Light-Duty Vehicle Mass Reduction and
Cost Analysis —
Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
Light-Duty Vehicle Mass Reduction and
Cost Analysis —
Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle
Assessment and Standards Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared for EPA by
FEV
EPA Contract No. EP-C-12-014
Work Assignment No. 0-3
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-12-026
August 2012
-------
Page iii
Contents
Section Page
A. Executive Summary 1
B. Introduction 8
B.1 Project Overview 8
B.1.1 Background for Studying Mass-Reduction 8
B.1.2 Mass-Reduction Evaluation - Phase 1, Background Information 9
B.1.3 Mass-Reduction Evaluation - Phase 2, Purpose and Objectives 10
B.1.4 Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis Process Overview 12
C. Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis Assumptions 14
C.1 Mass-Reduction Analysis Assumptions 14
C.2 Cost Analysis Assumptions 16
D. Mass Reduction Analysis Methodology 19
D.1 Overview of Methodology 19
D.2 Project Task One - Non Body-In-White Systems Mass-Reduction and
Cost Analysis 20
D.2.1 Baseline Vehicle Finger Printing 20
D.2.2 Mass-Reduction Idea Generation 22
D.2.3 Preliminary Mass-Reduction and Cost Estimates 25
D.2.4 Mass-Reduction and Cost Optimization Process 27
D.2.5 Detailed Mass-Reduction Feasibility and Cost Analysis 32
D.3 Project Task Two - Body-In-White Systems Mass-Reduction and
Cost Analysis 34
D.3.1 Introduction 34
D.3.2 Body System CAE Evaluation Process 35
D.3.3 Vehicle Teardown 36
D.3.4 Vehicle Scanning 39
D.3.5 Initial FE Model 41
D.3.5.1 Material Data 41
D.3.5.2 FE Modeling from Scan Data 41
-------
Page iv
D.3.5.3 FE Materials Selection 44
D.3.6 FEA Model Validation—Baseline NVH Model 45
D.3.6.1 Model Statistics 45
D.3.6.1.1 Static Bending Stiffness 46
D.3.6.1.2 Static Torsion Stiffness 47
D.3.6.1.3 Modal Frequency 48
D.3.6.2 FE Model Validation 48
D.3.6.3 Step I: NVH Test Setup 49
D.3.6.3.1 Static Bending Stiffness Test Setup 49
D.3.6.3.2 Static Torsional Stiffness Test Setup 50
D.3.6.3.3 Dynamic Modal Test Setup 51
D.3.6.4 Step II: Construction and Correlation of NVH Model 52
D.3.6.5 Step III: EDAG CAE Baseline Model 54
D.3.7 Lotus Results Validation 54
D.3.8 Baseline Crash Model 57
D.3.8.1 Model Building 57
D.3.8.1.1 Major System for Full Vehicle Model 57
D.3.8.1.2 Mass Validation 59
D.3.8.1.3 FE Modeling Technique 60
D.3.8.2 Powertrain Mass & Inertia Calibration Test 61
D.3.8.3 Measuring Powertrain CG & Moment of Inertia 61
D.3.8.4 Baseline Crash Model Set-up 62
D.3.8.5 Baseline Crash Model Evaluation 64
D.3.8.5.1 FMVSS 208—35 MPH Flat Frontal Crash (US NCAP) 64
Model Setup 64
Deformation Mode Comparison 66
Body Pulse Comparison 69
D.3.8.5.2 FMVSS 214—38.5MPH MDB Side Impact 73
Model Setup 73
Deformation Mode Comparison 74
-------
Page v
Intrusion Comparison 76
D.3.9 Baseline Crash Results 80
D.3.9.1 FMVSS 208—35 MPH Flat Frontal Crash (US NCAP) 80
D.3.9.2 Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB Frontal Crash (Euro
NCAP/IIHS) 80
Model Setup 80
Deformation Mode 82
Body Pulse, Dynamic Crush, and Intrusion 84
D.3.9.3 FMVSS 214—38.5 MPH MDB Side Impact 88
D.3.9.4 FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB Rear Impact 88
Model Setup 88
Deformation Mode 88
Fuel Tank Integrity 90
Structural Deformation 92
D.3.9.5 FMVSS 216a Roof Crush Resistance 93
Model Setup 93
Structural Strength 95
E. Cost Analysis Methodology 98
E.1 Overview of Costing Methodology 98
E.2 Teardown, Process Mapping, and Costing 98
E.2.1 Cost Methodology Fundamentals 98
E.2.2 Serial and Parallel Manufacturing Operations and Processes 101
E.3 Cost Model Overview 104
E.4 Indirect OEM Costs 106
E.5 Costing Databases 107
E.5.1 Database Overview 107
E.5.2 Material Database 107
E.5.2.1 Overview 107
E.5.2.2 Material Selection Process 107
E.5.2.3 Pricing Sources and Considerations 108
E.5.2.4 In-process Scrap 109
-------
Page vi
E.5.2.5 Purchase Parts - Commodity Parts 110
E.5.3 Labor Database 111
E.5.3.1 Overview 111
E.5.3.2 Direct Versus Total Labor, Wage Versus Rate 111
E.5.3.3 Contributors to Labor Rate and Labor Rate Equation 112
E.5.4 Manufacturing Overhead Database 113
E.5.4.1 Overview 113
E.5.4.2 Manufacturing Overhead Rate Contributors and
Calculations 114
E.5.4.3 Acquiring Manufacturing Overhead Data 115
E.5.5 Mark-up (Scrap, SG&A, Profit, ED&T) 118
E.5.5.1 Overview 118
E.5.5.2 Mark-up Rate Contributors and Calculations 118
E.5.5.3 Assigning Mark-up Rates 121
E.5.6 Packaging Database 121
E.5.6.1 Overview 121
E.5.6.2 Types of Packaging and Selection Process 122
E.5.6.3 Support for Costs in Packaging Database 122
E.6 Shipping Costs 123
E.7 Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary Worksheet 123
E.7.1 Overview 123
E.7.2 Main Sections of Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary
Worksheet 124
E.8 Marketplace Validation 130
E.9 Cost Model Analysis Templates 130
E.9.1 Subsystem, System and Vehicle Cost Model Analysis Templates 130
E.10 Differential Tooling Cost Analysis 131
E.10.1 Differential Tooling Cost Analysis Overview 131
E.10.2 Differential Tooling Cost Analysis Methodology 131
E.11 Cost Curve - % Mass Reduction vs. Cost per Kilogram 134
E.11.1 Cost Curve Development Overview 134
E.11.2 Cost Curve Development Overview 135
-------
Page vii
F. Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Results 139
F.1 Vehicle Results Summary 139
F.1.1 Mass-Reduction, Cost and Volume Study Assumptions 139
F.1.2 Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Summary 140
F.2 Engine System 147
F.2.1 Engine Assembly Downsize (2.4L) 149
F.2.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 149
F.2.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 150
F.2.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 150
F.2.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 151
F.2.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 151
F.2.1.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 152
F.2.2 Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem 154
F.2.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 154
F.2.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 155
F.2.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 157
F.2.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 157
F.2.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 158
F.2.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 160
F.2.3 Crank Drive Subsystem 160
F.2.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview 160
F.2.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 161
F.2.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 162
F.2.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 163
F.2.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 164
F.2.3.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 168
F.2.4 Counter Balance Subsystem 168
F.2.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview 168
F.2.4.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 169
F.2.4.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 170
-------
Page viii
F.2.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 170
F.2.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 171
F.2.4.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 171
F.2.5 Cylinder Block Subsystem 171
F.2.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview 171
F.2.5.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 172
F.2.5.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 173
F.2.5.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 174
F.2.5.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 176
F.2.5.5.1 Cylinder Block 176
F.2.5.5.2 Cylinder Liner 179
F.2.5.5.3 Crankcase Adapter 180
F.2.5.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 181
F.2.6 Cylinder Head Subsystem 182
F.2.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview 182
F.2.6.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 183
F.2.6.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 184
F.2.6.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 184
F.2.6.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 185
F.2.6.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 187
F.2.7 Valvetrain Subsystem 188
F.2.7.1 Subsystem Content Overview 188
F.2.7.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 189
F.2.7.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 190
F.2.7.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 191
F.2.7.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 193
F.2.7.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 196
F.2.8 Timing Drive Subsystem 197
F.2.8.1 Subsystem Content Overview 197
F.2.8.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 198
F.2.8.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 199
-------
Page ix
F.2.8.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 200
F.2.8.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 201
F.2.8.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 204
F.2.9 Accessory Drive Subsystem 204
F.2.9.1 Subsystem Content Overview 204
F.2.10 Air Intake Subsystem 205
F.2.10.1 Subsystem Content Overview 205
F.2.10.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 206
F.2.10.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 207
F.2.10.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 207
F.2.10.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 208
F.2.10.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 211
F.2.11 Fuel Induction Subsystem 211
F.2.11.1 Subsystem Content Overview 211
F.2.11.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 212
F.2.11.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 213
F.2.11.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 213
F.2.11.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 214
F.2.11.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 214
F.2.12 Exhaust Subsystem 215
F.2.12.1 Subsystem Content Overview 215
F.2.12.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 216
F.2.13 Lubrication Subsystem 217
F.2.13.1 Subsystem Content Overview 217
F.2.13.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 218
F.2.13.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 219
F.2.13.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 219
F.2.13.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 219
F.2.13.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 222
F.2.14 Cooling Subsystem 223
F.2.14.1 Subsystem Content Overview 223
-------
Pagex
F.2.14.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 224
F.2.14.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 224
F.2.14.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 225
F.2.14.4 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 226
F.2.14.5 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 228
F.2.15 Induction Air Charging Subsystem 228
F.2.16 Exhaust Gas Re-circulation 228
F.2.17 Breather Subsystem 229
F.2.17.1 Subsystem Content Overview 229
F.2.17.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 229
