


F.7.1.5.2     Splash Shields

The solution(s) chose to be implemented on the Front Splash Shields (Image F.7-23) was
the combination of two individual brainstorming ideas. This redesigned Toyota Venza
Splash Shield solution has  a calculated  mass of 0.075kg. These  ideas  included  the
following modifications to design, materials and processing:
         •   Plastic Glass-Filled, Ribbed and Webbed Shield (Material Substitution)
                o  Injection Molded to Near-Net Shape and Combining Components
                   (Mass Savings  even  with increased material volume of 20-30%,
                   Component Simplification and Assembly Reduction)
         •   Down-sizing Based on the Scaling Utilizing the 2008 Toyota Prius
                o  Ratio Vehicle Net Mass & Rotor Size vs. Prius Specs (Lotus)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 584
           Image F.7-23: Front Splash Shield Mass-Reduced Component Examples
                        (Source: http://www.motorcycle-superstore, com)
F.7.1.5.3
Caliper Assembly
      The redesigned Toyota  Venza  Front Caliper Assembly is  still  a multi-piece
      assembly comprised of the same components and design function. The major
      components are now being made from cast Al and the assembly has a new reduced
      mass calculated to be 2.563kg. The Front Caliper Assembly (Image F.7-24 and
      Image F.7-25) is still comprised of the same components and design function.
      These include: Housing, Mounting, Mounting Attachment Bolts (2), Inboard Brake
      Pad & Shim Plate,  Outboard Brake Pad &  Shim Plate, Pistons (2), Piston Seal
      Ring (2), Piston Seal Boots (2), Mounting  Slide  Pins  (2), Mounting  Slide Pin
      Boots (2), Housing Bleeder Valve, and Housing Bleeder Valve Cap.
               Image F.7-24: Front Caliper Mass Reduced Assembly Example
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 585
                                      Guide Pin
                                Caliper Body
                            Pm Boot
                       Piston Boot
               Shim
           Pad
Bleeder Screw
A
    '—Bolt
  Lock Pin
                                                           Bush
                                                       Piston Seal
                                                  ' Piston
                                              Support Bracket
                                         Pad Clip
                                     Wear Indicator
            Image F.7-25: Front Caliper Assembly Component Diagram Example
                          (Source: http://www. brakewarehouse. com/)
F.7.1.5.3.1   Housings
             The Front Caliper Housing (Image F.7-26) has been changed from a cast
             iron design to a die cast Al design. Additional material volume of 70-80%
             was added to improve strength and increase mass surface to assist in the
             brake cooling function. This technology is available and being utilized in
             aftermarket  and high  performance applications  as  well as a few OEM
             vehicle  markets.  Some manufacturers  and vehicle applications  include:
             BMC (Chrylser, Mini-Cooper), AP (Pontiac Grand Am, Ford Lotus, Honda
             NSX, Mk3  Titan, Fulvia, and various  motorcycles), Lockheed (Can Am
             race  cars,  Honda autos,  BMW  autos, Lotus autos, and  many various
             motorcycles), and Brembo (Ducatii and Bimota motorcycles).
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 586
           Image F.7-26: Front Caliper Housing Mass Reduced Component example
     (Source:http://www.peterverdone.com/wiki/index.php?title=PVD_Land_Speed_Record_Bike#Caliper)
             While  these  alternatives  now  are  designed  with  the  strength  and
             performance required they do add a significant cost while providing a large
             mass decrease. However the weight savings achieved is quite substantial.
             This redesigned Front  Caliper Housing solution has  a calculated mass of
             1.470kg. This  mass decrease assists with reducing vehicle requirements for
             suspension loads, handling, ride quality, engine hp requirements, etc.
F. 7.1.5.3.2   Mountings

             The Front Caliper Mounting, Image F.7-27, was changed from cast iron to
             a die cast Al design.  While additional material volume of 70-80% was
             added to improve strength, the mass savings achieved was  still significant.
             This redesigned Front  Caliper Mounting solution has a calculated mass of
             0.640kg. This upgraded material design is used in many aftermarket and
             high  performance  applications.  Some  manufacturers   and  vehicle
             applications  include:  AP  (Pontiac  autos,  Lotus  autos,  and  various
             motorcycles),  Lockheed  (Honda autos,  BMW  autos,  and many various
             motorcycles) and Brembo (Ducatii motorcycles).
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 587
          Image F.7-27: Front Caliper Mounting Mass Reduced Component Example
                          (Source: http://www.gforcebuggies. com/Parts)
F. 7.1.5.3.3    Brake Pads
             The Brake Pads, Image F.7-28, had had little change in their design and the
             materials and processing  remains the same. Still utilizing steel  backing
             plates with a molded friction material attached.  The  variation  in mass
             savings achieved was by utilizing slightly smaller and thinner brake pads.
             These redesigned Toyota Venza Front Caliper Brake Pad solutions have a
             calculated mass of 0.60kg. Most material differences are focused only in the
             friction material going from traditional asbestos now to semi-metallic and
             full metallics  as well as various ceramic compounds.  While these friction
             materials greatly affect performance and vehicle stopping distances under
             various  conditions,  little  is accomplished in saving  mass and  reducing
             material weight.
             Image F.7-28: Front Caliper Brake Pad Mass Reduced Components
       (Source: http://cdnO.autopartsnetwork.com/images/catalog/wp/full/WOl 331833409NPN.JPG)
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 588

      The final  Front Brake  Corner assembly shown below, Image  F.7-29, is the
      approximate design configuration based  on the  above combined  ideas. This
      redesigned Toyota Venza Front Brake Corner Assembly solution has  a calculated
      mass of 15.888kg. Again, nearly all of these individual mass reduction ideas have
      been implemented by many manufactures and OEMs individually, but none have
      been utilized at once in a single  vehicle application. Therefore, the appropriate
      amount of industry testing and  validation must be performed by  any vehicle
      manufacturer in order to fit this design to a particular vehicle application.
            Image F.7-29: Front Brake System Mass Reduced Assembly Example
                  (Source: http://www. wilwood. com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdj)


F.7.1.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.7-6 shows the results  of the mass  reduction ideas that were evaluated for the
Front Rotor /  Drum and Shield subsystem. This resulted  in a subsystem overall mass
savings of 16.599kg and a cost increase differential of $-6.07.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 589

w
"<
(/>
ST
F06
P_
06



Subsystem
'03
'of
03



Sub-Subsystem
roo
f^~
"02




Description



Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem

Front Rotor and Shield
Front Caliper, Anchor and Attaching Components





Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


D
A

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" ID


9.098
7.500

16.599
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"<£"
P (2)


-$34.66
$28.58

46.07
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


"ssisT"
$3.81

40.37
(Increase)
Subsys/
Sub-
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


"^48768%^
53.86%

50.34%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


"^053%^"
0.44%

0.97%
r(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase


 Table F.7-6: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Front Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem
Table F.7-7 shows the ideas for the Front Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem with the
Brake Rotors achieving the greatest mass reduction,  8.738kg,  along with some cost
increase of $38.57. The Caliper Housing was the next largest mass savings realized with
4.724kg and a significant cost reduction of $27.50.
CD"
F06
r^-
^_
'06
^I
Subsystem
F03
r^~
|f_
'03
^P3_
Sub-Subsystem
roo
^oT
r—
'02
'^L


Component / Assembly Description

Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem

Rotor
_JjrjlasJi^SjTie^
Caliper Housing
Brake Pads
Caliper Mounting Bracket
r(1) "+" = decrease, "-" = increase
Mass Reduction Results


	



Mass
Reduction
"kg" (D

.___
0.720
4.724
0.714
2.063

Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 590
     F.7.2    Rear Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem

F.7.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview

This pictorial diagram, Image F.7-30, represents the major brake components in the Rear
Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem and their relative location and position relevant to
one another as located on the vehicle rear corner.
      Image F.7-30: Rear Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem Relative Location Diagram
                          (Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)
As  seen in Image F.7-31, the Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield subsystem consists of the
following  major components: Rear  Rotor, Rear Splash Shield, Rear Caliper Assembly,
Rear Caliper Mounting, and Miscellaneous Anchor and Attaching Components.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 591
      Image F.7-31: Rear Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem Current Major Components
                                (Source: FEVInc photo)


Table F.7-8 indicates the two (2) sub-subsystems that make-up the Rear Rotor/Drum and
Shield subsystem. These are the Rear Rotor &  Shield sub-subsystem and the Anchor and
Attaching Components sub-subsystem. The  most  significant  contributor  to  the  mass
within this subsystem was found to be within  the Rear Rotor and Shield sub-subsystem
(approx 66.3%).
v>
*<
in
m
3
06
06
06


Subsystem
04
04
04


Sub-
Subsystem
00
01
02


Description
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rear Rotor and Shield
Rear Caliper, Anchor and Attaching Components

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"
„
14.893
7.578

22.470
85.740
1711
26.21%
1.31%
Table F.7-8: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Rear Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 592
F.7.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
As with the Front Brake subsystems previously discussed, the Toyota Venza's Rear Rotor
and Shield subsystem (Image F.7-32) follows typical industry standards. Rotors (Image
F.7-33) are  single piece  design  cast  out of grey  iron  and manufactured to SAE
specifications. The Splash Shields  (Image F.7-34) are typical stamped and welded steel
fabrications. The Caliper Assembly (Image F.7-35) is composed of several components.
These include: Caliper Housings (Image F.7-36)  are high nickel content cast iron with
the appropriate machining. The Caliper Mountings  (Image F.7-37) are cast iron and
machined. The Brake Caliper houses the Brake Pads and Pistons.  The Caliper Piston
(Image F.7-38) is drawn, machined and coated steel with standard  seal configurations.
The Brake Pads (Image F.7-38) are of standard construction with steel backing plates and
friction pad materials. The current OEM Toyota Venza Rear Brake Corner Assembly has
amass of 11.235kg.
                   Image F.7-32: Rear Brake System Assembly Example
         (Source: http://www.wheels24.co.za/News/General_News/Scooby-STI-goes-auto-20090225)


F.7.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

F.7.2.3.1     Rotors

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Rotor (Image F.7-33) is a single piece design cast
out of grey iron  and has a mass of 5.742kg. Many high-performance and luxury vehicle
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 593

models have began utilizing alternate rotor designs in order to improve both performance
and economy. Two-piece rotor assemblies are now able to be found in many Mercedes',
BMW's, Audi's,  Corvette's,  Porches', etc across many platforms and vehicle models.
This two-piece configuration was  also mentioned in the  March 2010 Lotus  Report.
Besides  OEM's,  there  are aftermarket  suppliers that use this design.  Brembo and
Wilwood are two such companies that have used this rotor design in various production
applications.  This two-piece  design usually utilizes  an Aluminum center hub (or hat)
along with a disc braking surface (typically cast iron or steel).
                      Image F.7-33: Rear Rotor Current Component
              (Source: http://www. bestvalueautoparts. com/Replacement_Parts/TOYOTA))
The Rotor Center (Hat) can be made from several material choices including Aluminum
(Al), Titanium (Ti), Magnesium (Mg), Grey Iron or Steel (Fe) and manufactured from
cast forms or billet machined from solid.

The Rotor disc surfaces are also able to be made from various materials and processing
methods. These include Aluminum Metal Matrix Composites (Al/MMC), MMC, Ti  and
Fe. Even Carbon/Ceramic matrices  have been used to produce  rotors of less mass.
Processing  includes casting vented or solid disc plates and the machining cross-drilled
plates, slotted plates and scalloped disc (both ID and OD) profiles.

Some race cars and airplanes use brakes with carbon fiber discs and carbon fiber pads to
reduce weight. For these systems, wear rates tend to be high, and braking may be poor or
"grabby" until the brake is  heated  to  the proper operating  temperature. Again,  this
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 594

technology adds  substantial costs if considered  for regular high volume automotive
production capacities.
F.7.2.3.2     Splash Shields

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Splash Shield is  a multi- piece welded design,
stamped of common steel and has a mass of 1.624kg. A majority of splash shields (or dust
shields) (Image F.7-34)  are made from stamped light gage steel. Some  are vented or
slotted for reduced material and increased weight savings. Alternative materials are now
beginning to be examined for use to further reduce weight contribution. These include Al,
high-strength steels, and even various reinforced plastics.
                  Image F.7-34: Rear Splash Shield Current Component
                                (Source: FEVInc photo)
F.7.2.3.3     Caliper Assembly

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Caliper Assembly is a multi-piece assembly with
major components made from cast iron and has a mass of 3.250kg. Traditional caliper
assemblies (Image  F.7-35)  are comprised of  several components.  These  include:
Housing, Mounting, Mounting Attachment Bolts (2), Inboard Brake Pad and Shim Plate,
Outboard Brake  Pad and  Shim Plate, Piston, Piston  Seal Ring, Piston Seal Boot,
Mounting Slide Pins (2), Mounting  Slide Pin Boots (2), Housing Bleeder Valve, and
Housing Bleeder Valve Cap.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 595
                      Image F.7-35: Rear Caliper Current Assembly
       (Source: http://cdn2. autopartsnetwork. com/images/catalog/brand/centric/640/l4144640.jpg)


F.7.2.3.3.1   Housings

             The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Caliper Housing is a single piece
             cast iron design and  has a mass of 1.896kg. Traditional caliper housings
             (Image F.7-36) have been made from various grades of cast  iron.  This
             allowed for adequate strength while also acting as a heat sink to assist in the
             brake cooling function.  Now with advances in materials  and processing
             methods, other choices are available and being utilized in aftermarket and
             high performance applications as well as OEM vehicle markets. Among
             some  of these alternate mediums are Al, Ti, Steel, Mg and MMC. Forming
             methods now include sand cast,  semi-permanent metal molding, die casting
             and machining from billet.
                                    T	1__
                                    T
                  Image F.7-36: Rear Caliper Housing current component.
                                 (Source: FEVInc photo)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 596
             While  these  alternatives now  are  designed with  the  strength  and
             performance required they do add a significant cost-versus-mass increase.
             However, the weight savings achieved is quite substantial and assists with
             reducing  such vehicle requirements for suspension loads, handling,  ride
             quality, and engine hp requirements. Other advanced development includes
             using bulk molding compound using long randomly oriented carbon fiber
             continues to be of interest due to the ability to easily mold it into complex
             shapes. However, temperature extremes encountered by brake components
             and the current cost of the material will be serious challenges for some time
             to come.
F. 7.2.3.3.2   Mountings
             The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Caliper Mounting is a single piece
             cast iron design and has a mass of 0.934kg. Caliper mountings, Image F.7-
             37, have normally been made from various grades of cast iron for adequate
             strength and function. Now with advances  in materials and  processing
             methods other  choices are available  and being utilized in aftermarket and
             high performance applications as well as OEM vehicle markets. Among
             some of these  alternate mediums are Al, Ti, Steel  and Mg. Forming and
             fabrication methods include casting and billet machining.
                                  I
                Image F.7-37: Rear Caliper Mounting Current Component
                                (Source: FEVInc photo)
F. 7.2.3.3.3   Piston
             The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Caliper Pistons are a single piece
             steel drawn design and have a mass of 0.219kg. Caliper piston (Image F.7-
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 597

             38) commonly are made from various alloys of steel for function and heat
             resistance.  Now  advances alternative  materials  and processing methods
             allow new choices to be available. Rather than utilizing metallics only (Al,
             Steel, Ti),  there  are phenolic  glass-filled plastics that are  used  in high
             volume  by  OEMs. These are molded to near  net  shape with minimal
             machining required, saving both material and processing time while saving
             significant mass.
                  Image F.7-38: Rear Caliper Piston Current Component
                                 (Source: FEVInc photo)
F. 7.2.3.3.4   Brake Pads
             The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Caliper Brake Pads are of standard
             construction with steel backing plates and friction pad materials. They have
             a mass of 0.487kg. The brake pads (Image F.7-39) had had little change in
             design, materials or processing  in recent years.  Most have  steel backing
             plates with  a  molded friction material  attached to  them.  Various  sized
             braking surfaces and molded shapes are common variations across different
             vehicle platforms. Most material differences are focused only in the friction
             material  going from traditional asbestos now to  semi-metallic and full
             metallic  as  well as  various  ceramic compounds. While  these friction
             materials greatly affect performance and vehicle  stopping distances under
             various  conditions, little  is accomplished  in saving  mass  and reducing
             material weight.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 598
                Image F.7-39: Rear Caliper Brake Pad Current Components
                                 (Source: FEVInc photo)
F.7.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.7-9 shows the mass reduction ideas considered from the brainstorming activity
for the  Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem and their various components. These
ideas include  part  modifications, material substitutions, processing  and fabrication
differences, and use of alternative parts currently in production and used on other vehicles
and applications
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                           March 30, 2012
                                                                               Page 599
Component/ Assembly
Mass Reduction Idea
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rotor
Vent (slot) front rotors
Cross-Drill front rotors
Rotor Downsizing based on
vehicle mass reduction
Two piece Rotor - Al light-
weight center (hat) with
Iron/Steel/CF outer surface
(disc) w/ T-nut fasteners
Change Material for Rotors -
AI/MMC
Downsizing based on Rotor
fins
Clearance mill openings (rotor
ID scalloping) around hat
perimeter on rotor disc ID
Clearance mill space (rotor
OD scalloping) around disc
OD perimeter
Clearance drill holes in rotor
top hat surface to reduce wt (5
-9/16"dia. X.25DP)
Increase slots around rotor hat
perimeter (OD) 50% (10-
.625Widex1.125Longx.25
Dp)
Chg from straight to directional
vanes btwn rotor disc surfaces
Make brake rotors out of
ceramic ^
Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass:1 7.820-1 2.811 &
cost:0.96)
Combination. Modify rotors
with slotting, cross-drilling, 2-
pc design, Al Hat, downsize
from Prius, chg mat'l to
AI/MMC, chg fin design
(directional), rotor ID & OD
scalloping, holes in rotor top
hat surface & side perimeter.
Estimated Impact

0-5% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
30-40% wt save
20-30% wt save
40-50% wt save
0-5% wt save
20-30% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
5-1 0% wt save
0-5% wt save
0-5% wt save
50-60% wt save
30-40% wt save
60-70% wt save
Kisk & I rade-otts and/or
Benefits

Low production - auto
In Production - Most Auto
Makers
Lower Cost. In production - auto
In Production - Merc, BMW,
Audi
High Cost. In Production - racing
/ aftermarket
Low production - auto
In Production - Merc, BMW,
Audi
In Production - Motorcycles
In Production - Merc, BMW,
Audi
In Production - Most Auto
Makers
In Production - Merc, BMW,
Audi
In Production - racing
Lower Cost. In Production -
Toyota
High Cost. Various partial
combinations in production by
various high performance sports
car manufacturers
Table F. 7-9 continued next page
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 600

Splash Shield

Access Plug
Hose

Vent rear splash shield like
front shield
Make splash shield out of
plastic
Make splash shield out of High
Strength Steel
Make splash shield out of
Aluminum
Make splash shield out of
Titanium
Integrate (3) splash shield
plates into (1)
Eliminate thick backing plate.
Attach directly to axle
Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass:3.189-0.715 &
cost:0.25)
Combinination. Replace from
Prius, Vent, Al Mat'l, Combine
3 plates into 1 .

Eliminate shoe brake access
plug
Make shoe access plug out of
plastic

Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass:0.31 3-0.228 &
cost:0.97) %

1 0-20% wt save
60-70% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
30-40% wt save
20-30% wt save
20-30% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
60-70% wt save
70-80% wt save

1 00% wt save
1 0-20% wt save

20-30% wt save

Lower cost. In Production - most
automakers
Low Cost. Low production - auto
Higher Cost. Low production -
auto
Higher Cost. Low production -
auto
High Cost. In Production - racing
Lower cost. In Production
Lower cost. In Production
Lower cost. In Production -
Toyota
Moderate Cost

Low production - auto
Low production - auto

In Production - Toyota
Brake Pads

Calipers
Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass:2.004-1 .377 &
cost:0.98)
Combination. Replace from
Prius and use thinner pad
materials
Make brake pad wear material
thinner

Caliper Downsizing based on
vehicle mass reduction
Change Material for selectively
reinforced calipers (AI/MMC)
Make caliper assembly out of
M cast magnesium
Make caliper assembly out of
cast aluminum
Make caliper assembly out of
forged aluminum
Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass:1 2.071 -7.41 3 &
cost:0.96)
Combination. Replace from
Prius, downsize for mass
reduction & chg mat'l to cast
Mg
30-40% wt save
40-50% wt save
5-1 0% wt save

1 0-20% wt save
20-30% wt save
40-50% wt save
20-30% wt save
30-40% wt save
30-40% wt save
60-70% wt save
In Production - Toyota
Lower Cost. Low production -
auto
Low production - auto

In Production - Most Auto
Makers
High Cost. In Production - racing
High Cost. In Production - auto
Higher Cost. In production - auto
Higher Cost. In production - auto
Lower cost. In Production -
Toyota
High Cost. Low production -
auto
Table F. 7-9 continued next page
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 601

Caliper Mounting Bracket

Piston, Caliper


Caliper Downsizing based on
vehicle mass reduction
Change Material for selectively
reinforced calipers (AI/MMC)
Make caliper assembly out of
titanium
Make caliper assembly out of
cast magnesium
Make caliper assembly out of
cast aluminum
Make caliper assembly out of
forged aluminum
Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass:1 2.071 -7.41 3 &
cost:0.96)
Combination. Replace from
Prius, downsize for mass
reduction & chg mat'l to cast
Mg

Make piston body from
magnesium vs machined steel
Make piston body from molded
plastic composite (phenolic) vs
machined steel
Make piston body from cast
aluminum vs machined steel
Make piston body from forged
aluminum vs machined steel
Make piston body from HSS
vs machined steel
Make piston body from forged
SS vs machined steel
Make piston body from
titanium vs machined steel


1 0-20% wt save
20-30% wt save
40-50% wt save
40-50% wt save
20-30% wt save
30-40% wt save
30-40% wt save
60-70% wt save

50-60% wt save
60-70% wt save
30-40% wt save
40-50% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
5-1 0% wt save
40-50% wt save


In Production - Most Auto
Makers
High Cost. In Production - racing
High Cost. In Production - racing
High Cost. In Production - auto
Higher Cost. In production - auto
Higher Cost. In production - auto
Lower cost. In Production -
Toyota
High Cost. Low production -
auto

High Cost. Low production
In Production - Most Auto
Makers
Higher Cost. In production - auto
Higher Cost. In production - auto
In Production - Auto
Higher Cost. In Production -
Auto
Low production - racing /
aftermarket

   Table F.7-9: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Rear Rotor /
                              Drum and Shield Subsystem
F.7.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.7-10  shows the mass reduction ideas for the Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield
subsystem that were selected for detailed evaluation of both the mass savings achieved
and the cost to manufacture.  Several ideas suggest plastics and magnesium as alternate
materials. Also included are part substitutions from other vehicle designs such as those
currently in use on the Toyota Prius (as determined in the March 2010 Lotus Report).
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 602
co
*<
|
06
06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06
| Subsystem
04
04

04

04

04

04

04

04

04
Sub-Subsystem
00
00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rotor

Splash Shield

Access Plug

Hose

Brake Pads

Calipers

Caliper Mounting Bracket

Piston, Caliper
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation

Combination. Modify rotors with slotting, cross-
drilling, 2-pc design, Al Hat, downsize from Prius,
chg mat'l to AI/MMC, chg fin design (directional),
rotor ID & OD scalloping, holes in rotor top hat
surface & side perimeter.

Combination. Replace from Prius, Vent, Al Mat'l,
Combine 3 plates into 1.

Make shoe access plug out of plastic

Replace from 2008 Toyota Prius (mass:0.313-
0.228 & cost:0.97)

Combination. Replace from Prius and use thinner
pad materials

Combination. Replace from Prius, downsize for
mass reduction & chg mat'l to cast Al

Combination. Replace from Prius, downsize for
mass reduction & chg mat'l to cast Al

Make piston body from molded plastic composite
(phenolic) vs machined steel
   Table F.7-10: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield
                                 Subsystem Analysis
F.7.2.5.1
Rotors
The solution(s) chosen to be implemented on the final Rear Rotor Assembly (Image F.7-
50) was the combination of multiple individual brainstorming ideas. These ideas included
the following  modifications to component  design, material utilized and  processing
methods required:

         •   Two-piece Assembled Rotor Design, Image F.7-40

                o  Hat Fastened to Rotor Disc w/ T-Nuts and Bolts
-------
                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                               March 30, 2012
                                                                   Page 603

            (Increased Process Time but Allows Better Hat Material Choices for
            Mass Savings)

         o  Manufacturers and OEMs include: Chevy, Mercedes, Audi, BMW,
            Wilwood, Brembo
            Image F.7-40: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http://www.hrpworld.com/client_images/ecommerce/client_39/products/5862_l_tn.jpg)
      Al Hat (Material Substitution), Image F.7-41

         o  Die Cast to Near-Net Shape

            (Mass  Savings even  with increased material  volume  of 20-30%,
            Decreased Processing Time, Rapid and Increased Heat Dissipation)

         o  Manufacturers and OEMs include: Chevy, Mercedes, Audi, BMW,
            Wilwood, Brembo, Motorcycles
            Image F.7-41: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component
           (Source: http://www. wilwood. com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdj)
-------
                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                            Page 604
Al / MMC Disc Surfaces (Material Substitution) Image F.7-42
   o  SPMM Cast to Near-Net Shape
      (Drastic Mass Savings even with increased material volume of 10-
      20%, Heat Resistant,  Improved Rotor Life, Reduced Cracking and
      Deformation)
   o  Manufacturers and OEMs include: Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Porsche,
      Ferrari, Lamborghini, Wilwood, Brembo, Motorcycles
                  /
      Image F.7-42: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component
     (Source: http://www. wilwood. com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdj)


Disc Surface Slotting, Image F.7-43

   o  Slight Mass Savings and Improved Brake Pad Performance

      (Release Trapped Heat, Gas and Dust from Disc Surface)

   o  Manufacturers  &  OEMs  include:  Chevy,  Pontiac,  Cadillac,
      Mercedes,  Audi, BMW,  Porsche, Ferrari,  Lamborghini, Wilwood,
      Brembo, Motorcycles
-------
                                                      Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 605
               Image F.7-43: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http://www.highperformancepontiac.com/tech/hppp_1101_brake_rotor_guide/photo_13.html)


     •  Disc Surface Cross-Drilling, Image F.7-44

            o   Improved Disc Cooling and Mass Savings

               (Disperse Built-Up Heat & Gases)

            o   Manufacturers  and  OEMs  include:   Chevy,  Pontiac,  Cadillac,
               Mercedes, Audi, BMW,  Porsche,  Ferrari, Lamborghini, Wilwood,
               Brembo, Motorcycles
               Image F.7-44: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component
               (Source: http://www.pap-parts, com/products, asp ?dept=2 732)
-------
                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                            Page 606

  Down Sizing Based on the Scaling Utilizing the 2008 Toyota Prius, Image
  F.7-45

     o  Ratio Vehicle Net Mass and Rotor Size vs. Prius Specs (Lotus) to
        Reduce Rotor Size and Material Usage.

        (Mass Savings Due to Less Material Usage)
Image F.7-45: Rear Rotor Size Normalization Mass Reduced Component
  Scallop Rotor OD, Image F.7-46

     o  Improve Braking Performance and Mass Savings

     o  Manufacturers  and OEMs include: Wilwood,  Brembo, Numerous
        Motorcycle Applications
        Image F.7-46: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component
-------
                                             Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                           March 30, 2012
                                                              Page 607

     (Source: http://www. wilwood. com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdj)


Scallop Rotor ID, Image F.7-47

   o   Improve Braking Performance and Mass Savings

   o   Manufacturers  and   OEMs  include:  Audi,  Mercedes,   BMW,
       Wilwood, Brembo, Numerous Motorcycle Applications
      Image F.7-47: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component
     (Source: http://www. clubcobra. com/forums/kirkham-motorsports/)

Cross-Drill Hat OD, Image F.7-48

   o  Improved Drum Surface Cooling & Mass Savings
      Image F.7-48: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component
      (Source http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php? t=238563)

Drill Holes in Hat Top Surface, Image F.7-49
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 608

                o  Improved Drum Surface Cooling & Mass Savings

                o  Manufacturers & OEMs include: Audi, Mercedes, BMW, Wilwood,
                   Brembo
                                                      Image F.7-49: Rear Rotor Mass
                                                          Reduced Component

                                                                (Source:
                                                     http://www.pic2/ly.com/Wilwood+Rotor
                                                               +Hats, html)
The final Rear Rotor Assembly (Image F.7-50) is the approximate design configuration
based on the above combined ideas. This redesigned Toyota Venza Rear Rotor Assembly
solution has a calculated mass of 4.596kg. Although nearly all of these individual mass
reduction ideas  have been implemented by many manufactures and OEMs individually,
none  have been  utilized  all at once in  a  single vehicle application.  Therefore the
appropriate amount of industry testing and validation must be  performed  by any vehicle
manufacturer in order to fit this design to a particular vehicle application.  Concerns to be
addressed include the normal list of topics determined with any braking system.  These
would include some of the  following requirements:

         •   Cracking and Deformation Resistance

         •   Degassing, Glazing and Debris Control

         •   Brake Pad Wear

         •   Cooling (Heat Dissipation) Performance

         •   Disc Heat Capacity vs. Warping

         •   Quality & Geometric Tolerancing:

                o  Dimensioning,    Surface    Finish,    Lateral   Runout,   Flatness,
                   Perpendicularity & Parallelism
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 609
             Rotor Braking Surface Wear

             Rotor Life and Durability vs. Warranty

             Braking Performance vs. Component Longevity

             NVH Testing vs. Functional Performance

             Rotor Assembly (Disc and Hat) Balancing
               Image F.7-50: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component Example
        (Source: http://www. dsmtuners. com/forums/blogs/secongendsm/2176-wihvood-brake-kit. html)


F.7.2.5.2     Splash Shields

The solution(s) chosen to be implemented on the Rear Splash Shields (Image F.7-51) was
the combination of two individual brainstorming ideas. This redesigned Toyota Venza
Rear Splash Shield solution has a calculated mass of 0.496kg. These ideas included the
following design, materials and processing modifications:

         •  Aluminum Fabrication (Material Substitution)

                o  One  piece forging design  to Near-Net Shape and  Combining
                   Components (Mass Savings even with increased material volume of
                   120-130%, Component Simplification and Assembly Reduction)

         •  Vented Design (done in forging strikes).

                o  (Mass Reduction from Less Material)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 610

            Down Sizing Based on the Scaling Utilizing the 2008 Toyota Prius

                o  Ratio Vehicle Net Mass & Rotor Size vs. Prius Specs (Lotus)
            Image F.7-51: Rear Splash Shield Mass Reduced Component Example
                   (Source: http://www.rjays.com/Superbell/SBJmages/3513.jpg)
F.7.2.5.3
Caliper Assembly
The  redesigned Toyota Venza Rear  Caliper Assembly is  also a multi-piece assembly
comprised of the same  components and design function. The major components are now
being made from cast  Al and the assembly has a new reduced mass calculated to be
1.406kg. The Rear Caliper Assembly (Image F.7-52 and Image F.7-53) is still comprised
of the same components and design function: Housing, Mounting, Mounting Attachment
Bolts (2), Inboard Brake Pad and Shim Plate, Outboard Brake Pad and Shim Plate, Piston,
Piston Seal Ring, Piston Seal Boot, Mounting Slide Pins (2), Mounting  Slide Pin Boots
(2), Housing Bleeder Valve, and Housing Bleeder Valve Cap.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 611
                Image F.7-52: Rear Caliper Mass Reduced Assembly Example
                      (Source: http://www.sillbeer.com/blog/category/brakes)
             Image F.7-53: Rear Caliper Assembly Component Diagram Example
             (Source: http://www. brakewarehouse. com/remanufactured_brake_calipers. asp)
F.7.2.5.3.1   Housings
             The  Rear Caliper Housing (Image F.7-54) has been changed from a cast
             iron  design to a die cast Al design. Additional material volume of 10-20%
             was  added to improve  strength and increase mass surface to assist in the
             brake cooling function. This technology is available and being utilized in
             aftermarket and  high performance  applications as  well  as a few OEM
             vehicle markets.  Some manufacturers  and vehicle  applications  include:
             BMC (Mini-Cooper), AP (Pontiac Grand Am, Ford Lotus, Honda NSX,
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 612

             Mk3 Titan, Fulvia, and various motorcycles), Lockheed (Can Am race cars,
             Honda autos, BMW autos, Lotus autos, and many various motorcycles) and
             Brembo (Ducatii and Bimota motorcycles).
           Image F.7-54: Rear Caliper Housing Mass Reduced Component Example
                      (Source: http://www.sillbeer.com/blog/category/brakes)
             While  these  alternatives  now  are  designed  with  the  strength  and
             performance required they do add a significant cost while providing a large
             mass decrease. However the weight savings achieved is quite substantial.
             This redesigned  Toyota  Venza  Rear Caliper  Housing  solution  has  a
             calculated mass of 0.727kg. This mass decrease assists with reducing such
             vehicle requirements as suspension loads, handling, ride quality, and engine
             hp requirements.
F. 7.2.5.3.2   Mountings
             The Rear Caliper Mounting, Image F.7-55, was changed from cast iron to a
             die cast Al design. While additional material volume of 20-30% was added
             to improve  strength, the mass savings achieved was still significant. This
             redesigned Toyota Venza Rear Caliper Mounting solution has a calculated
             mass of 0.363kg. This upgraded material design is used in many aftermarket
             and  high performance  applications.  Some  manufacturers and vehicle
             applications  include:  AP  (Pontiac  autos,  Lotus  autos,  and various
             motorcycles), Lockheed  (Honda  autos,  BMW autos,  and many various
             motorcycles) and Brembo (Ducatii motorcycles).
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 613
          Image F.7-55: Rear Caliper Mounting Mass Reduced Component Example
                         (Source: http://www.gforcebuggies. com/Parts)
F. 7.2.5.3.3   Piston
             The Toyota Venza Rear Caliper Pistons have been  changed from a steel
             drawn design to a phenolic glass-filled design and now have a reduced mass
             of 0.114kg. A material volume increase of approximately 110-120% was to
             compensate for the strength of the  steel being replaced.  This  design of
             Caliper Pistons (Image F.7-56) commonly used by many different OEM
             manufacturers in high  volume applications,  as well as  being used by
             multiple aftermarket suppliers.  These OEMs include Toyota as well as all
             the other major car manufacturers. These are molded to near net shape with
             minimal machining required,  saving both material  and processing time
             while saving significant mass.
                Image F.7-56: Rear Caliper Piston Mass Reduced Component
                                (Source: FEVInc photo)
F. 7.2.5.3.4   Brake Pads
-------
                                                 Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                               March 30, 2012
                                                                  Page 614

     The Rear Brake Pads (Image F.7-57) had had little change in their design
     and the materials  and processing remains the same.  Still  utilizing  steel
     backing plates with a molded friction material attached. The variation in
     mass savings achieved was by utilizing slightly smaller and thinner brake
     pads. These redesigned Toyota Venza Rear  Caliper Brake Pad solutions
     have a calculated mass of 0.306kg. Most material differences are focused
     only in the friction material going from traditional asbestos now to semi-
     metallic and full  metallic as well as various ceramic compounds. While
     these friction materials greatly affect performance and vehicle  stopping
     distances under various conditions, little is accomplished in saving mass
     and reducing material weight.
     Image F.7-57: Rear Caliper Brake Pad Mass Reduced Components
(Source: http://cdnl.autopartsnetwork.com/images/catalog/wp/full/W01331833410NPN.JPG)


     The final Rear Brake Corner Assembly shown below (Image F.7-58) is the
     approximate design configuration based on the above combined ideas. This
     redesigned  Toyota Venza  Rear Brake Corner Assembly solution  has  a
     calculated mass  of 11.531kg. To  reiterate,  nearly all of these individual
     mass reduction ideas have been implemented by plenty of manufactures and
     OEMs  individually, but none have been utilized all at once in a  single
     vehicle application. Therefore the appropriate amount of industry testing
     and validation must be performed by any vehicle manufacturer in order to
     fit this design to a particular vehicle application.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 615
             Image F.7-58: Rear Brake System Mass Reduced Assembly Example
                  (Source: http://www. wilwood. com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdj)
F.7.2.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.7-11 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated for the
Rear  Rotor/Drum  and Shield subsystem. This  resulted in a  subsystem  overall mass
savings of 9.676kg and a cost savings differential  of $6.08.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 616

03
*<
(/>
a>

F06
r06~
'06



(1)
2)

Subsystem

F04
"04"
'04




Sub-Subsystem

roo
r—
'02





Description

Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rear Rotor and Shield
Rear Caliper, Anchor and Attaching Components




Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas
Idea
Level
Select

.................
A

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" ID

•~~45g5~~
5.110

9.676
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"f_IL_


Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg

-$5.69
$0.47
-$0.47
$3.02
$6.22
$0.16
$2.10
-!13J9^

-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 617
Table F.7-12: Calculated Subsystem Mass-Reductions and Cost Impact Results for the Rear Rotor
                  / Drum Components and Shield Subsystem Components
     F.7.3    Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
F.7.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Image F.7-59 represents the major parking brake components in the Parking Brake and
Actuation subsystem, which includes: the Parking Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-assembly,
the Parking Brake Shoes and Associated Hardware, and the Actuation Cable Assemblies,
and Guides and Brackets that are located on the vehicle from the engine firewall (front of
vehicle) all the way to the rear wheels.

        Image F.7-59: Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem Current Sub-assemblies
                          (Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)
The Parking Brake and Actuation subsystem (Table F.7-13) consists of the Parking Brake
Controls and the Parking Brake Cables and Attaching Components, including the Parking
Brake Shoes and Hardware. The most significant contributor to mass is the Parking Brake
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 618

Shoes and Hardware (approximately 56.69%) followed by the Parking  Brake Controls
(approximately 27.52%).
03
*<
&
n>
3
06
06
06
06


Subsystem
05
05
05
05


Sub-
Subsystem
00
01
02
03


Description
Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
Parking Brake Controls
Parking Brake Cables and Attaching Components
Parking Brake Shoes and Hardware

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"

3.689
2.117
7.599

13.405
85.740
1711
15.63%
0.78%
Table F.7-13: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
F.7.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The  Toyota Venza's Parking Brake subsystem, Image F.7-60, follows typical industry
standards. The Venza uses a cable operated "drum-in-hat" rear parking brake system. The
system consists of a hat-shaped rotor with a small drum on the inside for the parking
brake shoe interface, and a flange or rotor disc surface on the outside diameter for the
normal caliper, disc brake action. This entire unit is engaged by a pedal actuator located
under the instrument panel against the engine firewall. The mass of this  entire Parking
Brake and Actuator sub-subsystem is 13.405kg.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 619
        IPS

        ffu
        •o 0 o o
        03-33
        S- ? * *
        57 3 A rt
        3 to :r 3"
        «D ,-r Q O
        Ifit
        3 I* o
        o S S- S-
        lffl
           T ST
           II
           s r
             I
           I
*
       Image F.7-60: Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem Layout and Configuration
                   (Source: http://www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP_346.pdf)
F.7.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Alternatives to cable-operated parking brake systems are focused on hydraulic, electrical,
and  electro-mechanical  components to  actuate  the parking brake  system at the rear
wheels. The use of push-button switches and console touch screens can eliminate the need
for hand levers or foot pedals in the cabin interior. Electrical wiring and actuators can
provide input controls to initiate the clamping force at the rear wheels. This allows the
reduction (if not the  elimination) in the length and number of cable assemblies routed
under and along the vehicle floor pan and sub-frame structures.