F.2.17.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 230
F.2.17.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 230
F.2.17.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 230
F.2.17.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 231
F.2.18 Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Elec. Subsystem 232
F.2.18.1 Subsystem Content Overview 232
F.2.18.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 232
F.2.18.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 233
F.2.18.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 233
F.2.18.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 234
F.2.18.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 234
F.2.19 Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.) 235
F.2.19.1 Subsystem Content Overview 235
F.2.19.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 236
F.2.19.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 236
F.2.19.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 237
F.2.19.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 237
F.2.19.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 238
F.3 Transmission System 240
F.3.1 External Components 242
F.3.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 242
-------
Page xi
F.3.2 Case Subsystem 242
F.3.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 242
F.3.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 244
F.3.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 244
F.3.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 245
F.3.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 245
F.3.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 246
F.3.3 Gear Train Subsystem 246
F.3.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview 246
F.3.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 247
F.3.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 247
F.3.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Used 247
F.3.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 248
F.3.3.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 249
F.3.4 Internal Clutch Subsystem 250
F.3.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview 250
F.3.5 Launch Clutch Subsystem 250
F.3.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview 250
F.3.5.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 251
F.3.5.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 251
F.3.5.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 252
F.3.5.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 252
F.3.5.6 Preliminary Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 253
F.3.6 Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem 254
F.3.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview 254
F.3.6.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 255
F.3.6.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 255
F.3.6.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 255
F.3.6.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 255
F.3.6.6 Preliminary Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 257
F.3.7 Mechanical Controls Subsystem 257
-------
Page xii
F.3.8 Electrical Controls Subsystem 257
F.3.9 Parking Mechanism Subsystem 258
F.3.10 Misc. Subsystem 258
F.3.11 Electric Motor & Controls Subsystem 258
F.3.12 Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem 258
F.3.12.1 Subsystem Content Overview 258
F.3.12.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 259
F.3.12.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 259
F.3.12.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 260
F.3.12.5 Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas 260
F.3.12.6 Preliminary Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 261
F.3.12.7 Total Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates 261
F.4 Body Structure System 263
F.4.1 System Content Overview 263
F.4.2 Lightweight Design Optimization Process 265
F.4.3 Gauge and Grade Optimization Model 266
F.4.4 Gauge and Grade Optimization Response Surface 267
F.4.5 Gauge and Grade Optimization Results 268
F.4.6 Alternative Joining Technology 269
F.4.7 Alternative Materials 269
F.4.8 Alternative Manufacturing Technology 271
F.4.9 Geometry Change 272
F.4.10 Optimized Body Structure 273
F.4.11 Optimized Results 277
F.4.11.1 NVH Performance Results 278
F.4.11.2 Crash Performance Results 278
F.4.11.3 FMVSS 208—35 MPH flat frontal crash (US NCAP) 279
F.4.11.4 Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB Frontal Crash (Euro
NCAP/IIHS) 285
Dynamic Crush 288
Dash Panel Intrusions 289
F.4.11.5 FMVSS 214—38.5 MPH MDB side impact 291
-------
Page xiii
F.4.11.6 FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB Rear Impact 298
F.4.11.7 FMVSS 216a—Roof Crush Resistance 302
F.4.12 Cost Impact 306
F.4.13 Summary 309
F.4.14 Future Trends and Recommendation 309
F.5 Body System Group B 311
F.5.1 Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem 313
F.5.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 313
F.5.1.2 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 313
F.5.1.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 326
F.5.1.4 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 326
F.5.1.5 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 329
F.5.2 Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body) 330
F.5.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 330
F.5.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 330
F.5.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 331
F.5.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 331
F.5.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 332
F.5.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 332
F.5.3 Sealing Subsystem 333
F.5.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview 333
F.5.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 334
F.5.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 335
F.5.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 335
F.5.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 336
F.5.3.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 338
F.5.4 Seating Subsystem 339
F.5.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview 339
F.5.4.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 339
F.5.4.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 342
F.5.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 343
-------
Page xiv
F.5.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 345
F.5.4.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 358
F.5.5 Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem 362
F.5.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview 362
F.5.5.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 363
F.5.5.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 365
F.5.5.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 369
F.5.5.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 369
F.5.5.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 372
F.5.6 Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem 373
F.5.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview 373
F.5.6.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 374
F.5.6.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 376
F.5.6.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 381
F.5.6.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 382
F.5.6.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 383
F.6 Body System Group C 385
F.6.1 Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem 387
F.6.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 387
F.6.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 388
F.6.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 390
F.6.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 390
F.6.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 391
F.6.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 392
F.6.2 Rear View Mirrors Subsystem 393
F.6.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 393
F.6.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 394
F.6.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 395
F.6.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 395
F.6.2.5 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected 395
F.6.2.6 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts and Cost Impacts 396
-------
Page xv
F.6.3 Front End Module Subsystem 396
F.6.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview 396
F.6.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 397
F.6.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 398
F.6.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 398
F.6.3.5 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected 398
F.6.3.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 399
F.6.4 Rear End Module Subsystem 399
F.6.4.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 399
F.6.4.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 401
F.6.4.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 401
F.6.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 401
F.6.4.5 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected 402
F.6.4.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 402
F.7 Body System Group D 403
F.7.1 Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem 404
F.7.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 404
F.7.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 405
F.7.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 407
F.7.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 409
F.7.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 410
F.7.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 411
F.7.2 Handles, Locks, Latches & Mechanisms Subsystem. 412
F.7.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 412
F.7.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 414
F.7.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 415
F.7.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 416
F.7.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 417
F.7.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 418
F.7.3 Rear Hatch Lift Assembly Subsystem 418
F.7.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview 418
-------
Page xvi
F.7.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 419
F.7.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 420
F.7.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 420
F.7.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 420
F.7.3.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 421
F.7.4 Wipers and Washers Subsystem 421
F.7.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview 421
F.7.4.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 424
F.7.4.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 424
F.7.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 425
F.7.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 426
F.7.4.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 427