TRW offers a front  and rear wheel  Electric  Park Brake system (Image F.7-61) that
provides four-wheel park brake capability with  associated claims of improved safety. VW
has utilized an Electro-Hydraulic Park Brake system (Image F.7-62) that is initiated by an
electric motor that drives a geared actuator providing direct hydraulic pressure influence
by pushing directly on the caliper piston inside the caliper housing. Other designs offer a
compromise  of a hybrid  approach, still  using  electronic actuation and motor-driven
systems but integrating them into the existing rear cable systems already present on most
vehicles.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 620
       Image F.7-61: TRW Park Brake System    Image F.7-62: VW Park Brake System

    (Image F. 7-61 Source : http://www.buzzbox.com/news/2010-09-29/gas:technology/?clusterId=2019488)
              (Image F. 7-62 Source: http://www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP'_346.pdf)
F.7.3.3.1
Pedal Frame and Arm Sub-Assembly
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Pedal Frame & Arm Sub-assembly (Image F.7-63) is a
multi-piece design of stamped steel fabrication welded into a sub-assembly with various
bushings and reinforcements added. This overall sub-assembly has a mass of 2.112kg.
Many  high-performance  and  luxury vehicle  models have began utilizing alternate
materials  and designs in order to improve mass and expense. Another option being
implemented by many OEMs is to use electronics and button actuators in order to engage
the parking brake system. This allows for a complete elimination of pedal and hand lever
sub-assemblies  for vehicle cab  interiors,  maximizing  mass savings.  This electronic
actuation configuration was also mentioned in the March 2010 Lotus Report.
               I
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 621
F.7.3.3.2
       Image F.7-63: Pedal Frame Current Sub-assembly
                   (Source: FEV, Inc photo)



Cable System Sub-Assembly
The  baseline OEM  Toyota Venza Cable Assemblies (Image F.7-64) are  multi-piece
designs of wound steel and sleeved poly shields into sub-assemblies with brackets and
fasteners added. This sub-subsystem has a mass of 2.117kg. Many high-performance and
luxury vehicle  models utilize alternate cable  configurations with hand lever actuators
located in the center  console between the front seats. This allows for a shorter path to the
rear parking brakes, therefore requiring less cable length (and weight).
                   Image F.7-64: Cable System Current Sub-assemblies
                          (Source: Lotus - 2010'March EPA Report)
F.7.3.3.3
Brake Shoes and Attachments Sub-Assembly
The  baseline  OEM Toyota  Venza  Parking Brake  Shoes  and Attachment Hardware
(located inside the rear rotor hat) is a multi-piece design of stamped steel fabricated
components,  springs, pins, levers and fasteners along with dual, semi-circular friction
brake shoes,  Image F.7-65. All of these various components and the brake shoes are
housed as an assembly inside the rear rotor hat drum area, Image F.7-66. This sub-
assembly has a mass of 3.80kg.
-------
                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                              March 30, 2012
                                                                 Page 622
                                              w*.

     Image F.7-65: Brake Shoe and Attachment Hardware Current Sub-assembly Example
            (Source: http://www.autopartsnetwork. com/catalog/2010/Toyota/Venza/Brake)
     Image F.7-66: Brake Shoe and Attachment Hardware Current Sub-assembly Example
         (Source: http://1965econolinepickup.blogspot.com/2007/ll/rear-brake-assembly.html)
While this design is extremely common, there are some high performance and luxury
vehicle models that have started utilizing alternate designs.  These include single-piece
brake shoes that span a larger area on one frame piece while still utilizing two friction pad
surfaces, while others are trying to incorporate the existing brake calipers and caliper
brake pads so as to be able to remove all of the hardware and shoes inside the rotor hat
drum.  This replacement configuration was also mentioned in the March 2010 Lotus
Report. Besides OEMs, there are aftermarket suppliers that use this design.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 623
F.7.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.7-14 shows mass reduction ideas from our brainstorming activity for the Parking
Brake and Actuation subsystem. Ideas include part modifications, material substitutions,
and use of parts currently in production on other vehicles.
Component/ Assembly
Mass Reduction Idea
Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
Park Brake Actuator
Park Brake Lever & Frame
Park Brake Lever & Frame
Park Brake Lever & Frame
Park Brake Lever & Frame
Park Brake Lever & Frame
Park Brake Lever & Frame
Pivot Pin Mount (on splash
shield)
Shoes
Park Brake System
Actuation Switch
Electronic Park Brake System
Electronic Park Brake System
Electronic Park Brake System
Park Brake System
Park Brake System

Hand operated parking brake
instead of foot operated
(shorten cable No 1 length,
actuator asm wash)

Make parking brake lever &
frame out of a stamping
Make parking brake lever &
frame out of HSS
Make parking brake lever &
frame out of Aluminum
Make parking brake lever &
frame out of Magnesium
Make parking brake lever &
frame out of Plastic Composite
(PA6 GF30)
Make parking brake lever &
frame out of Titanium

Make parking brake pivot pin
mount out of cast aluminum
instead of steel

Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass:2.517-0.000 &
costx)
Integrate Cadillac CTS park
brake system

Incorporated into LCD control
screen
Add actuation to LCD
Infotain Module
Incorporate park brake-by-wire
Combination. Replace from
2005 VW Passat elect PB act
& LCD touch screen actuator.

Use one park brake
Integrate mechanical park
brake into caliper

Estimated Impact

5-1 0% wt save

5-1 0% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
30-40% wt save
50-60% wt save
50-60% wt save
40-50% wt save

30-40% wt save

1 00% wt save
5-1 0% wt save

0-5% wt save
5-1 0% wt save
2-30% wt save
70-80% wt save

40-50% wt save
30-40% wt save

Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits

In production - most automakers

In production - most automakers
Low production - auto
Low production - auto
Low production - racing /
aftermarket
In Production - Chrysler, Honda
High Cost. Low production -
^r racing / aftermarket

Higher Cost. Low production.

Low cost. In Production - Toyota
In Production - GM

In production - most automakers
In production - most automakers
Low production. Consideration
for system reduncies
Low cost. In Production - Toyota

not analyzed - validation & perf
concerns from OEM
not analyzed - included in idea
X2 (need mass of solenoid
actuator, wiring & switches from
Lotus to add back in)

 Table F.7-14: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Parking Brake
                               and Actuation Subsystem
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 624
F.7.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.7-15 shows one mass  reduction  idea for  the  Parking Brake and Actuation
subsystem that we selected for detail evaluation.


rn
1
3


06
06

v>
c
~i
n>
3

05
05
w
cr
cn
c
cr
cn
w
t?
3
00
00



Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description



Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
Electronic Park Brake System



Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation




Combination. Replace from 2005 VW Passat elect
PB act & LCD touch screen actuator.
    Table F.7-15: Mass-Reduction Idea Selected for the Detailed Parking Brake and Actuation
                                 Subsystem Analysis
The chosen solution to implement for this study was the electro-mechanical parking brake
system utilized  on the VW Passat. The use of a  push-button switch on  the  console
eliminates the need for the foot pedal actuator in the cabin interior. Electrical wiring and a
control module  will provide  input  controls to initiate the  clamping force at the rear
wheels. This also allows the elimination of the cable assemblies routed under the vehicle
as well as removal of all of the hardware  and brake shoes inside  the rotor hat drum
location.  The mass reduced redesign  of this entire Parking Brake  and Actuator Sub-
subsystem is now reduced to 3.77kg.

VW has utilized  an  Electronic  Parking Brake (EPB) system (Image F.7-66)  that is
initiated  by an electric motor that drives a geared actuator providing  direct hydraulic
pressure  influence by pushing directly on the caliper piston inside the  caliper housing.
This allows the use of the already present rear brake calipers to apply pressure directly on
the rotor  disc surfaces, as occurs already under normal operator use of the vehicle.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 625
                                       S*ol
                        Brol* dnt
                               Brake linings/
                               pads
                 Image F.7-66: VW Electro-Mechanical Park Brake System
                   (Source: http://www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP_346.pdf)
F.7.3.5.1
Actuator Button Sub-Assembly
The Pedal Frame and  Arm Sub-assembly was changed from a multi-piece design of
stamped steel welded into a sub-assembly to a push-button actuator (Image F.7-67). Even
though  wiring  harnesses  and a control module (Image F.7-68)  are required, the mass
savings  achieved is still substantial.  This redesigned Toyota  Venza Parking  Brake
Actuator system assembly has a calculated mass of  1.202kg.  This upgraded actuator
design is used in many  aftermarket and high-performance vehicles. It allows not only the
complete elimination of the pedal and hand lever sub-assemblies for vehicle cab interiors,
but also significant reduction or even elimination of the cable actuation sub-assemblies.
            EI*
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 626
                   (Source: http://www. volkspage. net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP_346.pdf)
F.7.3.5.2      Cable System Sub-Assembly

The  cable  assemblies  are now  eliminated  and  no  longer required  due  to  the
implementation of the push-button actuation system described above in Section F.7.3.5.1.
The elimination of these cable sub-assemblies allows for a mass savings of 2.117kg.
F.7.3.5.3      Caliper Motor Actuator Sub-Assembly

The Parking Brake Shoes and Attachment Hardware is now eliminated and replaced with
the multi-piece design of a geared motor actuator (Image F.7-69) that attaches to the back
of the rear of the caliper  housing. This new electro-mechanical sub-assembly unit has a
new net mass of 1.284kg.

              Image F.7-69: Caliper Motor Actuator mass reduced sub-assembly
                   (Source: http://www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP_346.pdf)


A close examination  of the EPB unit shows it attaching to the back of the rear caliper
housing and when engaged (Image F.7-70) it drives a spindle rod into the back of the
caliper piston. This engagement utilizes a 50:1  gear drive ratio to apply the amount of
force necessary to close the caliper brake pads  on both sides of the rotor  disc surface-
locking the rear wheels.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 627
                                                             Swash plate g*or
                                   Brake phton
Spindle drive
           Image F.7-70: EPB System Engaging the Caliper and Rotor Components
                   (Source: http://www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP_346.pdf)
F.7.3.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.7-16 shows the results of the mass-reduction ideas  evaluated for the Parking
Brake and Actuation  subsystem. The  idea for an  Electronic Park Brake system shows
good estimated mass reduction with  a significant  cost  reduction. This  resulted  in  a
subsystem overall mass savings of 9.635kg and a cost savings differential of $82.98.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 628

CO
*<
(/)
oT
'06
1SF
"of
'oe





Subsystem
'05
"oT
'^05"
"05





Sub-Subsystem
roo
r^
""of
'03





Description



Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
Parking Brake Controls
Parking Brake Cables and Attaching Components
Parking Brake Shoes and Hardware


Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas
Idea
Level
Select

A~~-
A
_A_

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" ID

^__
.f—.—^
*Zl°llZ

9.635
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)

___
,,___
,,___,


$82.98
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg

'"^$7\3CT"
$14.12
$6.94


$8.61
(Decrease)
Subsys/
Sub-
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


"~Ta55%^
15.79%
p___


71.88%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


"^oTTs^r"
0.12%
0.29%


0.56%
r(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
"(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
 Table F.7-16: Mass-Reductions and Cost Impact for the Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
     F.7.4    Brake Actuation Subsystem

F.7.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview

Image F.7-71 represents the major sub-assemblies components in the Brake Actuation
subsystem.  These include the Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-assembly, the Accelerator Pedal
Actuator Sub-assembly, Master Cylinder, Master Cylinder Reservoir and various Brake
Lines, Hoses, and associated Brackets & Fasteners located on the vehicle that run to each
brake corner assembly at each wheel.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 629

       Image F.7-71: Brake Actuation Subsystem Major Components and Sub-assemblies
                                (Source: FEVInc photos)


As seen in Table F.7-17, the Brake Actuation Subsystem consists of the Master Cylinder
and Reservoir, Actuator Assemblies (Brake and Accelerator), and the Brake Lines and
Hoses. The most  significant  contributors  to the  mass  are  the Actuator Assemblies
(approximately 42.9%) followed by the Brake Lines and Hoses (approximately 42.2%).
O3
*<
01
m
3
06
06
06
06


| Subsystem
06
06
06
06


Sub-
Subsystem
00
01
02
03


Description
Brake Actuation Subsystem
Master Cylinder and Reservoir
Actuator Assemblies
Brake Lines and Hoses

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"
„
0.823
2.378
2.335

5.536
85.740
1711
6.46%
0.32%
      Table F.7-17: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Brake Actuation Subsystem
F.7.4.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza's Brake Actuation subsystem follows typical industry standards. The
Venza uses a typical multi-zone Master Cylinder (Image F.7-72) with conventional ABS
controls and steel tubing (Image F.7-73) to each of the wheel brake systems. The Brake
Pedal Actuator sub-assembly (Image F.7-74) is  made of conventional  stamped steel
construction with welded assembly. It consists of multiple components that are detailed
below. The Accelerator Pedal Actuator system (Image F.7-78) is a set of plastic injection
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 630

molded components that are assembled together. The current OEM Toyota Venza Brake
Actuation subsystem assembly has a mass of 4.658kg.
F.7.4.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

F.7.4.3.1     Master Cylinder and Reservoir

The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Master Cylinder and Reservoir sub-assembly (Image
F.7-72) is a multi-piece  design of cast aluminum and machined fabrication assembled
with various valving and sealing  components. This overall sub-assembly has a mass of
0.823kg. This system is already highly optimized for design and materials (Al & plastic)
and therefore no further changes or  solutions  for mass  reductions were  identified for
implementation.
             Image F.7-72: Master Cylinder and Reservoir Current Sub-assembly
             (Source: http://www.autopartsnetwork. com/catalog/2010/Toyota/Venza/Brake)
F.7.4.3.2     Brake Lines and Hoses

The  baseline OEM  Toyota  Venza Brake Lines  and  Hoses (Image  F.7-73)  are
conventional tubing designs with steel walls and flared ends with threaded line fittings
and appropriate brackets and fasteners added. This sub-subsystem has a mass of 2.335kg.
This system is very conventional, but no newer designs or  systems  were identified for
replacement or improvement. The best solution choice for these components is to shorten
the length of the brake lines required by optimizing the routing paths.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 631
               Image F.7-73: Brake Lines and Hoses Current Sub-assemblies
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.7.4.3.3
Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-assembly (Image F.7-74) is
a multi-piece design of stamped steel fabricated  components  welded  together as an
assembly along with springs, pins, levers, and fasteners. These components have a sub-
assembly mass of 2.104kg. This is a standard design configuration by nearly all OEMs
allowing for adequate function while using a proven design and simple materials and
processes. It is, however, not mass or cost efficient but instead is industry driven by
allowing the continued utilization of existing capital  equipment, tooling  and reusing
previous process/component designs.
                Image F.7-74: Brake Pedal Actuator Current Sub-assembly
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 632
F. 7.4.3.3.1   Brake Pedal Arm Frame Sub-Assembly

            While this steel brake pedal frame design is extremely common, there are
            some high-performance and luxury vehicle models that have begun utilizing
            alternate  designs. These include new designs for the Pedal Frame and
            Housing Sub-assembly (Image F.7-75). The new design utilizes  a plastic
            framing and housing structure  around the brake pedal arm sub-assembly.
            These injection molded frames simplify design by reducing  components,
            ease  assembly  by eliminating  welding and  provide substantial weight
            savings. Other  possible solutions  use similar processing  but  different
            materials including AL, HSS, Mg and even Ti. This current welded sub-
            assembly has a net mass of 0.903kg.
               Image F.7-75: Brake Pedal Arm Frame Current Sub-assembly
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F. 7.4.3.3.2   Brake Pedal Arm Ratio Lever

            While this steel Brake  Pedal Arm Ratio Lever (Image F.7-76) design is
            common there are some high performance  and luxury vehicle models that
            began to utilize  alternate  designs.  These  redesigns make use of lighter
            materials that allow a weight savings. Materials that are considered include:
            Al, Ti, Mg and HSS. These pieces are fabricated and machined to simplify
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 633

             design as provide substantial weight savings. This current sub-assembly has
             a net mass of 0.471kg.
               Image F.7-76: Brake Pedal Arm Frame Current Sub-assembly
                                (Source: FEVInc photo)
F. 7.4.3.3.3   Brake Pedal Arm Assembly

             This steel Brake Pedal Arm (Image F.7-77) design is very common among
             OEMs. There  are  however, some high-performance and luxury vehicle
             models that have began utilizing alternate designs. These include redesigns
             for material  substitutions for the use of Al,  Ti, Mg,  HSS and reinforced
             plastics. These new arms used simplified designs to reduce components and
             use  light materials  to  provide  substantial weight savings.  This current
             welded sub-assembly has a net mass of 0.615kg.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 634
F.7.4.3.4
     Image F.7-77: Brake Pedal Arm Current Sub-assembly
                   (Source: FEVInc photo)



Accelerator Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Accelerator Pedal Actuator Sub-assembly (Image F.7-
78) is  a multi-piece design of injection molded components, springs, pins, levers and
fasteners that are assembled together. This sub-assembly has amass of 0.267kg.
              Image F.7-78: Accelerator Pedal Actuator Current Sub-assembly
                                 (Source: FEV Inc photo)


This configuration is very common in  the  automotive  industry and used by nearly all
OEMs.  After researching for new designs, there were no  significant mass reductions
solutions that were found to be able to replace  this unit and achieve  any appreciable
savings.
F.7.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.7-18 shows  mass-reduction ideas that were brainstormed and considered for the
Brake  Actuation  subsystem.  These   ideas  include  part  modifications,  material
substitutions, and use of parts currently in production on other vehicles.
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 635
Component/ Assembly
Brake Actuation Subsystem
Master Cylinder

Reservoir

Support

Cap

Reservoir Asm

Accelerator Pedal

Brake Pedal Pad

Brake Pedal Arm

Brake Pedal Ratio Lever

Brake Pedal ^
Mass Reduction Idea

Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass:0. 468-0. 985 &
cost: 1.08)

Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass:0. 1 47-0.336 &
cost: 0.85)

Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass:0. 00-0. 296 &
cost:x)

Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass:0. 028-0. 030 &
cost: 0.99)

Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass:0. 175-0. 662 &
cost:x)

Composite with Mucell® for
lever, frame & pad

Brake Pedal pad composite
with Mucell®

Hollow plastic brake pedal and
plastic arm (PA6-GF33)
Brake pedal arm from HSS
Brake pedal arm from forged
Aluminum
Brake pedal arm from
Magnesium
Brake pedal arm from
Titanium

Variable Ratio Mechanism
either eliminated or simplified.
Brake pedal Ratio Lever from
HSS
Brake pedal Ratio Lever from
forged Aluminum
Brake pedal Ratio Lever from
Magnesium
Brake pedal Ratio Lever from
f Titanium

Add parking brake functions to
service brake pedal
Estimated Impact

wt increase

wt increase

wt increase

wt increase

wt increase

1 0-20% wt save

1 0-20% wt save

30-40% wt save
5-10% wt save
30-40% wt save
60-70% wt save
40-50% wt save

unknown
5-10% wt save
20-30% wt save
40-50% wt save
40-50% wt save

5-10% wt save
Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits

In Production - Toyota. Not
implemented due to wt increase

In Production - Toyota. Not
implemented due to wt increase

In Production - Toyota. Not
implemented due to wt increase

In Production - Toyota. Not
implemented due to wt increase

In Production - Toyota. Not
implemented due to wt increase

Low vol production - auto

Low vol production - auto

In development - auto
Low vol production - auto
Higher Cost. Low vol production
auto
High Cost. Low vol production -
auto
High Cost. Low production -
racing / aftermarket

not investigated due to validation
requirements
Higher Cost. Low vol production
Higher Cost. Low vol production
Development required
High Cost. Low production -
racing / aftermarket

not evaluated due to poor
ranking
Table F. 7-18 continued on next page
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 636
Brake Pedal Bracket

Brake Line System

Distribution Block

Aluminum Support Bracket
(includes 2 sides, top, lower
spacer & sensor brkt)
Magnesium Support Bracket
(includes 2 sides, top, lower
spacer & sensor brkt)
HSS Support Bracket
(includes 2 sides, top, lower
spacer & sensor brkt)
Plastic (PA6 GF30) Support
Bracket (includes 2 sides, top,
lower spacer & sensor brkt)
Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass:0. 000-0. 400 &
costx)

Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass:2.362-0.813 &
cost:0.34)

Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass:0. 000-0. 601 &
costx)

30-40% wt save
40-50% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
50-60% wt save
wt increase

50-60% wt save

wt increase

Higher Cost. Low vol production
High Cost. Low vol production -
auto
Higher Cost. Low vol production
Lower Cost. In production -
many auto makers
In Production - Toyota. Not
implemented due to wt increase

In Production - Toyota

In Production - Toyota. Not
implemented due to wt increase

Table F.7-18: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Brake Actuation
                                     Subsystem
F.7.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.7-19 shows the mass-reduction  ideas for the major components of the Brake
Actuation subsystem that were selected for detail evaluation. There are six components or
sub-assemblies being redesigned and changed in order to achieve mass reductions.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 637
O)
*<
1
06
06

06

06

06

06

06
Subsystem
06
06

06

06

06

06

06
Sub-Subsystem
00
00

00

00

00

00

00
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Brake Actuation Subsystem
Accelerator Pedal

Brake Pedal Pad

Brake Pedal Arm

Brake Pedal Ratio Lever

Brake Pedal Bracket

Brake Line System
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation

Composite with Mucell® for lever, frame & pad

Brake Pedal pad composite with Mucell®

Hollow plastic brake pedal and plastic arm (PA6-
GF33)

Brake pedal Ratio Lever from Magnesium

Plastic (PA6 GF30) Support Bracket (includes 2
sides, top, lower spacer & sensor brkt)

Replace from 2008 Toyota Prius (mass:2.362-
0.813&cost:0.34)
Table F.7-19: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Brake Actuation Subsystem Analysis


The  mass  saving solutions  selected for  the  various  components  within the Brake
Actuation Sub-subsystem vary greatly and are summarized in greater detail below.
F.7.4.5.1
Master Cylinder and Reservoir
The  baseline Toyota Venza Master Cylinder and  Reservoir  Sub-assembly is already
highly optimized for design and materials and therefore no further changes or  solutions
for mass reductions were identified.
F.7.4.5.2
Brake Lines and Hoses
The  OEM Toyota Venza Brake Lines and Hoses Sub-assemblies are of conventional
design.  The March  2010  Lotus  Report  suggests  a  direct replacement and  size
normalization using the 2008 Toyota Prius Brake Line system as reference. This results in
a reduction of the amount of brake lines being required and lowers the mass of the new
routing paths. This redesign sub-subsystem has a reduced mass of 0.794kg.
F.7.4.5.3
Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 638

The baseline Venza Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-assembly is currently a multi-piece steel
design. The major components within this assembly have been redesigned and now have a
new sub-assembly net mass of 0.545kg. The example below, Image F.7-79, is from a new
design and production method developed by Trelleborg. This brake pedal design utilizes
advanced water injection technology allowing very strong design function while still
using light weight glass fiber reinforced plastic materials to achieve significant  mass
reductions. Due to the replacement of steel with an over-molded plastic, an additional
material volume of 60-80% was made.
          Image F.7-79: Brake Pedal Actuator Mass Reduced Sub-assembly Example
                  (Source: http://www. torquenews. com/auto-sector-stocks?page =2 7)

Another similar brake actuator system design has also been developed by BMW (Image
F.7-80) for use  in some of their high end luxury and performance  vehicles.  This unit
utilizes plastic framing and pedal arms as well in order to reduce mass significantly.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 639

          Image F.7-80: Brake Pedal Actuator Mass Reduced Sub-assembly Example
    (Source http://www.worldcarfans. com/111040531267/bmw-reveals-lightweight-component-innovations)

F. 7.4.5.3.1   Brake Pedal Arm Frame Sub-Assembly

             The conventional steel Brake Pedal Frame (Image F.7-81) design has been
             replaced with a PA6-GF sub-assembly. Due to the replacement of steel with
             plastic, an additional material volume of 80-90% was made. This solution is
             becoming more common in some OEM base level model vehicles as well as
             many high performance  and luxury vehicle  models.  This includes  OEMs
             such as GM, Chrysler, Ford, and Honda.  The new design utilizes a plastic
             framing and housing  structure around the brake pedal arm sub-assembly.
             These  injection-molded  frames simplify  design by reducing components
             and easing assembly while also providing substantial weight savings. The
             sub-assembly shown here is from the brake pedal frame in a 2011 Chrysler
             Minivan. This redesigned plastic  sub-assembly has  a  reduced mass  of
             0.230kg.
         Image F.7-81: Brake Pedal Arm Frame Mass Reduced Sub-assembly Example
                                (Source: FEVInc photo)
F. 7.4.5.3.2   Brake Pedal Arm Ratio Lever

             This  steel  Brake Pedal  Arm Ratio  Lever  (Image  F.7-82)  has been
             redesigned to  make use of Die Cast Mg. Due to the replacement of steel
             with Mg, an additional material volume of 60-70% was made. These new
             designs allow a substantial weight  savings for a new reduced mass of
             0.041kg.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 640
         Image F.7-82: Brake Pedal Arm Frame Reduced Mass Sub-assembly Example
F.7.4.5.3.3   Brake Pedal Arm Assembly

             The steel Brake Pedal Arm (Image F.7-83) design is now being changed to
             a redesign allowing the use PA6-GF. Due to the replacement of steel with
             an  over-molded  plastic, an additional  material volume of 60-70% was
             made. This design configuration is becoming more common among OEMs
             and provides   simple  processing by injection molding and enabling a
             simplified  design and  substantial weight savings. This particular example
             shows a hollow insert being over-molded to further decrease weight and
             improve strength. This new mass reduced sub-assembly has a net mass of
             0.164kg.
            Image F.7-83: Brake Pedal Arm Mass Reduced Sub-assembly Example
                 (Source: http://www. torquenews. com/auto-sector-stocks?page =2 7)
F.7.4.5.4
Accelerator Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 641

The current design Accelerator Pedal Actuator Sub-assembly (Image F.7-84) is already a
good  design  regarding  mass impact. This configuration  is now very common in the
automotive industry and used by nearly all OEMs. After researching for new  designs,
there  are  no significant mass reductions  solutions  found  that  could achieve  any
appreciable savings. However,  the  use of MuCell® technology during the injection
molding process of some of the larger plastic components  does allow for  a small weight
savings of approximately 10% with  almost no cost penalty. This newly processed sub-
assembly results in a reduced net mass of 0.243kg.
        Image F.7-84: Accelerator Pedal Actuator Mass Reduced Sub-assembly Example
                      (Source: http://www.thetruthaboutcars. com/2010/02)
The net result of all of these changes within the Brake Actuation Sub-subsystem results a
new total mass of 1.530kg.
F.7.4.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.7-20 shows the results of the mass-reduction ideas that were evaluated for the
Brake Actuation subsystem. The  implemented solutions resulted in a subsystem overall
mass  savings of 2.984kg and a cost savings differential of $31.90.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 642

w
*<
(/>
0"

'06
'06
"oe"
06



(1)
'(2)

Subsystem

'06
"06
Ix
06



Sub-Subsystem

'00
'01
-02-
03



Description


Bnak^jAeJiujitioiLS^^
Master Cylinder and Reservoir
Actuator Assemblies
Brake Lines and Hoses



"+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
"+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas
Idea
Level
Select



A
A
A

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)



0.000
1.443
1.541

2.984
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)


$0.00
$5.99
$25.91

$31.90
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$0.00
$4.15
$16.81

$10.69
(Decrease)
Subsys/
Sub-
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.00%
26.06%
27.84%

53.90%
K^ ^ I w
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.00%
0.08%
0.09%

0.17%


       Table F.7-20: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Brake Actuation Subsystem


Table F.7-21 shows the results for the Brake Actuation subsystem. The Brake Line Sub-
assemblies show the best estimated mass reduction, 1.541kg,  with a significant cost
reduction of $25.91. The Brake Pedal Frame/Bracket accounted for the next largest mass
savings realized with 0.673kg and a cost reduction of $1.36.
CO
*<
a
CD
3
06
06
06
06
06
06
06

Subsystem
06
06
06
06
06
06
06

Sub-Subsystem
00
02
02
02
02
02
03


Component / Assembly Description
Brake Actuation Subsystem
Accelerator Pedal
Brake Pedal Arm
Brake Pedal Pad
Brake Pedal Ratio Lever
Brake Pedal Bracket
Brake Line System

Mass Reduction Results









Mass
Reduction
"kg" a)

0.027
0.451
0.006
0.286
0.673
1.541

Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 643

     F.7.5    Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic)

F.7.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.7-22, the Power Brake subsystem consists  of the Vacuum Booster
assembly.

M
<

CD
3

06
06






w
c
cr
%
01
n>
3
07
07






M
c
m V>
Q C
in cr
n>
3
00
01








Description


Power Brake (for hydraulic) r^%
Vacuum Booster System Asm

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"
..
2.829

2.829
85.740
1711
3.30%
0.17%
Table F.7-22: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Power Brake (for Hydraulic) Subsystem
F.7.5.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The  Toyota Venza's Power Brake subsystem (Image F.7-85) follows typical industry
standards  in using  a vacuum-actuated  booster. The  booster  is a  metal  canister that
contains a valve and  diaphragm and uses vacuum from the engine to  multiply the force a
driver's foot applies to the master cylinder. A rod going through the center of the canister
connects to the master cylinder's piston on one side and to the pedal linkage on the other.
The booster also includes a check valve that maintains vacuum in the booster when the
engine is turned off,  or if a leak forms in a vacuum hose. The vacuum booster has to be
able  to provide enough volume and pressure within the brake line system for a driver to
make several stops in the event that the engine  stops running.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 644
          Image F.7-85: Brake Power Brake Subsystem Major Sub-assembly Example
       (Source:http://www.superchevy.com/technical/chassis/brakes/sucp_0901_power_brake_boosters)


F.7.5.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Some manufacturers  have begun to implement a new design of system  that utilizes
solenoids and  valves in order  to  maintain system  pressure  during various driving
conditions. This allows for removal of the typical conventional vacuum booster system
configuration.  This  smaller, but  much  more  expensive system, usually  requires the
addition of wiring harnesses and control modules to process I/Os and regulate the system
operation. But  this  small addition of materials is minor when compared to the overall
mass saved by removing the booster unit. The result of this system exchange results in a
significant weight savings. This electro-mechanical system (Image F.7-86) configuration
is  utilized in  the  2008  Toyota  Prius.  Another example of  this technology is the
Hyperbrake™ system  (Image F.7-87) by Janel Hydro.  It claims to completely eliminate
the vacuum booster by use of pistons and cylinders to amplify the hydraulic pressure of
the brake fluid.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 645
                  Image F.7-86: Toyota Prius Hydraulic Pressure Booster
                          (Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)
                Image F.7-87: Janel Hyperbrake Hydraulic Pressure Booster
                            (Source: http://www.janelhydro. com/)


F.7.5.3.1     Vacuum Booster Sub-Assembly

The baseline Venza Power Brake Sub-assembly (Image F.7-88) is a multi-piece steel
design. The major components within this assembly are made from  stamped steel (Front
Shell - Image F.7-89; Rear  Shell  -  Image  F.7-90; Mount Stiffener - Image  F.7-91;
Diaphragm Backing Plate - Image F.7-92), small fabricated steel parts (Clevis Pin and
Bracket, Center Plunger, Actuator Shaft, Mounting Studs) and a few plastic and rubber
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 646

molded pieces (Plunger Boot, Diaphragm, Piston Housing). These components are then
assembled with various processing methods  and fasteners  into the  vacuum booster
system. Together these components have a net sub-assembly mass of 1.725kg.
              Image F.7-88: Brake Pedal Actuator Mass Current Sub-assembly
                          (Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)
F. 7.5.3.1.1   Front Shell
             This  Booster Front  Shell  (Image  F.7-89)  is  of  a standard  design
             configuration. It is fabricated from a one-piece sheet metal stamping and
             painted for corrosion resistance. There are a few alternate designs that have
             been tried in other vehicles.  These new designs utilize different materials
             including molded reinforced  plastics,  spun Al,  and HSS stampings. These
             alternative  materials  allow for simple manufacturing while still providing
             substantial  weight savings. The current steel Front Shell has a mass of
             0.537kg.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 647
               Image F.7-89: Vacuum Booster Front Shell Current Component
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc photo)
F. 7.5.3.1.2   Rear Shell
             The current Booster Rear Shell (Image F.7-90) is a typical design used by
             many  OEM manufacturers. It is a  fabricated  one  piece  sheet metal
             stamping, painted for corrosion resistance. There are some alternate  designs
             that have been tried in other applications. These other configurations utilize
             different materials including molded reinforced plastics, spun Al and HSS
             stampings. These materials provide weight savings while still allowing for
             simple manufacturing  processes.  The  Venza  Rear Shell has a mass of
             0.462kg.
               Image F.7-90: Vacuum Booster Rear Shell Current Component
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 648
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.7.5.3.1.3   Plate Mount Stiffener
             The stamped steel Plate  Mount Stiffener (Image F.7-91)  design  is very
             common among OEMs. There are other material alternatives that allow for
             mass savings. These include redesigns for material substitutions for the use
             of - Al, Ti, Mg, HSS and reinforced plastics. The Venza Plate Mount
             Stiffener component has a mass of 0.064kg.
          Image F.7-91: Vacuum Booster Plate Mount Stiffener Current Component
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)


F. 7.5.3.1.4   Backing Plate, Diaphragm

             The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Diaphragm Backing Plate, Image F.7-92,
             is a single-piece, stamped steel design. The plastic molded sleeve  is not
             included in this part's mass solution. This Venza Backing Plate component
             has amass of 0.328kg.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 649
        Image F.7-92: Vacuum Booster Backing Plate, Diaphragm Current Component
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.7.5.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.7-23 shows mass-reduction ideas that were brainstormed and considered for the
Power Brake subsystem. Ideas include part modifications and material substitutions for
eleven different components.
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                           March 30, 2012
                                                                               Page 650
Component/ Assembly
Power Brake (for hydraulic)
Booster Clevis Pin

Booster Clevis Bracket

Vacuum Brake Booster Shell
Front

Vacuum Brake Booster Shell
Rear

Vacuum Fitting

Piston, Actuator
Mass Reduction Idea

Make booster clevis pin out of
aluminum
Make booster clevis pin out of
HSS
Make booster clevis pin out of
Titanium

Make booster clevis bracket
(nut) out of aluminum
Make booster clevis bracket
(nut) out of HSS
Make booster clevis bracket
(nut) out of Titanium

Make vacuum brake booster
shell (front) out of spun
aluminum
Make vacuum brake booster
shell (front) out of HSS
Make vacuum brake booster
shell (front) out of die cast
Magnesium
Make vacuum brake booster
shell (front) out of Titanium
Make vacuum brake booster
shell (front) out of molded &
ribbed PA6 GF30

Make vacuum brake booster
shell (rear) out of spun
aluminum m ^
Make vacuum brake booster
shell (rear) out of HSS
Make vacuum brake booster
shell (rear) out of die cast
Magnesium
Make vacuum brake booster
shell (rear) out of Titanium
Make vacuum brake booster
shell (rear) out of molded &
ribbed PA6 GF30

Make vacuum fitting out of
plastic

Make booster piston, actuator
out of forged aluminum
Make booster piston, actuator
out of HSS
Make booster piston, actuator
out of Magnesium
Make booster piston, actuator
out of Titanium
Estimated Impact

30-40% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
40-50% wt save

30-40% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
40-50% wt save

30-40% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
50-60% wt save
40-50% wt save
60-70% wt save

30-40% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
50-60% wt save
40-50% wt save
60-70% wt save

60-70% wt save

30-40% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
50-60% wt save
40-50% wt save
Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits

Higher Cost. In Production -
auto.
Higher Cost.
High Cost. Not done.

Higher Cost. In Production -
auto.
Higher Cost. Low volume.
High Cost. Low production -
auto racing

Higher Cost. In production -
auto.
Higher Cost. Low vol production
High Cost. Development
High Cost. Not produced.
Lower Cost. Development.

Higher Cost. In production -
auto.
Higher Cost. Low vol production
High Cost. Development
High Cost. Not produced.
Lower Cost. Development.

Lower Cost. In production - auto

Higher Cost. In production - auto
Higher Cost. Development
High Cost. Development
High Cost. Not produced.
Table F. 7-23 continued on next page
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 651
Plate, Mount Stiffener

Studs - Long, MC to BM

Shaft (threaded), Center
Plunger - Valve, Metering

Backing Plate, Diaphram -
Vacuum Booster

Level Sensor (Reservoir)

Make booster plate, mount
stiffener out of forged
aluminum
Make booster plate, mount
stiffener out of HSS
Make booster plate, mount
stiffener out of glass filled
plastic
Make booster plate, mount
stiffener out of Magnesium
Make booster plate, mount
stiffener out of Titanium

Make studs - long out of
forged aluminum
Make studs - long out of HSS
Make studs - long out of
Titanium

Make shaft, center plunger out
of forged aluminum
Make shaft, center plunger out
of HSS
Make shaft, center plunger out
of Titanium

Make backing plate out of
stamped aluminum
Make backing plate out of
HSS
Make backing plate out of ABS
plastic
Make backing plate out of
magnesium

Replace from 2008 Toyota
Prius (mass:0. 007-0. 009 &
cost:1.00)

30-40% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
60-70% wt save
50-60% wt save
40-50% wt save

30-40% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
40-50% wt save

30-40% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
40-50% wt save

30-40% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
60-70% wt save
50-60% wt save

Lotus idea - wt
increase

Higher Cost. Development
Higher Cost. Low production
Lower Cost. R&D required.
High Cost. Development
High Cost. Not produced.

Higher Cost. Low vol production
Higher Cost. Not produced
High Cost. Production - auto
racing

Higher Cost. Low vol production
Higher Cost.
High Cost. Not produced

Higher Cost. Low production
Higher Cost. Development
Lower Cost. R&D required
High Cost. Not produced

Not analyzed - wt increase

  Table F.7-23: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Power Brake
                               (for Hydraulic) Subsystem
F.7.5.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.7-24  shows mass-reduction ideas for the Power Brake subsystem that  were
selected as final solutions for detailed evaluation for both mass and cost.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 652
co
*<
|
06
06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06

06
| Subsystem
07
07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07

07
Sub-Subsystem
00
00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Power Brake (for Hydraulic) Subsystem
Booster Clevis Pin

Booster Clevis Bracket

Vacuum Brake Booster Shell - Front

Vacuum Brake Booster Shell - Rear

Vacuum Fitting

Piston, Actuator

Plate, Mount Stiffener

Studs - Long, MC to BM

Shaft (threaded), Center Plunger -
Valve, Metering

Backing Plate, Diaphram - Vacuum
Booster
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation

Make booster clevis pin out of aluminum

Make booster clevis bracket (nut) out of aluminum

Make vacuum brake booster shell (front) out of
molded & ribbed PA6 GF30
^^
Make vacuum brake booster shell (rear) out of spun
aluminum

Make vacuum fitting out of plastic

Make booster piston, actuator out of Magnesium

Make booster plate, mount stiffener out of glass
filled plastic

Make studs - long out of forged aluminum

Make shaft, center plunger out of forged aluminum

Make backing plate out of ABS plastic
Table F.7-24: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detailed Power Brake (for Hydraulic) Subsystem
                                     Analysis
F.7.5.5.1
Vacuum Booster Sub-Assembly
The new Brake Vacuum Booster Sub-assembly (Image F.7-93)  is still  a  multi-piece
design as the original was but now using optimized, mass reduced components where
applicable. With these 11 new component designs assembled together, this new booster
sub-assembly now has a reduced mass of 0.528kg.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 653
            Image F.7-93: Vacuum Booster Mass Reduced Sub-assembly Example
          (Source: http://vw.autohausaz.com/w-auto-parts/w-brake_booster-replacement.html)
F.7.5.5.1.1   Front Shell
             The conventional steel Vacuum Booster Front Shell (Image F.7-94) design
             has been replaced with a PA6-GF sub-assembly. The piece is webbed and
             ribbed, as needed,  for maximum reinforcement as well as  having over-
             molded inserts in key areas. Due to the replacement of steel with plastic, an
             additional material volume of 30-40% was made. This  design is not
             currently in any high-production applications, but should become more
             accepted in  lighter applications in future model releases. This injection-
             molded shell retains a simplified design and manufacturing process while
             also  providing   substantial  weight   savings.   This  redesigned  plastic
             component has a reduced mass of 0.087kg.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 654
        Image F.7-94: Vacuum Booster Front Shell Mass Reduced Component Example
                             (Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)


F.7.5.5.1.2   Rear Shell

             The  steel Vacuum  Booster Rear Shell (Image F.7-95) design has been
             replaced with a single-piece forged Al component. Due to the replacement
             of steel with Al, an additional material volume of 20-30% was made. This
             design is not commonly used by OEMs but can easily be utilized in many
             current applications. This forged shell retains a simplified design and uses a
             common  manufacturing process while still allowing for reasonable weight
             savings. This redesigned component has a reduced mass of 0.239kg.
        Image F.7-95: Vacuum Booster Rear Shell Reduced Mass Component Example
                        (Source: http://www.walkertool.com/partl 7.htm)
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 655
F. 7.5.5.1.3   Mounting Plate
             The steel Mounting Plate design is now being replaced with a PA6-GF sub-
             assembly. The piece is webbed and ribbed for reinforcement using  over-
             molded inserts in key areas. Due to the replacement of steel with an  over-
             molded plastic, an additional material volume of 30-40% was made. Bendix
             (Image F.7-96) is one such major manufacturer that utilizes plastic material
             for this type of design.  Delphi (Image F.7-97) also has a new design that
             utilizes  Hytel®  material  and  includes  over-molded  inserts.  This
             configuration provides  simple processing  through injection molding and
             enables a simplified design with substantial weight savings. This new mass
             reduced part now being utilized has weight of 0.012kg.
         Image F.7-96: Bendix Mounting Plate  Image F.7-97: Delphi Mounting Plate

(Image F. 7-95- Source: http://www.hooverautoparts.com/index.php?cruising=products&category=Brake%20Parts)
    (Image F. 7-96 - Source: http://www2.dupont.com/Automotive/en_US/news_events/article20040126.html)
F. 7.5.5.1.4   Diaphragm Plate

             The stamped steel Diaphragm Plate (Image F.7-98) is being redesigned to
             allow the use PA6-GF. Due to the replacement of steel with an over-molded
             plastic,  an additional material volume of 30-40% was made. This new
             design can  be simply  processed with injection  molding  and enables a
             simplified design with substantial weight savings. This new mass-reduced
             component has a resulting mass of 0.057kg.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 656
  Image F.7-98: Vacuum Booster Diaphragm Backing Plate Mass Reduced Component Example
F.7.5.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.7-25 shows the results of the mass  reduction ideas that were evaluated  and
implemented for the Power Brake subsystem. This included redesigns and modifications
being  made  to  10 different  components.  The  implemented  solutions resulted in  a
subsystem overall mass savings of 1.1964kgs and a cost savings differential of $1.35.

05
*<
(/>
oT

r06
'M.


Subsystem

'07
!°L


Sub-Subsystem

"00
1°L



Description

Power Brake (for Hydraulic) Subsystem
Vacuum Booster System Asm

r(1) "+" = mass
"(2) "+" = cost d


decrease, "-" = mass increase
ecrease, "-" = cost increase
Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas
Idea
Level
Select

_A_
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (D

_1196_
1.196
(Decrease)

Cost
Impact
"$" (2)

_J135_
$1.35
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg

_$113_
$1.13
(Decrease)
Subsys/
Sub-
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"

_4Z25%_
42.25%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"

_O07%_
0.07%

   Table F.7-25: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Power Brake (Hydraulic) Subsystem
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 657

Table  F.7-26 shows the results for the various components that were redesigned  for
weight savings.  The Front and Rear Booster  Shells show the  largest  calculated mass
reductions (83.8% and 48.3%, respectively)  along with a small total cost reduction  for
each.
CO
*<
(/)
CD"
3
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06

Subsystem
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07

Sub-Subsystem
00
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01


Component / Assembly Description
Power Brake (for Hydraulic) Subsystem
Booster Clevis Pin
Booster Clevis Bracket
Vacuum Brake Booster Shell - Front
Vacuum Brake Booster Shell - Rear
Vacuum Fitting
Piston, Actuator
Plate, Mount Stiffener
Studs - Long, MC to BM
Shaft, Center Plunger - Valve, Metering
Backing Plate, Diaphragm -Vacuum Booster

Mass Reduction Results













Mass
Reduction
"kg" a)

0.006
0.033
0.450
0.223
0.032
0.021
0.052
0.078
0.030
0.271

Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 658
V)
•-<
£
CD
3

07
07
07
07
07
07
07


Subsystem

00
01
02
03
04
05
08


Sub-Subsystem

00
00
00
00
00
00
00


Description

Frame and Mounting System
Frame Subsystem
Body Mounting Subsystem
Engine Transmission Mounting Subsystem
Towing and Coupling Attachments Subsystem
Spare Tire Mounting (Chassis) Subsystem
Rolling Chassis Modules

Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsystem
Mass
"kg"


43.729
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

43.729
1711
2.56%
          Table F.8-0-3: Baseline subsystem breakdown for Frame & Mounting System


Table F.8-2 shows the calculated mass-reduction results for the ideas generated related to
the Frame and Mounting system.  A mass savings of 16.498kg was realized with a cost
increase of $3.66, resulting in a cost increase of $0.22/kg.

c/>
*<
B)
0

07
07
07
07
07
07
07


Subsystem

00
01
02
03
04
05
08


Sub-Subsystem

00
00
00
00
00
00
00


Description

Frame and Mounting System
Frame Sub System
Body Mounting Subsystem
Engine Transmission Mounting Subsystem
Towing and Coupling Attachments Subsystem
Spare Tire Mounting (Chassis) Subsystem
Rolling Chassis Modules


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


__B_




B
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


16.498
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
16.498
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)


-$3.66
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$3.66
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


-$0.22
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.22
(Increase)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


37.73%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
37.73%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.96%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.96%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
r(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
   Table F.8-0-4:  Calculated Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Frame & Mounting System
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 659
     F.8.1    Frame Subsystem
F.8.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.8-3,  the Frame subsystem is comprised of the Full Frame, Special
Protective Structures, Body Isolators, Front Strut Frame (Image F.8-1), Rear Strut Frame
(Image F.8-2), and Miscellaneous Components sub-subsystems.  The major components
within these sub-subsystems are the front and rear cradles, frame brackets, cushions, and
associated hardware. The  most significant contributor to the mass  of the Frame subsystem
is the Front Strut Frame.
V)
•-<
1

07
07
07
07
07
07
07


Subsystem

01
01
01
01
01
01
01


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
03
04
05
99


Description

Frame Subsystem
Full Frame
Special Protective Structures (Engine Under Cover)
Body Isolators (Front & Rear Stopper, Front Suspension Member Body
Mntg)
Front Strut Frame (Frame Asm, Cushions, Brackets)
Rear Strut Frame (Rear Cradle, Cushions, Brackets)
Miscellaneous

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


0.000
0.062
0.774
32.549
10.345
0.000

43.729
43.729
1711
100.00%
2.56%
             Table F.8-0-5: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Frame Subsystem
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 660
                          Image F.8-1: Front Frame Assembly
                                 (Source: Lotus Report)
                          Image F.8-2: Rear Frame Assembly
                                 (Source: Lotus Report)
F.8.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza Frame & Mounting system follows typical industry standards as it has
nothing new,  out of the ordinary, or unique. The Frame & Mounting  system's Front
Cradle (Image F.8-3) and Rear Cradle (Image F.8-4), consists of several formed steel
components welded together.  This is a common design across Toyota platforms. Several
parts, including the  Front Suspension Brackets (Image F.8-5), Front Damper Assembly
(Image F.8-6), Frame Side Rail Brackets (Image F.8-7), and Rear Suspension Brackets
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 661

(Image F.8-8), are bolted  on to  attach and/or provide  support for other components
(including the radiator) to the body.
     F.8.2    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Magnesium is a material that is making interesting inroads into automotive design. It has
a mass that is  two-thirds  that  of aluminum  for  equivalent volumes of  material.
Specifically  of interest for  the  Frame  &  Mounting system is  a magnesium  engine
cradle/frame  that was  manufactured for the  2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 in  a joint
venture between Hydro Magnesium and Meridian Technologies Inc.

Aluminum Rheinfelden in Germany developed Magsimal-59®, an aluminum alloy that
has the chemical  composition AlMg5Si2Mn. The  casting  capabilities  of this alloy
produce parts with less mass than conventional aluminum casting alloys. Used in high-
pressure die casting, suspension components have been made for Porsche and BMW with
wall thickness as thin as 2.5 mm.

Another emerging technology is NanoMAG, which will eventually become very  attractive
for  many automotive applications.  This patent-pending process features isotropic, fine-
grained strengthening of magnesium sheet stock.  A combined effort of NanoMAG LLC
and  the  University  of  Michigan  has produced  ultra-fine-grain  "nanocrystalline"
magnesium sheet, which has properties superior to those of conventional materials such
as steel, aluminum, and titanium.  Thixomolding® technology produces a sheet bar that is
put through  secondary thermo-mechanical heat processing.  Precise  control  of  the
micro structure increases the yield strength of the  original Thixomolded® stock by more
than 200% to more than 250 MPa along with 10% elongation. The result is an  advanced
magnesium sheet/plate with a superior strength-to-weight ratio. Current uses  of Nano
MAG  are limited to low-volume applications such as defense. Therefore, automotive
applications are anticipated in the future.
F.8.2.1 Front Frame

The Front Frame (Image F.8-3) consists of approximately 34 individual steel stampings
welded together to form a single frame.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 662
                               Image F.8-3: Front Frame
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.8.2.2 Rear Frame
The Rear Frame (Image F.8-4) consists of approximately six individual steel stampings
welded together to form a single rear frame.
                               Image F.8-4: Rear Frame
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 663
F.8.2.3 Front Suspension Brackets

The Front Suspension Bracket (Image F.8-5) is made of two different steel stampings
that are welded together.
                         Image F.8-5: Front Suspension Bracket
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.8.2.4 Front Damper Assembly

The  Front Damper Assembly (Image F.8-6) consists of one  steel stamping and  one
forging molded together to form the assembly.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 664
                          Image F.8-6: Front Damper Assembly
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.8.2.5 Frame Side Rail Brackets
The Venza Frame Side Rail Bracket  (Image  F.8-7)  is formed by two different steel
stampings that are spot-welded together.
                     .^^B      \                     ^r

                          Image F.8-7: Frame Side Rail Bracket
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 665
F.8.2.6 RearSuspension Stopper Brackets

The Rear Suspension Stopper Bracket (Figure 5.8-8) is formed by two different steel
stampings that are spot-welded together.
                     Image F.8-8: Rear Suspension Stopper Bracket
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

     F.8.3    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table  F.8-4 is  the  Frame  &  Mounting system  summary chart for  mass  reduction
concepts. The ideas suggest substitutions of polymer material,  aluminum, high strength
steel, magnesium, Magsimal-59®, and applications observed on the 2005  VW Passat.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 666
Component JAssem
bljl
BRACKET SUB-ASSY,
FDHMT ^l I^PFM^IfiM
MEMBER, RH (51023A)
BRACKET SUB-ASSY,
FPflMT ^l RPFM^inM
MEMBER, LH (51024A)
Stopper, Rear
Suspension Member,
Low erRH (52273 AJ
Stopper, Rear
Suspension Member,
LowerLH[52274A)
Member Sub-Asm,
Rear Suspension
[51206A)
DAMPER, FRONT
SUSPENSION
MEMBER DYNAMIC
(51227BJ
PLATE SUB-ASSY,
FPAMF ^IFlF PAN Pl-l
(51035)
PLATE SUB-ASSY,
FRAMF ^inF PAN I l-l
(51036)
Isolator Bushings
	





Member Sub-Asm,
Rear Suspension
(51206A)


Mass-Reduction
Idea
Make out of Nylon 66 -
60XGF
Normalize to 2005 VW
Passat
Make out of Nylon 66 -
60XGF
Normalize to 2005 VW
Passat
Make out of Nylon 66 -
60XGF
Make out of Nylon 66 -
60XGF
Normalize to 2005 VW
Passat
Normalize to 2005 VW
Passat
Normalize to 2005 VW
Passat
Make out of Stamped
Aluminum
Normalize to 2005 VW
Passat
Make out of Stamped
Aluminum
Eliminate bushing cans
from isolator bushinqs
Cast from Magsimal*-59
Use High Strength Steel
Fabricate from Titanium
Cast out of Magnesium
Cast out of Magnesium
Tailor Rolled Blanks
Use High Strength Steel
Fabricate from Titanium
Cast out of Magnesium
Estimated
Impact
60X Mass
Reduction
15X Mass
Reduction
60X Mass
Reduction
15X Mass
Reduction
60X Mass
Reduction
60X Mass
Reduction
25X Mass
Reduction
15X Mass
Reduction
15X Mass
Reduction
40X Mass
Reduction
15X Mass
Reduction
40X Mass
Reduction
No Mass Savings
SOX Mass
Reduction
10X Mass
Reduction
40X Mass
Reduction
BOX Mass
Reduction
50X Mass
Reduction
10X Mass
Reduction
10X Mass
Reduction
40X Mass
Reduction
BOX Mass
Reduction
Risks & Trade-offs andJor
Benefits
Cost savings due to reduced cycle time
Cost savings due to reduction in
material usaqe
Cost savings due to reduced cycle time
Cost savings due to reduction in
material usaqe
Cost savings due to reduced cycle time
Cost savings due to reduced cycle time
Cost savings due to reduction in
material usage
Cost savings due to reduction in
material usage
Cost savings due to reduction in
material usaqe
Cost increase due to more expensive
material substition
Cost savings due to reduction in
material usaqe
Cost increase due to more expensive
material substition
Minimal Cost Impact, No known current
application
Significant Cost Increase
	
Significant Cost Increase
Significant Cost Increase, No known
current application
Cost Increase, Currently used on high
end vehicles
Significant Cost Increase
Significant Cost Increase. Not
recommended by supplier
Significant Cost Increase
Significant Cost Increase, No known
current application
Cost Increase, Currently used on high
end vehicles
 Table F.8-4: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Frame Subsystem.
F.8.3.1 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.8-5 shows the selected mass reduction ideas for the Frame subsystem for detailed
evaluation of both the  mass savings achieved and manufacturing cost.  Several ideas
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 667

suggest plastics as alternate materials. Also, included are part  substitutions from  other
vehicle designs such as those currently in use on the VW Passat (as  determined in the
March 2010 Lotus Report).
W
^<
C/l
03
3

07





07






07

Subsystem

01





01






01

Sub-
Subsystem

00





04






05

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description

Frame Subsystem
Bracket, Front Suspension, RH
(51023A)
Bracket, Front Suspension, RH
(51023A)
Bracket, Front Suspension, LH
(51024A)
Bracket, Front Suspension, LH
(51024A)
Stopper, Rear Suspension, Lower
RH (52273A)
Stopper, Rear Suspension. Lower
RH (52274A)
Damper, Front Suspension
(51227B)
Bracket, Frame Side Rail, RH
(51035)
Bracket, Frame Side Rail, RH
(51035)
Bracket, Frame Side Rail, LH
(51036)
Bracket, Frame Side Rail, LH
(51036)
Front Frame Assy
Rear Frame Assy (51206A)

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation


Normalize to 2005 VW Passat
Make out of Nylon 66- 60% GF
Normalize to 2005 VW Passat
Make out of Nylon 66- 60% GF
Make out of Nylon 66 - 60% GF
Make out of Nylon 66- 60% GF
Normalize to 2005 VW Passat
Normalize to 2005 VW Passat
Make out of Nylon 66 - 60% GF
Normalize to 2005 VW Passat
Make out of Nylon 66 - 60% GF
Cast out of Magnesium
Normalize to 2005 VW Passat

  Table F.8-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem Analysis
F.8.3.2 Front Suspension Brackets

The solution chosen for implemention on the Front Suspension Bracket (Image F.8-9) is
to ratio the Venza vehicle net mass and bracket size versus the VW Passat specs (Lotus)
to reduce the bracket size and then change the material from steel to Nylon (PA66 - 60%
GF).
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 668
                        Image F.8-9: Front Suspension Bracket
                                 (Source: FEVphoto)
F.8.3.3 Rear Suspension Stopper Brackets

The solution chosen to be implemented on the Rear Suspension Stopper Bracket (Image
F.8-10) is to change the material from steel to Nylon (PA66 - 60% GF).
                     Image F.8-10: Rear Suspension Stopper Bracket
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.8.3.4 Front Damper Assembly

The solution chosen to be implemented on the Front Damper Assembly (Image F.8-11) is
to ratio the Venza vehicle net mass and damper size versus the VW Passat specs (Lotus)
to reduce the Damper size.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 669
                         Image F.8-11: Front Damper Assembly
                                  (Source: FEVphoto)
F.8.3.5 Front Damper Assembly

The solution chosen for implementation on the Frame Side Rail Bracket (Image F.8-12)
is  to ratio  the Venza vehicle net mass and  bracket  size versus the VW Passat specs
(Lotus) to reduce the bracket size and then change the material from steel to Nylon (PA66
-60%GF).

                                                  '

                              -         -I
                         Image F.8-12: Frame Side Rail Bracket
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 670
                                  (Source: FEVphoto)
F.8.3.6 Front Frame Assembly

The solution chosen to be implemented on the Front Frame Assembly (Image F.8-13) is
to change the material from a stamped steel construction to a cast magnesium structure.
                          Image F.8-13: Front Frame Assembly
  Source: A2MAC1 -http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart. asp? productid=64&clientid=l&producttype=2
F.8.3.7 Rear Frame Assembly

The solution chosen for implementation on the Rear Frame Assembly (Image F.8-14) is
to ratio the Venza vehicle net mass and  Rear Frame  size versus the  VW Passat specs
(Lotus) to reduce the Rear Frame size.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 671
                         Image F.8-14: Rear Frame Assembly
                                 (Source: FEVphoto)
     F.8.4    Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.8-6 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated for the
Frame subsystem. This resulted in a subsystem overall mass savings of 16.498kgs and a
cost increase of $3.66.

The Front Strut Frame sub-subsystem includes the Front Frame which was changed to a
die-casted magnesium part versus a multiple steel stamping construction. This action
accounts for 71% of the 13.959 kg weight save. The Front Strut Frame sub-subsystem
also includes (2) Suspension Brackets, (2)  Radiator Support Brackets, and (1) Damper
Assembly. These brackets  are made from a steel stamping construction which has been
changed to an injection mold process. The Suspension Bracket changes account for 10%
of the mass savings. The Radiator Support Bracket changes account for 2% of the mass
savings  and finally, the Damper Assembly which was downsized based on a Lotus idea to
normalize it to a 2005 VW  Passat Damper Assembly accounts  for  8% of the mass
savings. The cost of these changes increases the cost of the sub-subsystem by $1.43

The Rear Strut Frame sub-subsystem includes the Rear Frame, which was  downsized
based on a Lotus idea to normalize  it to a 2005 VW Passat and  (2) Stopper Brackets
which were changed  from  a steel stamping construction to an inject mold process. The
cost of these mass reduction ideas raises the cost of this sub-subsystem by $2.23.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 672

OT
*<
1


07
07
07

Subsystem


01
01
01

Sub-Subsyste
3

00
04
05

Description


JFrame_Subs)/«tem 	
Front Strut Frame
Rear Strut Frame

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select



B
_J3_
B
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)



13.959
_2538_
16.498
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)



-$1.43
_JJ>223_
-$3.66
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg



-$0.10
_-$0.88_
-$0.22
(Increase)
Sub-
Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


42.89%
^454%_
37.73%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"



0.82%
_OJ5%_
0.96%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
r(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Table F.8-6: Calculated Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Results for Frame Subsystem
F.9    Exhaust System

An exhaust system is tubing used to guide reaction exhaust gases away from a controlled
combustion inside an engine. The entire system conveys burnt  gases from the  engine,
expelling these toxic and/or noxious gases through one or more exhaust pipes. Depending
on  the overall system design, the exhaust gas may flow through one  or more of the
following:  cylinder  head  and exhaust  manifold; a turbocharger (to increase  engine
power); a catalytic converter (to reduce air pollution); a muffler (to lessen noise). Image
F.9-1 shows the Toyota Venza muffler.
                          Image F.9-1 : Toyota Venza Muffler
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 673
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
The Exhaust ystem is comprised of the Acoustical Control Components and Exhaust Gas
Treatment Components Subsystem (see Table F.9-1).


CO
><
CO
5T

_
09
09





CO
o-
co
><
CO
5T
3
_
01
02




rr>
c
o-
CO
o-
co
><
CO
CD
_
00
00






Description

Exhaust System
Acoustical Control Components Subsystem
Exhaust Gas Treatment Comp. Subsystem

Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =

System &
Subsystem
Mass
"kg"
— — —
11.743
14.874

26.617
1711
1.56%
              Table F.9-1: Mass Breakdown by Subsystem for Exhaust System.
(Reference Table F.9-2) Mass and cost impact for the exhaust subsystem.

g
C£
CD
3
"osT
09
09

Subsystem
00
01
02

Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00

Description
Exhaust System
Acoustical Control Components Subsystem
Exhaust Gas Treatment Comp. Subsystem

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
	
B
_A_
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)
	
2.789
_4729_
7.518
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
IIQII
* (2)
	
-$0.21
_$2j68_
$2.47
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
	
-$0.07
_$O57_
$0.33
(Decrease)
Subsystem/
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
	
23.75%
_3179%_
28.25%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
	
0.16%
_a28%_
0.44%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
            Table F.9-2:  Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Exhaust Subsystem
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 674

     F.9.1    Acoustical Control Components Subsystem

F.9.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As seen in Table F.9-3, the Acoustic Control Component sub-subsystem is included in
the Acoustical Control Components subsystem. This sub-subsystem is the only driver in
the subsystem.

$
a
CD
3


09
M





CO
c
ST
><
w
CD
3

01
_01_





CO
C7
CO
%
><
w
i— i-
CD

00
JLL







Description



Acoustical Control Components Subsystem
Acoustic Control Components
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


11.743
11.743
26.617
1711
44.12%
0.69%
 Table F.9-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Acoustical Control Components Subsystem
F.9.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

For the Acoustic Control Components sub-subsystem, the total 11.74kg weight does not
include the muffler: It includes only the front and center pipe sections, which include one
catalytic  converter, one baffle, and  one resonator made  from stainless steel.  The 4-
cylinder engine's pipe lengths and diameter are the  same as the 6-cylinder equipped with
a dual-tipped muffler. This makes the 4-cylinder exhaust systems pipes and muffler larger
than required  for the volume  of exhaust expelled. Using the larger system for the 4-
cylinder is a good idea from the carry-over and manufacturing aspect; however, for the
overall system weight and the resultant effect on gas mileage for the 4-cylinder, this may
not be an effective trade-off. The Venza's other technologies include EDPM hangers and
welded- and bolted-on hollow hanger brackets. Images  5.9-2 and 5.9-3 show a section
view of the Toyota Venza exhaust and the pipe as  a whole.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 675
      Image F.9-2 : Toyota Venza Exhaust      Image F.9-3 : Toyota Venza Exhaust Pipe
           (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)                    (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)


F.9.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Industry trends vary for exhaust systems, ranging from mild steel, titanium, special grades
of stainless steel, and magnesium in race cars to low-production vehicles. There are many
different types of SS that can be  considered for exhaust systems. The use of tailor-welded
blanks of different types of stainless steel allows for thicker and thinner areas  of SS as
needed. A common  type is austenitic  stainless such as 304. It is difficult to fabricate,
however, owing to the rate of strain hardening. If very severe bending is required, it may
be necessary to stress-relieve the material by annealing the pipe part of the way through
the forming process. There are other stainless materials available in the  300 Series
stainless family, but  they are more brittle and have a poorer thermal shock performance
than 409 Series stainless, which is most often used in today's OEM stainless systems.

Titanium is widely used for exhausts on motorcycles, the automotive industry has largely
shunned this material, and for good reason: The bending stresses from forming Titanium
sheets requires extra supports  to prevent cracking at high stress areas. Titanium's main
advantage, however, is its  low density: approximately 40% lower density than stainless
steel.  Since   2006,  the  use  of  titanium  alloys  for  automotive  exhaust   systems
manufacturing has increased for the high-end market vehicles. Titanium alloys used for
exhaust system fabrication use additional alloying elements,  as  aluminum,  copper,
niobium, silicon, and  iron. The addition of these elements  significantly increases the
oxidation resistance and mechanical properties of the alloy.

Other trends for exhaust systems include the use of different materials for the hangers;
EDPM or Rubber is used by most OEM's today.
F.9.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Ideas considered for the exhaust weight reduction were  a  titanium system, welded-on
exhaust hangers and hollow hangers, and using optional materials for the exhaust rubber
hanger grommets. The Venza implemented some of these  ideas already, so a closer look
in to the weight reduction was needed (Table F.9-4).
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 676
Component/Assembly
Front and Center Pipes
Front and Center Pipes
Front and Center Pipes
Front and Center Pipes
Front and Center Pipes
Front and Center Pipes
Front and Center Pipes
Front and Center Pipes
Rubber Grommets
Mass-Reduction Idea
Titanium Alloy
304 Stainless Steel
Tailored Welded Blanks
Mubea Tailored Rolled
Down size to 2.4L Toyota
Matrix
Weld on Hanger Brkts
Hollow Hanger Brkts
SGF™ Rubber Grommets
Estimated Impact
Reduction
NA
15 to 20% Mass
Reduction
20 to 25% Mass
20 to 25% Mass
Reduction
5 to 10% Mass
Reduction
1 to 5% Mass
Reduction
30% Mass
Reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
High cost, slower cycle time in
manufacturing
High cost, Harder to work with, may
,_,,_,__J]3Sujn3^^
Higher cost of laser welding and added
capital cost
Small increase for manufacturing
Cost savings due to less material &
	 QHDy^tyiZQ 	
Already implemented
Already implemented
Low cost due to removal of the amount of
grommets and hangers
 Table F.9-4: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Acoustical Control
                               Components Subsystem
F.9.1.5 Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas

Table F.9-5 includes the mass-reduction ideas that were selected for the exhaust system
center and front pipes.

CO
><
CO
CD"
3


09
09


CO
o-
^
CO
CD


01
01

CO
o-
co
o-
co
><
CO
ED"

00
01



Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description



Acoustical Control Components Subsystem
Acoustic Control Components


Mass-Reduction Ideas
Selected for Detail
Evaluation



Mubea Tailored Rolled
Tubes TRT®
SGF™ Rubber Grommets
   Table F.9-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Acoustical Control Components Subsystem
Applying the Mubea  Tailor Rolled  Tubes (TRT®) process of continuous  rolling to
varying thicknesses ranging from l.lmm to .7mm on the Toyota Venza's 1.2mm exhaust
pipes rather than laser  welding flat blanks created additional weight savings. The Mubea
process offers a major weight savings of 28% - or 2.099kg. Savings on the center pipe
section. In the front pipe section, by also using the Mubea TRT® process, the savings is
28% (.476kg). Mubea  has a few different process's such as Tailor Rolled Tubes TRT®,
-------
                                                                     Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                                         Page 677
Tailor Rolled Products TRP®, Tailor Rolled Blanks TRB®  and all are highly innovative
as it can also be applied to a number of different body parts, such as A- and B-pillars, roof
members, bumpers, and structure parts. Figure F.9-1 shows in detail  the basic  Mubea
rolling  process.
                  Correction
                              Longitudinal
                              profile check
                                                 Defined sheet metal thickness
                                                 contours
                                                 Uniform thickness transition areas
                                                 Highly efficient as strip rolling
                                                 process
                                                 Applicable to all reliable metallic
                                                 materials
                               Figure F.9-1: Basic Mubea® Process
Below is the Mubea TRB® exhaust pipe manufacturing process (Figure F.9-2).

                                flexible rolling

                                annealing: discontinuous, continuous

                                strip coating

                                slitting
                               .,
                            JIMM-I
                          /^tfilnr.l
       levelling & cutting
                        part production from coil  tube forming and laser welding
'* Discontinuous tube production
'* Joining by laser welding
'* Min. diameter          40 mm
*• Max diameter         150 mm"
'*• Min wall thickness      0-7 mm
'r Max. wall thickness      'I.Omm
'f Min. tube length        300 mm
* Max. tube length      2,500 mm*
'f Transition length between 2 diameters
  (D1-D2)*5 [mm]
'r Integration of additional processing
  steps for component manufacturing
'f 3-D bends possible
 By using a highly integrated manufacturing process. Mubea can shorten the process chain for TRP'
    and reduce overall production costs as compared to the production of rectangular blanks.
-------
Tailor Rolled Tubes - TRT®
Fully Automated Tube  Production Line
                                                                                     Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                                                              Page 678
   2,0
I  1,0
 £
I-
   0,5
         200    400   600   800   1000
            Sheet length in mm
                              Varying sheet metal thickness with
                              smooth transitions

                              50 % max. thickness reduction

                              Slope between 1/3000 up to 1/100

                              Narrow thickness tolerances

                              Optimized sheet thickness adapted to
                              component load

                              The cost of the component does not
                              depend on number of thickness steps

                              Reduction of sheet and component
                              weight
200     400      600
 Sheet length in mm
Thanks to Flexible Rolling, components with varying thickness profiles
           can be produced without additional costs.
Annual series production capacity of
60,000 tons
Product range:
Tailor Rolled Blanks      -TRB®
Jailor Rolled Products    -TRP®
Jailor Rolled lubes      -TRT®
Numerous application studies prove a
weight saving potential of 10 kg for body
structure and 5 kg for chassis
applications
Supply contracts with Audi,
BMW, Chrysler, Daimler AG, Ford
GM/Opel, Porsche, PSA, Skoda & VW
More than 30 million  TRB® delivered for
series production to date
-------
Straight formed TRT'  TRT' variable 0
                             TRT' with altern. 0
 BentTRT
               Hydroformed TRT
                            TRT' with pierced nut
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 679
Discontinuous tube production

Great variety of shapes due to flexible
forming process

Joining by laser welding

Integration of additional processing
steps for component manufacturing

Tube with constant outer diameter and
invisible thickness transition run

Tube with varying diameters and
flexible wall thickness
           Tailor Rolled Tubes with varying shapes and different forming operations have
                 entered numerous automotive series production applications.

               Figure F.9-2: Mubea TRB® Exhaust Pipe Manufacturing Process

                     (Presentation material and information provided by Mubea)
SGF® exhaust hangers were also selected as a means of mass reduction. Advantages of
the SGF® hangers include:

    •   Weight reduction, up to 37% lighter than competitor's models.

    •   Very high load capacity in X, Y, and Z directions

    •   Reduce the number of hangers and hanger brackets

    •   Packaging: Due to becoming 40% more narrow, hangers can be positioned tight to
       the exhaust system

    •   Up to 21 times the life cycles of competitors' models

    •   Extreme durability, including high- and low-temperature performance

    •   The hangers do not need to be changed over the lifetime of the car
-------
                                                     Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                  March 30, 2012
                                                                     Page 680
      High break load: 10 kN

      Use of EPDM instead of expensive silicon rubber

      Cord inlay for strength
Using the SGF® hangers reduced the number of hangers and hanger brackets on the car
side as well as the pipe side.

A recommendation by SGF® to remove three hangers on the existing exhaust system
would require the new hangers and brackets to be relocated, as Table F.9-6 shows.
      Weight, Material, Dimension
Durability, Testing Conditions and Results

Weight and
number of parts:
Size (y-axis)
Material
Bolt diameter
SGF LSOOO-E077-
002 ^
$
45 grams/ 3pcs
25 mm
EPDM
10mm
Toyota 17565-
OP041 A
68 grams/ 6 pcs
34mm
EPDM
12mm

120°C; Z=45N +- 180N
120°C; Z=90N +- 360N


SGF LSOOO-E077-
002 A

4 Parts,
stopped without
any fault at 800000
cycles


Toyota 17565-OP041
1
Failed at 42000 cycles
Specimen No
1: Failed at 1600 cycles
2:Failed at 2379 cycles


   We recommend 3 pieces of our hanger LSQOQ-EG77-Q2
               Table F.9-6: SGF Existing Exhaust System Recommendation
-------
                                                               Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                              March 30, 2012
                                                                                   Page 681

Image F.9-4 shows how the SGF® hangers, which are smaller in size with more strength,
result in an up to 37% lighter product. Note that the hanger strength comes from the cord
inlay reinforcement.
                                              120 grams
                        45 grams
                                       Each of the 4 segments acts as a bending beam

                                       The cord inlay (reinforcement) is the neutral fiber
                                             ord inlay
                                                                       Cord inlay
                  The single windings are bonded together by the rubber.
                  Therefore the windings are working like a leaf spring.
                                                                     ' X Driving-direction
                    In z-direction the cord inlay are
                     compliant, like a leaf spring-
y-direction the cord inlay are
  stiff, like a leaf spring.
                                 Image F.9-4: SGF® Hangers
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 682
                   (Allpresentation material and information provided by SGF®)
F.9.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

Table F.9-7 shows  the  weight and  cost reductions per sub-subsystem. In the sub-
subsystem  Acoustic  Control Components,  the Mubea Tailored Rolled  Tubes TRT®
process was used to  provide varying thickness in the exhaust front pipe assembly for a
weight savings of .476kg. This TRT® was also used on the exhaust center pipe assembly
for a weight savings of 2.099kg and a cost increase of $.56 The TRT® are slightly higher
in manufacturing costs, but that cost is off set by the material weight savings.

The  SGF® exhaust  hangers are a lighter product then the  typical EDPM hanger the
hangers by themselves are slightly more in cost to the typical EDPM exhaust hangers, but
the SGF® hanger's superior strength and quality allows the system to reduce the amount
of hangers needed for an over all weight and cost savings. On the Acoustic  Control
Components sub-subsystem, two exhaust hangers were originally used.  With the SGF®
system, one hanger in  this  sub-subsystem can be removed along with  the steel hanger
brackets attached to the pipe and car side. The car side and exhaust hanger being removed
saves . 122kg with a cost savings of  $.55 Removing one rubber hanger and replacing the
other one with the SGF hanger reduces the weight by .091kg but with a cost increase of
$. 19 this still comes out as a total SGF® system savings .213kg and $.36 cost savings.

C/)
C£

09
09


Subsystem

01
01


Sub-Subsystem

00
01


Description

Acoustical Control Components Subsystem
Acoustic Control Components


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


B

B
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


2.789

2.789
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
IIQII
* (2)


-$0.21

-$0.21
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


-$0.07

-$0.07
(Increase)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


23.75%

7.17%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.16%

0.16%
   (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
   (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Table F.9-7: Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Acoustical Control Components
                                    Subsystem.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 683

     F.9.2    Exhaust Gas Treatment Components Subsystem

F.9.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview

As shown in Table F.9-8, within the Exhaust Gas Treatment Components subsystem is
the Emission Control Components sub-subsystem - the only mass reduction driver in this
subsystem.

$
a
CD
3


09
09






CO
c
ST
><
w
CD
3

02
02






CO
C7
CO
%
><
w
i— i-
CD

00
01








Description



Exhaust Gas Treatment Comp. Subsystem
Emission Control Components

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


14.874

14.874
26.617
1711
55.88%
0.87%
    Table F.9-8: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Exhaust Gas Treatment Components
                                    Subsystem
F.9.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

Mufflers are installed along the exhaust pipe as part of the exhaust system of an internal
combustion engine. The muffler reduces exhaust noise by absorption of the exhaust sound
waves and is routed  through a series of passages and chambers  lined with  woven
fiberglass wool. The resonating chambers tuned to cause destructive interference wherein
opposite sound waves cancel each  other  out, and Catalytic  converters also have  a
muffling effect.

The  Toyota Venza's exhaust system muffler is larger than required for the  14 motor
version due to it being common component for the dual exhaust used in the 6-cylinder
engine option. Although the Venza does have some innovations, the exhaust is stainless
steel  for reduced weight  and corrosion  resistance  and the hanger tubes are  hollow
allowing for additional weight reductions. The hangers are also welded to the BIW which
eliminates the need for nuts and bolts.
-------
                                                             Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                            March 30, 2012
                                                                                Page 684

For Emission Control Components sub-subsystem, the total weight of 14.87kg  does not
include the muffler pipes. This sub-subsystem only includes the muffler.
                            rrr
                             Image 5.9-5: Toyota Venza Muffler

                                     (Source: FEVphoto)
F.9.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Industry trends  for  weight  reduction vary  quite  a bit for exhaust  systems. The most
common is to use stainless steel for the weight and corrosion resistance. Other ideas like
hollow hangers welded to the BIW and lightweight rubber hanger grommets are used on
the Toyota Venza.
F.9.2.4  Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Some ideas  considered for the exhaust mass reduction were a titanium  system, welded
exhaust hangers,  hollow hangers, and using new materials for the exhaust rubber hanger
grommets. Due to the Venza already having some of these ideas implemented, a closer
look in to the weight reduction was required (Table F.9-9).
    Component/Assembly

          Muffler
          Muffler

          Muffler

          Muffler
 Mass-Reduction Idea

    Titanium Alloy
                    Estimated Impact
                    20 to 30% Mass
                       Reduction
 Tailored Welded Blanks
 Mubea™ Tailored Rolled
       Blanks
                     15 to 20% Mass
                      _Reduction
                     20 to 25% Mass
                       Reduction
 Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
    High cost, slower cycle time in
    	m a nufacturi ng_
                                                           High cost, Harder to work with, may
 Higher cost of laser welding and added
          _cajpjtel_cost_

   Small increase for manufacturing
          Muffler

          Muffler
Down size to 2.4L Toyota
       Matrix
                                           20 to 25% Mass
                                    Cost savings due to less material &
 Weld on Hanger Brkts
                     5 to 10% Mass
                       Reduction
       Already implemented
          Muffler

        Muffler Rubber
         Grommets
  Hollow Hanger Brkts

SGF™ Rubber Grommets
                     1 to 5% Mass
                       Reduction
       Already implemented
                      30% Mass
                      Reduction
Low cost due to removal of the amount of
	grommets and hangers	
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 685

   Table F.9-9: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Exhaust Gas
                          Treatment Components Subsystem
F.9.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

The Toyota Venza system is partially optimized for weight and cost. A look at some of
the optional technologies used in the industry today (Table F.9-10), however, shows there
are more mass reduction ideas that  can be applied. By downsizing the exhaust system to
the comparable Toyota Matrix system  (which uses a  2.4L engine), a 2.334kg weight
savings can be realized. In addition, by using the Mubea® tailor rolled blank process a
24% (1.3kg)  weight savings can be attributed too the  muffler.  The SGF® grommet
process on the rubber hanger  grommets can  achieve  a 52% (1.092kg) savings by
removing two original rubber grommets and the four hanger brackets. All Mubea® and
SGF® processes can be seen in the above Acoustical Control Components subsystem.

CO
><
CO
5T
3


09
09




CO
o-
•£
CO
CD


02
02



CO
o-
co
o-
co
><
CO
ED"

00
01





Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description



Exhaust Gas Treatment Comp. Subsystem
Emission Control Components




Mass-Reduction Ideas
Selected for Detail
Evaluation



Mubea™ Tailored Rolled
Blanks
Down size to 2.4L Toyota
Matrix
SGF™ Rubber Grommets
 Table F.9-10: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Exhaust Gas Treatment Components Subsystem
F.9.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

Table F.9-11 shows the weight and cost reductions per sub-subsystem. The reduction for
the sub-subsystem "Emission Control Components" were to down-size the muffler from
the Toyota Venza that has a common muffler for the 4 & 6 cylinder models to the Toyota
Matrix 2.4L engine muffler. This represents a  2.334kg  weight save and a $1.24 cost
savings.
Then apply a Mubea TRB® process. The muffler will save 1.303kg with a cost increase
of $.49
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 686

Even though the  SGF® exhaust hangers are  a lighter product then the typical EDPM
hanger the hangers by themselves are slightly  more in cost to the typical EDPM exhaust
hangers, but the SGF® hanger's superior strength and quality allows the system to reduce
the amount of hangers needed for an over all  weight and cost savings. On the Emission
Control Components, four exhaust hangers were originally used. With the SGF® system,
two in this  sub-subsystem can be removed along with the  steel hanger brackets attached
to the muffler and car side. The  car side and exhaust hanger being removed saves .909kg
with a cost  savings of $2.32 Removing 2 rubber hanger and replacing the other one with
the SGF hanger reduces the  weight by .183kg but with a  cost increase of $.39 this still
comes out as a total SGF® system savings 1.092kg and $1.93 cost savings.