F.8 Body System Misc (Group A Components Not Include in EDAG
Analysis) 428
F.8.1 Subsystem Content Overview 428
F.8.1.1 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 429
F.8.1.2 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 430
F.8.1.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 430
F.8.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected 430
F.8.1.5 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 431
F.8.2 Front End Subsystem 431
F.8.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 431
F.8.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 432
F.8.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 432
F.8.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 433
F.8.2.5 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected 433
F.8.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 434
F.9 Suspension System 435
F.9.1 Front Suspension Subsystem 436
F.9.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 436
F.9.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 438
-------
Page xvii
F.9.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 439
F.9.1.3.1 Front Control Arm Assembly 440
F.9.1.3.2 Front Steering Knuckle 445
F.9.1.3.3 Front Stabilizer Bar System 446
F.9.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 450
F.9.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 454
F.9.1.5.1 Front Control Arm Assembly 456
F.9.1.5.2 Front Steering Knuckle 461
F.9.1.5.3 Front Stabilizer Bar System 462
F.9.1.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 466
F.9.2 Rear Suspension Subsystem 467
F.9.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 467
F.9.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 469
F.9.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 470
F.9.2.3.1 Rear Arm Assembly//! 470
F.9.2.3.2 Rear Arm Assembly #2 471
F.9.2.3.3 Rear Rod Assembly 471
F.9.2.3.4 Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle 472
F.9.2.3.5 Rear Stabilizer Bar System 473
F.9.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 476
F.9.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 479
F.9.2.5.1 Rear Arm Assembly//! 481
F.9.2.5.2 Rear Arm Assembly #2 482
F.9.2.5.3 Rear Rod Assembly 482
F.9.2.5.4 Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle 483
F.9.2.5.5 Rear Stabilizer Bar System 484
F.9.2.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 487
F.9.3 Shock Absorber Subsystem 488
F.9.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview 488
F.9.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 491
-------
Page xviii
F.9.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 492
F.9.3.3.1 Strut / Damper Module Assemblies 493
F.9.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 500
F.9.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 505
F.9.3.5.1 Strut / Damper Module Assemblies 508
F.9.3.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 516
F.9.4 Wheels and Tires Subsystem 516
F.9.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview 516
F.9.4.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 518
F.9.4.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 518
F.9.4.3.1 Road Wheel & Tire Assemblies 518
F.9.4.3.2 Spare Wheel & Tire Assembly 521
F.9.4.3.3 Lug Nuts 523
F.9.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 523
F.9.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 526
F.9.4.5.1 Road Wheel & Tire Assemblies 527
F.9.4.5.2 Spare Wheel & Tire Assembly 529
F.9.4.5.3 Lug Nuts 531
F.9.4.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 532
F.10 Driveline System 533
F.10.1 Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem 535
F.10.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 535
F.10.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 536
F.10.2 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 536
F.10.2.1 Drive Hubs 536
F.10.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 537
F.10.4 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 538
F.10.4.1 Front Drive Unit 538
F.10.5 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 539
F.10.6 Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem 540
F.I0.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview 540
-------
Page xix
F.10.7 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 542
F.10.8 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 542
F.10.8.1 Right-Hand Half Shaft 542
F.10.8.2 Bearing Carrier 542
F.10.8.3 Bearing Carrier Bolt 543
F.10.9 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 544
F.10.10 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 544
F.10.10.1 RH Half Shaft 545
F.10.10.2 Bearing Carrier 545
F.10.10.3 Bearing Carrier Bolt 546
F. 10.11 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 546
F.11 Braking System 548
F. 11.1 Front Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem 549
F.ll.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 549
F.ll.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 551
F.ll.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 552
F.I 1.1.3.1 Rotors 552
F.I 1.1.3.2 Splash Shields 553
F.I 1.1.3.3 Caliper Assembly 554
F.ll.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 558
F.I 1.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 560
F.I 1.1.5.1 Rotors 561
F.I 1.1.5.2 Splash Shields 569
F.I 1.1.5.3 Caliper Assembly 570
F.ll.1.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 574
F. 11.2 Rear Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem 576
F.ll.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 576
F.ll.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 578
F.ll.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 579
F.I 1.2.3.1 Rotors 579
F.I 1.2.3.2 Splash Shields 580
-------
Page xx
F.I 1.2.3.3 Caliper Assembly 581
F.ll.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 585
F.I 1.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 588
F.I 1.2.5.1 Rotors 589
F.I 1.2.5.2 Splash Shields 596
F.I 1.2.5.3 Caliper Assembly 597
F.ll.2.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 602
F.11.3 Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem 604
F.ll.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview 604
F.ll.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 606
F.ll.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 606
F. 11.3.3.1 Pedal Frame and Arm Sub-Assembly 607
F. 11.3.3.2 Cable System Sub-Assembly 608
F. 11.3.3.3 Brake Shoes and Attachments Sub-Assembly 608
F.ll.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 610
F.I 1.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 611
F. 11.3.5.1 Actuator Button Sub-Assembly 613
F.I 1.3.5.2 Cable System Sub-Assembly 613
F. 11.3.5.3 Caliper Motor Actuator Sub-Assembly 613
F.ll.3.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 614
F.11.4 Brake Actuation Subsystem 616
F.ll.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview 616
F.ll.4.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 617
F.ll.4.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 617
F. 11.4.3.1 Master Cylinder and Reservoir 617
F.I 1.4.3.2 Brake Lines and Hoses 618
F. 11.4.3.3 Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly 619
F. 11.4.3.4 Accelerator Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly 621
F.ll.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 622
F.I 1.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 624
-------
Page xxi
F. 11.4.5.1 Master Cylinder and Reservoir 625
F. 11.4.5.2 Brake Lines and Hoses 625
F. 11.4.5.3 Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly 625
F. 11.4.5.4 Accelerator Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly 628
F.ll.4.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 629
F.11.5 Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic) 631
F.ll.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview 631
F.ll.5.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 632
F.ll.5.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 633
F.11.5.3.1 Vacuum Booster Sub-Assembly 634
F.ll.5.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 637
F.I 1.5.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 639
F.I 1.5.5.1 Vacuum Booster Sub-Assembly 640
F.ll.5.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 644
F.12 Frame & Mounting System 645
F.12.1 Frame Subsystem 647
F.12.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 647
F.12.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 648
F.12.2 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 649
F.12.2.1 Front Frame 649
F.12.2.2 Rear Frame 650
F.12.2.3 Front Suspension Brackets 651
F.12.2.4 Front Damper Assembly 651
F.12.2.5 Frame Side Rail Brackets 652
F.12.2.6 RearSuspension Stopper Brackets 652
F.12.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 653
F.12.3.1 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 654
F.12.3.2 Front Suspension Brackets 655
F.12.3.3 Rear Suspension Stopper Brackets 656
F.12.3.4 Front Damper Assembly 657
F.12.3.5 Front Damper Assembly 657
-------
Page xxii
F.12.3.6 Front Frame Assembly 658
F.12.3.7 Rear Frame Assembly 659
F.12.4 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 659
F.13 Exhaust System 661
F.13.1 Acoustical Control Components Subsystem 662
F.13.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 662
F.13.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 663
F.13.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 663
F.13.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 664
F.13.1.5 Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas 665
F.13.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 670
F.13.2 Exhaust Gas Treatment Components Subsystem 671
F.13.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 671
F.13.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 672
F.13.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 673
F.13.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 673
F.13.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 674
F.13.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 675
F.14 Fuel System 676
F. 14.1 Fuel Tank & Lines Subsystem 678
F.14.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 678
F.14.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 679
F.14.2 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 679
F.14.2.1 Fuel Tank 679
F.14.2.2 Fuel Pump 681
F.14.2.3 Sending Unit 682
F.14.2.4 Fuel Tank Mounting Straps 683
F.14.2.5 Fuel Filler Tube Assembly 684
F.14.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 685
F.14.4 Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas 686
F.14.4.1 Cross-Over Tube Assembly 687
-------
Page xxiii
F.14.4.2 Fuel Tank 688
F.14.4.3 Fuel Tank Mounting Pins (Eliminated) 688
F.14.4.4 Fuel Pump Retaining Ring 689
F.14.4.5 Fuel Sending Unit Retaining Bracket 689
F.14.4.6 Large Bracket (Eliminated) 690
F.14.4.7 Protector Bracket (Eliminated) 690
F.14.4.8 Small Shield Bracket (Eliminated) 691
F.14.4.9 Fuel Filler Tube Assembly 691
F.14.5 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 692
F.14.6 Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem 693
F.14.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview 693
F.14.6.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 694
F.14.6.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 694
F.14.6.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 695
F.14.6.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 696
F.14.6.6 Canister Housing & Canister Cover 697
F.14.6.7 Canister Brackets 698
F.14.6.8 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 699
F.15 Steering System 700
F.15.1 Steering Gear Subsystem 702
F.15.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 702
F.15.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 703
F.15.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 703
F.15.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 703
F.15.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 704
F.15.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 704
F.15.2 Power Steering Subsystem 705
F.I5.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 705
F.15.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 705
F.15.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 706
F.15.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 706
-------
Page xxiv
F.15.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 706
F.15.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 707
F.15.3 Steering Column Subsystem 708
F.I5.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview 708
F.15.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 709
F.15.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 709
F.15.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 710
F.15.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 710
F.15.4 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 711
F.15.5 Steering Column Switches Subsystem 712
F.15.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview 712
F.15.5.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 713
F.15.5.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 713
F.15.5.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 713
F.15.5.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 713
F.15.6 Steering Wheel Subsystem 714
F.15.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview 714
F.15.6.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 714
F.15.6.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 715
F.15.6.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 716
F.15.6.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 716
F.15.6.6 Reduction & Cost Impact 717
F.16 Climate Control System 718
F.16.1 Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem 720
F.16.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 720
F.16.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 720
F.16.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 723
F.16.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 727
F.16.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 728
F.16.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 729
F.16.2 Heating/Defrosting Subsystem 730
-------
Page xxv
F.16.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview 730
F.16.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 731
F.16.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 731
F.16.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 731
F.16.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 732
F.16.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 732
F.16.3 Controls Subsystem 733
F.I6.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview 733
F.16.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 734
F.16.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 734
F.16.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 734
F.16.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 735
F.16.3.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 735
F.17 Info, Gage & Warning Device Systems 736
F.17.1 Instrument Cluster Subsystem 738
F.17.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 738
F.17.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 739
F.17.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 739
F.17.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 739
F.17.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 739
F.17.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 741
F.18 In-Vehicle Entertainment System 742
F.18.1 In-Vehicle Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem 744
F.18.1.1 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 745
F.18.1.2 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 746
F.18.1.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 746
F.18.1.4 Magnetic Tooling 747
F.18.1.5 Recycled Plastic 748
F.18.1.6 Widespread Application 749
F.18.1.7 Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas 749
F.18.1.8 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates 750
-------
Page xxvi
F.18.2 Antenna Subsystem 751
F.18.3 Speaker Subsystem 752
F.18.4 Total Mass Reduction and Cost Impact 753
F.19 Lighting System 753
F.19.1 Front Lighting Subsystem 755
F.19.1.1 Subsystems Content Overview 755
F.19.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline System Technology 756
F.19.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 758
F.19.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 761
F.19.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 761
F.19.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results 762
F.20 Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System 763
F.20.1 Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem 765
F.20.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview 765
F.20.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology 766
F.20.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends 766
F.20.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered 767
F.20.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas 768
F.20.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact 770
F.21 Additional Weight Savings Ideas Not Implemented 773
G. Conclusion, Recommendation and Acknowledgements 774
G.1 Conclusion & Recommendation 774
G.2 Acknowledgements 778
H. Appendix 780
H.1 Executive Summary for Lotus Engineering Phase 1 Report 781
H.2 Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction Published Articles, Papers, and
Journals Referenced as Information Sources in the Analysis 784
H.3 Photos of disassembled BIW parts used by EDAG to develop CAE
models 787
H.4 Scan Data from White Light Scanning 790
H.5 BIW Material Testing 791
-------
Page xxvii
H.6 Material Engineering Properties 792
H.7 EDAG Load Path Analysis 795
H.8 System Level Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMATs) 799
H.9 Suppliers who Contributed in the Analysis 883
I. Glossary of Terms 884
J. References 827
-------
Page xxviii
Figures
NUMBER PAGE
FIGURE A. 1-1: TOYOTA VENZA MASS-REDUCTION COST CURVES 7
FIGURE B. 1-1: KEY STEPS IN THE MASS-REDUCTION AND COST ANALYSIS PROJECT 12
FIGURE C. 1 -1: SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED TO DEVELOP MASS-REDUCTION COMPONENTS 15
FIGURED. 1-1: PROJECT ANALYSIS ROADMAPS BASED ON PROJECT TACKS 20
FIGURED.2-1: PRIMARY IDEA DOWN-SELECT PROCESS EXCERPT FROM FEVBRAINSTORMING TEMPLATE 24
FIGURE D.2-2: ESTIMATED WEIGHT AND COST IMPACT (PART 4) AND FINAL IDEAL DOWN-SELECTION (PART 5)
EXCERPT FROM FEVBRAINSTORMING TEMPLATE 26
FIGURED.2-3: MASS-REDUCTION IDEA GROUPING/BINNING BASES ON MASS-REDUCTION VALUE 27
FIGURED.2-4: COMPONENT/ASSEMBLY MASS-REDUCTION OPTIMIZATION PROCESS 28
FIGURED.2-5: SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION OPTIMIZATION PROCESS-ENGINEERED SOLUTION 30
FIGURED.2-6: SYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION OPTIMIZATION PROCESS-ENGINEERED SOLUTION 31
FIGURE D.2-7: POTENTIAL MASS-REDUCTION VEHICLE SOLUTIONS DEVELOPED THROUGH THE MASS-REDUCTION
OPTIMIZATION PROCESS 32
FIGURED.3-1: CAE EVALUATION PROCESS AND COMPONENTS 35
FIGURED.3-2: CAE EVALUATION PROCESS INPUTS, OUTPUTS, AND TOOLS 36
FIGURE D. 3-3: VEHICLE TEARDOWN PROCESS 37
FIGURED.3-4: BASELINE VEHICLE WEIGHTS 38
FIGURED. 3-5: WHITE LIGHT SCANNING PART IDENTIFICATION METHODOLOGY 40
FIGURED. 3-6: MESH GENERATION FROM STL RAW DATA 42
FIGURED.3-7: FE MODEL OF TOYOTA VENZA BODY STRUCTURE 42
FIGURED.3-8: GAUGE MAP OF BASELINE BIP MODEL 43
FIGURED.3-9: MATERIAL MAP OF BASELINE BIP MODEL 44
FIGURE D.3-10: TOYOTA VENZA INITIAL NVH MODEL 46
FIGURED.3-11: LOADS AND CONSTRAINTS ON NVH MODEL FOR BENDING STIFFNESS 47
FIGURED. 3-12: LOAD AND CONSTRAINTS ON NVH MODEL FOR TORSIONAL STIFFNESS 48
FIGURED.3-13: PROCESS FLOW TO BUILD BASELINE MODEL 49
FIGURED.3-14: BENDING STIFFNESS CAE SETUP 50
FIGURED.3-15: TORSION STIFFNESS CAE SETUP 51
FIGURED.3-16: CAE MODEL FOR NVH CORRELATION 53
FIGURED.3-17: MATERIAL MAP BASED ON LOTUS ENGINEERING INFORMATION 55
FIGURED.3-18: THICKNESS MAP BASED ON LOTUS ENGINEERING INFORMATION 55
FIGURED. 3-19: MAJOR SYSTEMS OF FULL-VEHICLE MODEL 58
FIGURED.3-20: GAUGE MAP OF CLOSURES MODELS OF BASELINE 59
FIGURED.3-21: MATERIAL MAP OF CLOSURES MODELS OF BASELINE 59
FIGURED. 3-22 :POWERTRAIN MASS & MOMENT OF INERTIA RESULTS 62
FIGURED.3-23: CONFIGURATION OF ALL LOAD CASE SET-UPS FOR BASELINE MODEL 63
FIGURED. 3-24 INTRUSION MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS 66
FIGURED.3-25: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON: RIGHT SIDE VIEW @SOMSEC 66
FIGURED.3-26: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON: LEFT SIDE VIEW @SOMSEC 67
FIGURED.3-27: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON: TOP VIEW @SOMSEC 67
FIGURED.3-28: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON: ISO VIEW @SOMSEC 67
FIGURED.3-29: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON: BOTTOM VIEW FRONT AREA @SOMSEC 68
FIGURED.3-30: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON: BOTTOM VIEW REAR AREA @SOMSEC 68
FIGURED. 3-31 INTERMEDIATE TIME FRONT ENGINE ROOM AND FRONT CRADLE @ 3 OMSEC 69
FIGURED. 3-3 2 INTERMEDIATE TIME FRONT ENGINE ROOM AND FRONT CRADLE @46MSEC 69
FIGURED. 3-3 3: LOCATION OF VEHICLE PULSE MEASUREMENT 70
FIGURED.3-34: BODY PULSE: CAE BASELINE MODEL vs. TEST 71
FIGURED.3-35: INITIAL CRUSH SPACE 72
FIGURED.3-36: FMVSS 208 BASELINE DYNAMIC CRUSH 72
FIGURE D.3-37: FMVSS 214,38.5MPHMDB SIDE IMPACT CAE MODEL SETUP 74
FIGURED.3-38: SIDE IMPACT: PRE-CRASH 74
FIGURED.3-39: SIDE IMPACT: POST-CRASH 75
-------
Page xxix
FIGURED. 3-40: DOORS DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON 75
FIGURED. 3-41: REAR DOOR APERTURE DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON 75
FIGURED.3-42: SIDE STRUCTURE EXTERIOR MEASURING LOCATION & POINTS 77
FIGURED.3-43: SIDE STRUCTURE DEFORMATION SECTION CUT AT 1200L 77
FIGURED.3-44: SIDE STRUCTURE DEFORMATION SECTION CUT AT 1650L 78
FIGURED.3-45: EURO NCAP BASELINE MODEL SETUP 81
FIGURED. 3-46: INTRUSION MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS 82
FIGURED.3-47: EURO NCAP BASELINE DEFORMATION MODE-Top VIEW 82