CO
3
"blT
—

Subsystem
02
J02,

Sub-Subsystem
00
51

Description
Exhaust Gas Treatment Comp. Subsystem
Emission Control Components

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select

_A_
A
Mass
Reduction
"k9" d)

^iZ?§^
4.729
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
IIQII
* (2)

^68^,
$2.68
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg

^57^
$0.57
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction

^3179%^
17.77%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction

^2§%_
0.28%
   (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
   (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

   Table F.9-11 Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Exhaust Gas Treatment
                              Components Subsystem.
F.10   Fuel System

The Fuel Tank and Lines subsystem is comprised primarily of the fuel tank and associated
fuel lines between the fuel filler neck and the fuel tank. The fuel lines between the fuel
tank and fuel pump are also included in this subsystem.  The Fuel Vapor Management
subsystem is comprised of a charcoal/vapor canister and the connecting lines between the
fuel tank and the charcoal canister. In comparing the sub-systems under the fuel system,
the greatest opportunity  for  mass  reduction falls under  the Fuel  Tank  and  Lines
subsystem (Table F.10-1).
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 687
CO
*<
(/)
CD"
3

10
10
10


Subsystem

00
01
02


Sub-Subsystem

00
00
00


Description

Fuel System
Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem
Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem

Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsystem
Mass
"kg"


21.018
3.259

24.276
1711
1.42%
                Table F.10-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Fuel System


Table F.I0-2 shows the calculated mass-reduction results for the ideas generated related
to the Fuel system. A mass savings of 6.804Kgs was realized with a cost reduction of
$3.91 which results in a cost savings of $0.57 per kg.

v>
•$
m

10
10
10


Subsystem

00
01
02


Sub-Subsystem

00
00
00


Description

Fuel System
Fuel Tank And Lines Subsystem
Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A
A

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


6.307
0.497

6.804
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
IKtll
* (2)


$2.70
$1.21

$3.91
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$0.43
$2.44

$0.57
(Decrease)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


30.01%
15.26%

28.03%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.37%
0.03%

0.40%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
      Table F.10-2: Calculated Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Results for Fuel System.
     F.10.1  Fuel Tank & Lines Subsystem
F.10.1.1
Subsystem Content Overview
Table F.10-3 shows the three  sub-subsystems that make  up the Fuel Tank and Lines
subsystem. These are the Fuel  Tank Assembly, Fuel Distribution, and Fuel Filler sub-
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 688

subsystem. The most significant  contributor to the mass of the Fuel  Tank and Lines
subsystem is the Fuel Tank Assembly. This includes the tank, baffles, fuel pump, sending
unit and exterior tank mounting brackets.
CO
*<
(/)
CD"
3

10
10
10
10


Subsystem

01
01
01
01


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
03
04


Description

Fuel Tank And Lines Subsystem
Fuel Tank Assembly (Fuel Tank, Fuel Pump, Sending Unit)
Fuel Distribution (Fuel Lines)
Fuel Filler (Refueling) (Filler Pipes & Hoses)

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


18.783
0.519
1.716

21.018
24.276
1711
86.58%
1.23%
     Table F.10-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem.
F.10.1.2
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Toyota Venza Fuel system follows typical industry standards for steel tanks. There is
nothing new, out of the ordinary, or unique. The fuel tank (Image F.I0-1) is a welded
sheet metal construction with thinner gauge metal  on its upper half versus the bottom.
The fuel pump (Image F.I0-2), is retained by an outer retaining ring, Figure 1-6, and (8)
M5 x .80 fasteners (Image F.10-3). Due to this being a saddle tank design, fuel from one
side  of the tank must be pumped to the other via the fuel pump. A sending unit (Image
F.I0-4) detects the total fuel level. The sending unit is retained by (6) M5 x .80 fasteners
(Image F.10-5).  The tank is held in place by a steel strap (Image F.10-6), which is edge-
protected by an extruded rubber edging material (Image F.I0-7). Finally, the fuel delivery
system  consists  of  a steel fuel filler tube  assembly (Image F.10-8). Several brackets
(Images 5.10-9, -10, -11) clamp the vapor tube to the fuel filler pipe, as well as clamping
the entire assembly to the vehicle.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 689
     F.10.2   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
F.10.2.1
Fuel Tank
Steel fuel tank construction is a common technology used by Toyota. However, it is no
longer the norm for the automotive industry.
                            Image F.10-1: Venza Fuel Tank
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

Some industry reports indicate more than 95% of the fuel tanks produced in Europe are
made from plastics. Plastic tanks have become the primary material of choice in Europe
and North America for many reasons:

1.     A plastic tank  system weighs two-thirds less than an average steel tank  system.
Advantages of the blow molding process used to make fuel tanks:
             a. Sheet polymer material for blow molding is high density polyethylene
               (HDPE),  which has a lower  density than water and is very chemically
               resistant.
             b. HDPE can be treated or laminated with barrier materials such as LLDPE
               which provides very effective emission control, rupture  resistance, and
               extended  temperature range.
             c. Tooling for blow molding is lower cost and is not stressed as heavily as
               tooling for steel parts.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 690

             d.  The main peripheral welded seam for the steel tank is eliminated with
                blow molding of HDPE. Components like filler necks can be welded to
                the HDPE tank to seal and secure, and it will use much less energy than
                steel welding.
2.     Plastics offer  design flexibility for complex shapes, which are difficult to attain
with steel. This includes integral connection features for attaching other fuel  system
components such as the vapor canister.
3.     Impact and corrosion  resistance is provided  without  secondary operations. No
painting or coating is required.

Although not priced in our cost reduction estimates, life cycle total energy costs are also
reduced using plastic:

   •  Plastic materials can be created and processed at lower temperatures than steel.

   •  Lower energy levels are required to recycle plastic than steel.

Regarding environmental concerns, feedstock for HDPE made from bio materials will be
produced in at least one manufacturing plant (Braskem).which will  help  reduce our
dependence on petroleum. Braskem is a Brazilian petrochemical company headquartered
in  Sao Paulo.  The company is the largest petrochemical in the Americas by production
capacity  and the fifth  largest in  the world. By revenue it is the  fourth largest in the
Americas and the 17th in the world.
F.10.2.2      Fuel Pump

The Toyota Venza Fuel Pump (Image F.I0-2) is inserted into the fuel tank and held in
place by an outer retaining ring (Image F.10-3) and (8) M5 x .80 fasteners (Image F.10-
4).

                         I
-------
                                      Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                         Page 691
          Image F.10-2: Fuel Pump
             (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
I   I  I   i   !
        Image F.10-3: Retaining Ring
           (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 692
                       Image F.10-4: Fuel Pump Retaining Fastener
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.10.2.3
Sending Unit
The  Toyota Venza Sending Unit (Image F.I0-5) is constructed from a heavy gauge
stamped sheet metal mounting plate which is riveted to  a lighter gauge stamped sheet
metal switch bracket. The switch assembly is attached to the switch bracket via stamped
locking features. The sending unit is inserted into the fuel tank and held in place by (6)
M5 x .80 fasteners (Image F.10-6).
                              Image F.10-5: Sending Unit
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 693
F.10.2.4
         Image F.10-6: Sending Unit Retaining Fastener
                   (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)



Fuel Tank Mounting Straps
The mounting straps (Image F.10-7), which hold the fuel tank in place, are made of light
gauge  stamped sheet metal with an extruded rubber protective edging, (Image F.I0-8).
The protective edging  is required to prevent the edge of the sheet metal straps from
wearing away the anti-corrosion material applied to the outer surfaces of the fuel tank.
                         Image F.10-7: Fuel Tank Mounting Strap
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 694
     T
                                     t      T     T     ~\
                            Image F.10-8: Protective Edging
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.10.2.5
Fuel Filler Tube Assembly
The Fuel Filler Tube Assembly (Image F.10-9) is an extruded steel tube extending from
the fuel fill neck to the fuel tank. Also running alongside the fuel fill tube is the vapor
return line.
                        Image F.10-9: Fuel Filler Tube Assembly
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
     F.10.3  Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

The Fuel Tanks and Lines summary chart, shown in Table F.I0-4, demonstrates the clear
move from steel to plastic. The fuel tank offers the greatest mass reduction opportunity as
mentioned above.  Plastics  offer weight  reduction  benefits  for  other fuel  system
components. Brainstorming activities generated all of the ideas in the chart below. There
are several suppliers  and websites supporting the use of plastics for the fuel tank and
other components within the fuel system.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 695
Component/Assembly
Fuel Tank
Fuel Tank
Fuel Tank
Fuel Tank
Fuel Tank
Fuel Filler Tubes
FPU Mounting Bracket
Fuel Tank Mounting
Pins
Fuel Tank Mounting
Straps
Fuel Sender Bracket
Fuel Sender Mounting
Bracket
Fuel FillerTube
Brackets
Fuel Tank Cross Over
Tube
Mass-Reduction Idea
Make out of HOPE
Size Reduction
Eliminate Saddle Tank
Design
Make Fuel Tank Baffles
out of Plastic
Make fuel tank out of
Dupont plastic/metalic
material
Make out of HOPE
Use twist lock to
eliminate Fasteners
Use T-Slot attachment to
eliminate pins
Eliminate Rubber
Protection
Make outof>POM<
instead of steel
Use twist lock to
eliminate Fasteners
Eliminate brackets with
Blow molded Fillers
Vapor Tubes
Make out of Plastic
Estimated Impact
50% Weight Save
10% Weight Save
40% Weight Save
5% Weight Save
10% Weight Save
20% Weight Save
100% Weight Save
100% Weight Save
100% Weight Save
80% Weight Save
100% Weight Save
100% Weight Save
80% Weight Save
Risks 8, Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Low Cost, in production on Chrysler
Town & Country
Low Cost, in production on Saab 9-3
1.9 TiD Linear (2005)
Risk of Insufficient Fuel Quantity
Increased Manufacturing Cost
Low Cost, Reduce Hydrocarbon
Emissions up to 98%
Low Cost, in production on Saab 9-3
1.9 TiD Linear (2005)
Low Cost, in production on Chrysler
Town & Country
Low Cost
Low Cost, in production on Chrysler
Town & Country
Low Cost
Low Cost
Low Cost, in production on Saab 9-3
1.9 TiD Linear (2005)
Low Cost Increase
 Table F.10-4: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Fuel Tank & Lines
             	                     Subsystem.
     F.10.4  Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas

We  chose most  of the ideas generated from the brainstorming activities for detail
evaluation as shown in Table  F.10-5.  In  our team  approach to idea generation, we
consider all components regardless of how big or small the opportunity.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 696
CO
••<
C/3
CD
3

10





10





10
10

Subsystem

00





01





01
01

Sub-
Subsystem

00





01





03
04

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description

Fuel Tank & Lines Subsystem
Cross OverTube
Fuel Tank
Fuel Tank
Mounting Pin
Retaining Ring
Tank Straps
Gage Asm, Fuel Sender, No 2
(Secondary1)
Gage Asm, Fuel Sender, Bracket
(new)
Shield, Large
Protector, Fuel Fill Pipe
Support Bracket
N/A
Fill tubes

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation


Make cross over tube out of plastic
Make blow molded fuel tank
Reduce plastic tank size by 12% (based on a 20% vehicle
mass reduction)
Eliminate fuel tank mounting pin and use T-slot bracket
design instead
Make FPU retaining ring with locking features to eliminate
(8) fasteners
Eliminate rubber from tank straps
Make sender unit bracket out of plastic instead of steel
Use twist lock bracket & eliminate fasteners
Eliminate Steel Fill Tubes with Blow Molded Tubes
Eliminate Protector Bracket with Blow Molded Tubes
Eliminate shield (77246C) & fastener (1 1 327) with Blow
Molded Tank
N/A
Make fuel fill tubes a one-piece blow molded design

     Table F.10-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Fuel Tank & Lines Subsystem Analysis
F.10.4.1
Cross-Over Tube Assembly
The solution chosen to be implemented for the Cross-Over Tube Assembly is to make it
out of plastic instead of steel.
                        Image F.10-10: Cross-over Tube Assembly

                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 697
F.10.4.2
Fuel Tank
The solution chosen to be implemented for the Fuel Tank is to make it out of a blow
molded HDPE plastic (Image F.10-11) and to reduce the size of the fuel tank 12% taking
advantage of the overall weight reduction ideas implemented over the entire vehicle.
                        Image F.10-11: Plastic (HDPE) Fuel Tank
 (Source: A2MAC1 - http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp?productid=222&clientid=l&producttvpe=2')
F.10.4.3
Fuel Tank Mounting Pins (Eliminated)
The solution chosen to be implemented for the Fuel Tank Mounting Pins is to eliminate
them  in lieu of a new strap configuration utilizing a Tee-slot design (Image F.10-12).
Instead of pinning the end of the strap, this design locks the strap end without the need of
a pin.

            Gas Tank straps
                      Image F.10-12: Fuel Tank Mounting Strap Assy

                    (Source: BTM Corp - http://www.btmcorp.com/tlapps.html')
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 698
F.10.4.4
Fuel Pump Retaining Ring
The  solution(s) chosen to be  implemented  for the Fuel Pump Retaining Ring (Image
F.10-13) is to make it a "twist lock" design, thus eliminating the need for fasteners.
             Image F.10-13: Fuel Pump Retaining Bracket "Twist Lock" Design
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.10.4.5
Fuel Sending Unit Retaining Bracket
The solution(s) chosen to be implemented for the Fuel Sending Unit Retaining Bracket
(Image F.10-14) is make the bracket out of plastic instead of stamped steel and making it
a "twist lock" design, thus eliminating the need for fasteners.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 699
F.10.4.6
        Image F.10-14: Sending Unit Mounting Bracket
                   (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)


Large Bracket (Eliminated)
The  solution chosen to be implemented for the Large Bracket (Image F.10-15) is  to
eliminate the bracket due to the blow molded Fuel Fill Tube Assembly. This bracket will
no longer be needed because the Fuel Fill Tube and the Vapor Tube will be connected via
the blow mold process.
                        Image F.10-15: Large Shield (Eliminated)

                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.10.4.7
Protector Bracket (Eliminated)
The solution chosen to be implemented for the Protector Bracket (Image F.10-16) is to
eliminate the bracket due to the blow molded Fuel Fill Tube Assembly. This bracket will
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 700

no longer be needed because the Fuel Fill Tube and the Vapor Tube will be connected via
the blow mold process.
                         Image F.10-16: Protector (Eliminated)

                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.10.4.8
Small Shield Bracket (Eliminated)
The solution(s) chosen to be implemented for the Support Bracket (Image F.10-17) is to
eliminate the bracket due to the blow molded Fuel Fill Tube Assembly. This bracket will
no longer be needed because the Fuel Fill Tube and the Vapor Tube will be connected  via
the blow mold process.
                      Image F.10-17: Support Bracket (Eliminated)

                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 701
F.10.4.9      Fuel Filler Tube Assembly
The solution chosen to be implemented for the Fuel Filler Tube Assembly Image F.10-18
is to make the tubes out of HDPE using a blow mold process.
                       Image F.10-18: Fuel Filler Tube Assembly
   (Source: Inergy Automotive - http://www.inergvautomotive.com/innovativesvstems/pfs/pfp/Pages/pfip.aspx')


     F.10.5  Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results

Table F.I0-6 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated for the
Fuel Tank & Lines subsystem.  This  resulted in a subsystem overall mass savings of
6.307kgs and a cost savings differential of $2.70.

The Fuel Tank Assembly sub-subsystem ideas account for the entire cost savings which
was only slightly reduced by the small cost hit created by the Fuel Filler sub-subsystem
ideas. The Fuel Tank  Assembly  sub-subsystem  includes the  Fuel  Tank, which was
changed from a steel construction  tank to a HDPE blow-molded tank and accounts for
88% of the 6.307 kg weight save. The remaining 12% of the mass reduction was reduced
by small miscellaneous changes.

The Fuel Filler  sub-subsystem raises the cost of this sub-subsystem slightly by $0.20, but
the cost of the  entire subsystem is still reduced to $2.70 because of the $2.90 savings
realized in the Fuel Tank Assembly sub-subsystem.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 702

CO
*<
1
3

10
10
10
10


Subsystem

00
01
01
01


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
03
04


Description

Fuel Tank & Lines Subsystem
Fuel Tank Assembly (Fuel Tank, Fuel Pump,
Sending Unit)
Fuel Distribution (Fuel Lines)
Fuel Filler (Refueling) (Filler Pipes & Hoses)


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A

B

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


5.759
0.000
0.548

6.307
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
IKtll
* (2)


$2.90
$0.00
-$0.20

$2.70
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$0.50
$0.00
-$0.37

$0.43
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs./ Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


30.66%
0.00%
31 .95%

30.01%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.34%
0.00%
0.03%

0.37%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
  Table F.10-6: Calculated Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Results for Fuel Tank &
                                   Lines Subsystem.
     F.10.6   Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem
F.10.6.1
Subsystem Content Overview
In Table F.I0-7, the Fuel Vapor Canister Assembly is identified as the most significant
contributor  to the mass of the total  fuel  system.  The Fuel  Vapor  Canister Assembly
includes the canister housing, charcoal, valves, fittings, and hoses.
(f>
I
CD"
3

10
10


Subsystem

02
02


Sub-Subsystem

00
01


Description

Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem
Fuel Vapor Canister Asm (Vapor Canister, Brackets, Lines)

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


3.259

3.259
24.276
1711
13.42%
0.19%
   Table F.10-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 703
F.10.6.2      Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem shows characteristics of the latest
development of these systems. There is nothing  new, out of the  ordinary,  or unique
compared to other vehicles.

The EVAP (evaporative control system) is simple but quite sophisticated. The function of
the EVAP is to trap, store and dispense evaporative emissions from the gas tank to the
engine.  A canister (Image F.10-19) is  used  to trap the  fuel vapors,  which adhere to
activated charcoal in the  canister until the engine is started. This system  has to  be
completely sealed including the gas tank filler cap to  meet current  and future emission
standards. A purge valve controls the vapor flow into the engine based on commands
from the ECM (electronic  engine  control module). While the engine is  running, and if a
predetermined condition is met, the purge valve is opened by the ECM to release stored
fuel vapors in the canister  into the intake manifold. The ECM changes  the duty cycle of
the purge valve to control purge flow volume.  The Canister to mounted to the underbody
between the  fuel tank and the exhaust muffler and is protected by a Canister Cover
(Image F.10-20).

A "key off monitor checks for system leaks and canister pump module malfunctions.
The monitor starts five hours after the ignition  switch is turned off. At least five hours are
required for the fuel to cool down  to stabilize the EVAP pressure, thus making the EVAP
system monitor more accurate.
F.10.6.3      Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

No industry trends have been noted for the Fuel Vapor Management subsystem beyond
what is seen in the Venza system.  Advances in engine and vehicle  electronic control
continue with significant concern regarding complete control and elimination gasoline
vapors.  The hardware  of the Fuel Vapor Management  subsystem will continue to be
developed for functionality with few, if any, major opportunities for size and weight
reduction short of smaller fuel tank size, which would reduce vapor generation.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 704
                            Image F.10-19: Vapor Canister
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
                         Image F.10-20: Vapor Canister Cover
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.10.6.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.10-8 shows the Fuel Vapor Management summary chart and shows a few mass
reduction ideas dealing primarily with moving from steel bracket to plastic and utilizing
the MuCell® Microcellular Foaming Technology.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 705
Component/Assembly j
Canister Cover j
Charcoal Canister j
Bracket, Large |
Bracket, Medium j
Bracket, Small j
Mass-Reduction Idea
Make Charcoal Canister
Cover using MuCell©
Microcellular Foaming
Technology
Make Charcoal Canister
using MuCell©
Microcellular Foaming
Technology
Make large bracket out of
Polypro w/30% Glass Fill
Make medium charcoal
canister bracket out of
Polypro w/30% Glass Fill
Make small charcoal .
canister bracket out of
Polypro w/30% Glass Fill
Estimated Impact
10% Weight Save
10% Weight Save
80% Weight Save
80% Weight Save
80% Weight Save
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Cost Neutral
Cost Neutral
Cost Savings
Cost Savings
Cost Savings
    Table F.10-8: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Fuel Vapor
                                Management Subsystem.
F.10.6.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Most of the  ideas  generated from the  brainstorming activities  for the Fuel  Vapor
subsystem were utilized in this report as shown in Table F.10-9. In our team approach to
idea generation, we  consider all  components regardless of how  big  or  small  the
opportunity.
Ui
-f.
en
ST
3

10


10



Subsystem

02


02



Sub-
Subsystem

00


01



Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description

Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem
Canister Cover
Charcoal Canister
Bracket, Large
Bracket, Medium
Bracket, Small

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation

i
Make using MuCell® Microcellular Foaming Technology
Make using MuCell® Microcellular Foaming Technology
Make out of Polypro w/30% Glass Fill
Make out of Polypro w/30% Glass Fill
Make out of Polypro w/30% Glass Fill

  Table F.10-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem Analysis.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 706
F.10.6.6
Canister Housing & Canister Cover
The solution(s) chosen to be implemented on the Vapor Canister Housing (Image F.10-
21) and the Canister Cover (Image  F.10-22) is to use the MuCell® Microcellular
Foaming Technology during the injection molding process.
                         Image F.10-21: Vapor Canister Housing
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
                          Image F.10-22: Vapor Canister Cover
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 707
F.10.6.7
Canister Brackets
The solution chosen to be implemented on the Large Canister Bracket (Image F.10-23)
Medium Canister Bracket (Image F.10-24) and the Small Canister Bracket  (Image F.10-
25) is to redesign the brackets out of plastic instead of stamped steel.
                         Image F.10-23: Large Canister Bracket
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
                        Image F.10-24: Medium Canister Bracket

                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 708
                         •   ill         I

                         Image F.10-25: Small Canister Bracket
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.10.6.8
Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
Table F.10-10 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated for the
Fuel Vapor Management subsystem. This resulted in a subsystem overall mass savings of
.497 kg and a cost savings differential of $1.21.

The  Fuel Vapor Canister sub-subsystem includes the Vapor Canister and its associated
Brackets. The Vapor Canister Brackets are made from stamped steel construction. 76% of
the .497 kg mass savings came from changing the brackets from steel to  plastic. The
remaining mass savings was realized by applying the MuCell® Foaming Technology to
the Vapor Canister Housing and the Vapor Canister Cover.

en
*<
Ji
0
3

10
10


Subsystem

02
02


Sub-Subsystem

00
01


Description

Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem
Fuel Vapor Canister Asm


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" CD


0.497

0.497
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
IKtll
* (2)


$1.21

$1.21
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$2.44

$2.44
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs./ Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


15.26%

15.26%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.03%

0.03%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 709

 Table F.10-10: Preliminary Ballpark Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for
                          Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem.
F.11   Steering System

The Toyota Venza uses an electric power steering system. Electric power steering systems
have an advantage in fuel efficiency: there is no  belt-driven hydraulic pump constantly
running, whether steering assistance is required or not. This is a major reason for electric
power steering systems' introduction. Another key advantage is the elimination of a belt-
driven engine accessory, and several high-pressure hydraulic hoses between the hydraulic
pump (which is mounted on the engine) and the steering gear (mounted on the chassis).
This greatly simplifies manufacturing and maintenance.

Included in the Steering system are the Steering Gear, Power Steering, Steering Column,
Steering Column Switches, and Steering Wheel subsystems. The Steering Gear subsystem
is the greatest weight contributing subsystem at 8.82kg (see Table F.I 1-1).
CO
•35
CD"
TT
11
11
11
11
11




Subsystem
00
01
02
04
05
06




Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
00




Description
Steering System
Steering Gear Subsystem
Power Steering Subsystem
Steering Column Subsystem
Steering Column Switches Subsystem
Steering Wheel Subsystem

Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsystem
Mass
"kg"
	
8.825
7.477
5.083
0.554
2.288

24.227
1711
1.42%
              Table F.ll-1: Mass Breakdown by Subsystem for Steering System
The Steering Gear, Steering Column, and Steering Wheel subsystems were used for mass
reduction. The Steering Column subsystem offered the greatest weight savings, as shown
in Table F.I 1-2.
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 710

CO
C£
CD"
3
TT
11
11
11
11
11


Subsystem
00
01
02
04
05
06


Sub- Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
00


Description
Steering System
Steering Gear Subsystem
Power Steering Subsystem
Steering Column Subsystem
Steering Column Switches Subsystem
Steering Wheel Subsystem


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
	

A
A


A

Mass
Reduction
"k9" d)

0.123
0.210
1.148
0.000
_O3^6_
1.817
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
IIQII
* (2)

$0.24
$0.10
$10.39
$0.00
_$O32_
$11.05
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg

$1.99
$0.46
$9.05
$0.00
_$O94_
$6.08
(Decrease)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"

1.39%
2.81%
22.58%
0.00%
JUU39%_
7.50%

Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
	
0.01%
0.01%
0.07%
0.00%
_ao2%_
0.11%

    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase


             Table F.ll-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Steering System
     F.11.1   Steering Gear Subsystem
F.ll.1.1
Subsystem Content Overview
As shown in Table F.I 1-3, the Steering Gear subsystem includes the Steering Gear sub-
subsystem.
CO
t-t-
CD
TT
11





Subsystem
I





Sub-Subsystem
00





Description
Steering Gear Subsystem
Steering Gear
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"
^^
8.825
24.227
1711
36.43%
0.52%
         Table F.ll-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Steering Gear Subsystem
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 711
F.ll.1.2
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The  Toyota Venza uses a conventional  steering gear setup. Image F.I 1-1  shows the
Toyota Venza steering gear. Image F.I 1-2 is a close-up of the tie rod end.
                       Image F.ll-1 : Toyota Venza Steering Gear
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
                        Image F.ll-2: Toyota Venza Tie Rod End
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.ll.1.3
Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
No mass reduction industry trends stand out on the Toyota Venza. Some weight savings
have been identified when comparing the Venza to other vehicles of the same class and
size.
F.ll.1.4      Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.I 1-4 shows weight deductions taken for the Steering Gear subsystem.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 712
Component/Assembly
Tie Rod
Ball Joint & Tie Rod
Ball Joint
Mass-Reduction Idea
Use Tubing Swedged to
Inner Ball Joint Rather Than
Solid Rod for Tie Rod
Shorten Forging for the Ball
Joint and Lengthen the Tie
Rod End - Used 201 1
Chrysler Mini Van as Direct
m™™™™_™5°!IlE§li§°IL™™™™™,
Stamped Ball Joints
Estimated Impact
20% Mass
Reduction
15 to 20% Mass
Reduction
20 to 25% Mass
Reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Needs Engineering
Less over all material
Leak and Rust
   Table F.ll-4: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Steering Gear
                                     Subsystem
F.ll.1.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The weight deduction used for the Steering Gear subsystem was to shorten the ball joint
ends and lengthen the threaded part of the tie rod end. The current Chrysler mini van has
a shorter ball joint end and it was selected and used as a basis for this analysis (Table
F.I 1-5). Using this can result in a 1% .123kg savings.

ss
CO
CD"
3


TT


11



CO
CO
CD


w


01


CO
CO
CO
CO
CD
3
lief


01




Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description



Steering Gear Subsystem


Steering Gear
^>


Mass-Reduction Ideas
Selected for Detail
Evaluation


	
Shorten Forging for the Ball
Joint and Lengthen the Tie
Rod End -Used 2011
Chrysler Mini Van as Direct
Comparison
         Table F.ll-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Steering Gear Subsystem
F.ll.1.6
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates
Table F.I 1-6 shows the weight and cost reductions per Steering Gear sub-sub system. In
the change to shorten the forged ball joint end and lengthen the tie rod end, mass was
reduced from the ball joint forging based on the 2011 Chrysler mini van. This resulted in
a mass savings of .261kg and $.52 in cost savings. With shortening the ball joint end the
tie rod end had to be lengthened, this contributed an increase of. 138kg and an increase in
cost of $.28 both these changes  netted a mass savings of. 123kg and a cost save of $.24
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 713

CO
a^
oT
3

11
11

Subsystem

01
.21

Sub-Subsystem

00
51

Description

Steering Gear Subsystem
Steering Gear

Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select

_A_
A
Mass
Reduction
"k9" d)


_0/I23_
0.123
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
IIQII
* (2)


_$O24_
$0.24
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


_J>199_
$1.99
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


_139%_
0.51%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


_O01%_
0.01%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

 Table F.ll-6: Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Steering Gear Sub-Subsystem
     F.11.2   Power Steering Subsystem
F.ll.2.1
Subsystem Content Overview
As seen in (Table F.I 1-7), included  in  the  Power Steering subsystem is the Power
Steering Electronic Controls sub-subsystem.
CO
1— t-
CD

11
11


Subsystem

02
02


Sub-Subsystem

00
01


Description

Power SiGGrinci SuDSvstGm
Power Steering Electronic Controls

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"

'~T477r"~

7.477
24.227
1711
30.86%
0.44%
      Table F.ll-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Power Steering Subsystem
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 714
F.ll.2.2      Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The Toyota Venza uses an advanced power steering system with power steering assist and
electronic stability control.
F.ll.2.3
Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
The Toyota Venza follows industry norms for the mass reductions trends on the power
steering system.
F.ll.2.4      Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.I 1-8 shows the Power Steering subsystem and the ideas reviewed.
Component/Assembly
Control Module
Assist Module
Assist Module
Assist Module
EPS Control Unit
Mass-Reduction Idea
Build Control Module into
Assist Motors Aluminum
Housing for Heat Sink and
Cut Mass
	 """-"
Replace Steel Worm Gear
with Composite
Replace Metal Motor
Housing with Composite
Use Resolver Based
Sensor
Change Steel Brkt to
^ Composite v
Estimated Impact
5 to 10% Mass
Reduction
2 to 5% Mass
Reduction
15 to 20% Mass
Reduction
NA
20 to 30% Mass
Reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Needs Engineering
One gear is composite already and the
other is metal, This means that the
__engjne>ejjngj]ias already been done
Due to EMF Engineering would be
needed
No Weight Save
Material and Manufacturing savings
 Table F.ll-8: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Power Steering
                                    Subsystem
F.ll.2.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The weight deduction used for the subsystem power steering was to mold the EPS  steel
mounting brackets out of PA6-  GF30-35, using the MuCell®  gas  foaming process to
reduce the weight of the plastic by 10% (Table F.I 1-9).
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 715

ss
CO
CD"
3


_

11


CO
CO
CD


_

02

CO
CO
CO
CO
CD
3
_

01



Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description



Power Steering Subsystem

Power Steering Electronic Controls


Mass-Reduction Ideas
Selected for Detail
Evaluation


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
Make EPS Steel Brkt Out of
Composite and Then
MuCell® for Added Weight
Reduction
        Table F.ll-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Power Steering Subsystem
F.ll.2.6
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
Table F.I 1-10 shows the weight and cost reductions for the Power Steering Electronic
Controls sub-subsystem.

Taking the EPS Brkts from 1010/1008 steel and making them out of PA6 glass filled 30-
35 plastic, then MuCell® the parts provided a mass savings of .21kg and a cost savings of
$.10

The MuCelling of the parts contributed .021kg of the over all .21kg even though the PA6
with class  filled 30-35  with MuCell is more expensive then 1010/1008  steel, the mass
reduction from  steel  to plastic and the reduced  cycle time and the parts  not needing a
deburring and washing operation after the stamping ending up as a costs savings.
^^^
g
CO
oT

11
11


Subsystem

02
02


Sub-Subsystem

00
01


Description

Power Steering Subsystem
Power Steering Electronic Controls


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A

A
Mass
Reduction
"k9" d)


0.210

0.210
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
IIQII
* (2)


$0.10

$0.10
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$0.46

$0.46
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


2.81%

0.87%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.01%

0.01%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
    Figure 5.10-10: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Power Steering Electronic
                                Controls Sub-Subsystem.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 716
     F.11.3   Steering Column Subsystem
F.ll.3.1
Subsystem Content Overview
Table  F.I 1-11 shows  the  Steering Column Assembly sub-subsystem  included in the
Steering Column subsystem, contributing 5.083 kg mass.

CO
ft-
CD
3

TT
11






§"
w
CD
3
"bT
_04_





CO
c
9"
CO
ST
"rn
CD"
"oo
£L







Description


Steering Column Subsystem
Steering Column Assembly
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"
	
5.083
5.083
24.227
1711
20.98%
0.30%
     Table F.11-11: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Steering Column Subsystem
F.ll.3.2
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
A steering column performs  the  following  secondary functions: Energy dissipation
management  in the event of frontal collision.  The column also provides a mounting
surface  for the multi-function switch,  column  lock, column wiring,  column shrouds,
transmission gear selector, gauges or other instruments as well as the electro motor and
gear units, height and/or length adjustments.

Steering columns may contain universal joints, which may be part  of the collapsible
steering column design, to allow the column to deviate  somewhat from a straight line.
Images F.I 1-3 and F.I 1-4 are the Toyota Venza steering shaft.
-------
Image F.ll-3: Toyota Venza Steering Shaft
                   (Source: FEV Photo)
                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                              Page 717

                                  Image F.ll-4: Toyota Venza Steering Shaft
                                         (Source: FEV Photo)
F.ll.3.3
Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
Mass-reduction industry trends include using aluminum or magnesium casting to replace
the steel shaft. Another is a grommet "only  design in which the steering column goes
through the fire wall.
F.ll.3.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.I 1-12 shows the weight deductions taken from the Steering Column Assembly
sub-subsystem.

Lower Cover
Intermediate Shaft
Intermediate Shaft
Intermediate Shaft
Steering Adjustment
i ,-..,,-...
lULajdje Prrlnrtinn IHri
Change Firewall Steering
Boot (3 Piece) Design to 1
IcUc OIUIIIIIIGl DcSTyTl
Replace Yoke Forgings with
oictiii|jeu vvcTu
Change Forgings to Die
t>o5l /-\IUI 1 III IUI 1 1
Replace Forged Couplers
with Flexible Stanly
1 Vvz41 Pi U 1>U /o-oK rA4/O
MuCell®

5 to 10% Mass
Reduction
15 to 20% Mass
cununui i
30 to 40% Mass
cununui i
20 to 25% Mass
Reduction
5 to 10% Mass
D,-,,.I. ,,-.<.;,-..,

Eliminate stamped steel retainer ring, 3
bolts, 3 weld nuts on BIW
Engineering needed to verify
Less material and manufacturing cost
Engineering needed to verify
Part is too small
 Table F.ll-12: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Steering Column
                                     subsystem
F.ll.3.5       Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Weight reductions used for the Steering Column subsystem are listed in Table F.I 1-13.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 718

ss
CO
CD"
3


_

11
•—"—""—



O>
CO
CD


_

04
~™~™~™


O>
CO
CO
CO
CD
3
_

01
™~"~—"~




Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description



Steering Column Subsystem

Steering Column Assembly
™~™™~™™™™™™™™™™™^



Mass-Reduction Ideas
Selected for Detail
Evaluation


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
Change Firewall Steering
Boot (3 Piece) Design to 1
Change Intermediate Shaft
Steel Forgings to Die Cast
Aluminum
        Table F.ll-13: Mass-reduction ideas selected for the Steering Column subsystem
     F.11.4   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

Table F.I 1-14 shows the total weight reduction for the Steering Column Assembly sub-
subsystem.

Changing the intermediate shaft from a forged steel part to a die cast aluminum shaft
allowed for  fewer operations and no assembly/welding  of the yoke to the shaft. Less
material was also required to move from steel to aluminum, even though  aluminum is
more expensive. The mass reduction for the female intermediate shaft was .442kg and a
cost save of $4.04 and the male intermediate shaft mass savings was .635 and a cost save
of $5.69 for  a total intermediate shaft mass savings of 1.076kg and a cost save of $9.73.

Changing the fire wall boot  design for the intermediate shaft also reduced mass with a
cost save. The original design was to have a rubber boot  on held onto the engine side of
the fire wall by a metal ring with 3 nuts and 3 bolts.  Using a grommet design with .03kg
of added material to allow it to fit around the fire wall cut out opening allowed us remove
the steel ring and the 3 nuts and 3 bolts to be eliminated.  This resulted in a mass savings
of .072kg and a cost savings of $.67
The overall subsystem mass savings was 1.148kg and a cost savings of $10.40
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 719

CO
3

TT
11


CO
I"
C£
CD
3

"o?
JD4


Sub-Subsyst
3
cicf
51


Description

Steering Column Subsystem
Steering Column Assembly


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select



A

Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


^!1!§_
1.148
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
IIQII
* (2)


_$io^?_
$10.39
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg

-^^-
$9.05
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
•%"

^2238%^
4.74%

Vehicle
Mass
Reduction


^07%_
0.07%

    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

Table F.11-14: Sub-subsystem mass-reduction and cost impact for the Steering Column subsystem
     F.11.5   Steering Column Switches Subsystem
F.ll.5.1
Subsystem Content Overview
As  displayed in Table F.I 1-15, the  Steering Column Switches subsystem includes the
Steering Column and Shroud-Mounted Switches and Clockspring sub-subsystem and the
Steering Column Control Module and Sensors sub-subsystem.
CO
><
(/)
1— 1-
CD

11
11
11


Subsystem

05
05
05


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02


Description

Steering Column Switches Subsystem
Steering Col. Shroud/Switches & Clockspring
Steering Column Control Module and Sensors

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


0.554
0.000

0.554
24.227
1711
2.29%
0.03%
 Table F.11-15: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Steering Column Switches Subsystem
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 720
F.ll.5.2
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Toyota Venza's clockspring  is a special rotary electrical connector that allows a
vehicle's steering wheel to turn while  still making an electrical connection between the
steering wheel airbag and/or the  vehicle's horn and other devices. The clockspring  is
located between the steering wheel and the steering column.
Clocksprings generally consist of a flat multicore-conductor cable wound in a spiral shape
similar to a clock spring (hence the name). The name, however, is also given to devices
fulfilling  the  same function but  use  spring-loaded brushes  contacting concentric slip
rings.
F.ll.5.3      Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

There are no mass-reduction trends for the clockspring or the multifunction stalk.
F.ll.5.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
No weight  reduction  concepts were able for consideration  in the Steering Column
Switches subsystem (see Table F.I 1-16).
Component/Assembly
Angle Transmitter
Ignition Switch Assy
Ignition Switch Assy
Mass-Reduction Idea
MuCell®
MuCell®
Replace with Keyless Go
Estimated Impact
2 to 5% Mass
Reduction
2 to 5% Mass
Reduction
NA
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Not able to do due to transmitter is part of
*.™__,_™_J::d°£!^^
Not able to do due to being part of the
dash
Already done
 Table F.ll-16: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Steering Column
                                  Switches subsystem
F.ll.5.5       Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

No mass-reductions ideas were chosen for the Steering Column Switches subsystem.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 721
     F.11.6  Steering Wheel Subsystem
F.ll.6.1
Subsystem Content Overview
Table  F.I 1-17 shows that Steering  Wheel subsystem  includes the Steering Wheel,
Steering Wheel Mounted Switches, Steering Wheel Air Bag,  Steering Wheel Trim sub-
subsystems.