FIGURED.3-48: EURO NCAP BASELINE DEFORMATION MODE-ISOMETRIC VIEW 83
FIGURED.3-49: EURO NCAP BASELINE DEFORMATION MODE-LEFT SIDE VIEW 83
FIGURED.3-50: EURO NCAP BASELINE DEFORMATION MODE-BOTTOM VIEW 83
FIGURED.3-51: EURO NCAP BASELINE VEHICLE PULSE 84
FIGURED.3-52: ALLOWABLE CRUSH SPACE 85
FIGURED.3-53: EURO NCAP BASELINE DYNAMIC CRUSH WITH BARRIER DEFORMATION 85
FIGURED.3-54: EURO NCAP BASELINE DYNAMIC CRUSH WITHOUT BARRIER DEFORMATION 86
FIGURED. 3-5 5: EURO NCAP INTRUSION PLOT 87
FIGURED.3-56: REAR IMPACT BASELINE MODEL SETUP 88
FIGURED.3-57: DEFORMATION MODE-LEFT SIDE VIEW 89
FIGURED. 3-58: DEFORMATION MODE OF REAR UNDERBODY STRUCTURE-LEFT SIDE VIEW 89
FIGURED.3-59: DEFORMATION MODE-BOTTOM VIEW AT 100 MS 90
FIGURED.3-60: DEFORMATION MODE OF REAR UNDERBODY STRUCTURE-BOTTOM VIEW AT 100 MS 90
FIGURED.3-61: FUEL TANK PLASTIC STRAIN PLOT OF BASELINE-Top VIEW 91
FIGURED.3-62: FUEL TANK PLASTIC STRAIN PLOT OF BASELINE-BOTTOM VIEW 91
FIGURED.3-63: REAR IMPACT, STRUCTURAL DEFORMATION MEASUREMENT AREA 92
FIGURED.3-64: ROOF CRUSH BASELINE MODEL SETUP 94
FIGURED.3-65: ROOF CRUSH BASELINE AFTER CRUSH VIEW 95
FIGURED.3-66: ROOF CRUSH RESISTANCE BASELINE AFTER CRUSH 96
FIGURED.3-67: ROOF CRUSH FORCE vs. DISPLACEMENT PLOT OF BASELINE 97
FIGURE E.2-1: FUNDAMENTAL STEPS IN COSTING PROCESS 103
FIGURE E.3-1: UNIT COST MODEL-COSTING FACTORS INCLUDED IN ANALYSIS 104
FIGURE E.7-1: SAMPLE MAQS COSTING WORKSHEET (PART 1OF2) 125
FIGURE E.I-2: SAMPLE MAQS COSTING WORKSHEET (PART 2 OF 2) 126
FIGURE E.7-3: EXCERPT ILLUSTRATING AUTOMATED LINK BETWEEN OEM/T1 CLASSIFICATION INPUT IN MAQS
WORKSHEET AND THE CORRESPONDING MARK-UP PERCENTAGES UPLOADED FROM THE MARK-UP DATABASE
127
FIGURE E. 10-1: SAMPLE EXCERPT FROM MASS-REDUCED FRONT BRAKE ROTOR MAQS WORKSHEET ILLUSTRATING
TOOLING COLUMN AND CATEGORIES 133
FIGURE E. 11-1: DEVELOPMENT OF COST CURVE USING MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS WITHOUT MASS COMPOUNDING .. 136
FIGURE E. 11-2: DEVELOPMENT OF COST CURVE USING MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS WITH COMPOUNDING REMOVED
FROM INITIAL ASSESSMENT 137
FIGURE E.I 1-3: TOYOTA VENZAMASS-REDUCTION COST CURVES 138
FIGURE F. 1-1: MASS OF 2010 TOYOTA VENZA (PRODUCTION STOCK) VEHICLE SYSTEMS 140
FIGURE F. 1 -2: CALCULATED SYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION RELATIVE TO BASELINE VEHICLE STARTING MASS 141
FIGURE F.2-1: VENZA ENGINE MOUNT DIAGRAM 156
FIGURE F.2-2: INDUSTRY TREND TIMING BELT vs. CHAIN APPLICATIONS 200
FIGURE F.4-1: LIGHTWEIGHT DESIGN OPTIMIZATION PROCESS 264
FIGURE F.4-2: TOYOTA VENZA BODY WEIGHT OPTIMIZATION MODEL 266
FIGURE F.4-3: RESPONSE SURFACE OUTPUT FROM OPTIMIZER 268
FIGURE F.4-4: LASER WELDS APPLICATION ON BODY STRUCTURE 269
FIGURE F.4-5: GAUGE MAP OF OPTIMIZED CLOSURE PARTS 270
FIGURE F.4-6: MATERIAL MAP OF OPTIMIZED CLOSURE PARTS 270
FIGURE F.4-7: BODY SIDE PARTS REPLACED WITH TRB PARTS 271
FIGURE F.4-8: CROSSMEMBERS REPLACED WITH TRB PARTS 272
FIGURE F.4-9: DESIGN CHANGE ON SIDE INNER ROCKER (DRIVER SIDE) 273
FIGURE F.4-10: GAUGE MAP OF OPTIMIZED MODEL 273
-------
Page xxx
FIGURE F.4-11: MATERIAL MAP OF OPTIMIZED MODEL 274
FIGURE F.4-12: DEFORMATION MODE LEFT SIDE VIEW @ SOMS 279
FIGURE F.4-13: DEFORMATION MODE RIGHT SIDE VIEW @ SOMS 280
FIGURE F.4-14: DEFORMATION MODE TOP SIDE VIEW @ SOMS 280
FIGURE F.4-15: DEFORMATION MODE TOP SIDE VIEW @ SOMS 280
FIGURE F.4-16: DEFORMATION MODE TOP SIDE VIEW @80MS 281
FIGURE F.4-17: VEHICLE PULSE COMPARISON BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED 282
FIGURE F.4-18: DYNAMIC CRUSH COMPARISON BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED 283
FIGURE F.4-19:TTZV COMPARISON BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED 284
FIGURE F.4-20: DEFORMATION MODE TOP VIEW @ 140MS 285
FIGURE F.4-21: DEFORMATION MODE ISO VIEW @ 140MS 285
FIGURE F.4-22: DEFORMATION MODE LEFT SIDE VIEW @ 140MS 286
FIGURE F.4-23: DEFORMATION MODE BOTTOM VIEW @140MS-BASELINE 286
FIGURE F.4-24: DEFORMATION MODE BOTTOM VIEW @140MS-OPTIMIZED 287
FIGURE F.4-25: BODY PULSE COMPARISON BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED 288
FIGURE F.4-26: DYNAMIC CRUSH COMPARISON BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED (WITH BARRIER DEFORMATION) 289
FIGURE F.4-27: DYNAMIC CRUSH COMPARISON BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED (WITHOUT BARRIER DEFORMATION) 289
FIGURE F.4-28: DASH PANEL INTRUSION PLOT FOR EURO NCAP 290
FIGURE F.4-29: GLOBAL DEFORMATION MODES OF BASELINE AND OPTIMIZED MODELS 292
FIGURE F.4-30: DEFORMATION MODES OF FRONT AND REAR DOORS OF BASELINE AND OPTIMIZED MODELS 293
FIGURE F.4-31: REAR DOOR APERTURE DEFORMATIONS OF BASELINE AND OPTIMIZED MODELS 293
FIGURE F.4-32: SIDE STRUCTURE INTRUSION PLOT OF OPTIMIZED MODEL @ 1200L SECTION 294
FIGURE F.4-33: SIDE STRUCTURE INTRUSION PLOT OF OPTIMIZED MODEL @ 1650L SECTION 295
FIGURE F.4-34: SIDE STRUCTURE INTRUSION PLOT OF BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED MODEL @ 1200L SECTION 296
FIGURE F.4-35: SIDE STRUCTURE INTRUSION PLOT OF BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED MODEL @ 1650L SECTION 297
FIGURE F.4-36: DEFORMATION MODE OF OPTIMIZED MODEL-LEFT SIDE VIEW 298
FIGURE F.4-37: DEFORMATION MODE OF OPTIMIZED MODEL REAR STRUCTURE AREA -LEFT SIDE VIEW 299
FIGURE F.4-38: DEFORMATION MODE OF OPTIMIZED MODEL - BOTTOM VIEW 299
FIGURE F.4-39: DEFORMATION MODE OF OPTIMIZED MODEL REAR STRUCTURE AREA-BOTTOM VIEW 300
FIGURE F.4-40: COMPARISON OF FUEL TANK SYSTEM INTEGRITY 301
FIGURE F.4-41: STRUCTURAL DEFORMATION MEASURING AREA IN REAR IMPACT 302
FIGURE F.4-42: DEFORMATION MODE OF ROOF CRUSH 303
FIGURE F.4-43: PLASTIC STRAIN CONTOUR OF SIDE UPPER STRUCTURE IN OPTIMIZED MODEL 304
FIGURE F.4-44: ROOF CRUSH LOAD vs. DISPLACEMENT PLOT 305
FIGURE F.5-l:MuCELL® BY TREXEL™ FOAMING PROCESS PRESENTATION 315
FIGURE F.5-2: JYCO PRESENTATION 337
FIGURE F.5-3THIXOMOLDING® EXAMPLES 349
FIGURE F.5-4: PROBAX® SYSTEM 354
FIGURE F.5-5: THE WOODBRIDGE GROUP™ CONCEPT AND PROCESS 357
FIGURE F.5-6: ILLUSTRATION OF MUBEA'S TAILOR ROLLED BLANK PROCESS 366
FIGURE F.5-7: PASSENGER SIDE AIRBAG HOUSINGS, FABRICATED STEEL ASSEMBLY (LEFT) AND INJECTION MOLDED
PLASTIC COMPONENT (RIGHT) 377
FIGURE F.5-8: TOYOTA VENZA'S STEEL AIRBAG HOUSING (LEFT) AND PLASTIC AIRBAG HOUSING RENDERING (RIGHT)
377
FIGURE F.5-9: VFT AIRBAG FOIL 379
FIGURE F.5-10: BREAKDOWN OF STEERING WHEEL AIRBAG MASS REDUCTIONS 384
FIGURE F.7-1: EXPLODED VIEW OF LAMINATED GLASS CROSS-SECTION 407
FIGURE F.9-1: ROAD WHEEL & TIRE POSITION DIAGRAM 517
FIGURE F. 9-2: ROAD WHEEL CURRENT COMPONENT DESIGN EXAMPLE 521
FIGURE F.I 1-1: FRONT ROTOR/DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM RELATIVE LOCATION DIAGRAM 550
FIGURE F.I 1-2: FRONT CALIPER ASSEMBLY COMPONENT DIAGRAM EXAMPLE 571
FIGURE F.I 1-3: PARKING BRAKE AND ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM LAYOUT AND CONFIGURATION 606
FIGURE F. 11-4 :VW ELECTRO-MECHANICAL PARK BRAKE SYSTEM 612
FIGURE F.I 1-5: CALIPER MOTOR ACTUATOR MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY 614
FiGUREF.ll-6:EPB SYSTEM ENGAGING THE CALIPER AND ROTOR COMPONENTS 614
-------
Page xxxi
FIGURE F. 13-1: BASIC MUBEA® PROCESS 666
FIGURE F. 13-2: MUBEATRB® EXHAUST PIPE MANUFACTURING PROCESS 668
FIGURE F.I 3-3 :SGF® HANGERS 670
FIGURE F. 15-1: STEERING WHEEL CROSS-SECTION VIEW 716
FIGURE F. 16-1 :ZoTEFOAMS MANUFACTURING PROCESS 724
FIGURE F. 19-1: PROCESSING COMPARISON BETWEEN BMC AND ULTEM®PEI 760
FIGURE F.20-1: PRODUCTION PROCESS OF AUTOMOTIVE WIRE 764
FIGURE H.4-1: STL DATA SAMPLES OF SUB-ASSEMBLIES, SMALL AND LARGER PARTS 790
FIGURE H.4-2: WELD POINTS DATA FROM SCANNING PROCESS 790
FIGURE H.7-1: SECTION FORCE OF BASELINE MODEL IN FRONT CRASH 795
FIGURE H.7-2: FORCE OF BASELINE MODEL IN FRONT OFFSET CRASH 796
FIGURE H.7-3: SECTION FORCE OF BASELINE MODEL IN SIDE CRASH 796
FIGURE H.7-4: SECTION FORCE OF BASELINE MODEL IN REAR CRASH 797
FIGURE H.7-5: SECTION FORCE OF BASELINE MODEL IN ROOF CRUSH 797
FIGURE H.7-6: SECTION FORCE BAR CHART 798
FIGURE H.7-7: NORMALIZED COMBINED SECTIONAL FORCE BAR CHART 798
-------
Page xxxii
Images
NUMBER PAGE
IMAGE B.1-1:2009 TOYOTA VENZA 9
IMAGE D.2-1:2010 TOYOTA VENZA FRONT SUB-FRAME MODULE AS REMOVED DURING THE TEARDOWN PROCESS .21
IMAGED. 2-2: TOYOTA VENZA FUEL TANK DISASSEMBLED 22
IMAGED.3-1: BENDING STIFFNESS TESTING SETUP 50
IMAGED.3-2: TORSION STIFFNESS TESTING SETUP 51
IMAGED. 3-3: DYNAMIC MODAL TEST SETUP 52
IMAGED. 3-4 :PowERTRAiN AND/OR ENGINE CENTER OF GRAVITY 62
IMAGED.3-5: FMVSS 208 35 MPH FLAT FRONTAL CRASH TEST SETUP 65
IMAGE F.2-1: VENZA BASE ENGINE (TOYOTA 2.7L1AR-FE) 150
IMAGE F.2-2: ENGINE DOWNSIZE SELECTION (TOYOTA 2.4L2AZ-FE) 152
IMAGE F.2-3: VENZA ENGINE MOUNT (STAMPED STEEL WELDMENT) 156
IMAGE F.2-4: POLYAMIDE TORQUE DAMPENER 157
IMAGE F.2-5:PoLYAMiDE ENGINE MOUNT 157
IMAGE F.2-6: TORSION STRUT ASSEMBLY 159
IMAGE F.2-7: TORSION STRUT LINK 159
IMAGE F.2-8: LOWER ENGINE MOUNTING BRACKET 159
IMAGE F.2-9: KEY COMPONENTS-CRANKDRivE 162
IMAGE F.2-10: ALUMINUM CONNECTING ROD 163
IMAGE F.2-11: TITANIUM CONNECTING ROD 163
IMAGE F.2-12: FULLY MACHINED & DOWELED ROD CAP 165
IMAGE F.2-13: CRACK BREAK ROD CAP 165
IMAGE F.2-14: CONNECTING ROD ASSEMBLY (VENZA) 166
IMAGE F.2-15: CONNECTING ROD ASSEMBLY (LIGHTWEIGHTED) 166
IMAGE F.2-16: FORGED IN OIL POCKETS (LIGHTWEIGHTED) 167
IMAGE F.2-17: VENZA BALANCE SHAFT ASSEMBLY 169
IMAGE F.2-18: SCHAEFFLER'S Low FRICTION ROLLER BEARING BALANCE SHAFT 171
IMAGE F.2-19: KEY COMPONENTS-CYLINDER BLOCK SUBSYSTEM 173
IMAGE F.2-20: AUDI LIGHTWEIGHT MAGNESIUM HYBRID ENGINE 175
IMAGE F.2-2 l:ALSH7Cu4 GRAVITY DIE CASTING 176
IMAGE F.2-22: BMW N52 MAGNESIUM ALUMINUM HYBRID ENGINE BLOCK 178
IMAGE F.2-23: ALUMINUM CYLINDER INSERT WITH INTEGRATED WATER JACKET AND BULKHEADS 178
IMAGE F.2-24: DIE CASTING-ALUMINUM CYLINDER INSERT 178
IMAGE F.2-25: DIE CASTING-ALUMINUM CYLINDER INSERT 179
IMAGE F.2-26: [BASE TECHNOLOGY] CAST IRON CYLINDER LINERS 180
IMAGE F.2-27: [NEW TECHNOLOGY] PLASMA TRANSFER WIRE ARC (PTWA) 180
IMAGE F.2-28: [BASE TECHNOLOGY] ALUMINUM CRANKCASE ADAPTER 180
IMAGE F.2-29: [NEWTECHNOLOGY] 181
IMAGE F.2-30: KEY COMPONENTS-CYLINDER HEAD SUBSYSTEM 184
IMAGE F.2-3 LMAHLE COMPOSITE CAM COVER 186
IMAGE F.2-32 (LEFT): ACCESS PLUG-CYLINDER HEAD 187
IMAGE F.2-33 (RIGHT): ACCESS PLUG (CLOSE-UP)-CYLINDER HEAD 187
IMAGE F.2-34: VALVETRAIN ASSEMBLY (PHASERS REMOVED) 190
IMAGE F.2-35: HOLLOW CAST CAMSHAFT- 1.4LEcoTEC 191
IMAGE F.2-36 (LEFT): HYDROFORMED CAMSHAFT 192
IMAGE F.2-37 (RIGHT): MAHLE SHEET STEEL VALVE 192
IMAGE F.2-38: [BASE TECHNOLOGY] SOLID CAST CAMSHAFT 193
IMAGEF.2-39: [NEWTECHNOLOGY] MUBEAHYDROFORMED CAMSHAFT (FIAT 1.8LDIESEL) 194
IMAGEF.2-40: [BASE TECHNOLOGY] SINTERED IRON CAM PHASER ROTOR, STATOR, SPROCKET 194
IMAGE F.2-41: [NEW TECHNOLOGY] 195
IMAGE F.2-42: [NEW TECHNOLOGY] SHW PM AL SPROCKET 195
IMAGE F.2-43: [BASE TECHNOLOGY] VALVE SPRING 196
IMAGE F.2-44: [NEWTECHNOLOGY] VALVE SPRING 196
-------
Page xxxiii
IMAGE F.2-45: VENZA TIMING DRIVE SYSTEM 199
IMAGE F.2-46: [BASE TECHNOLOGY] 202
IMAGE F.2-47: [NEWTECHNOLOGY] 202
IMAGE F.2-48: [BASE TECHNOLOGY] 203
IMAGE F.2-49: [NEWTECHNOLOGY] 203
IMAGE F.2-50: 203
IMAGE F.2-51: 203
IMAGE F.2-52: AIR INTAKE SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS 207
IMAGEF.2-53: [BASE TECHNOLOGY] THROTTLE BODY: ALUMINUM HOUSING 209
IMAGEF.2-54: [NEW TECHNOLOGY] THROTTLE BODY: PLASTIC HOUSING 209
IMAGE F.2-55: [BASE TECHNOLOGY] AIR FILTER ACCESS FASTENERS 209
IMAGE F.2-56: [NEW TECHNOLOGY] AIR FILTER ACCESS CLAMP 209
IMAGE F.2-57: AIR INTAKE COVER MUCELL-9% MASS SAVINGS 210
IMAGE F.2-58 : AIR INTAKE HOUSING MUCELL-9% MASS SAVINGS 210
IMAGE F.2-59 : MAIN INTAKE HOSE 210
IMAGE F.2-60: AIR INTAKE DUCT MUCELL-9% MASS SAVINGS 210
IMAGE F.2-61: AIR Box UPPER 210
IMAGE F.2-62: AIR Box LOWER 210
IMAGE F.2-63: FUEL INDUCTION SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS 212
IMAGE F.2-64: FUEL RAIL WITH INTEGRATED PULSATION DAMPENER 213
IMAGE F.2-65: PLASTIC FUEL RAIL (TOYOTA 3.5L) 214
IMAGE F.2-66: MANIFOLD WITH INTEGRATED CATALYST-2.7L TOYOTA 217
IMAGE F.2-67: LUBRICATION SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS 219
IMAGE F.2-68: OIL PAN BAFFLE PLATE 220
IMAGE F.2-69: OIL PAN BAFFLE PLATE ASSEMBLED 220
IMAGE F.2-70: PLASTIC DIP STICK TUBE (BMW 2L DIESEL) 221
IMAGE F.2-71: STEEL DIP STICK TUBE (VENZA) 221
IMAGE F.2-72: TOYOTA VENZA RADIATOR 224
IMAGE F.2-73: TRANSMISSION HEAT TRANSFER ELEMENT-ALUMINUM 225
IMAGE F.2-74: TRANSMISSION HEAT TRANSFER ELEMENT-COPPER ALLOY 225
IMAGE F.2-75: [NEW TECHNOLOGY] WATER PUMP ASSEMBLY-PLASTIC 227
IMAGE F.2-76: [BASE TECHNOLOGY] WATER PUMP ASSEMBLY-ALUMINUM 227
IMAGE F.2-77: FAN SHROUD AND FAN BLADES FAN SHROUD (MUCELL - 15% MASS SAVINGS); FAN BLADES
(MUCELL-7%MASS SAVINGS) 228
IMAGE F.2-78: BREATHER SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS 229
IMAGE F.2-79: ENGINE MANAGEMENT, ELECTRONIC SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS 233
IMAGE F.2-80: ACCESSORY SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS 236
IMAGE F.2-81: [BASE TECHNOLOGY] AC COMP BRACKET 238
IMAGEF.2-82: [NEW TECHNOLOGY] AC COMP BRACKET (NISSAN 3 50z) 238
IMAGE F.3-1: TOYOTA AUTOMATIC TRANSAXLE TRANSMISSION 241
IMAGE F. 3-2 :TRANSAXLE HOUSING 243
IMAGE F. 3 -3: VESPEL THRUST BEARING 249
IMAGE F. 3-4: TORQUE CONVERTER ASSEMBLY 251
IMAGE F.3-5: ALUMINUM TORQUE CONVERTER 253
IMAGE F. 3-6: ALUMINUM OIL PUMP ASSEMBLY 256
IMAGE F.3-7: SHIFT MODULE 258
IMAGE F.5-1: TOYOTA VENZA INTERIOR 313
IMAGE F.5-2: SAMPLE PART CROSS SECTION VIEW 320
IMAGE F.5-3: SAMPLE PART FRONT FACE VIEW 320
IMAGE F.5-4: TOYOTA VENZA HEAT AND ENGINE SHIELDS 331
IMAGE F.5-5: TOYOTA VENZA DOOR WEATHER STRIPPING 335
IMAGE F.5-6: FRONT SEAT FRAME 340
IMAGE F.5-7: FRONT PASSENGER SEAT IMAGE F.5-8:FRONT PASSENGER SEAT FRAME 340
IMAGE F.5-9: REAR 60% & 40% SEAT 341
IMAGE F.5-10: REAR 40% SEAT FRAME 341
-------
Page xxxiv
IMAGE F.5-11: BOTTOM PIVOT FRAME FOR THE REAR 60% SEAT; 342
IMAGE F.5-12: REAR 60% SEAT BACK FRAME 342
IMAGE F.5-13:THIXOMOLDING® EXAMPLES 350
IMAGE F.5-14 (TOP); IMAGE F.5-15 (BOTTOM): THKOMOLDING® EXAMPLES 351
IMAGE F.5-16: LEAR EVO®RECLINER IMAGE F.5-17: TOYOTA VENZA RECLINER 353
IMAGE F.5-18: LOTUS ELISE SEAT 354
IMAGE F.5-19: TOP OF TOYOTA VENZA ACTIVE HEAD REST (LEFT) 355
IMAGE F.5-20: BOTTOM OF TOYOTA VENZA ACTIVE HEAD REST (RIGHT) 355
IMAGE F.5-21: TOYOTA VENZA CROSS-CAR BEAM 363
IMAGE F.5-22: TOP OF DASH, IP BASE WITH SKIN COVER 364
IMAGE F.5-23: BOTTOM OF DASH, IP BASE 364
IMAGE F.5-24: DASH, IP BASE WITH SKIN COVER REMOVED 365
IMAGE F.5-25: DODGE CALIBER MAGNESIUM CROSS-CAR BEAM 367
IMAGEF.5-26: CCB EXAMPLES COMPARED BY THE STOLFIG® GROUP 368
IMAGE F.5-27: TOYOTA VENZA PASSENGER SIDE AIRBAG HOUSING (WITHOUT AIRBAG) 374
IMAGE F.5-28: TOYOTA VENZA PASSENGER SIDE AIRBAG HOUSING (WITH AIRBAG) 375
IMAGE F.5-29: TOYOTA VENZA PASSENGER SIDE AIRBAG HOUSING (REAR VIEW WITH INFLATOR) 375
IMAGE F.5-30: TOYOTA VENZA STEERING WHEEL AIRBAG ASSEMBLY, SHOWING VARIOUS FASTENERS 376
IMAGE F.5-31: STANDARD AIRBAG MODULE (LEFT) AND VFT MODULE (RIGHT) 378
IMAGE F.5-32:VFT AIRBAG USED IN FERRARI 458 ITALIA (LEFT) AND MCLAREN MP4-12C (RIGHT) 379
IMAGE F.5-33: COMPARISON OF DUAL AND SINGLE-STAGE AIRBAG INFLATORS 380
IMAGE F.5-34: STEERING WHEEL AIRBAG HOUSING FOR CHEVROLET CRUZE 381
IMAGE F.6-1: EXTERIOR TRIM-LOWER EXTERIOR FINISHER 389
IMAGE F.6-2: EXTERIOR TRIM-COWL VENT GRILL ASSEMBLY 389
IMAGE F.6-3: EXTERIOR TRIM-REAR SPOILER 389
IMAGE F.6-4: EXTERIOR TRIM-RADIATOR GRILL 389
IMAGE F.6-5: OUTSIDE REAR VIEW MIRRORS 394
IMAGE F.6-6: FRONT FASCIA 397
IMAGE F.6-7: REAR FASCIA 401
IMAGE F.7-1: TOYOTA VENZA WINDOW REGULATOR 406
IMAGE F.7-2: WINDOW CLIPS ON FRONT SIDE DOOR WINDOW OF TOYOTA VENZA 406
IMAGE F.7-3: EUROPEAN HONDA Civic BACKLIGHT/SPOILER INTEGRATION THROUGH USE OF POLYCARBONATE ....409
IMAGE F.7-4: DOOR LATCH MECHANISM 413
IMAGE F.7-5: OUTER DOOR HANDLE AND CARRIER 414
IMAGE F.7-6: REAR HATCH LIFT MECHANISM 419
IMAGE F.7-7: FRONT WIPER ASSEMBLY 422
IMAGE F.7-8: REAR WIPER ASSEMBLY 423
IMAGE F.7-9: SOLVENT BOTTLE 423
IMAGE F.8-1: REAR WHEELHOUSE ARCH LINER 429
IMAGE F.9-1: FRONT SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM RELATIVE LOCATION DIAGRAM 436
IMAGE F.9-2: FRONT SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM CURRENT MAJOR COMPONENTS 437
IMAGE F.9-3: FRONT SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM CURRENT ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 439
IMAGE F. 9-4: FRONT CONTROL ARM CURRENT ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 441
IMAGE F. 9-5: FRONT BALL JOINT SUB-ASSEMBLY 441
IMAGE F. 9-6: FRONT BALL JOINT SUB-ASSEMBLY FASTENER EXAMPLE 442
IMAGE F. 9-7: FRONT CONTROL ARM CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 443
IMAGE F. 9-8: FRONT CONTROL ARM CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE 444
IMAGE F. 9-9: FRONT CONTROL ARM MOUNTING SHAFT CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE 445
IMAGE F.9-10: FRONT STEERING KNUCKLE CURRENT COMPONENT 445
IMAGEF.9-11: STABILIZER BAR SYSTEM CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE 446
IMAGE F.9-12: BMW ACTIVE ROLL STABILIZATION SYSTEM 447
IMAGE F.9-13: STABILIZER BAR CURRENT COMPONENT 448
IMAGE F.9-14: STABILIZER BAR MOUNTING CURRENT COMPONENTS 448
IMAGE F.9-15: STABILIZER BAR MOUNT BUSHING CURRENT COMPONENTS 449
IMAGE F.9-16: FRONT STABILIZER LINK CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY 450
-------
Page xxxv
IMAGE F.9-17: FRONT SUSPENSION ROTOR MASS REDUCED SYSTEM EXAMPLE 456
IMAGE F.9-18: FRONT CONTROL ARM MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 457
IMAGE F.9-19: FRONT BALL JOINT MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY 458
IMAGE F.9-20: FRONT BALL JOINT SUB-ASSEMBLY MASS REDUCED FASTENER EXAMPLE 458
IMAGE F.9-21: FRONT CONTROL ARM MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 459
IMAGE F. 9-22: FRONT CONTROL ARM MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 460
IMAGE F. 9-23: FRONT CONTROL ARM MOUNTING SHAFT MASS REDUCED EXAMPLE 461
IMAGE F. 9-24: FRONT STEERING KNUCKLE MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 462
IMAGE F.9-25: STABILIZER BAR SYSTEM MASS REDUCED SYSTEM EXAMPLE 463
IMAGE F.9-26: STABILIZER BAR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 464
IMAGE F.9-27: STABILIZER BAR MOUNTING MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 464
IMAGE F.9-28: STABILIZER BAR MOUNT BUSHING MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 465
IMAGE F. 9-29: FRONT STABILIZER LINK MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY 466
IMAGE F.9-30: REAR SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM RELATIVE LOCATION DIAGRAM 468
IMAGE F. 9-31: REAR ROTOR/DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM CURRENT MAJOR COMPONENTS 468
IMAGE F.9-32: REAR SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM CURRENT ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 470
IMAGE F. 9-3 3: REAR ARM #1 CURRENT ASSEMBLY 471
IMAGE F.9-34: REAR ARM #2 CURRENT ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 471
IMAGE F. 9-3 5: REAR ROD CURRENT ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 472
IMAGE F.9-36: REAR BEARING CARRIER KNUCKLE CURRENT COMPONENT 473
IMAGEF.9-37: STABILIZER BAR SYSTEM CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE 474
IMAGE F.9-38: STABILIZER BAR CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE 474
IMAGE F.9-39: STABILIZER BAR MOUNTING CURRENT COMPONENTS 475
IMAGE F.9-40: STABILIZER BAR MOUNT BUSHING CURRENT COMPONENTS 476
IMAGE F. 9-41: REAR STABILIZER LINK CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY 476
IMAGE F. 9-42: REAR SUSPENSION ROTOR MASS REDUCED SYSTEM EXAMPLE 481
IMAGE F. 9-43: REAR ARM #1 MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY 482
IMAGE F. 9-44: REAR ARM #2 MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY 482
IMAGE F. 9-45: REAR ROD MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY 483
IMAGE F.9-46 (LEFT): REAR CARRIER ALFA ROMEO (SOURCE: LOTUS-2010MARCH EPA REPORT) 483
IMAGE F.9-47 (RIGHT): REAR BEARING AL CARRIER (SOURCE: HTTP://FORUMS. VWVORTEX.COM) 483
IMAGE F. 9-48: REAR BEARING CARRIER KNUCKLE MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 484
IMAGE F.9-49: STABILIZER BAR SYSTEM MASS REDUCED SYSTEM EXAMPLE 484
IMAGE F.9-50: STABILIZER BAR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 485
IMAGE F.9-51: STABILIZER BAR MOUNTING MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 486
IMAGE F.9-52: STABILIZER BAR MOUNT BUSHING MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 486
IMAGE F.9-53: REAR STABILIZER LINK MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY 487
IMAGE F.9-54: FRONT & REAR SHOCK ABSORBER SUBSYSTEM, CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY COMPONENTS 489
IMAGE F.9-55: REAR STRUT/DAMPER SUBSYSTEM CURRENT MAJOR COMPONENTS 489
IMAGE F. 9-56: FRONT STRUT/DAMPER SUBSYSTEM CURRENT MAJOR COMPONENTS 490
IMAGE F. 9-57: REAR STRUT MODULE ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM CURRENT CONFIGURATION EXAMPLE 491
IMAGE F.9-58: FRONT STRUT MODULE ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM CURRENT CONFIGURATION EXAMPLE 492
IMAGE F.9-59: DELPHIMAGNERIDE (MR) STRUT SYSTEM 493
IMAGE F. 9-60: REAR & FRONT SHOCK TOWER CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 494
IMAGE F. 9-61: REAR & FRONT STRUT PISTON SHAFT CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE 495
IMAGE F. 9-62: REAR & FRONT STRUT LOWER MOUNT CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE 495
IMAGE F. 9-63: REAR & FRONT MOUNT FASTENERS CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLES 496
IMAGE F. 9-64: REAR & FRONT BUMP STOP/JOUNCE BUMPER CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE 496
IMAGE F. 9-65: REAR & FRONT STRUT BOOT, TOWER COVERS CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE 497
IMAGE F. 9-66: REAR & FRONT STRUT UPPER SPRING ISOLATOR CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE 497