$
a
CD
3


11
11
11
11
11






CO
c
ST
><
w
CD
3

06
06
06
06
06






CO
C7
CO
%
><
w
i— i-
CD

00
01
02
03
04








Description



SiGGrinci WnGGl Subsystem
Steering Wheel
Steering Wheel Mounted Switches
Steering Wheel Airbag ((Part of Safty System))
Steering Wheel Trim

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


2.000
0.182
0.000
0.106

2.288
24.227
1711
9.45%
0.13%
      Table F.ll-17: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Steering Wheel Subsystem
F.ll.6.2
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Venza steering wheel is a die cast magnesium rim with polyurethane over molding.
In addition, the steering wheel has the audio system, telephone and voice control included
as part of the steering wheel. Figure F.I 1-5 and Figure F.I 1-6 show the Toyota Venza
steering wheel and the trim cover, respectively.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 722
   Figure F.ll-5: Toyota Venza Steering Wheel
               (Source: FEV Photo)
                                   Figure F.ll-6: Steering Wheel Trim Cover
                                       (Source: FEV Photo)
F.ll.6.3
Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
Industry trends for steering wheels have been to die cast a lightweight material such as
magnesium or aluminum and over mold polyurethane for the grip. The steering wheel
grip can also be made of wood,  carbon fiber, leather, or cloth. For high-end vehicles,
emblems made out of wood,  plastic,  and aluminum can be  added.  Steering-mounted
switches and heated grips are options sometimes added. The automotive system company
Takata, in conjunction with plastics supplier Sabic, has developed a steering wheel out of
a Lexan copolymer resin. This steering wheel has passed all OEM testing  and will soon
be  added into  a production vehicle.  The Lexan steering wheel can save  over  20%
depending on the design and application. Figure F.I 1-7 shows options that can be added
to the steering wheel, such as elements  for a heated steering wheel and that material such
as wood or carbon can be made into steering wheels.
                           Heating elements

                                   Figure F.ll-7
                                         Wood & Carbon
-------
                                                                 Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                                March 30, 2012
                                                                                    Page 723
                                     (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Figure 5.11-8 shows the cross-section view of a steering wheel.
Decorative Parts
Switches
                                                    Rim Grip

                                                    Spokes


                                                    Heating system


                                                    Frame
                       Figure 5.11-8: Steering Wheel Cross-Section View
      Image Courtesy ofTakata website (http://www.takata.com/en/products/steeringwheel.html)
F.ll.6.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.I 1-18 shows the ideas that were considered for weight reductions in the Steering
Wheel subsystem.
     Component/Assembly

       Rear Trim Cover

       Steering Wheel

       Steering Wheel

       Steering Wheel
 Mass-Reduction Idea  )  Estimated Impact
    ..  „ ,    „         lo%l\/iS~"
    Use Polyone®

Make out of Carbon Fiber
  Make out of Die Cast

   Make out of Lexan
                              15 to 20% Mass
                              ___R^ducfonra__
                              10 to 15% Mass
                              _Rjsduction__
                              20 to 25% Mass
                                Reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
 Manufacturing and Material savings

 High material and processing cost
 Current steering wheel is made of
    f^iyoi^D^jyiifj^^^yl^L^^^
    Material and process save
  Table F.11-18: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Steering Wheel
                                          subsystem
F.ll.6.5       Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Table F.I 1-19 shows the weight reductions idea used for the Steering Wheel subsystem.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 724
ss
CO
CD"
3
_
11
IT
CO
CO
CD"
3
_
06
___
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
"04"
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Steering Wheel Subsystem
Steering Wheel
Steering Wheel
Mass-Reduction Ideas
Selected for Detail
Evaluation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
Replace Steering Wheel
with Lexan Composite
	 Wheel 	
PolyOne® Trim Cover
F.ll.6.6
        Table F.11-19: Mass-reduction ideas selected for the Steering Wheel subsystem
Reduction & Cost Impact
Table F.I 1-20 shows the weight and cost reductions per sub-subsystem of the Steering
Wheel subsystem.

Changing the steering wheel from  a typical die  cast aluminum over  molded  with
Polyurethane Rubber to a new lexan composite steering wheel reduced the mass by 20%
or .326kg with the lexan plastic as a new blend of plastic the cost to manufacture it is
high, so the savings that would normally been seen with reducing the amount of process
and material weight is off set to some degree by the cost of the lexan material. The cost
reduction is $.27

The steering wheel rear trim covers mass was also reduced  by 10% using the PolyOne
CFA® foaming process for injection molding. The mass savings was.011kg and a cost
savings of $.04
The combined changes amounted to a total mass save of .336kg and a cost savings of $.32
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 725

CO
C£
CD"
3

11
11
11
11
11


Subsystem

06
06
06
06
06


Sub- Subsystem

00
01
02
03
04


Description

Steering Wheel Subsystem
Steering Wheel Mounted Switches
Steering Wheel Airbag
Steering Wheel Trim


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select

__A__

A

A
Mass
Reduction
"k9" d)


0.326
0.000
0.000
0.011

0.336
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
IIQII
* (2)


$0.27
$0.00
$0.00
$0.04

$0.32
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$0.84
$0.00
$0.00
$4.04

$0.94
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


14.23%
0.00%
0.00%
0.46%

1.39%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.02%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

  Table F.11-20: Sub-subsystem mass-reduction and cost impact for Steering Wheel subsystem.
F.12   Climate Control System

The breakdown of the Climate  Control  system into its four subsystems is displayed in
Table F.12-1. As shown, the Air Handling/Body Ventilation subsystem contributes the
majority of the mass. This is largely due to the Main HVAC Unit, which resides in that
subsystem. The Main HVAC Unit includes the blower and all passages and door flaps
that control the speed, temperature, and location of the air as it is distributed throughout
the vehicle's cabin. It also houses two aluminum  heat exchangers (the Heater Core and
the Evaporator).
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 726
V)
><
cn.
oT
3

12
12
12
12
12


Subsystem

00
01
02
03
04


Sub-Subsystem

00
00
00
00
00


Description

Climate Control System
Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem
Heating/Defrosting Subsystem
Refrigeration/Air Conditioning Subsystem
Controls Subsystem

Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsystem
Mass
"kg"


12.813
1.033
1.331
0.485

15.662
1711
0.92%
         Table F.12-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for the Climate Control System
Table F.12-2  shows a total of 2.436 kg was reduced from the Climate Control system,
accompanied by a cost savings of $9.34. The Air Handling/Body Ventilation subsystem
contributed most significantly from a weight savings perspective. There were no mass
reduction ideas applied to the Refrigeration/Air Conditioning subsystem.

Lotus Engineering applied MuCell® extensively throughout the Climate Control system
in their study.  This analysis included the use of MuCell®, PolyOne's Chemical Foaming
Agents, and Zotefoams' Azote® foam. FEV and Lotus applied mass-reduction to a lot of
similar components in the Climate Control system.
^^^
u>
•$
ro

12
12
12
12
12


Subsystem

00
01
02
03
04


Sub-Subsystem

00
00
00
00
00


Description

Climate Control System
Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem
Heating/Defrosting Subsystem
Refrigeration/Air Conditioning Subsystem
Controls Subsystem


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A
A

A

A
Mass
Reduction
"k9"(D


2.034
0.393
0.000
0.009

2.436
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
II (Ml
* (2)


$7.27
$2.03
$0.00
$0.04

$9.34
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$3.58
$5.16
$0.00
$4.21

$3.83
(Decrease)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


15.88%
38.03%
0.00%
1 .84%

15.55%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.12%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%

0.14%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
        Table F.12-2: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Climate Control System
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 727
     F.12.1   Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem
F.12.1.1
Subsystem Content Overview
The mass breakdown of the Air Handling/Body Ventilation subsystem is shown in Table
F.12-3.  The largest mass contributor, not only for this subsystem, but for  the entire
Climate Control system, is the HVAC Main Unit.  Weighing approximately 10 kg, the
HVAC Main Unit includes the Heater Core and the Evaporator as well as all flaps and
motor/gearboxes to control where the air is distributed.
(f>
*<
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 728
                   Image F.12-1: Toyota Venza Main Air Duct Manifold
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
                                             Floor Distribution Ducts
  Image F.12-2: View of Toyota Venza's stripped-down interior (Front Passenger Side), showing
                               Floor Distribution Ducts
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
The HVAC Main Unit was bolted to the Cross-Car Beam under the Instrument Panel in
the Venza (Image F.12-3). The assembly is shown out of the vehicle in Image F.12-4.
This module is the heart of the Climate Control system.  It is the primary output controlled
by the user when the HVAC controls are input on the Instrument Panel. The HVAC Main
Unit connects to the A/C tubes in the engine compartment,  which run through the A/C
compressor and  through the condenser heat exchanger  (mounted flush with the engine's
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 729

radiator).  The refrigerant then travels through tubing and enters the expansion valve,
which is contained within the HVAC main unit along with the evaporator. Likewise, it
connects to the radiator system to bring warm fluid into the heater core heat exchanger
when the  heat is being used. The air is forced through the ducts by the blower motor,
which is housed in the HVAC main unit. A series of ducts and flaps controlled by the
user's inputs allow the air to pass to the appropriate compartments. This HVAC main unit
assembly  contains mostly talc-filled polypropylene  parts. There  are numerous electric
motors with gear boxes as well in the main unit to control vent flaps and direct air flow.
The evaporator and the heater core heat exchangers are constructed of aluminum.
                                        HVAC Mam Unit
                                     assembled to Cross-Car
          Image F.12-3: Toyota Venza Instrument Panel with Interior Trim Removed
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 730
                      Image F.12-4: Toyota Venza HVAC Main Unit
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
F.12.1.3
Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
Zotefoams, Inc. is a UK-based  company that uses a unique manufacturing process to
reduce the mass of plastics, essentially converting them into a foam-like substance. This
material has found use in, among other applications, climate control air ducts. Zotefoams'
material is extremely lightweight and all their foams are cross-linked. Depending on the
grade,  high-density polyethylene (HDPE) Zotefoam can have a density between 0.03 to
0.115 g/cm3. The density of regular HDPE is 0.95 g/cm3. If the volume of a component is
constant  and the material is changed from standard HDPE to a Zotefoams' grade, a
weight reduction of 88% to 97% is possible based on the densities. In reality, the volume
of the part increases some, decreasing the actual weight reduction to around 80%, which
is still quite substantial.

The process starts with an extruded sheet of polyethylene. The extrusion step is shown in
illustration (a) of Image F.12-5. Next, in illustration (b), the extruded slabs are put into a
high-pressure  autoclave and impregnated  with nitrogen in a  high-temperature, high-
pressure  environment.  In the  final  step, the nitrogen is allowed to  expand  in a low-
pressure autoclave, picture (c). When the slabs come out they are a foam-like substance.
                                    (a) Extrusion
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 731
                        (b) Nitrogen saturation in high pressure autoclave.
                        (c) Nitrogen expansion in low pressure autoclave.

                     Image F.12-5: Zotefoams Manufacturing Process
             (Source: Zotefoams http://zotefoams. com/pages/US/manufacturing-process. asp)
Once the foam slabs are produced, they can be manufactured into useable components. In
the case of the HVAC ducts, twin sheet molding is used. This process uses heat and air
pressure to force two separate sheets of foam to either side  of a mold thereby forming
them to the desired shape. The edges of the sheets are then welded together resulting in a
one-piece duct.

An example of an air duct manifold manufactured from Zotefoams' Azote® is shown in
Image F.12-6. A side-by-side comparison of the Zotefoams' duct with the baseline Venza
duct is  shown in Image F.12-7.  This illustrated similarity provides  a pre-validation of
feasibly applying such a material to the Air Duct Manifold of the Toyota Venza.
-------
                                                    Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                   March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 732
                   (a) Close-up View of Zotefoams Duct
                   (b) Zotefoams Front Air Duct Manifold


Image F.12-6: Air Duct Manifold manufactured from a Zotefoams' foam

          (Source: Part Courtesy of Zotefoams, Inc.; FEV, Inc. photo)
                           (a) Zotefoams Duct
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 733
                                  (b) Toyota Venza Duct

                     Image F.12-7: Comparison of Air Duct Manifolds
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Zotefoams currently has products in high-volume production in the automotive industry
for exterior wing mirror gaskets, but not for HVAC parts. Outside of the automotive
industry, however, all of the Environmental Control systems ducting on Boeing's 787
Dreamliner® are made from Zotefoams' material.

WEMAC  style vents (Image F.I2-8)  are  an option  for automotive  HVAC vents.
Currently used in airplanes,  WEMAC vents allow  for  more  user control  of airflow
direction and speed while providing simplified design and a reduced number of assembly
components. Since there are fewer parts, there is a possibility for weight reduction as well
as a potential cost savings.
                      Image F.12-8: Examples of WEMAC Vent Styles
        (Source: Chief Aircraft http://www. chiefaircraft. com/aircraft/windshields-vents/air-vents.html)
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 734

General Motors'  Cadillac Ciel concept car integrates the dash vents  behind a portion of
the instrument panel (Image F.12-9). This is not yet in production and it is not clear as to
whether this feature is for aesthetics, mass reduction, or both. It may, however, pose some
mass savings depending on what parts are needed to control airflow direction and permit
user control.
   Image F.12-9: Cadillac Ciel Concept Car Interior with Air Duct Vents Integrated Behind IP
 (Source: Auto Style Corner http://autostylecorner.blogspot.com/2011/10/2011-cadillac-ciel-concept-design.html)
F.12.1.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.12-4 shows the mass reduction ideas  considered for  the  Air Handling/Body
Ventilation  subsystem.  Industry  trends  mentioned  in the previous  section  were  all
considered.  In addition, Trexel's  MuCell®  process  and PolyOne's Chemical  Foaming
Agents are listed as they could be applied to many of the plastic components. For more
information on these processes, reference  Section F.4B.1.2.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 735
Component/Assembly
HVAC Ducts
HVAC Main Unit
Housings & Flaps
Dash Vent Covers
Dash Vents
Dash Vents
Mass-Reduction Idea
Zotefoams Azote® Foam
MuCell®
PolyOne CFA
Replace with WEMAC
vents used in airplanes
Eliminate air vents and
integrate behind instrument
panel and gauges
Estimated Impact
50-80% mass
reduction
10% mass reduction
10-15% mass
reduction
0-10% mass
reduction
0-20% mass
reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Moderate cost or cost save depending on
application, currently used on ducting in
Boeing 787 Dreamliner®
Low cost, MuCell® used in high volume
production by Ford
Low cost, CFA for PP currently under test
for use in high volume production
vehicles
Low cost, used in production for aircrafts
Low cost, on Cadillac Ciel (concept car)
not currently in production
      Table F.12-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Air
                          Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem
F.12.1.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The mass reduction ideas  applied to the  Climate  Control  system  within the Air
Handling/Body Ventilation subsystem are  shown in Table F.12-5.  Sub-subsystems that
did not have  any mass-reduction ideas are denoted by an "n/a" designation. Trexel's
MuCell® technology and  PolyOne's CFAs were applied to many plastic components,
mainly in the HVAC Main Unit. Zotefoams' Azote®  was used for the air distribution
ducts.


V)
*<
1
3


12
1°

12
12


CO
c
sr
*<
m
(D
3


01
01

01
01

en
a
cr
CO
c
cr
tn
"3
of
3

00
rp

03
04



Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description





Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation



Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem
Air Distribution Duct Components
(Duct Manifolds)
Body Air Outlets (Dash Vents)
HVAC Main Unit: Air Distribution Box/
Heater Core & Evaporator

Zotefoams Azote® material to replace blow-molded HOPE
ducts.
PolyOne CFA on Class A parts, MuCell® on non-Class A
parts, and Zotefoams Azote® on ducts.
MuCell® applied to applicable housings and flaps.

    Table F.12-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Air Handling/Body
                                Ventilation Subsystem
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 736
F.12.1.6      Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
Applying Azote® to the ducts in the Air Distribution Duct Components sub-subsystem
yielded the greatest mass reduction (1.454 kg), as shown in the first line of Table F.12-6.
A weight reduction of 80% is applied to these ducts as that is the realistic guideline
provided by Zotefoams. The cost was significantly decreased, resulting in a savings of
$6.45 for all of the parts  in the sub-sub system. The baseline HOPE parts were blow-
molded, which is an expensive process. The twin sheet  molding machinery used for the
Azote® parts is much less expensive than blow-molding  equipment. Even though Azote®
material is more expensive than standard HDPE, this increase in material cost did not
compare to the drastic reduction in machine burden. The overall manufacturing cost was
therefore lower. The  reason that Zotefoams is not currently used in production for
automotive HVAC ducts, even though it is lighter and less expensive, is because it is still
relatively new to the industry. There is  prevailing criteria  from the  past that is still
imposed by OEMs on new materials like Zotefoams'. To date, hesitancy on the part of the
manufacturer's   design  centers  has  limited  the   opportunity  for  entry,   let  alone
consideration.

There were two  smaller ducts  in the Body Air Outlets sub-subsystem that are injection-
molded parts. These parts were converted to Azote® for the redesign, however there is a
cost increase for this sub-subsystem because   injection molding, contrary to  blow
molding, is an inexpensive process and was even more  inexpensive than the twin sheet
forming used for the Azote® duct.

MuCell®  and Fob/One's CFAs account for the rest of the  weight savings.  These are
applied to the HVAC Main Unit's plastic components as well as the Dash Vents, totaling
a mass reduction of 0.581  kg. For these components, MuCell® and CFAs saved money.
The cost of MuCell® in this  study includes licensing  fees.  None of the costs include
tooling. Overall, the Air Handling/Body Ventilation subsystem saved $7.27.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 737

w
•<
2-
0
3

12
12
12
12


Subsystem

01
01
01
01


Sub-Subsystem

00
02
03
04


Description

Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem
Air Distribution Duct Components (Duct
Manifolds)
Body Air Outlets (Dash Vents)
HVAC Main Unit: Air Distribution Box/ Heater
Core & Evaporator


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A
X
A

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


1.454
0.103
0.478

2.034
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"<
orj-
oT
3

12
12
12


Subsystem

02
02
02


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
07


Description

Heating/Defrosting Subsystem
Front Window/Windshield Defrosting
Supplementary Heat Source

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


0.510
0.523

1.033
15.662
1711
6.59%
0.06%
     Table F.12-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Heating/Defrosting Subsystem
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 738
F.12.2.2
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Defroster Duct assembly is shown in Image F.12-10. It is made up of four parts. The
two side ducts are blow-molded HOPE. The two parts that make up the center manifold
are an injection-molded blend of PP and PE. The assembly is snapped together (no
fasteners are required).
  Image F.12-10: Toyota Venza's Defroster Duct Assembly Including Two Center Manifolds and
                                  Two Side Ducts
                               (Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
F.12.2.3
Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
Zotefoams' Azote® material, as described in Section F.12.1.3, is also applicable to this
subsystem, particularly the Defroster Duct Assembly. MuCell® and PolyOne's CFAs are
also industry trends that could be applied to reduce dthe mass of this subsystem, however,
the baseline HOPE blow-molded  part is by far what is most common in the industry
currently.
F.12.2.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Mass reduction  ideas  considered  are  shown  in  Table F.12-8. The four-component
assembly shown in Image F.12-10 could potentially be combined into one piece and
made out of a twin sheet forming process using Azote®.
Component/Assembly
Defroster Ducts
Mass-Reduction Idea
Merge into one part and
use Zotefoams Azote®
Foam
Estimated Impact
50-80% mass
reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Moderate cost or cost save depending on
application, currently used on ducting in
Boeing 787 Dreamliner®
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 739

        Table F.12-8: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the
                             Heating/Defrosting Subsystem
F. 12.2.5      Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas

Zotefoams' Azote® was chosen for the Heating/Defrosting subsystem (Table F.12-9). It
was merged into one piece.

O)
*<
1
3



12
12
12

OT
c
cr
(ft
sr
3


02
02
02

c
cr

cr
"<
ff
3

00
01
07



Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description




Heating/Defrosting Subsystem
Front Window/Windshield Defrosting
Supplementary Heat Source



Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation





Four-piece assembly merged into one piece using Zotefoams
Azote® material.
n/a

    Table F.12-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Heating/Defrosting
                                     Subsystem
F.12.2.6
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
The  results  of the mass reduction  for the Heating/Defrosting subsystem are shown in
Table F.12-10. As seen, 0.393 kg was saved at a cost decrease of $2.03. The two side
ducts were blow-molded, so money was  saved going to the twin sheet forming process;
however,  some money  was also spent converting the two injection molding pieces to
Azote® using twin sheet forming. These parts would still be supplied to the OEM  and
while no tooling  costs were included in  this analysis, the  OEM would still provide the
tooling as is the case with most OEM-supplier relationships.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 740

w
•<
2-
0
3

12
12
12


Subsystem

02
02
02


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
07


Description

Heating/Defrosting Subsystem
Front Window/Windshield Defrosting
Supplementary Heat Source


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A


A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


0.393
0.000

0.393
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"<
orj-
oT
3

12
12
12


Subsystem

04
04
04


Sub-Subsystem

00
02
03


Description

Controls Subsystem
Mechanical Control Head
Electronic Climate Control Unit

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


0.326
0.159

0.485
15.662
1711
3.09%
0.03%
         Table F.12-11: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Controls Subsystem
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 741
F. 12.3.2      Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The climate control operating switches, which is the primary assembly in the Mechanical
Control Head sub-subsystem is shown in Image F.12-11.
                    Image F.12-11: Toyota Venza HVAC User Controls
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
F. 12.3.3      Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

An industry trend concerning the HVAC user controls is to integrate them into a touch
screen. Touch screens are currently the main interface in most luxury cars and are making
their way into non-luxury cars  as well. Touch screens can be costly, however, in both
development and hardware costs.
F. 12.3.4      Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

This Electronic Unit (not pictured) is a circuit board enclosed in a plastic (ABS) housing.
It is possible to apply MuCell® to this housing, as shown for consideration in Table
F.12-12. Also, integration of the HVAC user controls into a touch screen was considered.
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 742
Component/Assembly
Climate Control Unit
Housing
HVAC User Controls
Mass-Reduction Idea
MuCell®
Integrate into touch screen
Estimated Impact
10% mass reduction
10% mass reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Low cost, MuCell® used in high volume
production by Ford
High cost, in production on many luxury
cars
   Table F.12-12: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Controls
                                     Subsystem
F.12.3.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
MuCell® was  selected to reduce  the  weight of the Climate  Control Unit's  Housing
(Table F.12-13). Integrating the HVAC user controls into a touch screen was not applied
in this analysis as the weight savings was not significant enough to overcome the cost
increase.

O)
*<
£
3



12
12
12

OT
c
cr
U>
(D
3


04
04
04

c
cr

cr
0)

of
3

00
02
03



Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description




Controls Subsystem
Mechanical Control Head
Electronic Climate Control Unit



Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation





n/a
MuCell® applied to Control Unit Housing.

   Table F.12-13: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Controls Subsystem
F.12.3.6
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
The results of lightweighting the Electronic Climate Control Unit Housing are shown in
Table F.12-14. MuCell was the only idea applied and it resulted in a $0.04 cost save.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 743

w
•<
2-
0
3

12
12
12


Subsystem

04
04
04


Sub-Subsystem

00
02
03


Description

Controls Subsystem
Mechanical Control Head
Electronic Climate Control Unit


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select



A

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


0.000
0.009

0.009
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 744
(f>
I
CD"
3

13
13
13
13
13
13


Subsystem

00
01
06
07
13
21


Sub-Subsystem

00
00
00
00
00
00


Description

Info, Gage & Warning Device System
Instrument Cluster Subsystem
Horn Subsystem
Clock/Timekeeping Subsystem
Parking or Reversing Aid Subsystem
Non-Automotive Driver Information Subsystem

Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsystem
Mass
"kg"


1.399
0.500
n/a
n/a
n/a

1.899
1711
0.11%
    Table F.13-0-6: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Info, Gage & Warning Device System
As Table F.13-2 shows, weight reduction ideas were applied to the instrument cluster
subsystem. The ideas reduced the system weight by 0.076kg which is a 4% system mass
reduction.

O)
*<
1

13
13
13
13
13
13


Subsystem

00
01
06
07
13
21


Sub-Subsystem

00
00
00
00
00
00


Description

Info, Gage & Warning Device System
Instrument Cluster Subsystem
Horn Subsystem
Clock/Timekeeping Subsystem
Parking or Reversing Aid Subsystem
Non-Automotive Driver Information Subsystem


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A





A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


0.076
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.076
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)


$0.19
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.19
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$2.45
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$2.45
(Decrease)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


5.44%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

4.01%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.004%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%

0.004%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
 Table F.13-0-7: Preliminary Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Info, Gage & Warning Device
                                        System
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 745
     F.13.1    Instrument Cluster Subsystem
F.13.1.1
Subsystem Content Overview
The two sub-subsystems within the Instrument Cluster subsystem are pictured in Image
F.13-1 and Image F.13-2. They are the driver information center and the IP cluster.
          Image F.13-1: Driver Information Center
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
                                                          Image F.13-2: IP Cluster
As seen in Table F.13-3, the most significant contributor to the mass of the Instrument
Cluster subsystem is the IP cluster. This includes the cluster lense, cluster mask assembly,
and the cluster rear housing assembly.
(f>
I
CD"
3

13
13
13


Subsystem

01
01
01


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02


Description

Instrument Cluster Subsystem
Driver Information Center
IP Cluster

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


0.447
0.952

1.399
1.899
1711
73.67%
0.08%
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 746

     Table F.13-0-8: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Instrument Cluster Subsystem
F.13.1.2
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The  driver information center (DIG) is approximately 335mm long, 90mm wide, and
120mm in height. The IP cluster also follows the industry convention. It is approximately
360mm long, 180 mm wide, and 140mm in height. Both sub-subsystems contain a lense,
lense mask, rear housing, circuit board and display assembly. The majority of the material
is PP (polypropylene). The lenses are made of PMMA.
F.13.1.3
Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
The industry is beginning to use advanced technology for plastic material weight savings.
A few pioneers are Trexel and  PolyOne. Trexel's MuCell® process and PolyOne's
Chemical Foaming Agents (CFAs) are detailed further in Section F.4B.1.2.
F.13.1.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Comparing the  options  in  the  industry, both MuCell® and PolyOne's  CFAs were
considered in the mass reduction brainstorming process as Table F.13-4 shows. In the
Lotus report, they suggested MuCell® as the weight reduction idea for instrument cluster
subsystem.
Component/ Assembly
Instrument Cluster
Subsystem
Instrument Cluster
Subsystem
Mass-Reduction Idea
MuCell®
PolyOne CFA
Estimated Impact
10-20% weight save
10-15% weight save
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Low cost, MuCell® used in high volume
production by Ford
Low cost, CFA for PP currently under test
for use in high volume production
vehicles
   Table F.13-0-9: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Instrument
                                 Cluster Subsystem
F.13.1.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
MuCell® was selected for cost analysis because all eligible parts in this subsystem had
non-Class A  surfaces. That is, MuCell® was applied to parts that the customer cannot
see.  Components such as the  driver information center screen or info, plate were not
applicable  for  MuCell®. There  were  no eligible  Class  A surface  finish parts for
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 747

PolyOne's CFAs to be applied. Also, MuCell® is best applied to plastic parts that have a
thickness of 2mm or above. The ideas were applied to the components shown in Table
F.13-5. Each of these components is pictured in Images F.13-3 through F.13-8.
U)
~~<
-------
         (Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
                                              Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                            March 30, 2012
                                                                Page 748

                                        (Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
            Image F.13-7: Display Housing
              (Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
                                           Image F.13-8: Cluster Mask Assembly
                                      (Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
F.13.1.6
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
Table F.13-6 shows a summary of the overall cost impact driven by the weight reduction
applied to the instrument cluster subsystem.  The 0.076kg  saved is 100% a result of the
MuCell® applied to the six parts listed in Table F.13-5. Applying MuCell® to these
components resulted in a cost savings of $0.19.
     (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
     (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

v>
I

13
13
13


Subsystem

01
01
01


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02


Description

Instrument Cluster Subsystem
Driver Information Center
IP Cluster


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A
A

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" CD


0.027
0.049

0.076
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
IKtll
* (2)


$0.15
$0.04

$0.19
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$5.32
$0.84

$2.45
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs./ Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


6.10%
5.13%

15.21%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.002%
0.003%

0.004%
 Table F.13-0-11: Calculated Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Results for Instrument
                                   Cluster Subsystem
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 749
F.14   In-Vehicle Entertainment System
Toyota Venza has a baseline entertainment system with a basic radio, CD, and MP3 input
connection with a sum mass of 4.412 kg (Table F.14-1).
V)
><
a
CD
3

15
15
15
15


Subsystem

00
01
02
03


Sub-Subsystem

00
00
00
00


Description

In-Vehicle Entertainment System
Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem
Antenna Subsystem
Speaker Subsystem

Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsystem
Mass
"kg"


3.145
0.159
1.281

4.586
1711
0.27%
      Table F.14-0-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for In-Vehicle Entertainment System
                           Image F.14-1 :Toyota Venza Radio

                                  (Source: FEVphoto)
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 750

The days of listening to radio, CD players, or even just singing out loud for entertainment
in the car are long gone.  Today's auto buyers are moving into high-tech entertainment
with top trends to outfit their vehicles,  including satellite  radio,  DVDs on overhead
screens, and even video game console hooked up in the backseat. In-vehicle computers
and entertainment systems are just a few components  of the $56 billion market for in-
vehicle entertainment.

Portable entertainment systems are quickly becoming a necessity for families of all sizes.
It is not only luxury cars that are installed with premium entertainment accessories such
as MP3 jacks, surround-sound audio, and video players with cinematic options: new fleets
of cars and minivans are already equipped with the latest DVD player  and overhead TV
screens.

Table F.I4-2 shows the areas found in which mass weight reduction is available  without
loss of functionality.

CO
ST



15
15
15
15



Subsyster
3


'oo
'01
*02
"03



CO
c
o-
CO
I
*<
U)
(D
3

'oo
'oo
Koo
'oo



Description



In-Vehicle Entertainment System
Receivsr and Audio Media Subsystem
^ntejTnaJk^
Speaker Subsystem



Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Select




A
A


A

Mass
Reduction
"kg" (D




1.024
0.049
0.000

1.073
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)




$1.74
$0.69
$0.00

$2.43
(Decrease)
Avsrage
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg



$1.70
$14.17
$0.00

$2.27
(Decrease)
System/
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"O/ "



32.55%
30.82%
0.00%

23.39%

Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
^



0.06%
0.00%
0.00%

0.06%

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
r(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

          Table F.14-0-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body System Group
     F.14.1   In-Vehicle Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem

As seen in Table F.14-3, the steel case enclosures of the Radio, CD player, XM receiver,
and Antenna components are the most significant contributors to the Receiver and Audio
Media subsystem mass.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 751
V)
><
£
CD
3

15
15
15
15
15


Subsystem

01
01
01
01
07


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
02
03
00


Description

Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem
Enclosures
Electronic Boards
Plastic Enclosure
Multimedia Interface (USB)

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


1.206
1.036
0.648
0.256

3.145
4.586
1711
68.59%
0.18%
  Table F.14-0-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem.
F.14.1.1
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
Toyota's quality and interior design over the past 10  years  gives  other  automakers
something to consider and  compete with in the marketplace.  Celebrating the 10-year
anniversary of its Prius clearly shows that the company  can certainly lead the industry
when it wants  - just not  so much  with advanced infotainment and Smartphone
integration. Toyota previously lagged behind its competitors' technologies that respond to
spoken commands, such as Ford's SYNC and General Motors' MyLink. Through spoken
commands, motorists can use these systems  without taking their hands off the wheel or
their eyes off the road. Most automakers are trying to make sure that they display things
in a safe, secure manner and that these options do not distract motorists.
                        Image F.14-2:Toyota Venza Radio source
                                  (Source: FEVphoto)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 752
Entune™ is Toyota's  next-generation infotainment  system,  integrating  aspects of
navigation with media and other fun stuff, too. Like much of its competition, Toyota is
offering  smartphone integration,  hitting   all  the  major  bases  with  support  for
BlackBerry™, Android™, and iPhone. Users will need to  download and  install an
application to their phones, which will then provide all the data their car needs. The car
itself does not have an onboard modem or a separate  data plan, so vehicle owners will
need to pay for one.

A benefit is that the system is said to be easily upgradeable via software update, providing
some degree of "future-proofing" - that is, trying to anticipate future developments. This
is something, at this point, fairly rare in the infotainment business, and a rather nice thing
to provide.

There are  a variety  of apps that work  with  Entune™,  the biggest  being Bing™,
MovieTickets.com™, OpenTable®, and Pandora® Internet radio. However, the standard
apps will not be upgraded to include Entune™ support:  separate versions will be required.
This potentially means users will need two copies of Pandora installed on their phones,
which is a decidedly unfortunate deal if a user is tight on storage.
F.14.1.2      Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

In-car entertainment, sometimes referred to as ICE, is a collection of hardware devices
installed into automobiles and other forms of transportation to provide audio or visual
(sometimes both) entertainment and satellite navigation systems (SatNav). This includes
playing  media such as CDs, DVDs, Free view/TV, USB and/or other optional surround
sound, or DSP systems.  Also increasingly  common are the incorporation of video game
consoles into the vehicle. In-car entertainment is becoming more widely available due to
reduced costs of devices  such as  LCD screen/monitors and the consumer cost  of the
converging media playable technologies: single hardware units are capable of playing
CD, MP3, WMA, DVD. Mass weight reduction in these components is high on the design
priority list when combining these options.
F.14.1.3      Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

Table F.14-7 compiles the mass reduction ideas considered for the Receiver and Audio
Media subsystem. Lotus Engineering did not apply any mass reduction ideas to the In-
Vehicle Entertainment system. The  plastic case  replaces a formed sheet metal  case
assembled with screws and cooled with fans. The new plastic  case achieves required EMI
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 753

and RFI shielding by completely enclosing electronics with a mesh Faraday cage  that is
insert molded. (The Faraday cage is named for English scientist Michael Faraday, who
invented it in 1836.)

For a radio, Faraday cages  shield external electromagnetic radiation if the  conductor is
thick  enough and  the  holes  that  create the mesh are  significantly smaller than the
radiation's wavelength. Electrical  charges within  the  cage's  conducting material  will
redistribute so as to cancel  the field's effects in the cage's interior. This phenomenon is
also  employed  to  protect  electronic  equipment  from  lightning  strikes  and  other
electrostatic discharges.
Component/ Assembly
Steel case enclosures
Steel case enclosures
CD Player Modual
Aluminum Case Assemt
Aluminum Case Assemt
Mass-Reduction Idea
replace with Aluminum
replace with Plastic
replace CD player with
USB &AUX jack
Carbon fiber material rep
Magnesium material repl;
Estimated Impact
10% weight save
50% weight save
30% weight save
w
50% weight save
30% weight save
Risks & Trade-offs
and/or Benefits
Integrity and strength
compromised
Extensive engineering
hurdles to overcome
Low risk moderate
cost increase
Extensive engineering
hurdles to overcome
Low risk moderate
cost increase
  Table F.14-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Receiver and
                               Audio Media Subsystem
F.14.1.4
Magnetic Tooling
The  cutting, folding, and the eventual insertion of the mesh into the mold requires
innovative magnetic tooling and the use of robots to transfer the formed mesh into the
mold.

The new plastic case provides  better shielding than the previously used metal cases. There
are lower emissions over a range of 150 Hz to 430 MHz. OEMs are seeking improved
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 754

electromagnetic  interference to avoid any internal cross talk,  such as interference with
electronic engine controls.

The system cost to assemble the radio is reduced by one-third with the new technology.
Twenty-nine  screws  are  completely eliminated. Use of  injection  molding  allowed
incorporation of design features not possible with the sheet metal case. For example,
Delphi designed slide lock and snap lock features that allow fast snap assembly. Other
mechanical features are also integrated into  the design.  Mechanical  part reduction
includes  BSD grounding  clips,  fasteners and  main board  grounding. Assembly parts
eliminated included a separate assembly fixture and use  of torque feedback screwdrivers.

As a result, the case is also more rigid, reducing rattle  noises. There is also a significant
increase  in natural frequency. Natural  frequency is the frequency at which a system
naturally vibrates once it has been set into motion. Vibration testing on the new plastic
case radio showed a 25% increase in natural frequency.
F.14.1.5      Recycled Plastic

Delphi is using reprocessed plastic to make the case. MRC Polymers of Chicago supplies
16 percent glass-filled PC/ABS for the part, which is produced by Amity Mold of Tipp
City,  OH.  The  plastic comes  from post  industrial  and post consumer sources.  The
PC/ABS blend had  to  be optimized to meet  environmental requirements  and reduce
warping.

The  design of the plastic case lowered the internal temperature.  One  reason  for the
improved thermal management is insulation of the heat sink from the interior of the radio.
The cooling fan was eliminated due to the isolative properties of the plastic.  As a result,
electric current used is also reduced, improving vehicle mileage.

Other advantages include:

       • Weight is reduced in the structural support for the radio

       • Safety is improved with reduced injuries from metal cuts: protective gloves are
         not required for assembly

       • Condensation is eliminated during temperature cycling: dew-point temperature
         is not achieved so no moisture drops on the circuit board

       • Lower dust intrusion during standard testing
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 755

The  Plastic Case  design is ultimately going to be used across the board at Delphi.
Wherever it is  currently using  sheet  metal, it will  instead  use this technology. Its
application is quite broad-based and can be used as a competitive advantage for all of
their product lines.

Another Delphi  innovation is how the cage is placed in a mold cavity and then held in
position while plastic is injected at high pressures. Many specifics of the manufacturing
technology are proprietary and covered by 29 U.S. patents pending.
F.14.1.6      Widespread Application

Applicable to any automotive interior electronic packaging, the same advantages apply:
part and  weight  reductions, integration of  mechanical  and  electrical features,  and
improved air cooling with no loss of shielding. Delphi is also exploring non-automotive
consumer applications.

The Delphi plastic radio case could replace a wide range of shielding approaches besides
sheet metal cases. These include die cast metal cases,  conductive coatings (paints  and
plating), board-level  shielding  for individual  metal cases, conductive plastics,  and
conductive additives.
F.14.1.7      Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas

The  mass reduction idea selected replaces a formed sheet metal case assembled with
screws and cooled with fans. The new plastic  case achieves  required EMI  and RFI
shielding by completely enclosing electronics with  a mesh Faraday cage  that is insert
molded. Cost benefit and mass reduction benefit a total win.

Eliminating the CD player and replacing  it with ether a USB or AUX jack  to allow
interface with phones or MP3 players for prerecorded or streamed music was not selected
at this time: there is  still demand from many customers for the capability to play their
favorite CDs.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 756
CO
*<
1
15
15





Subsystem
1
01





Sub-
Subsystem
00
01





Description
Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem
Infotainment Enclosure





Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation

Replace 1018 steel farecation with Premier
A240-HTHF molded enclosure





  Table F.14-5: Mass-Reduction Idea Selected for Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem Analysis
F.14.1.8
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates
The greatest mass reduction came as a result of replacing steel cases with plastic on the
Venza Infotainment system as seen in Table F.14-9.
                       Image F.14-3: Delphi Ultra Light Radio source
                                  (Source: Google images)
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 757

OT
S2.
3

Ts"
15
15
15



Subsystem

*ooT
01
'02
"03



Sub-Subsyste
3
'bb"
*oo
'oo
'00



Description

In-Vehicle Entertainment System
Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem
^A£rtenna_Subs)^stem 	
Speaker Subsystem



Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select

—
A
A


A

Mass
Reduction
"kg" (1)


1.024
0.049
0.000

1.073
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)


$1.74
$0.69
$0.00

$2.43
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg

—
$1.70
$14.17
$0.00

$2.27
(Decrease)
System/
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction

—
32.55%
30.82%
0.00%

23.39%

Vehicle
Mass
Reduction

____
0.06%
0.00%
0.00%

0.06%

(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
r(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

    Table F.14-6: Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Receiver and Audio Media
                                     Subsystem
     F.14.2  Antenna Subsystem

The  Antenna subsystem is a miniature  copy of the radio package, with a small steel
enclosure,  a circuit board, and the required connection  to receive a signal from  the
antenna and send it on to the radio.

The Antenna enclosure, like that of the radio, is a steel construction and is another good
opportunity for the molded plastic configuration. The simplicity of the molded component
and the easy of assembly makes this a good conversion for this application. Table F.14-7
shows the mass of the Antenna subsystem
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 758
V)
><
a
CD
3

15
15


Subsystem

02
02


Sub-Subsystem

00
01


Description

Antenna Subsystem
Infotainment Antennas and Cables

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


0.159

0.159
4.586
1711
3.47%
0.01%
           Table F.14-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Antenna Subsystem.