IMAGE F. 9-67: REAR & FRONT STRUT LOWER SPRING ISOLATOR CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE 498
IMAGE F. 9-68: REAR & FRONT STRUT COIL SPRING CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE 499
IMAGE F. 9-69: REAR & FRONT STRUT SPRING UPPER SEAT CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE 499
IMAGE F. 9-70: FRONT STRUT TOP MOUNT CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 500
IMAGE F. 9-71: REAR STRUT MODULE ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCED CONFIGURATION EXAMPLE 508
-------
Page xxxvi
IMAGE F. 9-72: FRONT STRUT MODULE ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCED CONFIGURATION EXAMPLE 508
IMAGE F. 9-73: REAR & FRONT SHOCK TOWER MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 509
IMAGE F. 9-74: REAR & FRONT STRUT PISTON SHAFT MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 510
IMAGE F. 9-75: REAR & FRONT STRUT LOWER MOUNT MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 510
IMAGE F. 9-76: REAR & FRONT MOUNT FASTENERS MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLES 511
IMAGE F. 9-77: REAR & FRONT BUMP STOP / JOUNCE BUMPER MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 512
IMAGE F. 9-78: REAR & FRONT STRUT BOOT, TOWER COVERS MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 512
IMAGE F. 9-79: REAR & FRONT STRUT UPPER SPRING ISOLATOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 513
IMAGE F. 9-80: REAR & FRONT STRUT LOWER SPRING ISOLATOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 513
IMAGE F. 9-81: REAR & FRONT STRUT COIL SPRING MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 514
IMAGE F. 9-82: REAR & FRONT STRUT SPRING UPPER SEAT MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 515
IMAGE F. 9-83: FRONT STRUT TOP MOUNT MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 515
IMAGE F. 9-84: ROAD WHEEL & TIRE CURRENT ASSEMBLY 519
IMAGE F. 9-85: ROAD WHEEL CURRENT COMPONENT 520
IMAGE F.9-86: SPARE WHEEL & TIRE CURRENT ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 521
IMAGE F.9-87: SPARE WHEEL CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE 522
IMAGE F. 9-88: ROAD WHEEL CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE 523
IMAGE F. 9-89: LUG NUT CURRENT COMPONENTS 523
IMAGE F. 9-90: ROAD WHEEL & TIRE MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY 528
IMAGE F. 9-91: ROAD WHEEL MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 528
IMAGE F. 9-92: ROAD TIRE MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY 529
IMAGE F.9-93: SPARE WHEEL & TIRE MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY 530
IMAGE F.9-94: SPARE WHEEL MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY 530
IMAGE F.9-95: ROAD WHEEL MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 531
IMAGE F.9-96: LUG NUT MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLES 532
IMAGE F. 10-1: FRONT DRIVE HUB ASSEMBLY 536
IMAGE F. 10-2: FRONT DRIVE HUB 537
IMAGE F. 10-3: FRONT AXLE HUB 539
IMAGE F. 10-4: HALF SHAFTS 540
IMAGE F. 10-5: BEARING CARRIER 541
IMAGE F. 10-6: FRONT RHDRIVESHAFT 542
IMAGE F. 10-7: BEARING CARRIER 543
IMAGE F. 10-8: BEARING CARRIER BOLT 543
IMAGE F. 10-9: FRONT RHDRIVESHAFT 545
IMAGE F. 10-10: BEARING CARRIER 546
IMAGE F. 10-11: PUSH-IN PLASTIC PLUG 546
IMAGE F.I 1-1: FRONT ROTOR/DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM CURRENT MAJOR COMPONENTS 550
IMAGE F.I 1-2: FRONT BRAKE SYSTEM CURRENT ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 552
IMAGE F.I 1-3: FRONT ROTOR CURRENT COMPONENT 553
IMAGE F.I 1-4: FRONT SPLASH SHIELD CURRENT COMPONENT 554
IMAGE F.I 1-5: FRONT CALIPER CURRENT ASSEMBLY 554
IMAGE F.I 1-6: FRONT CALIPER HOUSING CURRENT COMPONENT 555
IMAGE F.I 1-7: FRONT CALIPER MOUNTING CURRENT COMPONENT 556
IMAGE F.I 1-8: FRONT CALIPER PISTON CURRENT COMPONENTS 557
IMAGE F.I 1-9: FRONT CALIPER BRAKE PAD CURRENT COMPONENTS 557
IMAGE F.I 1-10: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 562
IMAGE F.I 1-11: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 563
IMAGE F.I 1-12: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 563
IMAGE F.I 1-13: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 564
IMAGE F.I 1-14: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 565
IMAGE F.I 1-15: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 565
IMAGE F.I 1-16: FRONT ROTOR SIZE NORMALIZATION MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 566
IMAGE F.I 1-17: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 566
IMAGE F.I 1-18: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 567
IMAGE F.I 1-19: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 567
-------
Page xxxvii
IMAGE F.I 1-20: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 568
IMAGE F.I 1-21: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 569
IMAGE F.I 1-22: FRONT SPLASH SHIELD MASS-REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLES 570
IMAGE F.I 1-23: FRONT CALIPER MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 570
IMAGE F.I 1-24: FRONT CALIPER HOUSING MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 572
IMAGE F.I 1-25: FRONT CALIPER MOUNTING MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 573
IMAGE F.I 1-26: FRONT CALIPER BRAKE PAD MASS REDUCED COMPONENTS 573
IMAGE F.I 1-27: FRONT BRAKE SYSTEM MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 574
IMAGE F. 11 -28: REAR ROTOR / DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM RELATIVE LOCATION DIAGRAM 577
IMAGE F. 11 -29: REAR ROTOR / DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM CURRENT MAJOR COMPONENTS 577
IMAGE F.I 1-30: REAR BRAKE SYSTEM ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 579
IMAGE F.I 1-31: REAR ROTOR CURRENT COMPONENT 580
IMAGE F.I 1-32: REAR SPLASH SHIELD CURRENT COMPONENT 581
IMAGE F.I 1-3 3: REAR CALIPER CURRENT ASSEMBLY 582
IMAGE F.I 1-34: REAR CALIPER HOUSING CURRENT COMPONENT 582
IMAGE F.I 1-3 5: REAR CALIPER MOUNTING CURRENT COMPONENT 583
IMAGE F.I 1-36: REAR CALIPER PISTON CURRENT COMPONENT 584
IMAGE F.I 1-37: REAR CALIPER BRAKE PAD CURRENT COMPONENTS 584
IMAGE F.I 1-3 8: REAR ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 590
IMAGE F.I 1-3 9: REAR ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 591
IMAGE F.I 1-40: REAR ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 591
IMAGE F.I 1-41: REAR ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 592
IMAGE F.I 1-42: REAR ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 592
IMAGE F.I 1-43: REAR ROTOR SIZE NORMALIZATION MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 593
IMAGE F.I 1-44: REAR ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 593
IMAGE F.I 1-45: REAR ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 594
IMAGE F.I 1-46: REAR ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 594
IMAGE F.I 1-47: REAR ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 595
IMAGE F.I 1-48: REAR ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 596
IMAGE F.I 1-49: REAR SPLASH SHIELD MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 597
IMAGE F.I 1-50: REAR CALIPER MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 598
IMAGE F.I 1-51: REAR CALIPER ASSEMBLY COMPONENT DIAGRAM EXAMPLE 598
IMAGE F.I 1-52: REAR CALIPER HOUSING MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 599
IMAGE F.I 1-53: REAR CALIPER MOUNTING MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 600
IMAGE F.I 1-54: REAR CALIPER PISTON MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 600
IMAGE F.I 1-55: REAR CALIPER BRAKE PAD MASS REDUCED COMPONENTS 601
IMAGE F.I 1-56: REAR BRAKE SYSTEM MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 602
IMAGE F.I 1-57: PARKING BRAKE AND ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLIES 605
IMAGE F.I 1-58 (LEFT): TRW PARKBRAKE SYSTEM 607
IMAGE F.I 1-59 (RIGHT): VWPARKBRAKE SYSTEM 607
IMAGE F.I 1-60: PEDAL FRAME CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY 608
IMAGEF.11-61: CABLE SYSTEM CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLIES 608
IMAGE F. 11 -62: BRAKE SHOE AND ATTACHMENT HARDWARE CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 609
IMAGE F. 11 -63: BRAKE SHOE AND ATTACHMENT HARDWARE CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 609
IMAGE F.I 1-64 (LEFT): ACTUATOR BUTTON SYSTEM 613
IMAGE F.I 1-65 (RIGHT) :EPB CONTROL MODULE 613
IMAGE F.I 1-66: BRAKE ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM MAJOR COMPONENTS AND SUB-ASSEMBLIES 616
IMAGE F.I 1-67: MASTER CYLINDER AND RESERVOIR CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY 618
IMAGE F.I 1-68: BRAKE LINES AND HOSES CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLIES 618
IMAGE F.I 1-69: BRAKE PEDAL ACTUATOR CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY 619
IMAGE F.I 1-70: BRAKE PEDAL ARM FRAME CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY 620
IMAGE F.I 1-71: BRAKE PEDAL ARM FRAME CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY 620
IMAGE F.I 1-72: BRAKE PEDAL ARM CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY 621
IMAGE F.I 1-73: ACCELERATOR PEDAL ACTUATOR CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY 622
IMAGE F.I 1-74: BRAKE PEDAL ACTUATOR MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 626
-------
Page xxxviii
IMAGE F.I 1-75: BRAKE PEDAL ACTUATOR MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 626
IMAGE F.I 1-76: BRAKE PEDAL ARM FRAME MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 627
IMAGE F.I 1-77: BRAKE PEDAL ARM FRAME REDUCED MASS SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 628
IMAGE F.I 1-78: BRAKE PEDAL ARM MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 628
IMAGE F. 11 -79: ACCELERATOR PEDAL ACTUATOR MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 629
IMAGE F.I 1-80: BRAKE POWER BRAKE SUBSYSTEM MAJOR SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 632
IMAGE F.I 1-81: TOYOTA PRIUS HYDRAULIC PRESSURE BOOSTER 633
IMAGE F. 11 -82: JANELHYPERBRAKE HYDRAULIC PRESSURE BOOSTER 634
IMAGE F.I 1-83: BRAKE PEDAL ACTUATOR MASS CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY 634
IMAGE F.I 1-84: VACUUM BOOSTER FRONT SHELL CURRENT COMPONENT 635
IMAGE F.I 1-85: VACUUM BOOSTER REAR SHELL CURRENT COMPONENT 636
IMAGE F.I 1-86: VACUUM BOOSTER PLATE MOUNT STIFFENER CURRENT COMPONENT 636
IMAGEF.11-87: VACUUM BOOSTER BACKING PLATE, DIAPHRAGM CURRENT COMPONENT 637
IMAGE F.I 1-88: VACUUM BOOSTER MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 641
IMAGE F.I 1-89: VACUUM BOOSTER FRONT SHELL MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 642
IMAGE F.I 1-90: VACUUM BOOSTER REAR SHELL REDUCED MASS COMPONENT EXAMPLE 642
IMAGE F.I 1-91 (LEFT) :BENDIX MOUNTING PLATE 643
IMAGE F.I 1-92 (RIGHT): DELPHI MOUNTING PLATE 643
IMAGE F. 11 -93: VACUUM BOOSTER DIAPHRAGM BACKING PLATE MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 644
IMAGE F. 12-1: FRONT FRAME ASSEMBLY 648
IMAGE F. 12-2: REAR FRAME ASSEMBLY 648
IMAGE F. 12-3: FRONT FRAME 650
IMAGE F. 12-4: REAR FRAME 650