The cost related to the Antenna subsystem is all related to the conversion of the enclosure
from  steel to plastics using the same material and snap fit design as the radio described
being used by General Motors in their new model vehicles across the board. I am sure that
we will see more utilization of this kind of material and molded construction in the future.

Table F.I4-8  will  show the  cost implication  of using a  RFI  molded case  in this
subsystem.

Subsystem

02
02


Sub-Subsystem

00
01


Description

Antenna Subsystem
Infotainment Antennas and Cables


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" CD


0.049

0.049
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 759
     F.14.3  Speaker Subsystem
The Speaker subsystem was inspected and evaluated with similar automotive and other
comparative sound systems in the market today. We found no mass weight or quality of
sound advantage in trying to replace to present components.
     F.14.4  Total Mass Reduction and Cost Impact

In a vehicle that weighs 1711 kg, the Infotainment system is a small percentage of that
mass. With the use of today's new, innovative materials and process methodologies that
change the norm of assembly, however, we can improve the end result.

u>
•<
2-
0
3

15
15
15
15


Subsystem

00
01
02
03


Sub-Subsystem

00
00
00
00


Description

In-Vehicle Entertainment System
Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem
Antenna Subsystem
Speaker Subsystem


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


A
A


A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" CD


0.896
0.049
0.000

0.945
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Mrt-ii
* (2)


$1.81
$0.69
$0.00

$2.51
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


$2.02
$14.17
$0.00

$2.65
(Decrease)
System/
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


28.48%
30.82%
0.00%

20.60%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.05%
0.00%
0.00%

0.06%
   (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
   (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
         Table F.14-9:  Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for In-Vehicle Entertainment
F.15   Lighting System

The Lighting system, broken down in Table F.15-1, is largely made up of the Venza's
exterior light assemblies, which are most notably, the Front Headlamp assemblies and
Rear Tail Lamp assemblies. Four interior lighting switches are also included, but are not a
significant mass contributor. There is no mass for the Interior Lighting subsystem as these
components were kept with their respective interior assemblies (e.g., Instrument Panel or
Door Trim).
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 760
V)
><
cn.
oT
3

17
17
17
17
17


Subsystem

00
01
02
03
05


Sub-Subsystem

00
00
00
00
00


Description

Lighting System
Front Lighting Subsystem
Interior Lighting Subsystem
Rear Lighting Subsystem
Lighting Switches Subsystem

Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsystem
Mass
"kg"


6.090
0.000
3.827
0.127

10.044
1711
0.59%
            Table F.15-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for the Lighting System


The Front Lighting subsystem was the only subsystem with weight reduction applied as
seen in Table F.15-2, which resulted  in 0.531 kg of mass saved with a cost increase of
$0.76. The Rear Lighting subsystem did not lend itself to mass reduction ideas due to the
configuration of the assembly. A foaming agent could not be applied to the Rear Tail
Lamp  Housings because it would reduce the aesthetic quality of the reflective coating.
The Front Headlamp Housings  did not have  such a coating  on the housings (since the
Front Headlamps had separate reflector components).

u>
•$
ro

17
17
17
17
17


Subsystem

00
01
02
03
05


Sub-Subsystem

00
00
00
00
00


Description

Lighting System
Front Lighting Subsystem
Interior Lighting Subsystem
Rear Lighting Subsystem
Lighting Switches Subsystem


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


C




C
Mass
Reduction
"kg" CD


0.531
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.531
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Mrt-ii
* (2)


-$0.76
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

-$0.76
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg


-$1 .42
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

-$1.42
(Increase)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"


8.73%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

5.29%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"


0.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.03%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
            Table F.15-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Lighting System
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 761

Lotus Engineering did not apply any mass reduction ideas to the Lighting system.
     F.15.1   Front Lighting Subsystem
F.15.1.1
Subsystems Content Overview
A breakdown of the Front Lighting subsystem is shown in Table F.I5-3. This subsystem
makes up approximately 60% of the Lighting system's mass and most of that is from the
Headlamp Cluster Assembly sub-subsystem. This includes the Front Headlamps of the
vehicle. The Supplemental Front Lamps subsystem includes the front Fog Lamps.
(f>
*<
-------
                                                     Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 762
      Image F.15-1: Toyota Venza Front Headlamp Assembly Example
(Source: ebay http://www.ebay.com/itm/Toyota-Venza-Headlight-Head-Lamp-Halogen-RH-
                /390285376072?item=390285376072&vxp=mtr)
           Image F.15-2: Toyota Venza Front Headlamp Housing
                          (Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 763
 Image F.15-3: Toyota Venza Front Headlamp Housing with Inner Reflector & Project Magnifier
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)


The Inner Reflector in Image  F.15-3 reflects the  light produced by the halogen bulb.
Behind the Projector Magnifier in Image F.15-3 there is a Projector Reflector which
reflects the light produced by the  projector light. This Projector  Reflector is shown by
itself in two views in Image F.15-4.
                      Image 5-17.4: Toyota Venza Projector Reflector
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 764

The Front Fog Lights have a multi-piece housing made of various types of plastic, one of
which has a chrome Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) coating for light reflectance.
F.15.1.3
Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
Various types of plastics are used in headlamp assemblies depending on their application
and purpose. The reflector component helps illuminate the light output of the bulbs and is
a relatively dense plastic because of the high heat requirements it needs to maintain. Often
times, a Bulk Molding Compound (BMC) is used for the reflectors, which is capable of
enduring the elevated temperatures.  BMCs have a relatively high density compared to
other plastics.  SABIC has a product line called Ultem® for this  specific application,
which is a type of polyetherimide (PEI). These plastics are specifically developed and
used for headlamp reflectors  so they possess the necessary thermal requirements plus
have a lower density compared to  BMCs. Typical BMCs have a density of 2 g/cm3 and
Ultem® PEI has a density of approximately 1.3 g/cm3. In addition, Ultem® PEI can be
molded in thinner wall sections. SABIC's Ultem® material has been used in production
and a few examples are shown in Image F-1F.6.
            Recent Main  Beam  Ultem Reflectors
              Image F.15-5: SABIC Ultem® Production Application Examples.
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 765
                                (Photo Courtesy ofSABIC)
Although more  expensive from a material standpoint, Ultem® saves some cost on
processing. As shown in Image F.15-6, when using a PEI such as Ultem®, the part can
go directly from its injection molding  step to metalizing, saving  on surface preparation
costs.  The  metalizing  often  takes  place  through  a process called  Physical  Vapor
Deposition (PVD) for headlamp reflectors.
      Benefits of Direct Metallization & Recycling
      BMC
ULTEM*  PEI
                                          •wv
                                           1/1
                                           o
                                           U
                                           CD
                                          _
                                           OJ
                                                   BMC       ULTEM PEI
                                       - Higher PEI Material Cost
                                       - No Deflashing Required
                                       - No Base Coat
                                       - Recycle Mold Scrap
                                       - Recycle Metalized Scrap
                                       - Lower PEI Systems Cost

                    Reduced Investment and  Manufacturing Cost
            Image F.15-6: Processing Comparison between BMC and Ultem® PEI
                                (Image Courtesy ofSABIC)
Other recent industry trends with headlights concern the actual light source and output.
Transitioning from the traditional halogen bulbs to High Intensity Discharge (HID) and
LED  lights are becoming popular choices both  for visibility  and for styling.  These
alternative lights, however, do not necessarily offer mass reduction. HID lights require a
ballast, which adds weight. LEDs, although known for not emitting much heat at the light
output, do give off considerable heat at the light source and often require additional heat
sinks or cooling fans to keep from overheating. The addition of these cooling mechanisms
will ultimately increase the mass of the headlamp as well.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 766

Using LEDs can have a favorable effect on fuel economy in an indirect manner, however.
Hewlett-Packard performed a study using LEDs for just the turn signal lamps. The study
indicates that  the  alternator may be able to be down-sized due to a reduced power
consumption since LEDs are  more efficient than incandescent  bulbs. Also, a lighter
weight wiring harness may be implemented.[1]

Reducing the size of the headlamp is another option; however, doing this will require an
increase in material elsewhere. That is,  if the  headlamp volume  was reduced,  then the
surrounding sheet  metal  on the car would have  to increase in  volume, thus actually
increasing the overall weight of the car as opposed to decreasing it.
F.15.1.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
The mass reduction ideas considered for the Front Lighting subsystem are compiled in
Table  F.15-4. Trexel's MuCell® process is considered for use  on applicable plastic
housings along with PolyOne's Chemical Foaming Agents, reference  Section F.4B.1.2
for more information on these technologies. In addition, the Ultem® PEI material was
considered as discussed in the previous section. For the Rear Tail Lamp Reflectors, PEI
was not applicable as those components were already made of a lightweight PBT plastic.
Component/Assembly
Front Headlamp
Housing
Front Headlamp Inner
Reflector
Front Headlamp
Projector Reflector
Headlamp Cluster
Assembly
Mass-Reduction Idea
MuCell®
SABIC Ultem®
SABIC Ultem®
Use LED lights instead of
halogen bulbs
Estimated Impact
10% mass reduction
40-50% mass
reduction
20-25% mass
reduction
Potential mass
increase
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Low cost, MuCell® used in high volume
production by Ford
High Cost, used on Cadillac CIS, Audi
A1 , and Toyota Sienna
High Cost, used on Cadillac CTS, Audi
A1 , and Toyota Sienna
Used in high volume production on
numerous Audi and Mercedes-Benz
models, may increase mass due to
required heat sink or fan
 Table F.15-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Front Lighting
                                    Subsystem
F.15.1.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The mass reduction ideas that were selected for the Front Lighting subsystem are listed in
Table  F.15-5. Ultem® PEI was used for the Front Headlamp Inner Reflectors  and
Projector Reflectors. MuCell® was applied to the Front Headlamp Housings. LEDs were
not selected to replace the halogen bulbs do to the additional required cooling parts.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 767
V)
*<
1

17
17
17
17
17

Subsystem

01
01
01
01
01

Sub-Subsystem

00
01
04
05
99

Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

Front Lighting Subsystem
Headlamp Cluster Assy
Supplemental Front Lamps
Side Repeater / Marker Lamps
Misc.

Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation


MuCell® applied to Headlamp Housings. SABIC's Ultem®
replace BMC material on Front Headlamp Reflectors.
n/a
n/a
n/a

 Table F.15-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Front Lighting Subsystem
F.15.1.6
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
The mass reductions that resulted for the Front Lighting subsystem, and thus the entire
Lighting system itself since this was the only subsystem that had weight reduction ideas
applied to it, are shown in  Table F.15-6.  Of the 0.531 kg of mass  reduced from the
subsystem, 73% is a result of using the Ultem® PEI for the reflectors  and the remaining
27% is caused by applying MuCell® to the Front  Headlamp Housings. From  a cost
standpoint, the use of Ultem® PEI increased the cost differential by $1.09, but MuCell®
decreased the cost by $0.33 resulting in the overall $0.76 cost hit.

Using  Ultem® PEI more than doubled the material cost for the  inner  reflectors. PEI
reduced, however,  the processing cost. With  the  bulk molding compound,  it was
necessary to wash, base coat, and allow curing time before PVD could occur. With
Ultem® PEI, however, the reflector can go directly from injection molding to PVD. This
should be the only change in cost seen by the OEM (i.e., there are already manufacturing
facilities setup who can handle the volume and there are no special licensing fees or price
premium for this material).
-------
                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 768

w
•<
2-
0
3

17
17
17
17
17


Subsystem

01
01
01
01
01


Sub-Subsystem

00
01
04
05
99


Description

Front Lighting Subsystem
Headlamp Cluster Assy
Supplemental Front Lamps
Side Repeater / Marker Lamps
Misc.


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select


C




C
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)


0.531
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.531
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 769
                        Production Process of Automotive Wire
                                  -I- Shipping

                           Specialty Wire and Cable
   J- Snipping

ABS Cable
                   Figure F.16-1: Production Process of Automotive Wire
The Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control system is made up of the Electrical
Wiring and Circuit Protection subsystem.  As shown in Table F.16-1, this makes up the
total system.
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 770
ss
CO
CD"

18
18


Subsystem

00
01


Sub-Subsystem

00
00


Description

Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System
Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem

Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsystem
Mass
"kg"


23.944

23.944
1711
1.40%
              Table F.16-1: Mass Breakdown by Subsystem for Electrical System.
Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection system (Table F.16-2).

g
a.
CD
liT
18


Subsystem
00
01


Sub- Subsystem
00
00


Description
Electrical Dis. and Electronic Control System
Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection
Subsystem


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
	
A

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)

0.889

0.889
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
"$" (2)

$1.47

$1.47
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
	
$1.66

$1.66
(Decrease)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
	
3.71%

3.71%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
	
0.05%

0.05%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase


             Table 5.16-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical System
     F.16.1   Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem
F.16.1.1
Subsystem Content Overview
Image  F.16-3  shows  the structure  of the  subsystem  Electrical Wiring  and Circuit
Protection. The included sub-subsystems,  Front End  and Engine Compartment Wiring,
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 771

Instrument Panel Harness, Body and  Rear End Wiring,  Battery  Cables, Engine and
Transmission Wiring and Seat Harness. Image F.16-1 shows an instrument panel wiring
harness.
                     Image F.16-1: Instrument Panel Wiring Harness
                                (Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
The  most  significant contributor  to  the  mass  of the  Electrical  Wiring and Circuit
Protection subsystem is the Front End and Engine Compartment Wiring sub-subsystem at
7.525kg. Table F.16-3 shows the mass contribution of all included sub-subsystems.

CO
1— t-
CD
3


18
18
18
18
18
18
18







§"
w
CD
3

01
01
01
01
01
01
01






CO
c
9"
CO
ST
**•
i— t-
CD

00
01
02
03
04
05
06








Description



Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem
Front End and Engine Compartment Wiring
Instrument Panel Harness
Body and Rear End Wiring
Battery Cables
Engine and Transmission Wiring
Seat Harness

Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"


7.525
6.133
6.599
0.682
2.671
0.333

23.944
23.944
1711
100.00%
1.40%
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 772

  Table F.16-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Electrical Wring and Circuit Protection
                                    Subsystem

F.16.1.2      Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology

The  Toyota  Venza's electrical  systems follow an  industry norm with copper wire
contained in PVC insulation. Wire gauge sizes are optimized for current capacities.
F.16.1.3      Mass-Reduction Industry Trends

Industry  trends for automotive wiring systems allow for a variety for wire and wire
sheathing options. The wire compositions come in many combinations, annealed bare
copper, silver tin and nickel-plated copper, copper clad steel,  copper clad  aluminum,
copper clad magnesium, stranded, single core and flat cables. Reviewing today's market
options, each wire type is found to have its different pros and cons. For this  study, cost
and weight were the most closely examined in order to determine the final selection  for
mass weight reduction.

Wire  sheathing used since  the 1970s has been mostly PVC. With new PPO and PPE
polymers, however, insulation manufactures are making improvements in wire sheathing
cost, weight, and the recyclability.
                   Jr                  %

F.16.1.4      Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered

The many aspects and variety of new concepts for automotive wiring can be debated  for
hours to  determine the best way  forward. For this  study,  all the previously mentioned
concepts were reviewed  and given consideration with three key  areas in mind: cost,
weight, and recycling  capability.  Companies such as Delphi,  Sumitomo,  and Leoni
produce  large amounts of  automotive wiring and  are moving  toward providing new
products  such as copper-clad aluminum and aluminum wire. Each wiring has respective
advantages and disadvantages relating to usage and manufacturing processes, with weight
a hot-button issue. As  this relates  directly  to  increasing mileage, more OEMs and
suppliers  are thinking  outside  the box.  Sumitomo has developed an aluminum wire
harness being used in the 2011 Toyota Yaris.

Some  of the ideas evaluated, but not considered, included: flexible printed circuit,
extruded flat wire, replacing wiring troughs where applicable with BIW, replacing copper
conductors with  copper-coated aluminum (CCA) conductors, replacing stamped module
housings with conductive plastics  and/or plating for EMI,  eliminating or reducing empty
connector cavities, replacing  low current and  signal wires with copper magnesium
-------
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 773

(CuMg) alloy conductors, replacing signal leads with Brass FLRMSY conductors, and
using a fiber optic network. The summary of mass-reduction technologies considered is
detailed in Table F.16-4.
Component/Assembly
All Harness's
All Harness's
All Harness's
Eng Harness Cable
Trays
Eng Harness Brkts
Mass-Reduction Idea
PRO Coating
Copper Clad Aluminum-
CCAWire
Aluminum Wire
MuCell® gas foaming
process for non-class "A"
surfaces
From Steel to Composite
Estimated Impact
20 to 30% Mass
Reduction
20 to 30% Mass
Reduction
20 to 30% Mass
Reduction
10% Mass
Reduction
10 to 25% Mass
Reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Lower material and processing cost
Lower material cost and processing
needed for connection issue
Lower material cost and processing
needed for connection issue
Added capital, lower material usage,
faster cycle time, smaller press size
Lower material and processing cost
 Table F.16-4: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Electrical Wring
                           and Circuit Protection Subsystem
F.16.1.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Following the review of today's market innovations and trends, FEV has opted to use
8000  series   aluminum wire for the battery ground cables  & ground strap,  this is not
claded wire  but aluminum only wire, and use  GE PPO sheathing on all wire harnesses.
With these two methods a significant weight and cost savings can be achieved.
                        Image F.16-2: Aluminum Stranded wire
                                (Source: Google Images)
There  continue to be  some  issues with using aluminum  wiring, of which aluminum
oxidation, coefficient of expansion, creep,  and lack of North American aluminum wire
production are the most common. With the use of newer aluminum alloys, however, these
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 774

concerns are likely mitigated to the point that the commercial use of aluminum wire for
automotive applications is under consideration with several OEM's.

An approximately 60% increase in cross-section for aluminum wire is required to provide
the equivalent conductivity provided by a copper conductor it would replace, the weight
reduction is still about a third.

Engineers at BMW, in conjunction with the University of Munich (TUM), are working to
find  solutions for  a  number of challenges using  aluminum; not just for conventional
autos, but for electric vehicle (EV) applications where current demands and temperatures
command a robust electrical control system.
                                                   ^
The  BMW/TUM team is  devoting considerable work into  connection  boundaries and
developing  innovative  solutions  that  it  believes   will  provide  reliable  wiring
configurations over  a minimum  10-year  vehicle  life span.  The Sumitomo Group
developed  a light-weight wiring  harness using thin  aluminum wires with twisted  wire
structures to ensure electrical connection reliability. It is probable that automotive wiring
will become a major driver of aluminum consumption in the years ahead.

If aluminum wire was able to be used today for this study and could be applied to all the
wiring harnesses, an approximate additional weight savings of 5.7kgs and a cost savings
of approx $44, or $7.8 per kg, could be achieved.

Wire sheathing is another area in which automotive wire affect cost and weight. Polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) is a thermoplastic polymer that is the most commonly used wire sheathing
today. The advantages of using PVC are that it is inexpensive  and effective. Heat,
however, is an issue with PVC.  PVC can only be used in  60% of automotive wiring
harness  applications.  For high heat areas, such as the engine compartment, cross-linked
polyethylene  is  used. PVC and  cross-linked polyethylene  both have  environmental
drawbacks as well, such as toxic halogens that  can  cause dioxin release and recycling
issues. New products being developed by polymer manufactures such as GE will be the
next generation  of wire sheathing. GE has  developed  a PPO  product  that is  thinner,
lighter, and stronger than PVC - plus, it is recyclable.

The PPO coating is a GE Advanced Material Based on GE's  polyphenylene oxide (PPO)
and an olefm. This new Flexible Noryl wire coating lacks the halogens and the potential
for dioxin release - which have  given PVC a bad name. PPO  coating has an inherent
weight advantage when the two materials are used equally.
Based on this advantage, savings come from the ability to use less PPO to match or even
beat the performance of PVC.  For example, on wires up to 1.5 mm2, Delphi would
typically use a 0.4-mm-thick PVC coating to meet  its customers'  requirements.  The
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 775

corresponding PPO thickness, by contrast, would be just 0.2 mm. PPO offers 7 to 10
times more pinch and abrasion resistance than an equal thickness of PVC. Plus,  PPO,
which has a glass transition temperature of 212 C, has already passed the industry's 110 C
thermal tests for Class B wire. The confidence is that the material will soon pass  125 C
tests as well.

The  PPO  weight advantage  over PVC makes a strong case for its use in reducing  the
weight in wiring harnesses. The greater savings come from the better performance of PPO
versus PVC. PPO,  being thinner, reduces the overall size of the wire by 25%. This also
reduces the harness bundle size.

Other technologies selected  for wiring  harness  cable  trays were  Trexel's MuCell®
Microcellular  Foam Process.  The  MuCell®  Microcellular Foam Technology brings
significant weight reduction, energy reduction, and greenhouse gas emission benefits to a
wide range of packaging products and applications produced by any of the three major
manufacturing processes (injection molding, extrusion  and extrusion blow molding).
Microcellular  foaming technology was originally conceptualized and invented  at  the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The technologies used are listed in Table
F.16-5.
CO
5T

18

—
Subsystem

01

	
Sub-Subsystem

00

	
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description

Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem

	
Mass-Reduction Ideas
Selected for Detail
Evaluation

Aluminum wire for ground
strap & battery ground
cables
GE™ PPO Sheathing
Steel Brkts to Composite
MuCell® composite brkts
    Table F.16-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Electrical Wring and Circuit Protection
                                    Subsystem
F.16.1.6      Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact

Table 5.16-6 shows the weight and cost reductions per sub-subsystem.

In the Front End and Engine Compartment Wiring sub-subsystem, the Front End/Engine
Harness's PVC sheath was replaced with GE™ PPO. The cable tray brackets and the fuse
-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 776

box were lightened using MuCell®. The kg breakdown and cost per part for the Front
End and Engine Compartment Wiring sub-subsystem is as follows:

                                                        m ass     cost
                Front End/Engine Harness                   0.099    (0.051)
                Cable Tray #1                             0.016    0.066
                Cable Tray #2                             0.006    0.030
                Cable Tray #3                             0.005    0.023
                Cable Tray #4                             0.007    0.025
                Fuse Box                                0.150    0.367

                Front End and Engine Compartment Wiring - Sub total>  0.283    0.461
In the Instrument Panel Harness sub-subsystem, the IP Wiring Main Harness, IP Wiring
Sub Harness B, IP Wiring #1 and IP Wiring #2 PVC sheathing was replaced with GE™
PPO. The main connector box and  connector box harness brackets were lightened using
MuCell®.  The kg breakdown and  cost per part for the Instrument Panel Harness  sub-
subsystem is as follows:

                                                        mass     cost
                IP Wiring Main Harness                     0.064    (0.032)
                IP Wiring Sub Harness B                    0.021    (0.011)
                IP Wiring #1                              0.001    (0.000)
                IP Wiring #2                              0.002    (0.001)
                Main connector box, Top, IP Wiring           0.003    0.019
                Main connector box, Bottom, IP Wiring         0.007    0.027
                Connector Box 1,Harness, IP                 0.007    0.040
                Connector Box2,Harness, IP                 0.003    0.009
                Connector Box3,Harness, IP                 0.002    0.007
    ^
                Instrument Panel Harness - Sub total>              0.110    0.058
In the Body and Rear End Wiring sub-subsystem, all the harness wiring PVC sheathing
was replaced with GE™ PPO. The kg breakdown and cost per part for the Body and Rear
End Wiring sub-subsystem is as follows:
-------
                                                             Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                            March 30, 2012
                                                                                Page 777

                                                          m ass     cost
                 Harness Asm, Body Interior                  0.103    (0.053)
                 Liftgate Harness #1                          0.001    (0.001)
                 Liftgate Harness #2                          0.006    (0.003)
                 Harness, LF Door                           0.003    (0.001)
                 Harness, RF Door                           0.006    (0.002)
                 Harness, RR Door                           0.001    (0.000)
                 Harness, LR Door                           0.002    (0.001)
                 HVAC Door Motor Harness                   0.001    0.000

                 Body and Rear End Wiring - Sub total>              0.123    (0.062)

                                                        \

In the Battery Cables sub-subsystem, all the harness wiring PVC sheathing was replaced
with GE™ PPO. Also the Battery Ground Cable is made of aluminum. The kg breakdown
and cost per part for the Battery Cables sub-subsystem is as  follows:

                                                          mass     cost
                 Harness, Battery Ground Cable                0.100    0.698
                 Battery to starter                            0.120    (0.001)

                 Battery Cables-Subtotal                       0.220    0.697
In the Harness Assembly sub-subsystem, the engine harness wiring PVC sheathing was
replaced with GE™ PPO. The cable tray brackets were lightened using MuCell®. The
harness brackets were  changed from  steel to PA66 plastic and then MuCelled.  Below
shows the kg break down and cost per part for the Engine and Transmission Wiring sub-
subsystem.

                                                           mass     cost
                 Harness Asm, Engine                        0.043    (0.022)
                 Cable Tray #1, Engine                         0.015    0.055
                 Cable Tray #2, Engine                         0.004    0.022
                 Cable Support, Harness                        0.003    0.019
                 Bracket#1, Harness, Engine                     0.041    0.141
                 Bracket#2, Harness, Engine                     0.027    0.047
                 Bracket#3, Harness, Engine                     0.011    0.007

                 Engine and Transmission Wiring-Sub total>          0.143    0.269
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 778

In the Seat Harness sub-subsystem, the harness wiring PVC sheathing was replaced with
GE™ PPO. Also, the Ground Strap is made of aluminum. The kg breakdown and cost per
part for the Seat Harness sub-subsystem is as follows:
                Harness Weight Sensing RF Seat
                Ground Strap
mass
0.001
0.008
 cost
(0.001)
0.053
                Seat Harness - Sub total>
0.009
0.052
In total, the Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection subsystem mass savings combining
all of the sub-subsystems is .889kg with a cost savings of $1.47

g
sa
CD
1?
18
18
18
18
18
18


Subsystem
01
01
01
01
01
01
01


Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
06


Description
Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protect Subsystem
Front End and Engine Compartment Wiring
Instrument Panel Harness
Body and Rear End Wiring
Battery Cables
Engine and Transmission Wiring
Seat Harness


Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
	
A
A
B
A
A
A

A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)

0.283
0.110
0.123
0.220
0.143
0.009

0.889
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
"$" (2)

$0.46
$0.06
-$0.06
$0.70
$0.27
$0.05

$1.47
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
	
$1.63
$0.52
-$0.50
$3.17
$1.87
$5.73

$1.66
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
	
3.77%
1.79%
1.86%
32.27%
5.37%
2.70%
3.71%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
	
0.02%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%

0.05%
    (1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
    (2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase

 Table F.16-6: Sub-Subsystem  Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Wring and Circuit
                                  Protection Subsystem
-------
                                                     Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                  March 30, 2012
                                                                     Page 779

F.17  Vehicle Systems Overview and Results

F.18  Comparison of Results

G.    Conclusions & Recommendation

H.     Appendix

This appendix contains the selected supporting figures and  tables  used in the cost
analyses. The section is structured in the following manner:

   •  Appendix H.I: Main Sections of Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary
      Worksheet

   •  Appendix H.2: Executive  Summary for the  Phase  1 report "An Assessment of
      Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017-2020 Model Year Program" submitted to
      the Internal Council on Clean Transportation, by Lotus Engineering (March 2010)

   •  Appendix H.3: List  of Light-Duty  Vehicle Mass-Reduction Published Articles,
      Papers, and Journals Used as Information Sources in the Analysis

   •  Appendix H.4: EPA Toyota Venza Cost Analysis Breakdown

   •  Appendix H.5: Suppliers Contributed in Study
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 780

H.1    Main Sections of Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary
Worksheet

The MAQS worksheet, as shown in Error! Reference source not found, and Figure H-2,
contains seven (7) major sections. At the top of every MAQS worksheet is an information
header (Section A), which captures the basic project details along with the primary quote
assumptions.  The project detail section references the MAQS worksheet back to the
applicable CBOM. The primary quote assumption section provides the basic information
needed to put together a  quote for a component/assembly.  Some of the parameters in the
quote assumption section are  automatically referenced/linked throughout the MAQS
worksheet,  such  as  capacity  planning volumes,  product life span,  and OEM/T1
classification.  The remaining  parameters in this  section including  facility locations,
shipping  methods, packing  specifications,  and  component quote  level  are manually
considered for certain calculations.

Two (2) parameters above whose functions perhaps are not so evident from their names
are the "OEM/T1 classification" and "component quote level."

The  "OEM/T1  classification" parameter  addresses who  is  taking  the  lead on
manufacturing the end-item component, the OEM or Tier 1 supplier. Also captured is the
OEM or  Tier 1  level, as defined  by size, complexity, and expertise  level. The value
entered into  the  cell is linked to the Mark-up  Database,  which  will up-load the
corresponding mark-up values from the database into the MAQS worksheet. For example,
if "Tl High Assembly Complexity" is entered in the input cell, the following values for
mark-up are pulled into the worksheet: Scrap = 0.70%, SG&A = 7%, Profit = 8.0% and
ED&T = 4%. These rates are then multiplied by the TMC at the bottom of the MAQS
worksheet to calculate the applied mark-up as shown in Figure H-H-2.

The process for selecting the classification of the lead manufacturing  site (OEM or Tl)
and corresponding complexity  (e.g., High Assembly Complexity, Moderate Assembly
Complexity, Low Assembly Complexity) is  based on the  team's knowledge of existing
value chains for same or  similar type components.
                Figure H 1: Sample MAQS Costing Worksheet (Part 1 of 2)
-------
Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
              March 30, 2012
                  Page 781

s
l
ll
il
ll
£
i'a
J2 O



g
1
If
la
s »
II
T5 0
1


4
•



h
(
L
C



I
II

CompactJEconomy 2-4
N0101(N = Nem, 01 =T
« &
H
II

^
JL
•s.


1
1
-a
!
|



l
*
1
i
^
8
|
f



4
7


rt
•
rt
L
£



CGDITurb
I

i
i
c
n
\
1
I


I
1
!
i
i
OJ
CO



s

1
1
s
1
1




^



oj
1



£
1

"i
s
s
c
n
t
1
1














S
•=
E
•^
UJ









J
£

d
Modificatio
L

i
i
S
i

—
1 1
:
?
i
i



i
j



I
1
ll


i
i

:






I
=



I


F
j
F
jj
3
5
:

"xlOOO "
Tooling Assumptions
"xlOOO "
Total 3 =
Total2*QtyperAss'y
Total 2 =
Total! + Total Mark-up
Ii=l
li=i
lilt
lie
lit
mil
Total 1 =
i/laterial + Labor + Burder
P
i
1
'is
iPl
PP
IMS
pn
Material Usage "Ibs"
Multiplier
Number of Lines


Finished Pieces Per Hour

il
il
s
it
M

11
il
s s

s
!»
I1
QTY Per Assembly
"i
z
£
i
Reference #






































































•e
1
b
O
I
oO
1 Supplier or OEM Processinc



1 II a I I I
1 II a I 1 I
I II I I I I
I II I I I I
S Si S S S S
I II I I I I
i i i i i i i
I II I I I I
I 11 1 I I I
I i 1 1 1 I I
I II I I I I
3 33 1111
i ii i i i i
I i I i i i i
s s s s s s s
a a a a a a a
I 11 I I I I
1 11 1111
- - - - - ~
- - 5 - - -


3 33 3 3 5 5

•- j g j j j j
i i i i i i i
1 11 1111
1 } I 1 1 1 1
1 I i 1 1 1 1
fg fg fg fg fgfgfg
1° 1° 1°

1 1 I J S i
» S 1 1 I i 1
Jr I i U
1 j 1 J i Js J
- - -

1 11 1111
3 33 3333
! . ! I t . I
5 S S S S 5 S


































1
o
chase Part-High Impact Item
S


IIIIIII
iilllli
IllllII
II II 11 1
iiiiiii
IIIIIII
iiiiiii
IIIIIII
illalil
Iiiiiii
IIIIIII
liiiill
1 = = = § s s
fiiillii
Illlill
iiiiiii
1111111
11 11 1 ll
	
-333-35


1583 = 33

i i i E I' i i
s s s s a % %
iiiiiii
? S 5 i i
* * " T: 1 n
1 1 1 1 1 i t
Illlill

l l
if li «
« J • J i * I
a a a a 5 4 S


11111
3333333
1 -S
tflll
i S S S 5 S























^
•

i
i
y Process)
{
b
1
S


Dcessed Raw Materi
i
ost Mapping

i
-e
1
s



















]
'

\
r
•

>
J
2












































lir
-s
a
-e
Q-
rom Purchas
g
I
E
O
-e
1









































, i 1 i 1 1 i i i i_
,111111111
IIIIIIIII
,111111111

















i i«! E
I 111 »
1 1
- 1 E | ™
t HI 1
1 * ? i It
Is f | S ^ 1|







1111
3333333
i
1 I I i ii 1 I
lllilt!
S S S S 5 S S


.





































-I


51
1
1
1
I
B
1
1
I























. =


i


Sis
1 3-
sis
s 5
i= s-
i ! !

S ! !
5 i 1
Jtl
= .S 2
SI"
3 ^

LL
z



1—
o
LU
(O











= =
-
-
I


s
s
«
"
&
=
i
§
5
1

1




















.


il
n
*!
i































= .
-------
                                                                 Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                                         Page 782
         Figure H-H-1: Sample MAQS Costing Worksheet (Part 2 of 2)
                                           8 8 8 8 8
    Resulting Cycle Time/
                       g  g   g  g  g  g
                                           1 S I 1 II i

      (1'Nothing)
    Piece/Cycle/Machine
       Parallel
    Operations/Machin
      Stations/Line
    Lean Design Calculat
    for Complete Proce:
   | Cycle Time/Operation
       iciency "Sec

 1 £
                       3  3   3  3  3  3
                                           i i i i i i i
                                           111111!
                       11   1111
                                           1111111
                       s  s   s  s  s  s
                                           s s s s s s s
                              v E  S  S
                           5 < I % a  <  <
                                           ii ii 511  I
                                    Ml!
                                                                     nit
                                                                              Hi
                       JJ
                       z
                       O
     Total Markup Cost
 i
 ii
it!
                                s  s  s
g  g  g
g  g  g
                                I  I  I
                                                 111
                                   i  i
            tft:
                                III
iiiiiliiii a
                                                    i
                                                    I
                                                    1
                                                   l
-------
                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 783
OEM Operating Pattern (Weeks/Year):
      Annual Engine Volume (CPV):
          Components per Engine:
        Annual Component Volume:
       Weekly Component Volume:
                                «o,ooo
                                                 OEM Plant Location: North America
 Supplier Plant Location: North America
TJbMTP
                                                     Classification: T1 High Assembly
                                                     i&ping Method: _r
                      up-
             Estimated Product Life:
                                38,298
                                 10
Packaging Specification: Returnable Container & Internal Dunnage
                      Material
 T1 or OEM Total Manufacturing Cost
       T1 or OEM MartUJp Rates:
                       $2.16
                                   $10 M
  (SAC) ST1 or OEM MartUJp Values:
                       0.00
     Base Cost Impact to Vehicle:
                       $2.16
                                   $13.11
                                                               I	IPachaging Cost
                                                                Net Cost Impact to Vehicle:
                                   $0.01
                                   $13.13
   Figure H-H-2: Excerpt Illustrating Automated Link between OEM/T1 Classification Input in
   MAQS Worksheet and the Corresponding Mark-up Percentages Uploaded from the Mark-up
                                       Database

The "component  quote  level" identifies what level of detail is  captured in the MAQS
worksheet for  a particular  component/assembly,  full  quote, modification  quote, or
differential quote. When the "full quote" box is checked,  it indicates all manufacturing
costs are  captured for the component/assembly. When the "modification quote" box is
checked,  it indicates only the  changed  portion of the component/assembly has  been
quoted. A differential quote is  similar to a modification quote with the exception that
information  from both technology configurations, is brought  into  the same MAQS
worksheet, and a  differential analysis is conducted on the input cost attributes  versus the
output cost attributes. For example, if two (2)  brake boosters (e.g.,  HEV booster and
baseline vehicle booster)  are being  compared for cost, each brake booster  can have its
differences quoted in a separate  MAQS worksheet (modification quote) and the total cost
outputs for each can be subtracted to acquire the differential cost. Alternatively in a single
MAQS worksheet the cost driving  attributes for the differences between the booster's
(e.g., mass difference on common components, purchase component differences, etc.) can
be offset, and the differential cost calculated in a single worksheet. The differential quote
method is typically employed those components with low differential cost impact to help
minimize the number of MAQS worksheets generated.

From left to right, the MAQS worksheet is broken into two (2) main sections as the name
suggests,  a quote summary (Section B) and manufacturing assumption section (Section
D). The manufacturing assumption section, positioned to the right of the quote summary
section, is where the additional assumptions and calculations are made to convert  the
serial  processing  operations  from  Lean  Design® into  mass  production operations.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 784

Calculations  made  in  this section are  automatically loaded into the quote summary
section. The quote summary section utilizes this data along with other costing database
data to calculate the total cost for each defined operation in the MAQS worksheet.

Note  "defined operations"  are all the value-added  operations required to make  a
component or assembly. For example, a high pressure fuel injector may have twenty (20)
base level components  which all need to be assembled together. To manufacture one (1)
of the base level components there may be as many as two (2) or three (3) value-added
process operations (e.g., cast, heat treat, machine). In  the MAQS worksheet each of these
process operations has an individual line summarizing the manufacturing assumptions
and costs for the defined operation. For a case with two (2) defined operations per base
level component, plus two (2) subassembly and final assembly operations, there could be
as many as forty (40) defined operations detailed out in the MAQS worksheet. For ease of
viewing all the costs associated with a part, with multiple value-added operations, the
operations are grouped together in the MAQS worksheet.

Commodity based purchased parts are also included as a separate line code in the MAQS
worksheet. Although  there  are  no  supporting  manufacturing  assumptions  and/or
calculations required since the costs are provided as total costs.

From top to bottom, the MAQS worksheet is divided into four (4) quoting levels in which
both the value-added operations and commodity-based purchase parts are  grouped:  (1)
Tier 1 Supplier or  OEM  Processing and Assembly, (2) Purchase Part - High Impact
Items, (3) Purchase  Part - Low Impact Items, and (4) Purchase Part - Commodity. Each
quoting level has  different rules relative to what cost elements are applicable, how cost
elements are binned, and how they are calculated.

Items listed in the Tier 1 Supplier or OEM Processing and Assembly section are all the
assembly and subassembly manufacturing operations assumed to  be performed at the
main OEM or Tl  manufacturing facility. Included in  manufacturing operations would be
any on-line attribute and/or variable product engineering characteristic checks. For this
quote level, full and detailed cost analysis is performed (with the exception of mark-up
which is applied to the TMC at the bottom of the worksheet).

Purchase Part — High  Impact Items include all the operations  assumed to be performed
at Tier 2/3 (T2/3)  supplier facilities and/or Tl internal supporting facilities. For this quote
level  detailed cost analysis  is performed,  including  mark-up  calculations  for  those
components/operations  considered to   be supplied  by  T2/3 facilities. Tl internal
supporting  facilities included in this category do not include mark-up calculations. As
mentioned  above, the Tl mark-up (for main and supporting facilities) is applied to the
TMC at the bottom of the worksheet.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 785

Purchase Part — Low Impact Items are for higher priced commodity based items which
need to have their manufacturing cost elements broken out and presented in the MAQS
sheet similar to high impact purchase parts. If not, the material cost group in the MAQS
worksheet may become distorted since commodity based purchase part costs are binned to
material costs. Purchase  Part — Commodity  Parts are represented  in the  MAQS
worksheet as a single cost and are binned to material costs.

At the bottom of the MAQS worksheet (Section F), all the value-added operations and
commodity-based  purchase part costs,  recorded in the  four  (4)  quote levels,  are
automatically added together to obtain the TMC. The applicable mark-up rates based on
the Tl or OEM classification recorded in the MAQS header are then multiplied by the
TMC to obtain the mark-up  contribution. Adding the TMC and mark-up contribution
together, a subtotal unit cost is calculated.

Important to note is that throughout the MAQS worksheet, all seven (7) cost element
categories (material,  labor,  burden, scrap, SG&A, profit, and ED&T) are maintained in
the analysis. Section  C, MAQS breakout calculator,  which resides between  the  quote
summary and manufacturing assumption sections, exists primarily for this function.

The last major section of the MAQS worksheet is the packaging  calculation, Section E. In
this section of the MAQS worksheet a packaging cost contribution is calculated for each
part based on considerations such as packaging requirements, pack densities,  volume
assumptions, stock, and/or transit lead times.

The sample packaging calculation (Figure H-H-3) is taken from the high voltage traction
battery subsystem (140301 Battery Module MAQS worksheet, EPA Case Study #N0502).
In this  example,  a minimum of two  (2) weeks of packaging are required  to  support
inventory and transit lead times. This equates to packaging for  19,149 parts over the two
(2) weeks, based off the weekly capacity planning rates. There are 15  pieces per pallet at
a packaging hardware cost of $575 per pallet (container and internal dunnage costs are
from the Packaging Database).  From this information, 1,277 pallet sets  are required at
$575/set, totaling $734,275 in packaging costs. Packaging is estimated to  last thirty-six
(36) months. Thus applying the amortization formula based on thirty-six (36) months, 5%
interest, and 1.35 million parts/36 months yields $0.585/part. This cost  is added to the
subtotal unit cost (TMC + mark-up) to obtain the Total Unit Cost.

Note that in this case both  the container and dunnage are assumed returnable. Thus, the
bottom section of the packaging calculator is not used.
-------
                                                   Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                  March 30, 2012
                                                                     Page 786
PACKAGING CALCULATIONS:
Packaging Type: Option#2
Part Size: 1000x300x1 40
Parts/Layer: 3
Number of Layers: 5
}&l*\UJiLUfm

Rack/Pallet Investment Amortization:



Expendable Packaging in Piece Cost:
Packaging Cost Total:


'ackaglng
Cost per


$0.585

'ackagin
gCost
per Piece

$0.00


Total
Amount


$734,275

Tier Pad
Price Per

$0.00


Lump Sum
Payment


0.00%

Tier
Pads
Pallet/Ra
ck
0


Total * of
Pieces


1,350,000

Divider
Pads,
Price Per

$0.00



Months


36

Divider Pads
Pallet/Rack

0


Interest
Rate


5.00%

Other #1
Packagin
g Price
Per
$0.00








Other #1
Pads
Pallet/R
ack
0

8
s
i
3

$575

Other #2
Packagi
ng Price
Per
$0.00
H
zi
1 1
•§ ^
M
~
1277

Other #2
Pads
Pallet/R
ack
0
•z.
1
i,
^^
1
•D
=
15
Other #3
Packagi
ng,
Price
Per
$0.00
fi
-!
= 5
i a. o

sl *
1 i
3
2

Other #3
Pads
Pallet/R
ack
0
„ -I
1 = 1

11 1
|t|
=
19149




$0.585
Figure H-H-3: Example of Packaging Cost Calculation for Base Battery Module
-------
                                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                                              March 30, 2012

                                                                                                   Page 787


H.2     Executive Summary for Lotus Engineering Phase  1  Report


Following  is the Executive Summary for the Phase  1  report, "An  Assessment of Mass

Reduction Opportunities for a 2017-2020 Model Year Program,"  submitted to the Internal

Council  on Clean Transportation, by Lotus Engineering (March 2010).


         1. Executive Summary

         Introduction

         The Energy Foundation funded Lotus Engineering to generate a technical paper which would identify
         potential mass reduction opportunities for a selected baseline  vehicle representing the crossover utility
         segment. Lotus Engineering prepared this  document in collaboration with a number of automotive and
         regulatory experts and submitted it to the ICCT.  The 2009 Toyota Venza was selected as the baseline
         vehicle for evaluation although the materials, concepts and methodologies are applicable to other vehicle
         segments such as passenger cars and trucks. They could be further developed in separate studies for
         other applications. This study encompassed all vehicle systems, sub-systems and components. This
         study was divided into two categories, allowing two distinct vehicle architectures to be analyzed. The first
         vehicle architecture, titled the "Low Development" vehicle, targeted a 20% vehicle mass reduction (less
         powertrain), utilizing technologies feasible for a 2014 program start and 2017 production, was based on
         competitive  benchmarking applying industry leading mass  reducing technologies, improved materials,
         component integration and assembled using existing facilities. The second vehicle architecture, tilled the
         "High Development" vehicle targeted a 40% vehicle mass reduction (less powertrain), targeted for 2017
         technology readiness and 2020 production, utilized primarily  non-ferrous materials, a high degree  of
         component  integration  with advanced joining and  assembly methodologies.  Comparative piece costs
         were developed; indirect costs, including tooling and assembly plant architecture, were beyond the scope
         of this study. Both studies showed potential to meet their mass targets with minimal piece cost impact.
         Structural and impact analyses were beyond the scope of this study; these results could  impact the mass
         and cost estimates. All powertrain related hardware studies were subject to a separate paper referenced
         herein.

         Lotus Background
         Lotus's guiding design philosophy for more than sixty years has  been "Performance through Lightweight".
         Lotus  design principles can  be clearly demonstrated by a  legacy of iconic product. The  Lotus design
         approach facilitates  highly efficient solutions  by  utilizing  well integrated vehicle sub-systems and
         components, innovative use of materials and process and advanced analytical techniques.  Lotus has
         significant experience in designing low and high volume wheeled transport for a global client base in
         addition to the engineering and manufacture of high performance Lotus products.

         Methodology
         A Toyota Venza was torn down and benchmarked to develop a comprehensive list of all  components and
         their respective mass.  A baseline  Bill of  Materials (BOM)  was developed around nine major vehicle
         systems. The powertrain investigation and analysis were performed separately by the U.S. Environmental
         Protection Agency. This report analyzed  the non-powertrain  systems.  These were  divided into the
         following eight categories:

                Body structure
                Closures
                Front and rear bumpers
                Glazing
                Interior
                Chassis
                Air conditioning
                Electrical

         The mass analysis considered engineering methodologies,  materials,  forming,  joining, and  assembly-
         Domestic and international trends  in the  automotive  industry were  analyzed, including  motorsports.
         Emerging technologies  in numerous non-automotive areas were also investigated, including aerospace,
         appliance, bicycle, watercraft, motorcycle, electrical and electronics, food container, consumer soft goods,
         office  furniture  as well as  other  sectors  traditionally  unrelated to the transportation industry. This
-------
                                                                             Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                                               March 30, 2012
                                                                                                     Page 788
synergistic  approach provided a high  level  of  flexibility  in selecting feasible  materials, processes,
manufacturing and assembly methods.

The mass reductions were accomplished through  increased modularization,  replacing  mild steel  with
lower  mass materials including  high  strength steel  (HSS),  advanced  high strength steel  (AHSS),
aluminum, magnesium along  with increased  utilization of composite materials and the application of
emerging design concepts. In  many cases, individual parts were eliminated through design integration.
The overall approach for both the Low Development and the High Development  vehicles was to be
conservative relative to a production program, i.e., minimize the technical  risk  and the component costs
for the targeted introduction dates.

Bill of Materials
Target Bill of Materials (BOMs) were created for tracking the mass and cost relative to the Venza.

The BOMs were separated into two categories:
   •   Low  Development, which targeted  technologies,  manufacturing  processes  and assembly
       techniques estimated to be feasible in the 2014 time frame for 2017 MY production; and
   •   High  Development, which  targeted  technologies, manufacturing  processes  and assembly
       techniques estimated to be feasible in the 2017 time frame for 2020 MY production.

Functional Objectives
The functional objectives were to maintain the 2009 Toyota Venza's utility/performance including interior
room, storage volume, seating, NVH (Noise, Vibration, Harshness), weight'horsepower ratio, and driving
range as well as compliance to current and near term federal regulations. The  overall vehicle length  was
fixed.   It was decided that the lightweight vehicle  "footprint" (defined by the  National Highway  Traffic
Safety Administration as wheelbase and track) be identical to the 2009 Toyota  Venza for the 2017-2020
Low Development design. The wheelbase and track were increased for the High Development model for
additional mass reduction  and cost savings opportunities. Structural analysis. Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards and NCAP compliance verification of both architectures were beyond the scope of this
study  but may be accomplished in a future phase.

Results
Mass
The total vehicle mass savings (less powertrain) estimates are 21%  (277 kg) for the 2017 production
target Low  Development vehicle and 38% (496 kg) for the 2020 production  target High  Development
vehicle.

Cost
The Low Development vehicle  piece cost (less powertrain) is projected to range from 92% to 104% with a
nominal estimated value of 98%. The High Development vehicle piece cost (less powertrain} is projected
to range from 97% to 109% with a nominal estimated value of 103%.

Both the baseline  Venza  component  costs and  the Low and High  Development piece costs were
estimated  using supplier  input, material  costs and projected  manufacturing  costs. Metal prices were
obtained from Intellicosting, a  Detroit area based  cost estimating firm experienced in pricing automotive
components. Composite material prices were  obtained from suppliers. The Venza estimated part costs
served as the reference values to establish cost deltas. Current prices as of November, 2009 were used;
no material cost projections were made for the 2017-2020 timeframe. The primary areas of focus, the
body structure, closures, chassis/suspension and interior, represent approximately 84% of the vehicle
non-powertrain cost for a front  wheel drive, four cylinder crossover utility class vehicle (with an estimated
cost range of +/- 6%). ER&D (Engineering, Research and Development) costs  and assembly plant costs
were defined to be the same as the current Venza costs although tooling and assembly plant costs could
vary significantly depending on the manufacture.
-------
                                                                             Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                                                March 30, 2012
                                                                                                     Page 789
Conclusion
This study indicates that a total vehicle, synergistic approach to mass reduction is feasible and could
result in substantial mass savings with minimal piece cost impact.

Recommendations

Lotus recommends additional follow-up and independent studies to validate the materials, technologies
and  methods referenced in this report for the High and  Low Development  vehicles  or possibly a
combination- Many of the Low Development technologies are already used in production vehicle although
not in  a substantial  manner.  Additional studies regarding  holistic vehicle mass reduction materials,
methods and technologies in collaboration with automotive industry, component suppliers,  manufacturing
specialists, material experts, government agencies and other professional groups would support efforts of
further understanding the feasibility, costs (both piece and manufacturing), limitations of this report.

    1.  A High and/or Low Development body in white (BIW) should be designed and analyzed for body
       stiffness, modal characteristics and for  impact performance referencing the appropriate safety
       regulations (FMVSS and NCAP) for the time frame. This study should include mass and  cost
       analysis, including tooling and piece cost.

    2.  High Development closures  should be  designed and analyzed  further. This  additional study
       should include front, rear and side impact  performance  as well as  mass and  cost analysis,
       including tooling and piece cost.

    3.  High and Low Development models of the chassis/suspension should be designed and analyzed.
       This study should include suspension geometry analysis, suspension  loads, as well as  a mass
       and cost analysis, including tooling  and piece cost.

    4.  A High  and Low Development interior model should be designed and analyzed for occupant
       packaging and head impact performance. This study should include a mass and cost analysis,
       including tooling and piece cost.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 790


H.3    Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction Published Articles, Papers, and
Journals Used as Information Sources in the Analysis
                             This study was dueled into too
                                trength Hence, the ap-

-------
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                              March 30, 2012
                                                                                   Page 791
Document Name
             DEPARTMENT OF
             TRANSPCRTAT1 CM
                           „„« JCI
                           °J°ai	
                     development manager a
                                                               ts/2009booli
-------
                                                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                                                               March 30, 2012
                                                                                                                    Page 792
Applicable
 Model

                                                                                                Hyperlink to Document

          A/ilwood EVO IV-IX Lightweight Brake
                                                 supplier that sells Mg
                                         \ftermarket parts suppli
                                         \l lug nuts
                              Resources Board
                                                             UCD-ITS-RR-1C
-------
                                                      Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                   March 30, 2012
                                                                      Page 793
H.4    EPA Toyota Venza Cost Analysis Breakdown

                      Table A-l: Engine System Cost Breakdown
-------
Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
              March 30, 2012
                  Page 794

1



1
2

3

4

5

6

7
8

9
10

11

,.12...
13

14

15
16

17
18


E
I I
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Sub-Subsystem Description


	 	 V. 	 	 	
I 02

I 03
Engine Frames. Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem

Crank Drive Subsystem

I 14 Counter Balance Subsystem (NA)

I 1 Cylinder Block Subsystem

1 1 Cylinder Head Subsystem

1 : f Valvetrain Subsystem

I 08 Timing Drive Subsystem

I 9 Accessory Drive Subsystem (NA)

1 0 Air Intake Subsystem

1 '1 Fuel Induction Subsystem

I I Exhaust Subsystem

I 3 Lubrication Subsystem

I \ Cooling Subsystem

I 5 nduction Air Charging Subsystem (NA)

I 5 Exhaust Gas Re-circulation Subsystem (NA)

I 17 Breather Subsystem

60
Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Electrical Subsystem

70
Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.)

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP

E




1



3

4

5

6



JL
9

10

11

12

13

14


16

17

18


I !
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Sub-Subsystem Description

01 Engine

I 01
System downsize (2.7L 14 to 2.4L 14)

I 02

I 03
Engine Frames. Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem

Crank Drive Subsystem

I M Counter Balance Subsystem (NA)

I I Cylinder Block Subsystem

I :6 Cylinder Head Subsystem

I J7 Valvetrain Subsystem

I 08 Timing Drive Subsystem

09
Accessory Drive Subsystem (NA)

10
Air Intake Subsystem

11
Fuel Induction Subsystem

I 12

Exhaust Subsystem

I 3 Lubrication Subsystem

I '4 Cooling Subsystem

I '5 nduction Air Charging Subsystem (NA)

|_6_

circulation Subsystem JNA) 	
I '7 Breather Subsystem

I 0 Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Electrical Subsystem

I 70

Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor. Generator, etc.)

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
Manufacturing





2.57

5.35



85.10

3.42

15.50

12.43



8.59

0.66



1.01

35.12





0.95

1.15

1.25

614.67


USD


0.70

3.90



9.40

0.54

12.72

0.87



0.75

0.05



0.19

12.06





0.17

0.21

0.38

41.94




2.20

16.28



45.08

1.09

33.25

0.99



0.84

0.04



0.14

22.46





0.14

0.16

1.18

123.85
Total

Assembly)
USD

5.47





139.58



61.47

14.29





0.74



1.33

69.64





1.27

1.51

2.81

780.47
Markup
End Item
Scrap


0.19

0.17



1.43

0.03

0.54

0.12



0.06

0.00



0.01

0.52





0.01

0.01

0.10

3.21




0.57

2.24



7.75

0.44

4.49

1.49



0.97

0.08



0.15

4.76





0.14

0.16

0.29

23.52





0.44

2.06



5.54

0.39

4.94

1.26



0.78

0.05



0.14

4.02





0.15

0.15

0.31

20.24





0.09

0.69



1.27

0.10

2.25

0.30



0.15

0.01



0.04

1.31





0.06

0.05

0.12

6.43
Total Markup
(Component;
Assembly)
USD


1.29

5.16









3.16





0.14



0.35

10.62











53.40
Packaging
Cost
(Component;
Assembly)
USD

0

0



0

0

0

0



0

0



0

0





0

0

0

0
Net
Component;
Assembly Cost
USD

6.76









73.70





12.14





1.69







1.62

1.90



833.86
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
Manufacture


USD


480.00

2.76

7.00



76.72

9.57

18.53

7.39



9.04

0.88



0.74

36.97




1.56

1.26

1.66

654.08


USD




0.86

5.38



6.96

1.65

7.44

2.55



1.60

0.49



0.24

12.90




0.87

0.74

0.07

41.76


USD




1.91

18.70



32.58

4.92

24.00

7.08



2.06

1.01



0.22

23.38




2.51

0.29

0.89

119.55
Total
Manufacturing
Assembly)
USD






31.07



116.25



49.97





12.70





1.21

73.25




4.94





815.40
Markup
Edl
Scrap
USD




0.12

0.21



1.48

0.58

1.13

0.83



0.16

0.10



0.01

0.70




0.18

0.02

0.10

5.62


USD




0.58

2.88



6.90

1.60

4.59

2.09



1.16

0.27



0.13

5.14




0.59

0.26

0.30

26.50


USD




0.39

2.58



4.92

1.36

4.90

1.69



0.95

0.21



0.11

4.37




0.62

0.24

0.28

22.64


USD




0.05

0.82



1.07

0.35

1.98

0.60



0.18

0.04



0.03

1.41




0.23

0.08

0.10

6.95
Total Markup
(Component;
Assembly)
USD




1.15









12.60





2.45














0.61

0.78

61.70
Total
Packaging
Assembly)
USD




0

0



0

0

0

0



0

0



0

0




0

0

0

0
Net
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD




6.67

37.57





20.04

62.57

22.24



15.15

3.01



1.48

84.87




6.56

2.90

3.40

877.10
-------
Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
              March 30, 2012
                  Page 795


1




1





4



6





9

10

11

1?

13

14

15

16


18


SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E
"^ J1 Sub-Subsystem Description

	
01 System downsize (2.7L 14 to 2.4L 14)

02 Engine Frames. Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem

I 03 Crank Drive Subsystem

04 Counter Balance Subsystem (NA)

05 Cylinder Block Subsystem

06 Cylinder Head Subsystem

07 Valvetrain Subsystem

08 Timing Drive Subsystem

09 Accessory Drive Subsystem (NA)

I 10 Air Intake Subsystem

11 Fuel Induction Subsystem

12 Exhaust Subsystem

13 Lubrication Subsystem

I 14 Cooling Subsystem

I 5 Induction Air Charging Subsystem (NA)

16 Exhaust Gas Re-circulation Subsystem (NA)

17 Breather Subsystem

	 ngme anagemen , ngme ec ronic, ec nca u sys em 	
70 Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.)

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP


Material


38.42

0.19

1.64



(8.38)

6.16

3.03

(5.04)



0.45

0.22



(0.26)

1.85





0.61


0.41

39.42
INCRE
Manufacturing
Labor
USD



0.16

1.48



(2.44)

1.11

(5.28)

1.68



0.85

0.44



0.06

0.84





0.69


(0.31)

(0.18)
MENTA

Burden




(0.30)

2.42



(12.50;

3.83

(9.25;

6.09



1.22

0.98



0.08

0.92





2.37


(o.3o;

(4.30)
L COST T(
Total
(Component;
Assembly)
USD









(23.32)

11.10

(11.50)

2.73



2.52

1.64



(0.13)

3.62





3.67


(0.19)

34.93
3 UPGR

Scrap




(0.07)

0.04



0.05

0.54

0.58

0.72



0.10

0.10



(0.00)

0.18





0.17


(0.00)

2.41
ADETO
Ma
-




0.01

0.64



(0.85)

1.17

0.09

0.61



0.19

0.19



(0.02)

0.38





0.45


0.01

2.98
NEWT

P,.,,




(0.05)

0.52



(0.62)

0.98

(0.04)

0.43



0.17

0.16



(0.03)

0.35





0.47




2.40
ECHNO

™




(0.03)

0.13



(0.19)

0.25

(0.27)

0.30



0.03

0.04



(0.02)

0.09





0.17


M2J

0.51
_OGY PAC

(Component;
Assembly)
USD



(0.14

1.34





2.94

0.37

2.06



0.49

0.48





1.00





1.26




8.30
KAGE
Total
(Component;
Assembly)
USD



0

0



0

0

0

0



0

0



0

0





0


0

0


Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM




(0.09)





(24.93)





4.79



3.01

2.13



(0.20)

4.62










43.24
-------
                                      Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                       Page 796
Table A-2: Transmission System Cost Breakdown
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
§


__

E
1 -2
to •§





I 3 Gear Train Subsystem

I > Launch Clutch Subsystem

I i OilPump and Filter Subsystem

I 1 Mechanical Controls Subsystem

I J8 Electriacl Controls Subsystem

1 09 Parkinq Mechanism Subsystem

1 >.0 Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem


SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
§

__

E
-K £• Sub-Subsystem Description
w |



1 02 Case Sbsvstem

I 03 Gear Train Subsystem

I 5 Launch Clutch Subsystem

1 6 OilPump and Filter Subsystem

I u7 Mechanical Controls Subsystem

I 08 Electriacl Controls Subsystem

1 09 Parkinq Mechanism Subsystem


SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
~
__

E
"K >• Sub-Subsystem Description

.
	 1 	 omponens 	
1 02 Case Sbsvstem

1 03 Gear Train Subsystem

I 05 Launch Clutch Subsystem

1 06 OilPump and Filter Subsystem

1 17 Mechanical Controls Subsystem

I ) Electriacl Controls Subsystem

1 9 Parkinq Mechanism Subsystem


SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
Manufacturing
Material
USD




140.22

11.14

2.35







37.68


261.26
Labor
USD




4.66

225









1256


19.48
Burden
USD




10.27

10.49









12.56


33.32
Total
Manufacturing
Cost
[Component;
Assembly)
USD




155.16

23.87

2.35







62.80


314.05
Markup

Scrap
USD




0.81

0.77

0.11







033


* 2.20







15.85

2.76

0.28







6.58


28.98







10.76

2.39

0.25







4.39


20.12


USD




1.52

0.56

0.06







0.57


3.30
o a ar up o a Net Component;
Cost Packaging Cost
Component; (Component; ctJOEM
Assembly) Assembly)
USD USD USD




0 184.10

6.48 0

0.70 0 3.05







11.87 0 74.67


54.61 0 368.66
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
Manufacturing
Material




59.80

42.78

38.10

3.05








166.53
Labor
USD





4.02

12.70










24.32
Burden
USD





10.03

12.70










30.33
Total
Cost
(Component;
Assembly]
USD



59.8C





3.05








221.17
Markup
End Item

USD



0.15

0.22

0.33

0.14








1.03


USD



3.00

3.98

6.66

0.36








17.98


USD



2.0C

2.81

4.44

0.32








12.23


USD



0.5C

0.59

0.58

0.08








2.09

Cost
(Component;

USD





7.59



0.90








33.34
Packaging Cost
[Component;

USD



0

0

0

0








0
Net
Component;
Assembly Cost

USD



65.45

64.42












254.51
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
Manufacturing
Material
USD



(10.08



26.96

0.69








(94.73
Labor
USD







10.45










4.84
Burden
USD







2.21










(2.99
Total
Cost
(Component;
Assembly]
USD







39.63

0.6!








(92.88
Markup
End Item
USD



(0.0;





0.0:








(1.16
SGSA
USD







3.90

O.OE








(11.00
Profi
USD







2.05

0.07








(7.89
ED&T-R&C
USD







0.02

0.02








(1.21

(Component;
Assembly]
USD









0.21








(21.26
Total
Packaging Cost
(Component;
Assembly]
USD



0

0

0

0








0
Net
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD





(119.68

45.16










(114.15)
-------
                             Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                           March 30, 2012
                                               Page 797
Table A-3: Body System A Cost
         Breakdown
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
|

3

4

fi

R
7

8
9

10

11

12

13
14
15

1fi

18

19

20

21

22
?3
15

1fi

15

16

M
1
S?

Sub- Subsystem Description
03 Body Subsystem
T01 Body Structure Subsystem

F01 Front Floor

I 02 Bodv Dash and Cowl

| 03 Roof and Cross-Member









04 Body Side

OS Parcel Shelf and Cross-Vehicle Framing Parts

06 Cab Back & Rina Frame

07 Rear Wheel Arch Liners

08 One Piece Body Structure

I 10 Rear Floor


11 Fuel Filler and Flap

99 Misc Under Ladder Asserrfolv


Front End Subsystem

I 01 Front Structure




03 Front Fenders

04 Front Wheel Arch Liners

I OS Hood BIW Panel




1 0 Under Engine Closures/Air Dams

08 Front End Module Carrier

| 99 Misc. - Compartment Extras (Al)


03 Body Closures Subsystem

x | 03 Rear Closure BIW Panel



x
19 Burrpers Subsystem

01 Front Bumper Skin and Foams

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART IN FORMATION
Manufacturing
Material



29.90



39.59

289.37





2.32



24.93



143.75



45.98

31.76

3.23

64.84

4.76

10.28

19.98



49.73



19.71

780.13
Labor
USD


1.65



4.07

33.81





0.11



3.X



28.20



11.08

0.44

0.12

1.58

0.18

3.31

2.55



2.83



0.63

93.56
Burden



13.58



14.99

154.64





0.72



16.37



137.32



59.28

5.35

1.10

12.26

0.34

17.03

12.17



17.10



4.35

466.60
Total
Manufacturing
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD






58.65

477.82





3.15











116.34

37.55

4.45







34.70







24.69

1,340.29
Markup
End Item
Scrap















0.02















0.03



0.04













0.02
SG&A















0.35















0.49



0.58













0.35
Profit















0.28















0.39



0.46













0.28
ED&T-R&D















0.06















0.08



0.09













0.06
Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD














0.70















0.99



1.17













0.70
Total
Packaging
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)


















































Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD






58.65

477.82





3.85











116.34

37.55

5.44











69.66



24.69

1,343.15
-------
Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
              March 30, 2012
                  Page 798
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E

3

_4_
R
6
7
8
9

JL
IT

JL
13

14
15

16
18
J-L
20

21
22

J±L
15

16
15
JJL

E
M
S1 Sub- Subsystem Description
1
03 Body £
I 01 Body Structure Subsystem

I 01 Front Floor

I 02 Bodv Dash and Cowl

I 03 Roof and Cross-Merrtoer

I 04 Body Side

FOS Parcel Shelf and Cross-Vehicle Framing Parts

I 06 Cab Back & Rina Frame

I 07 Rear Wheel Arch Liners

I 08 One Piece Body Structure

I 1 0 Rear Floor

I 11 Fuel Filler and Flap

I 99 Misc. Under Ladder Assembly

1 02 Front End Subsystem

I 01 Front Structure

I 03 Front Fenders

I 04 Front Wheel Arch Liners

OS Hood BIW Panel

1 0 Under Engine Closures/Air Dams

08 Front End Module Carrier

I 99 Misc. - Compartment Extras JAJj

1 03 Body Closures Subsystem

x | 03 Rear Closure BIW Panel

|19 Burroers Subsvstem

01 Front Burrow Skin and Foams

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
Manufacturing
Material



26.21



45.07

223.27





2.37



25.33



145.15



44.93

9.91

3.29

25.49

4.92

8.89

6.35



19.76



9.X

599.94
Labor
USD


1.50



3.29

26.81





0.13



2.24



24.70



10.57

0.44

0.14

1.61

0.20

3.06

2.68



2.83



0.63

80.83
Burden



12.42



15.05

139.84





0.82



15.03



119.48



56.72

5.35

1.26

12.47

0.37

15.76

12.67



17.11



4.35

428.71
Total
Manufacturing
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD






63.41

389.92





3.32



42.60



289.33



112.22

15.70

4.69

39.57

5.50

27.71

21.70



39.70



13.98

1,109.47
Markup
End Item
Scrap















0.02















0.03



0.04













0.02
SG&A















0.37















0.52



0.61













0.37
Profit















0.29















0.41



0.48













0.29
ED&T-R&D















0.06















0.08



0.10













0.06
Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD














0.74















1.04



1.23













0.74
Total
Packaging
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD

















































Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD


40.13



63.41







4.06











112.22

15.70







27.71

21.70



39.70





1,112.48
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 799
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1
3

4
R

6
7

8
9

10
11
JJL
13
14
15
16
18
19
20

21
22

23
15

16
15

16

|

22.
Sub-Subsystem Description



01 Bodv Structure Subsystem


01 Front Floor

02 Bodv Dash and Cowl


03 Roof and Cross -Merrier

04 Bodv Side












x
OS Parcel Shelf and Cross-Vehicle Framing Parts

06 Cab Back & Rina Frame

07 Rear Wheel Arch Liners

08 One Piece Bodv Structure

10 Rear Floor

11 Fuel Filler and Flap

99 Misc Under Ladder Assembly

12 Front End Subsystem

01 Front Structure

03 Front Fenders

04 Front Wheel Arch Liners

OS Hood BIW Panel

10 Under Enaine Closures/Air Dams

08 Front End Module Carrier

99 Misc. - Compartment Extras (Al)

__ Bodv Closures Subsystem

03 Rear Closure BIW Panel

It Burmers Subsystem

x
01 Front Bumper Skin and Foams

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
Manufacturing
Material









5.48

(66.10)





0.05



0.40



1.40



(1.05)



0.06

(39.35)

0.16







(29.97)



(10.71)

(180.18)
Labor
USD




(0.15)



(0.78]

(7.00]





0.02



(0.76)



(3.50)



(0.51]



0.02

0.03

0.02

(0.25)

0.13









(12.74)
Burden





(1.16)



0.06

(14.80]





0.11



(1.34)



(17.84)



(2.56]



0.16

0.21

0.03

(1.27)

0.50



0.01





(37.89)
Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD








4.76

(87.90;





0.17











(4.12:



0.24

(39.1 1]

0.21







(29.96]



(io.7i;

(230.81)
ivbrkjp
End Item
Scrap

















O.X

































0.00
SG«

















0.02















0.03



0.03













0.02
Profit

















0.02















0.02



0.02













0.02
ED&T-R&D

















O.X



















0.01













0.00
Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
















0.04



















0.06













0.04
Total
Packaging
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD



















































Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD








4.76







0.21







(19.94)





(21.85)



(39.11)

0.27



(13.00)



(29.96)





(230.66)
Table A-4: Body System B Cost Breakdown
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 800
	 .
1

4

f—
E »
I |
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Sub-Subsystem Description


1 05

Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem

1 5 Sound and Heat Control Subsystem

1 07

1 10
Sealinq Subsystem

Seatinq Subsystem

I 12
Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem

I 20
Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1

4

E »
I |
Sub-Subsystem Description




1 07

Sealinq Subsystem

1 ) Seatinq Subsystem

1 12
Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem

I 20

Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1

4

E S
I |
Sub-Subsystem Description



1 06
Sound and Heat Control Subsystem

1 07

Sealinq Subsystem

1 0 Seatinq Subsystem

1 ' 2 Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem

1 20

Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
Manufacturing
Matena
USD

86.72

3.63

43.95

112.14

73.61

16.31

336.36
L»,
USD

11.47

0.27

9.42

18.40

4.18

4.07

47.79
Burden
USD

27.90

0.33

9.42

51.55

15.58

6.33

111.10
Manufacturing
Assembly)
USD













495.26
Markup
««™
USD

0.31

0.01



1.16

0.23

0.07

1.78
SG&A
USD

6.16

0.21



17.58

4.69

1.34

29.98
Profit
USD

4.10

0.14



14.38

3.13

0.89

22.65
ED&T-R&D
USD

1.03

0.04



4.08

0.78

0.22

6.15
Total Marfcup
Cost
(Component;
Assembly)
USD



0.40









60.55
Packaging
(Component;
Assembly)
USD

0

0



0

0

0

0
Net
Component;
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD













555.81
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
Manufacturing
Material
USD


	
47.09

119.32

64.30

14.87

356.01
L»,
USD


	
15.70

57.61

3.98

4.45

99.03
Burden
USD


	
15.70

75.85

13.68

4.75

146.46
Manufacturing
Assembly)
USD


	
78.49

252.79

81.95

24.07

601.50
Markup
««™
USD


	


1.57

0.21

0.06

2.30
SG&A
USD


	


22.39

4.12

1.21

35.83
Profit
USD


	


19.26

2.75

0.81

28.69
ED&T-R&D
USD


	


6.51

0.69

0.20

9.15
Total Marfcup
Cost
(Component;
Assembly)
USD


	


49.73

7.76



75.97
Packaging
(Component;
Assembly)
USD


	


0

0

0

0
Net
Component;
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD


	


302.51

89.71



677.47
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
Manufacturing
„„=„„
USD


0.40

3.14

7.18





19.65
Ltor
USD


0.01

6.28

39.22

(0.20

0.38

51.24
Burt=n
USD




6.28

24.30

(1.90

(1.57

35.35
Total
Manufacturing
Assembly)
USD


0.34









106.24
Markup
Scrap
USD


0.00



0.42





0.52
SG&A
USD


0.02



4.82





5.85
Profit
USD


0.01



4.88

(0.38

(0.09

6.05
ED&T-R&D
USD


0.00



2.42

(0.10;

(0.02;

3.00
Total Markup
Cost
(Component;
Assembly]
USD


0.03





(1.08

(0.25

15.42
Packaging
(Component;
Assembly]
USD


0



0

0

0

0
Net
Component;
Assembly Cost
mpactto OEM
USD












121.66
Table A-5: Body System C Cost Breakdown
-------
Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
              March 30, 2012
                  Page 801


1



3

4

5

R

7

R

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16




1



3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16


SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
|
% Sub-Subsystem Description



1 08 Exterior Trim & Ornamentation Subsystem

1 Radiator Grill

1 Lower Exterior Finishers

1 Upper Exterior & Roof Finish

1 Rear Closure Finishers

1 Rear Spoiler Assemblv

I Grill - Cowl Vent

1 09 Rear View lufrrors Subsvstem

I Exterior Mrror - Driver Side

I Exterior Mrror - Passenger Side

I 23 Front End Module

I Module - Front Bumper & Fascia

I 24 Rear End Module Subsvstem

I Module - Rear Bumper and Fascia

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
|
ft Sub- Sub system Description

03 Body System C

I 08 Exterior Trim & Ornamentation Subsystem

I Radiator Grill

I Lower Exterior Finishers

I Upper Exterior & Roof Finish

I Rear Closure Finishers

I Rear Spoiler Assembly

I Grill - Cowl Vent

I 09 Rear View Mirrors Subsystem

I Exterior Mirror - Driver Side

I Exterior Mirror - Passenger Side

I 23 Front End Module

1 Module - Front Bumper & Fascia

1 24 Rear End Module Subsvstem

1 Module - Rear Burrper and Fascia

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP


Material





3.47

10.96

1.82

3.29

4.37

2.07



2.25

2.25



10.49



11.10

52.07


Material
USD




3.63

11.43

2.02

3.44

4.56

2.12



2.54

2.54



12.04



12.72

57.04

Manufacturing
Labor
USD




0.05

0.53

0.07

0.04

0.10

0.14



0.25

0.25



0.29



0.31

2.04

Manufacturing
Labor
USD




0.06

0.61

0.08

0.05

0.12

0.16



0.26

0.26



0.32



0.35

2.28
NEV

Burden
USD




0.21

1.05

0.33

0.39

0.71

0.96



0.19

0.19



2.10



2.11

8.24
BAS

Burden
USD




0.24

1.19

0.38

0.43

0.84

1.13



0.20

0.20



2.35



2.35

9.30
VTECHNC
Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD












5.18

3.17



2.69

2.69



12.88



13.52

62.35
ETECHNC
Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD




3.93

13.23

2.48

3.92

5.52

3.41



3.X

3.X



14.71



15.42

68.61
LOGYC

Scrap
USD




0.03

0.09

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.02



0.02

0.02



0.09



0.09

0.45
3 LOGY

Scrap
USD




0.03

0.09

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.02



0.02

0.02



0.10



0.11

0.48
5 EN ERA
Ma
SG&A
USD




0.41

1.39

0.25

0.41

0.57

0.35



0.30

0.30



1.42



1.50

6.90
3ENER>
Ma
SG&A
USD




0.43

1.46

0.27

0.43

0.61

0.38



0.33

0.33



1.63



1.71

7.57
LPART
;up
Profit
USD




0.33

1.10

0.19

0.33

0.45

0.28



0.24

0.24



1.13



1.19

5.47
\L PAR1
;up
Profit
USD




0.34

1.16

0.22

0.34

0.48

0.30



0.26

0.27



1.29



1.35

6.01
IN FOR

ED&T-R&D
USD




0.07

0.22

0.04

0.07

0.09

0.06



0.05

0.05



0.23



0.24

1.12
riNFOR

ED&T-R&D
USD




0.07

0.23

0.04

0.07

0.10

0.06



0.06

0.05



0.26



0.27

1.21
vlATION
Total Markup
Cost
Assembly)
USD












1.15

0.71



0.61

0.61



2.87



3.02

13.95
MAT ION
Total Markup
Cost
Assembly)
USD




0.87

2.94

0.55

0.87

1.23

0.76



0.67

0.67



3.28



3.44

15.28

Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
































Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
































Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
mpact to OEM
USD












6.33





3.X

3.X



15.75



16.54

76.30

Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD




4.X

16.17

3.03

4.79

6.75

4.17



3.67

3.67



17.99



18.86

83.89
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 802
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E

3

4
5

6
7

8
9

10
"IT

12
13

14
15

16

E
M
%• Sub- Subsystem Description
1


|08 Exterior TrimS Ornamentation Subsystem

I Radiator Grill

1 Lower Exterior Finishers

I Upper Exterior & Roof Finish

I Rear Closure Finishers

I Rear Spoiler Assembly

1 Grill - Cowl Vent

1 09 Rear View Mirrors Subsystem

I Exterior Mirror - Driver Side

1 Exterior Mirror - Passenger Side

1 23 Front End Module

1 Module - Front Bunver & Fascia

I . I Rear End Module Subsystem

I Module - Rear Bumper and Fascia

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
Manufacturing
Material




0.16

0.47

0.20

0.15

0.19

0.05



0.28

0.28



1.55



1.62

4.96
Labor
USD



0.01

0.08

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.02



0.01

0.01



0.03



0.04

0.24
Burden




0.03

0.14

0.05

0.04

0.13

0.17



0.01

0.01



0.24



0.24

1.06
Total
Manufacturing
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD







0.26

0.20

0.34

0.24



0.30

0.30



1.83



1.90

6.26
Markup
End Item
Scrap
























0.01



0.01

0.03
SG&A




0.02

0.07

0.02

0.02

0.04

0.03



0.03

0.03



0.20



0.21

0.67
Profit




0.01

0.06

0.03

0.01

0.03

0.02



0.02

0.03



0.16



0.17

0.54
ED&T-R&D






0.01





0.01





0.01





0.03



0.03

0.10
Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD





0.14

0.05

0.03

0.08

0.05









0.41



0.42

1.33
Total
Packaging
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD






























Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD







0.31

0.23

0.42

0.29













2.32

7.59
Table A-6: Body System D Cost Breakdown
-------
Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
              March 30, 2012
                  Page 803


£


1





4

5

6







15




1



1





4















-



1





4

5

6





9

15


SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

•£ £• Sub-Subsystem Description
o^^^

01 Windshield and Front Quarter Window (Fixed)

03 First Row Door Window Lift Assv

04 Rear Quarter Window Assembly (Moveable)

05 Back and Rear Quarter Windows (Fixed)

09 Power Window Electronics

1 1 Second Row Door. Qtr & Rear Closure Window Lift Assv

I 12 Back Window Assv

13 Front Side Door Glass

14 Rear Side Door Glass

I 99 Solvent Bottle

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E
•ffi -J Sub-Subsystem Description
" 1
^-
03 Body System D
— l 	
01 Windshield and Front Quarter Window (Fixed)

03 First Row Door Window Lift Assv

04 Rear Quarter Window Assembly (Moveable)

05 Back and Rear Quarter Windows (Fixed)

09 Power Window Electronics

I 1 1 Second Row Door. Qtr S Rear Closure Window Lift Assv

12 Back Window Assv

13 Front Side Door Glass



SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION


•£ £• Sub-Subsystem Description

| 11 Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem

I 01 Windshield and Front Quarter Window (Fixed)

03 First Row Door Window Lift Assv

04 Rear Quarter Window Assembly (Moveable)

05 Back and Rear Quarter Windows (Fixed)

09 Power Window Electronics

1 1 Second Row Door, Qtr S Rear Closure Window Lift Assy

12 Back Window Assy

13 Front Side Door Glass

14 Rear Side Door Glass

99 Solvent Bottle

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP


Matena


3.33

7.87



0.99



7.87

3.47



2.39

1.99

27.90


„„=„„



4.02

5.70



1.09



5.70

4.02




	 251
25.76



„„=„„



0.69

(2.16)



0.10





0.54



0.52

0.32

(2.15)

,anufactunn9
Labor


1.19

0.40



0.33



0.40

1.72



1.66

0.08

5.78^


Lator



1.43

0.40



0.36



0.40

1.91





6.44
IN
anufacturma

Labor



0.24





0.04





0.19



0.18

0.01

0.66


Burden


17.30

1.32



8.32



1.32

43.97



42.47

0.10

114.79
E

Burden



14.83

1.32



7.43



1.32

39.32





102.31
;REMEI>


Burden





















0.01

(12.48
*JEWTECH
Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly]




9.59



9.63



9.59

49.17



46.52

2.17

148.48
ASE TECH
Total
Manufacturing
(Component/
Assembly)





7.42



8.89



7.42







134.50
JTAL COST
Total
Manufacturing
(Component;
Assembly)



(1.54;





(0.74;



(2.16;

(3.9?



(3.79;

0.34

(13.97)
•JOLOGY

Esr


0.05

0.02



0.02



0.02

0.12



0.12

0.02

0.38
NOLOO

E"r



0.05

0.02



0.02



0.02

0.11




	 002.
0.35
TO UPC


Scrap





(0.01)









(0.01]



(0.01)

0.00

(0.03)
GENER
Ma
SG&A


1.10

0.48



0.48



0.48

2.47



2.34

0.24

7.59
rGENEF
Ma
SG&A



1.02

0.37



0.45



0.37

2.27




	 028
6.91
RADET
Ma

—



















(0.19)

0.04

(0.68)
ALPAR
kup
Profit


0.73

0.32



0.32



0.32

1.65



1.56

0.19

5.09
!AL PAF
w
Profit



0.68

0.25



0.30



0.25

1.52




	 022
4.64
ONEW
kup

Profit



(0.05]

(0.07)



(0.02)



(007)

(0.13]



(0.13)

0.03

(0.45)
TINFOR

ED&T-R&D


0.18

0.08



0.08



0.08

0.41



0.39

0.04

1.26
TINFOF

ED&T-R&D



0.17

0.06



0.07



0.06

0.38





1.15
TECHNC


ED&T-R&D





(0.02)







(0.02)





(0.03)

0.01

(0.11)
MATION

(Component;
Assembly]




0.91







0.91

4.65



4.40

0.48

14.33
? MATION

Cost
(Component;
Assembly)





0.70



0.84



0.70

4.28




	 056
13.05
3LOGY PA


[Component;
Assembly)



















(0.36;



(1.28)


Packaging Cost
(Component;
Assembly]

























Packaging Cost
(Component;
Assembly)






















CKAGE


[Component;
Assembly)


























Component;
Assembly Cost
mpacttoOEM






















162.81


Component;
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM





8.13



9.73



8.13






	 W
147.56



Assembly Cost
mpactto OEM















(4.29]



(4.15)

0.42

(15.25)
-------
Table A-7: Suspension System Cost Breakdown
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 804
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1



1

?

3

4



i
"K Subsystem Description
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 805
Table A-8: Driveline System Cost Breakdown

1



1
2


E
M
ft

05





S
f

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Sub-Subsystem Description

Driveline System
03
Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem



* SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1




^2^


1
ft







Subsystem
Sub-Subsystem Description


(FT

Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem 	

04 Front Drive Half Shaft Subsystem


A

1

2

1

05

1
SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Sub-Subsystem Description

Driveline System
03


Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem

_ro 	 nve_a 	 u sys em 	

* SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART IN FORMATION
Manufacturing
Material


5.62

10.97


'
Labor
USD


O.X

2.84


'
Burden
USD


0.00

5.87


'
Total
Manufacturing
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
Markup
End Item
Scrap
USD
	
I
5.63




'
0.03

0.31


'
SG&A
USD


0.33

2.28


'
Profit



0.38

2.19


'
ED&T-R&D
USD


0.19

0.77


'
Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD







'
Total
Packaging
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD


0

0

0
Net
Assembly Cost
mpact to OEM
USD






31.77
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
Manufacturing
Material



9.84



16.79
Labor
USD


2.52



Burden
USD


5.95



Total
Manufacturing
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD



18.31



Markup
End Item
Scrap




0.25



SG&A
USD


2.13




Profit
USD



2.08




ED&T-R&D
USD



0.74




Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD



5.20


6.34
Total
Packaging
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD



0


0
Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD



23.51


31.60
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
Manufacturing
Material


1.32



0.19
Labor
USD





(0.32)
Burden






0.09
Total
Manufacturing
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD

1 .92



(0.04)
Markup
End Item
Scrap


0.01



(0.05)
SG&A


0.08



(0.07)
Profit


0.09



(0.02)
ED&T-R&D


0.04



0.01
Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD





(0.13)
Total
Packaging
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)


0



0
Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
mpact to OEM
USD

1.54



(0.16)
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 806
Table A-9: Brake System Cost Breakdown
-------
Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
              March 30, 2012
                  Page 807


E


1

2

3

4

5

6

7




1



1

2

3

4

5

6

7




1



1

2

3

4

5

6

7


SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

to Subsystem Description


I 01 N / A

I 02 N/A

I 03 Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsvstem

04 Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsvstem

OS Parking Brake and Actuation Subsvstem

I 06 Brake Actuation Subsvstem

07 Power Brake Subsvstem (for Hvdraulic)

* SVSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Ta Subsystem Description
5)

06 Brake System

01 N/A

02 N/A

03 Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem

04 Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem

OS Parking Brake and Actuation Subsvstem

06 Brake Actuation Subsvstem

07 Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic)

* SVSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Ta Subsystem Description



I 01 N/A

I "2 N/A

I 03 Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsvstem

I 04 Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem

|r> Parking Brake and Actuation Subsvstem

I 06 Brake Actuation Subsvstem

I 07 Power Brake Subsvstem (for Hvdraulic)

* SVSTEM ROLL-UP


Material






74.53

55.01

7.34

11.19

2.94

151.00


Material
USD






49.19

33.71

4588

26.04

2.99

157.80


Material







(25.34)

(21.30)

38.54

14.85

0.05

6.80

Manufacturing
Labor
USD





10.16

11.32

3.21

3.53

1.05

29.27

Manufacturing
Labor
USD






10.39

12.26

1962

8.26

1.56

52.09
INCRE
Manufacturing
Labor







0.23

0.94

16.40

4.73

0.51

22.81
NEW

Burden






29.81

30.51

5.47

5.29

2.22

73.30
BAS

Burden
USD






49.94

56.46

2220

11.91

2.86

143.38
MENTA

Burden







20.13

25.95

16.73

6.63

0.65

70.08
^TECHNO
Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD







96.84

16.02

20.00

6.21

253.57
E TECHNO
Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD






109.53



8769

46.21

7.42

353.27
L COST T
Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)













26.21



99.70
LOGYG

End Item
Scrap






0.69

0.33

0.10

0.14

0.04

1.30
LOGYC

Scrap
USD






0.65

0.35

043

0.31

0.04

1.77
DUPGR

End Item
Scrap







(0.04

0.01

0.32

0.17

O.X

0.46
EN ERA
Mar
SG&A






7.50

6.23

1.66

2.08

0.66

18.13
SEN ERA
Mar
SG&A
USD






7.16

6.49

767

5.01

0.78

27.10
ADETO
Ma
SG&A







(0.34]

0.26

6.01

2.93

0.12

8.97
LPART
^P
Profit






8.02

4.35

1.31

1.68

0.48

15.85
LPART
^P
Profit
USD






7.54

4.53

552

3.87

0.52

21.98
NEWT
kJP
Profit









0.18

4.22

2.18

0.04

6.13
INFORM

ED&T-R&D






3.62

0.95

0.27

0.37

0.08

5.29
IN FOR

ED&T-R&D
USD






3.39

1.X

1 03

0.75

0.07

6.23
ECHNO

ED&T-R&D









0.05

0.76

0.38

(0.02

0.94
/IATION
Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD







11.87

3.34

4.26

1.26

40.57
MAT ION
Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD










1465

9.93

1.40

57.08
LOGY PAC
Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly]







(1.10





5.66

0.14

16.51

Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD

















Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD

















KAGE
Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)



















Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD







108.71



24.26



294,14

Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD








114.79

10234

56.13

8.82

410.35

Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM













31.87



116.21
-------
                                                      Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                   March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 808
Table A-10: Frame and Mounting System Cost Breakdown
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1



1


i
?.
07




Subsystem
Sub-Subsystem Description
Frame and Mounting System
01 Frame Subsystem

^ SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1

1


1
ft




Subsystem
Sub-Subsystem Description
Frame ai ystem

01 Frame Subsystem

^ SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1



1


i
I

07




E
1
sub-sutevsl.D,»Pta

Frame and Mounting System

01 Frame Subsystem

^ SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART IN FORMATION
M=nu,=c,u,mg
Material
USD
71.76

71.76
Labor
USD
10.88

10.88
Burden
USD
42.55

42.55
Total
Manufacturing
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
125.19

125.19
Markup
End Item
Scrap
USD
0.85

0.85
SG&A
USD

8.95

8.95
Profit
USD

9.83

9.83
ED&T-R&D
USD

4.46

4,46
Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
24.09

24.09
Total
Packaging
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
0

0
Net
Assembly Cost
mpacttoOEM
USD
149.28

149.28
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
Manufacturing
Material


77.41



Labor
USD

21.22



Burden


17.43



Total
Manufacturing
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD

116.06



Markup
End Item
Scrap


0.99



SG&A
USD

12.53


12.53
Profit
USD

11.84

11.84
ED&T-R&D
USD

4.19

4,19
Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD

29.55

29.55
Total
Packaging
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD

0

0
Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD

145.61

145.61
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
Manufacturing
Material
USD


5.65


5.65
Labor
USD


10.34


10.34
Burden
USD


(25.12


(25.12)
Total
Manufacturing
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD


(9.13


(9.13)
Markup
End Item
Scrap
USD


0.14


0.14
SG&A
USD


3.58


3.58
Profit
USD


2.02


2.02
ED&T-R&D
USD


(0.27


(0.27)
Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD


5.46


5.46
Total
Packaging
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD


0


0
Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
mpacttoOEM
USD





(3.66)
-------
Table A-l 1: Exhaust System Cost Breakdown
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 809
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1

——

E |
K % Sub-Subsystem Descnptibn
™ 3,





SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1


——

E |
•ffi £• Sub-Subsystem Descnption
" 1





SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

B
——


^ S1 Sub-Subsystem Description


I i Acoustical Control Components Subsystem

I 02 Exhaust Gas Treatment Components Subsystem

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
Manufacturing
Material





36.97
Labor
USD




0.95
—
USD




0.97
Cost
(Component;
Assembly)
USD




38.88
Markup
Scrap
USD




0.12
SGSA
USD




1.57
P,.,,
USD




1.45
™°
USD




0.60
Total Markup
(Component/
Assembly)
USD




3.74
Total
Packaging
[Component;
Assembly)
USD




0
Net
Component;
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD




42.62
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
Manufacturing
Material





39.02
Labor
USD




0.84
—
USD




1.05
Cost
(Component;
Assembly)
USD




40.90
Markup
Scrap
USD




0.13
SGSA
USD




1.75
P,.,,
USD




1.62
™°
USD




0.67
Total Markup
[Component;
Assembly)
USD




4.18
Total
Packaging
[Component;
Assembly)
USD




0
Net
Component;
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD




45.08
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
Manufacturing
Material




2.33

2.05
Ltor
USD

(0.04

(0.07

[0.11
Burt=n
USD

0.03

0.05

0.08
Total
Assembly)
USD

(02E

251

2.02
Markup
End Item
Scrap
USD
0.00

0.01

0.01
SG&A
USD
	 o-oT

0.15

0.19
Profit
USD
	 o-o7

0.14

0.17
ED&T-R&D
USD
ooT

0.06

0.07
Total Markup
Cost
Assembly)
USD

0.08

0.37

0.44
Total
Packaging
(Component;
Assembly]
USD

0

0

0
Net
Component;
Impact to OEM
USD





2.47
-------
Table A-12: Fuel System Cost Breakdown
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 810


1



1

2





1



1

2





E



1

2




Si
M
51

10









£
£

10









1

10






SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
|


Fuel System



02 Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem

4
SUBSYSTEM ROLL UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1


Fuel System



02 Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem

4
SUBSYSTEM ROLL UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E
1 S~De"IP"°n

Fuel System

91 Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem

92 Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem

* SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP


Material
USD


42.87

4.10





Material
USD


24.51

4.15





Material
USD




0.05

(18.32)

Manufacturing
Labor
USD


5.37

0.60




Manufacturing
Labor
USD


11.35

1.X



INCRE
Manufacturing
Labor
USD


5.98

0.40

6.38
NEV

Burden
USD


17.09

0.65



BAS

Burden
USD


31.38

1.15



IMENTfl

Burden
USD


14.29

0.50

14.79
V TECHNO
Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD




5.36



ETECHNC
Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD


67.24

6.X



L COST T
Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly]
USD


1.90

0.95

2.85
LOGYC

End Item
Scrap
USD


0.44

0.05



3 LOGY

End Item
Scrap
USD


0.46

0.06



OUPGR

End Item
Scrap
USD


0.02

0.01

0.03
SEN ERA
Ma
SG&A
USD


4.67

0.61



SENER/
Ma
SG&A
USD


5.11

0.72



ADETC
Ma
SG&A
USD


0.44

0.11

0.55
LPART
kup
Profit
USD


5.04

0.57



U_ PAR1
kup
Profit
USD


5.34

0.68



NEWT
kup
Profit
USD


0.29

0.11

0.40
IN FOR

ED&T-R&D
USD


2.28

0.19



r IN FOR

ED&T-R&D
USD


2.32

0.23



ECHNO

ED&T-R&D
USD


0.04

0.04

0.08
VIATION

Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD




1.42



MAT ION
Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD








LOGY PAC
Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD


0.79

0.27

1.06

Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD


0

0


°

Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD


0

0


°
KAGE
Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD


0

0

0

Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
mpact to OEM
USD


77.76

6.78




Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD




7.99


88.45

Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
mpact to OEM
USD


2.70

1.21

3.91
-------
Table A-13: Steering System Cost Breakdown
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 811
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1




E 1
I I
™ a,

Sub-Subsystem Descnption



1 1 Steering Gear Subsystem

I 02

Power Steering Subsystem

I 4 Steering Column Subsystem

I 5 Steering Column Switches Subsystem

I 06

Steering Wheel Subsystem

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1



	
B



t f
™ a,

Sub-Subsystem Descnption




— I —


I 4 Steering Column Subsystem

I i Steering Column Switches Subsystem

I 06
Steering Wheel Subsystem

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
	 	
& |
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Sub-Subsystem Description





1 1 Steering Gear Subsystem

I 02

I 04
Power Steering Subsystem

Steering Column Subsystem

I 05
Steering Column Switches Subsystem

I 06
Steering Wheel Subsystem

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
Manufacturing
Matena



4.79

0.39

3.57



8.07

16.81
Labor Burden
USD
	



0.13

2.80



1.72

4.64
=



0.07

3.75



1.75

5.57
Cost
(Component;
Assembly)
USD


4.79

0.59

10.12



11.54

27.03
Markup
Scrap
USD


0.02

0.00

0.18



0.00

0.20
SGSA
USD


0.26

0.03

1.04



0.02

1.35
P,.,,
USD


0.24

0.02

0.88



0.01

1.15
™°
USD


0.10



0.23



0.00

0.34
Total Markup
(Component;
Assembly)
USD


0.62

0.05

2.34



0.03

3.04
Total
Packaging
[Component;
Assembly)
USD


0

0

0



0

0
Net
Component;
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD


5.41

0.64







30.07
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
Manufacturing
Material





5.42



7.51

18.48
Labor
USD




6.28



1.50

7.84
—
USD




7.06



1.73

8.86
Cost
(Component;
Assembly)
USD








10.73

35.18
Markup
Scrap
USD




0.14



0.23

0.38
SGSA
USD




1.84



0.54

2.69
P,.,,
USD




1.64



0.37

2.28
™°
USD




0.47



0.01

0.59
Total Markup
(Component;
Assembly)
USD




4.08



1.15

5.94
Total
Packaging
[Component;
Assembly)
USD




0



0

0
Net
Component;
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD




22.84



11.88

41.11
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
Manufacturing
Material




0.22

0.16

1.85





1.67
L»,
USD





(0.07

3.48



(0.22

3.19
Burt=n
USD







3.31



(0.02

3.28
Total
Assembly)
USD











(0.8C

8.15
Ma*u,
End Item
Scrap
USD



0.00

0.00

(0.04



0.23

0.18
SGSA
USD



0.01

0.00

0.80



0.53

1.34
Profit
USD



0.01

0.00

0.75



0.36

1.13
ED&T-R&D
USD



0.00



0.24



0.01

0.25
Total Markup
Cost
Assembly)
USD



0.03

0.01

1.75



1.12

2.90
Total
Packaging
(Component;
Assembly]
USD



0

0

0



0

0
Net
Component;
Impact to OEM
USD



0.24

0.10







11.05
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 812
Table A-14: Climate Control System Cost Breakdown


E



1









=2


1





4




|







4


SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E
t^ ^ Sub-Subsystem Descnptibn

12 Climate Control

01 Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem

I 02 Heating/Defrosting Subsystem

I 03 Refrigeration/Air Conditioning Subsystem


SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

| | Sub-Subsystem Description


01 Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem

02 Heating/Defrosting Subsystem

I ! Refrigeration/Air Conditioning Subsystem



SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E
"S J1 Sub-Subsystem Description
°° 5




I .J Refrigeration/Air Conditioning Subsystem

1 04 Controls Subsystem

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP


Material



16.17

1.43




17.82


„„=„„


16.65

1.22





18.12










0.02

0.30

Manufacturing
Labor
USD


4.74

0.59




5.39


Labor


3.66

0.65





4.37
INCR
Manufacturing








0.01

[1.01
NE

Burden



3.63

0.29




3.97
BA

Burden


10.87

2.29





13.20
EMENT









0.00

9.24
W TECHNO
Total
(Component;
Assembly)
USD


24.54

2.31




27.17
3ETECHNC
Total
[Component;
Assembly)


31.18

4.16





35.70
AL COST T
Total
Manufacturmg
Assembly)








8.53
LOGYC

Scrap



0.06

0.01




0.07
LOGYC

Scrap


0.08

0.01





0.09
OUPGR


Scrap






0.00

0.02
ENERA
Mar
-
USD


1.23

0.12




1.38
3ENERI
Ma
SG&A


1.57

0.21





1.81
ADETC
Ma








0.00

0.43
LPART
UP
Profit
USD


0.82

0.08




0.92
LPART

Profit


1.04

0.14





1.21
NEWT









0.00

0.29
INFOR

™
USD


0.21

0.02




0.23
INFOR

ED&T-R&D


0.26

0.03





0.30
ECHNO









0.00

0.07
I/IATION
Total Markup
(Component;
Assembly)
USD









2.61
MATION
Total Markup
[Component;
Assembly)










3.42
LOGY PAC
Total Markup

Assembly]






0.01

0.81

Total
[Component;
Assembly)
USD


0

0




0

Total
(Component;
Assembly)


0

0





0
;KAGE
Total
ac^agmg
Assembly]






0

0

Net
Component;
Assembly Cost
mpact to OEM
USD









29.78

Net
Component;
Assembly Cost
mpact to OEM


34.13

4.55





39.11

Net
Component;
mpact to OEM






0.04

9.34
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 813
Table A-15: Info, Gage and Warning System Cost Breakdown


1



1




E







1







|
?.

13






I

13





1

13



SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
g
>• Sub-Subsystem Description

Info, Gage and Warning System

01 Instrument Cluster Subsystem

^ SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E
>• Sub-Subsystem Description

Info, Gage and Warning System


^ SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E
>• Sub-Subsystem Description

Info, Gage and Warning System


^ SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP


Material
USD


1.70

1.70


Material




1.95


„„=„,,
USD



0.25

Manufacturing
Labor
USD


0.05

0.05

Manufacturing
Labor
USD



0.06
INCRE
Manufacturing
Labor
USD



0.01
NEV

Burden
USD


0.31

0.31
BAS

Burden
USD



0.22
EMENT^

—
USD



(0.09)
VTECHNC
Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD


2.07

2.07
ETECHNf
Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD



2.23
L COST T
Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly]
USD



0.16
LOGYC

End Item
Scrap
USD


0.01

0.01
3 LOGY

End Item
Scrap
USD



0.01
OUPGR

E"r
USD



0.00
;ENERA
Ma
SG&A
USD


0.12

0.12
3ENER>

SG&A
USD



0.13
ADETC
Ma
SO*
USD



0.01
LPART
;up
Profit
USD


0.14

0.14
\LPAR
;up
Profit
USD



0.15
NEWT
kup
Profit
USD



0.01
IN FOR

ED&T-R&D
USD


0.07

0.07
r INFOR

ED&T-R&D
USD



0.07
ECHNO

™
USD



0.01
VIATION
Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD




0.34
MAT ION
Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD



0.37
LOGY PAC
Total Markup
(Component/
Assembly)
USD



0.03

Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD


0

0

Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD



0
KAGE
Total
Cost
[Component/
Assembly)
USD



0

Net
Component/
AssemblyCost
Impact to OEM
USD


2.41

2.41

Net
Component/
AssemblyCost
Impact to OEM
USD



2.60

Net
AssemblyCost
mpacttoOEM
USD



0.19
-------
                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                              Page 814
Table A-16: In-Vehicle Entertainment System Cost Breakdown


1



1


3




£



1








£








SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E
•£ £• Sub-Subsystem Description
^ 1

15 In-Vehicle Entertainment

01 Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem

| .2 Antenna Subsystem 	
I 03 Speaker Subsystem

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

In J1 Sub-Subsystem Description



01 Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem

02 Antenna Subsystem

I 03 Speaker Subsystem

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E
In J1 Sub-Subsystem Description
to -§



1 02 Antenna Subsystem

03 Speaker Subsystem

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP


Material



1.22

	


1.26


„„=„„



1.39

0.07



1.46


„„=„„



0.04



0.20

Manufacturing
Labor
USD


0.61

	


0.64

Manutac,™,
Labor
USD


1.31

0.24



1.55
INCR
Manufacture
Labor
USD


0.21



0.91
NE

Burden



0.76

	


0.78
BA

Burden
USD


1.26

0.36



1.62
EMENT

Burden
USD


Q3i



0.84
W TECHNO
Total
(Component/
Assembly)
USD


2.59




2.67
3ETECHNC
Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD


3.96

0.66



4.62
AL COST T
Total
Cost
Assembly)
USD


0.58



1.95
LOGYC

Scrap
USD


0.01




0.01
LOGYC

Scrap
USD


0.04

0.00



0.04
OUPGR

Esr
USD


0.00



0.03
ENERA
Mar
-
USD


0.26




0.27
3ENERI
Ma
SG&A
USD


0.41

0.07



0.48
ADETC
Ma
SG&A
USD


0.06



0.21
LPART
UP
Profit
USD


0.18




0.18
LPART
kup
Profit
USD


0.28

0.05



0.32
NEWT
kup
Profit
USD


0.04



0.14
INFOR

™
USD


0.02

	


0.02
INFOR

ED&T-R&D
USD


0.04

0.01



0.04
ECHNO

ED&T-R&D
USD


0.01



0.02
I/IATION
Total Markup
(Component;
Assembly)
USD


0.48

	


0.49
MATION

Cost
(Component;
Assembly)
USD


0.77

0.13



0.89
LOGY PAC
Total Markup
Cost
(Component;
Assembly]
USD


0.11



0.40

Total
Cost
[Component;
Assembly)
USD


0

	


0

Total
Cost
(Component;
Assembly)
USD


0

0



0
;KAGE
Total
Assembly)
USD


0



0

Net
Component;
Assembly Cost
mpact to OEM
USD


3.07

	


3.16


Component;
Assembly Cost
mpact to OEM
USD


4.73

0.79



5.52

Net
Component;
Assembly Cost
mpact to OEM
USD






(2.35)
-------
                                    Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                  March 30, 2012
                                                      Page 815
Table A-17: Lighting System Cost Breakdown
	
1



1


- 	
E
	
s,
1
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Sub-Subsystem Description

17 Lighting

01 Front Lighting

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
I


1


E
E
1
Sub-Subsystem Description


I 01 Front Lighting

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
I
1

E

E
I
Sub-Subsystem Description



01 Front Lighting

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
Manufacturing
Material
USD


10.87

10.87
Labor
USD


1.23

1.23
Burden
USD


3.31

3.31
Total
(Component;
Assembly)
USD


15.41

15.41
Markup
Scrap
USD


0.04

0.04
-
USD


0.77

0.77
P,.,,
USD


0.52

0.52
™
USD


0.13

0.13
Total Markup
(Component;
Assembly)
USD


1.46

1.46
Packaging
Cost
[Component;
Assembly)
USD


0

0
Net
Component;
Assembly Cost
mpact to OEM
USD




16.87
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
Manufacturing
Material

7.91

7.91
Lator

2.26

2.26
Burt=n

4.55

4.55
Manufacturing
Cost
Assembly)

14.72



M«p
Esr

0.04



SG&A

0.74



Profit

0.49



ED&T-R&D

0.12



Total Markup
Cost
(Component;
Assembly)

1.39

1.39
Packaging
Cost
Assembly)

0

0
Net
Component;
Assembly Cost
mpact to OEM

16.11

16.11
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
Manufacturing
Material




(2.95
Labor


1.0;

1.03
—


1.24

1.24
Total
(Component;
Assembly]


(0.69

(0.69
Markup
Scrap


(0.00

(0.00]
SG&A


(0.03

(0.03]
Profit


(0.02

(0.02]
ED&T-R&D




(0.01]
(Component;
Assembly]




(0.07]
Total
Packaging
(Component;
Assembly]


0

0
Net
Component;
Assembly Cost
mpact to OEM




(0.76)
-------
                                                      Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 816
Table A-18: Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System Cost Breakdown
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E

__

E |
"^ J1 Sub-Subsystem Description


n

I 01 Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E

__

E |
t^ ^ Sub-Subsystem Descnptibn


Tl

| „. F,.-. — ,,., 	 ... . „--.,-..-„ subsystem 	
SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION

£

X

E
^ "£ Sub-Subsystem Description

n


SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
MMactunn,
„„=„„




761

7.61
Lator
USD



062

0.62
Burden




058

0.58
(Component/
Assembly)
USD



882

8.82
Markup
End Item
Scrap
USD



003

0.03
SGSA
USD



045

0.45
Profit
USD



034

0.34
ED&T-R&D
USD



005

0.05
Total Markup
(Component;
Assembly)
USD



087

0.87
Total
Packaging
(Component;
Assembly)
USD






Net
Component;
Impact to OEM
USD



969

9.69
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
Manufacturing
Material





8.92
Labor
USD




0.59
—
USD




0.63
[Component;
Assembly)
USD




10.14
Markup
End Item
Scrap
USD




0.03
SGSA
USD




0.51
™
USD




0.34
™°
USD




0.03
Total Markup
(Component;
Assembly)
USD




0.90
Total
Packaging
[Component;
Assembly)
USD





Net
Component;
Impact to OEM
USD




11.04
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
Manufacturing
Material




1.31
Labor
USD



[0.03
Burden
USD



0.04
Total
(Component;
Assembly)
USD



1.32
Markup
Scrap
USD



(0.00
SG&A
USD



0.06
Profit
USD



0.00
ED&T-R&D
USD



(0.03
Total Markup
Cost
(Component;
Assembly]
USD



0.03
Packaging
(Component;
Assembly]
USD




Net
Component;
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD



1.35
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 817
H.5    Suppliers Contributed in Study
en
ai
01
02
03
03
03
03
04
05

07
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
00
00



00

00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00

00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Description
Engine System
Transmission System
Body System) Group -A-) BIW & Closures
Body System) Group -B-) Interior
Body System) Group -C-) Exterior
Body System) Group -D-) Glazing & Body Mechatronics
Suspension System
Driveline System
BrakejSystem 	
Frame and Mounting System
Exhaust System
Fuel System
Steering System
Climate Control System
Info, Gage and Warning System
Electrical Power Supply System
In-Vehicle Entertainment System
Lighting System
Electrical Dis. And Electronic Control System
Electronic Features System
Major Supplier Contributed in Ideas
Mubea, Mahle, DSM
DuPont
Alcast Company Aluminum Foundry
PolyOne
Trexel, Polyone, SABIC
PolyOne
Pikington, Exatec, Intermac
Mubea, Delphi

Delrjhi 	

Mubea, SGF
Delphi

Zotefoams, DSM
Trexel

Parker
SABIC, Trexel


Logos
/Mubea mHHLE QDSM
** ggrs^
DeLRHI

&, ZOTEFOAMS ^JDSM
TREXEL.

Effffl
^^ TSociL,


I.      Glossary of Terms

Assembly: a group of interdependent components joined together to perform a defined
function (e.g., turbocharger assembly, high pressure fuel pump assembly, high pressure
fuel injector assembly).

Automatic  Transmission (AT):  is one  type of motor vehicle transmission that can
automatically change gear ratios as the vehicle moves, freeing the driver from having to
shift gears manually.

BAS (Belt Alternator Starter): is a system design to start/re-start an engine using a non-
traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) starter motor. In a standard internal ICE the
crankshaft drives an alternator, through a  belt pulley arrangement, producing electrical
power for the vehicle.  In the BAS system, the alternator is replaced with  a  starter
motor/generator  assembly so  that  it can  perform opposing  duties. When the ICE is
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 818

running, the starter motor/generator functions as a generator producing electricity for the
vehicle. When the ICE is off, the starter motor/generator can function as a  starter motor,
turning the crankshaft to start the engine. In addition to starting the ICE, the starter motor
can also provide vehicle launch assist and regenerative braking capabilities.

Buy: the components or assemblies a manufacturer would purchase versus manufacture.
All designated "buy" parts, within the analysis, only have a net component cost presented.
These types of parts are typically considered commodity purchase parts having industry
established pricing.

CBOM (Comparison Bill  of Materials): a system bill of materials, identifying all the
subsystems, assemblies, and components associated with the technology configurations
under evaluation. The CBOM  records  all  the  high-level  details of the  technology
configurations under study, identifies those items which have cost implication as a result
of the new versus base technology differences, documents the study assumptions, and is
the primary document for capturing input from the cross-functional team.

Component: the lowest level part within the cost analysis. An assembly is typically made
up of several components acting together to perform a function (e.g., the turbine wheel in
a turbocharger assembly).  However, in  some  cases, a component can independently
perform a function within a sub-subsystem or subsystem (e.g., exhaust manifold within
the exhaust subsystem).

Cost Estimating  Models: cost estimating tools, external to the Design Profit® software,
used to calculate  operation  and process parameters for primary manufacturing processes
(e.g., injection molding, die casting, metal stamping, forging). Key information calculated
from the costing estimating tools  (e.g., cycle times, raw material usage, equipment size) is
inputted into the  Lean Design® process maps  supporting the cost analysis. The Excel
base cost estimating models are developed and validated by Munro & Associates.

Costing Databases: the  five  (5) core databases  that contain all the cost rates for the
analysis.  (1) The  material database lists  all the materials used throughout the analysis
along with the estimated price/pound for each. (2) The labor database captures various
automotive, direct  labor, manufacturing  jobs (supplier  and OEM),  along with the
associated mean  hourly labor rates.  (3) The manufacturing overhead rate database
contains the cost/hour for the various pieces of manufacturing equipment assumed in the
analysis.  (4) A mark-up  database assigns a percentage of mark-up for each of the four
(4) main mark-up categories (i.e., end-item scrap, SG&A, profit, and ED&T), based on
the industry,  supplier size,  and complexity classification.  (5) The  packaging database
contains packaging options and costs for each case.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 819

Cross Functional Team (CFT): is a group of people with different functional expertise
working toward a common goal.

Direct Labor (DIR): is the mean manufacturing  labor wage directly associated with
fabricating, finishing, and/or assembling a physical component or assembly.
Dual Clutch Transmission (DCT):  is a differing type of semi-automatic or automated
manual automotive transmission. It utilizes two separate clutches for odd and even gear
sets. It can fundamentally be described as two separate manual transmissions (with their
respective clutches) contained within one housing, and working as one unit. They are
usually operated in a fully automatic mode, and many also have the ability to allow the
driver to manually shift gears, albeit still carried out by the transmission's electro-
hydraulics.
ED&T (engineering, design, and testing):  is an acronym used in accounting to refer to
engineering, design, and testing expenses.

Fringe (FR): all the additional expenses a company must pay for an employee above and
beyond base wage.
Fully Variable Valve Actuation (FVVA): is a generalized term used to describe any
mechanism or method that can alter the shape or timing of a valve lift event within an
internal combustion engine.

Gasoline Direct Inject (GDI): is a variant of fuel injection employed in modern two-
stroke and four-stroke gasoline engines. The gasoline is highly pressurized, and injected
via a common rail fuel line directly into the combustion chamber of each cylinder, as
opposed to conventional multi-point fuel injection that happens in the intake tract, or
cylinder port.
Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV): is a type  of hybrid vehicle and electric vehicle which
combines  a  conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) propulsion system with an
electric propulsion system.

Internal Combustion Engine (ICE): is an engine in which the  combustion of a fuel
occurs with an oxidizer in a combustion chamber.

Indirect  Cost Multipliers  (ICM): is developed by EPA to address  the OEM indirect
costs associated with manufacturing new components and assemblies.  The indirect costs,
costs associated with OEM research  and development,  corporate operations, dealership
support, sales and marketing material, legal, and OEM owned tooling, are calculated by
applying an ICM factor to the direct manufacturing cost.
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 820

Indirect Labor (IND): is the manufacturing labor indirectly associated with making  a
physical component or assembly.

Intellectual property (IP): is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations
of the mind for which a set of exclusive rights are recognized under the corresponding
fields of law.

Lean Design®  (a  module within the  Design Profit®  software): is used to create
detailed process flow charts/process maps. Lean Design® uses  a series of standardized
symbols,  with each  base  symbol  representing a  group  of  similar manufacturing
procedures (e.g., fastening, material modifications, inspection).  For  each group, a Lean
Design®  library/database  exists  containing standardized operations  along with  the
associated  manufacturing  information  and specifications  for each  operation.  The
information and specifications  are used  to  generate a net operation cycle time. Each
operation on a process flow chart is represented by a base symbol, operation description,
and operation time, all linked to a Lean Design® library/database.

Maintenance  Repair (MRO): aall  actions which  have  the objective of retaining or
restoring an item in or to a state in which it can perform its  required function. The actions
include  the  combination of all  technical  and corresponding  administrative, managerial,
and supervision actions

Make:  terminology used  to  identify those  components or  assemblies a  manufacturer
would produce internally versus purchase. All parts designated as a "make" part, within
the analysis, are costed in full detail.

MAQS  (Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary) worksheet: standardized
template used  in the analysis  to  calculate the mass production  manufacturing  cost,
including supplier mark-up,  for each system, subsystem, and  assembly quoted in the
analysis. Every  component and assembly costed in  the  analysis will have a MAQS
worksheet. The worksheet is based on a standard OEM (original equipment manufacturer)
quote sheet modified for improved  costing transparency and  flexibility  in sensitivity
studies.  The main feeder documents to the MAQS worksheets are process maps and the
costing  databases.
                  7
MCRs (Material Cost Reductions): a process employed to identify and  capture potential
design and/or manufacturing optimization ideas  with the hardware under  evaluation.
These savings could potentially reduce or increase the differential costs between the new
and base technology configurations, depending on whether an MCR idea is for the new or
the base technology.
-------
                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 821

Metal  injection molding (MIM): is a metalworking process where  finely-powdered
metal is mixed with a measured amount of binder material to comprise a 'feedstock'
capable of being handled by plastic processing equipment through a process known as
injection mold forming

MSRP: Manufacturing Suggested Retail Price

Naturally Aspirated (NA):  is one common  type of  reciprocating  piston  internal
combustion that depends solely on atmospheric pressure to counter the partial vacuum in
the induction tract to draw in combustion air.

Net Component/Assembly Cost Impact to OEM: the net manufacturing cost impact per
unit  to the  OEM for a  defined component,  assembly,  subsystem,  or system. For
components produced by the supplier base, the net manufacturing cost impact to the OEM
includes total manufacturing costs (material, labor, and manufacturing overhead), mark-
up (end-item scrap costs, selling, general and administrative costs, profit, and engineering
design and  testing  costs)  and  packaging  costs. For  OEM  internally manufactured
components, the net manufacturing cost impact to the OEM includes total manufacturing
costs and  packaging  costs; mark-up  costs  are addressed through the application of an
indirect cost multiplier.

NTAs  (New Technology  Advances):  a  process employed to identify and  capture
alternative advance technology ideas which could be substituted for some of the existing
hardware under evaluation. These advanced technologies, through improved function and
performance, and/or  cost reductions,  could  help increase  the  overall value  of the
technology configuration.

Port Fuel Injected (PFI): is a method for admitting fuel into an internal combustion
engine by fuel injector sprays into the port of the intake manifold.

Powertrain Package Proforma: a summary worksheet comparing the key physical and
performance attributes of the technology under study with those  of the corresponding
base configuration.

Power-Split HEV:  In a power-split  hybrid electric drive train there are two motors:  an
electric motor and an internal combustion engine. The power from these two motors can
be shared to drive the wheels via a power splitter, which is a simple planetary gear set.

Process Maps:  detailed process  flow  charts used to capture the operations and processes
and associated key manufacturing variables involved in manufacturing products at any
level (e.g., vehicle, system, subsystem, assembly, and component).
-------
                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 822

P-VCSM (Powertrain-Vehicle Class  Summary Matrix):  records the technologies
being evaluated, the applicable vehicle classes for each technology, and key parameters
for vehicles or vehicle systems that have been selected to represent the new technology
and baseline configurations in each vehicle class to be costed.

Quote: the analytical process of establishing a cost for a component or assembly.

RPE: Retail Price Equivalent

SG&A (selling general and administrative): is an acronym used in accounting to refer
to Selling, General and Administrative Expenses, which is a major non-production costs
presented in an Income statement.

Sub-subsystem: a group of interdependent assemblies and/or components,  required to
create a functioning sub-sub system. For example, the  air induction subsystem contains
several  sub-subsystems including  turbocharging, heat exchangers, pipes,  hoses, and
ducting.

Subsystem: a group of interdependent sub-subsystems, assemblies and/or components,
required  to  create a functioning subsystem. For example, the engine system contains
several subsystems including  crank drive subsystem, cylinder block subsystem, cylinder
head subsystem, fuel induction subsystem, and air induction subsystem.

Subsystem CMAT (Cost Model Analysis Templates): the document  used to display
and roll up all the sub-sub system, assembly, and component incremental costs associated
with a  subsystem (e.g.,  fuel induction,  air induction,  exhaust), as defined by the
Comparison Bill of Material (CBOM).

Surrogate  part: a part similar in fit, form, and  function as another part that is required
for the cost analysis. Surrogate parts are sometimes used in the cost analysis when  actual
parts are unavailable.  The surrogate part's cost is considered equivalent to the  actual
part's cost.

System:  a group of  interdependent  subsystems, sub-subsystems, assemblies,  and/or
components working together to create a vehicle primary function (e.g.,  engine system,
transmission system, brake system, fuel system, suspension system).

System CMAT (Cost  Model  Analysis Template): the  document used to display and roll
up  all  the subsystem  incremental  costs associated with  a   system  (e.g.,  engine,
transmission, steering) as defined by the CBOMs.
-------
Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
              March 30, 2012
                  Page 823
-------
         Cost Curve of Mass Reduction vs $/kg for the
 200 T-                    Toyota Venza-
 0.00
     0/0
  2.00
 E
 as
 g&.oo
 01
 Q.
 tt
 (§6.00
 -8.00
-10.00
5%
20%
                   y = 43.251x-8.0615
             I58.6x3 - 895.07X2 + 136.99x -10.499
25%
             •Compounded
             Non Compounded
             •Compounded Total
             -Poly. (Compounded)
             - Linear (Compounded)
                          Mass Reduction (%)
-------