IMAGE F. 12-5: FRONT SUSPENSION BRACKET 651
IMAGE F. 12-6: FRONT DAMPER ASSEMBLY 652
IMAGE F. 12-7: FRAME SIDE RAIL BRACKET 652
IMAGE F. 12-8: REAR SUSPENSION STOPPER BRACKET 653
IMAGE F. 12-9: FRONT SUSPENSION BRACKET 656
IMAGE F. 12-10: REAR SUSPENSION STOPPER BRACKET 656
IMAGE F. 12-11:2012 CHEVY CRUZE PLASTIC ENGINE MOUNTS 657
IMAGE F. 12-12: FRONT DAMPER ASSEMBLY 657
IMAGE F. 12-13: FRAME SIDE RAIL BRACKET 658
IMAGE F. 12-14: FRONT FRAME ASSEMBLY 658
IMAGE F. 12-15: REAR FRAME ASSEMBLY 659
IMAGE F. 13-1: TOYOTA VENZA MUFFLER 661
IMAGE F.I 3-2 (LEFT): TOYOTA VENZA EXHAUST 663
IMAGE F. 13-3 (RIGHT): TOYOTA VENZA EXHAUST PIPE 663
IMAGE F.I 3-4: TOYOTA VENZA MUFFLER 672
IMAGE F. 14-1: VENZA FUEL TANK 680
IMAGE F. 14-2: FUEL PUMP 681
IMAGE F. 14-3: RETAINING RING 682
IMAGE F. 14-4: FUEL PUMP RETAINING FASTENER 682
IMAGE F. 14-5: SENDING UNIT 683
IMAGE F. 14-6: SENDING UNIT RETAINING FASTENER 683
IMAGE F. 14-7: FUEL TANKMouNTiNG STRAP 684
IMAGE F. 14-8: PROTECTIVE EDGING 684
IMAGE F. 14-9: FUEL FILLER TUBE ASSEMBLY 685
IMAGE F. 14-10: CROSS-OVER TUBE ASSEMBLY 687
IMAGE F. 14-11: PLASTIC (HOPE) FUEL TANK 688
IMAGE F. 14-12: FUEL TANKMOUNTING STRAP ASSY 688
IMAGE F. 14-13: FUEL PUMP RETAINING BRACKET "TWIST LOCK" DESIGN 689
IMAGE F. 14-14: SENDING UNIT MOUNTING BRACKET 689
IMAGE F. 14-15: LARGE SHIELD (ELIMINATED) 690
IMAGE F. 14-16: PROTECTOR (ELIMINATED) 690
IMAGE F. 14-17: SUPPORT BRACKET (ELIMINATED) 691
-------
Page xxxix
IMAGE F. 14-18: FUEL FILLER TUBE ASSEMBLY 692
IMAGE F. 14-19: VAPOR CANISTER 695
IMAGE F. 14-20: VAPOR CANISTER COVER 695
IMAGE F. 14-21: VAPOR CANISTER HOUSING 697
IMAGE F. 14-22: VAPOR CANISTER COVER 698
IMAGE F. 14-23: LARGE CANISTER BRACKET 698
IMAGE F. 14-24: MEDIUM CANISTER BRACKET 699
IMAGE F. 14-25: SMALL CANISTER BRACKET 699
IMAGE F. 15-1: TOYOTA VENZA STEERING GEAR 703
IMAGE F. 15-2: TOYOTA VENZA TIE ROD END 703
IMAGE F. 15-3 (LEFT): TOYOTA VENZA STEERING SHAFT 709
IMAGE F. 15-4 (RIGHT): TOYOTA VENZA STEERING SHAFT 709
IMAGE F. 15-5 (LEFT): TOYOTA VENZA STEERING WHEEL 715
IMAGE F. 15-6 (RIGHT): STEERING WHEEL TRIM COVER 715
IMAGE F. 15-7: HEATING ELEMENTS WOOD & CARBON 715
IMAGE F. 16-1: TOYOTA VENZA MAIN AIR DUCT MANIFOLD 721
IMAGE F. 16-2: VIEW OF TOYOTA VENZA'S STRIPPED-DOWN INTERIOR (FRONT PASSENGER SIDE), SHOWING FLOOR
DISTRIBUTION DUCTS 721
IMAGE F. 16-3: TOYOTA VENZA INSTRUMENT PANEL WITH INTERIOR TRIM REMOVED 722
IMAGE F. 16-4: TOYOTA VENZA HVAC MAIN UNIT 723
IMAGE F. 16-5: AIR DUCT MANIFOLD MANUFACTURED FROM A ZOTEFOAMS'FOAM 725
IMAGE F. 16-6: COMPARISON OF AIR DUCT MANIFOLDS 726
IMAGE F. 16-7: EXAMPLES OF WEMAC VENT STYLES 726
IMAGE F. 16-8: CADILLAC CIEL CONCEPT CAR INTERIOR WITH AIR DUCT VENTS INTEGRATED BEHIND IP 727
IMAGE F. 16-9: TOYOTA VENZA'S DEFROSTER DUCT ASSEMBLY INCLUDING Two CENTER MANIFOLDS AND Two SIDE
DUCTS 731
IMAGE F. 16-10: TOYOTA VENZA HVAC USER CONTROLS 734
IMAGE F. 17-1 (LEFT): DRIVER INFORMATION CENTER 738
IMAGE F. 17-2 (RIGHT): IP CLUSTER 738
IMAGE F. 17-3 (LEFT): CIRCUIT BOARD SUPPORT 740
IMAGE F. 17-4 (RIGHT): DIC HOUSING 740
IMAGE F. 17-5 (LEFT): DIC LENSE MASK 740
IMAGE F. 17-6 (RIGHT): CLUSTER REAR HOUSING 741
IMAGE F. 17-7 (LEFT): DISPLAY HOUSING 741
IMAGE F. 17-8 (RIGHT): CLUSTER MASK ASSEMBLY 741
IMAGE F. 18-1 :TOYOTA VENZA RADIO 743
IMAGE F.18-2:ToYOTA VENZA RADIO SOURCE 745
IMAGE F.I 8-3: DELPHI ULTRA LIGHT RADIO SOURCE 750
IMAGE F. 19-1: TOYOTA VENZA FRONT HEADLAMP ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 756
IMAGE F.I 9-2: TOYOTA VENZA FRONT HEADLAMP HOUSING 757
IMAGE F. 19-3: TOYOTA VENZA FRONT HEADLAMP HOUSING WITH INNER REFLECTOR & PROJECT MAGNIFIER 757
IMAGE F.I 9-4: TOYOTA VENZA PROJECTOR REFLECTOR 758
IMAGE F. 19-5: SAB 1C ULTEM® PRODUCTION APPLICATION EXAMPLES 759
IMAGE F.20-1: INSTRUMENT PANEL WIRING HARNESS 765
IMAGE F.20-2: ALUMINUM STRANDED WIRE 768
IMAGE H. 3-2: FRONT DASH PANEL ASSEMBLY 787
H.3-3: SIDE PANEL IMAGE ASSEMBLY 788
IMAGE H. 3-4: FRONT FLOOR PANEL ASSEMBLY 788
IMAGE H. 3-5: REAR FLOOR PANEL ASSEMBLY 789
IMAGE H. 3-6: FRONT AND REAR RAIL ASSEMBLY 789
IMAGE H.5-1: MATERIAL COUPON SAMPLES 791
-------
Page xl
Tables
Number Page
TABLE A. 1-1: MASS-REDUCTION AND NET INCREMENTAL DIRECT MANUFACTURING COST IMPACT FOR EACH
VEHICLE SYSTEM EVALUATED 6
TABLE C.2-1: UNIVERSAL CASE STUDY ASSUMPTION UTILIZED IN THE MASS-REDUCTION ANALYSIS 16
TABLE D.3-LFEA MODEL TEST CORRELATION COMPARISON WITH TEST DATA 53
TABLE D.3-2:NVH RESULTS SUMMARY FOR LOTUS CAE MODEL 56
TABLED.3-3: CONTENTS OF ED AG CAE BASELINE MODEL 63
TABLED. 3-4: PULSE AND DYNAMIC CRUSH 73
TABLED.3-5: COMPARTMENT DASH INTRUSION 73
TABLED.3-6: BASELINE, RELATIVE INTRUSIONS @1200L FORFMVS214 78
TABLED.3-7: BASELINE, RELATIVE INTRUSIONS @1650L FORFMVSS 214 78
TABLED. 3-8: PULSE AND DYNAMIC CRUSH 87
TABLED.3-9: COMPARTMENT DASH INTRUSION 87
TABLE D.3-10: REAR IMP ACT STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE 93
TABLE E.5-1: STANDARD MARK-UP RATES APPLIED TO TIER 1 AND TIER 2/3 SUPPLIERS BASED ON SIZE AND
COMPLEXITY RATINGS 120
TABLE F. 1-1: SYSTEM/SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST ANALYSIS SUMMARY (1 OF 3) 142
TABLE F. 1-2: VEHICLE LEVEL COST MODEL ANALYSIS TEMPLATES (CMATs): BASELINE, NEW AND INCREMENTAL
145
TABLE F.2-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR ENGINE SYSTEM 148
TABLE F.2-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR ENGINE SYSTEM 149
TABLE F.2-3: ENGINE DOWNSIZE SELECTION 151
TABLE F.2-4: SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR ENGINE DOWNSIZE 153
TABLE F.2-5: ENGINE DOWNSIZE MASS SAVINGS LIGHTWEIGHTED 153
TABLE F.2-6: ENGINE DOWNSIZE COST SAVINGS 154
TABLE F.2-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR ENGINE FRAMES, MOUNTING, AND BRACKETS SUBSYSTEM
155
TABLE F.2-8: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR THE ENGINE FRAMES, MOUNTING, AND
BRACKETS SUBSYSTEM 158
TABLE F.2-9: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR ENGINE FRAMES, MOUNTING, AND BRACKETS SUBSYSTEM. 158
TABLE F.2-10: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR CYLINDER HEAD SUBSYSTEM 160
TABLE F.2-11: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR CRANK DRIVE SUBSYSTEM 160
TABLE F.2-12: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR THE CRANKDRIVE SUBSYSTEM 163
TABLE F.2-13: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR CRANK DRIVE SUBSYSTEM 164
TABLE F.2-14: SUMMARY OF MAHLE LIGHTWEIGHTED PCU COMPONENTS 167
TABLE F.2-15: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR CRANK DRIVE SUBSYSTEM 168
TABLE F.2-16: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR COUNTER BALANCE SUBSYSTEM 168
TABLE F.2-17: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR THE CRANKDRIVE SUBSYSTEM 170
TABLE F.2-18: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR CYLINDER BLOCK SUBSYSTEM 172
TABLE F.2-19: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR THE CRANKDRIVE SUBSYSTEM 174
TABLE F.2-20: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR CYLINDER BLOCK SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS 176
TABLE F.2-21: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR CYLINDER BLOCK SUBSYSTEM 181
TABLE F.2-22: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR CYLINDER HEAD SUBSYSTEM 182
TABLE F.2-23: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR THE CYLINDER HEAD SUBSYSTEM 185
TABLE F.2-24: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR CYLINDER HEAD SUBSYSTEM 185
TABLE F.2-25: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR CYLINDER HEAD SUBSYSTEM 187
TABLE F.2-26: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR VALVETRAIN SUBSYSTEM 189
TABLE F.2-27: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR VALVETRAIN 191
TABLE F.2-28: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR VALVETRAIN SUBSYSTEM 193
TABLE F.2-29: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR VALVETRAIN SUBSYSTEM 196
TABLE F.2-30: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR TIMING DRIVE SUBSYSTEM 197
-------
Page xli
TABLE F.2-31: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR TIMING DRIVE SUBSYSTEM
201
TABLE F.2-32: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR TIMING DRIVE SUBSYSTEM 201
TABLE F.2-3 3: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR TIMING DRIVE SUBSYSTEM 204
TABLE F.2-34: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR ACCESSORY DRIVE SUBSYSTEM 205
TABLE F.2-3 5: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR AIR INTAKE SUBSYSTEM 205
TABLE F.2-36: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR TIMING DRIVE SUBSYSTEM
207
TABLE F.2-37: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR TIMING DRIVE SUBSYSTEM 208
TABLE F.2-3 8: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR AIR INTAKE SUBSYSTEM 211
TABLE F.2-3 9: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR FUEL INDUCTION SUBSYSTEM 211
TABLE F.2-40: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR FUEL INDUCTION SUBSYSTEM 213
TABLE F.2-41: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR FUEL INDUCTION SUBSYSTEM 214
TABLE F.2-42: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR FUEL INDUCTION SUBSYSTEM 215
TABLE F.2-43: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR EXHAUST SUBSYSTEM 215
TABLE F.2-44: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR LUBRICATION SUBSYSTEM 217
TABLE F.2-45: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR LUBRICATION SUBSYSTEM 219
TABLE F.2-46: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR LUBRICATION SUBSYSTEM 220
TABLE F.2-47: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR LUBRICATION SUBSYSTEM 222
TABLE F.2-48: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR COOLING SUBSYSTEM 223
TABLE F.2-49: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR COOLING SUBSYSTEM 225
TABLE F.2-50: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR COOLING SUBSYSTEM 226
TABLE F.2-51: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR COOLING SUBSYSTEM 228
TABLE F.2-52: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR BREATHER SUBSYSTEM 229
TABLE F.2-53: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR BREATHER SUBSYSTEM 230
TABLE F.2-54: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR COOLING SUBSYSTEM 231
TABLE F.2-55: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR BREATHER SUBSYSTEM 231
TABLE F.2-56: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR COOLING SUBSYSTEM 232
TABLE F.2-57: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR ENGINE MANAGEMENT, ELECTRONIC
SUBSYSTEM 233
TABLE F.2-58: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR ENGINE MANAGEMENT, ELECTRONIC SUBSYSTEM 234
TABLE F.2-59: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR BREATHER SUBSYSTEM 235
TABLE F.2-60: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR ACCESSORY SUBSYSTEM 235
TABLE F.2-61: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR ACCESSORY SUBSYSTEM 237
TABLE F.2-62: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR ACCESSORY SUBSYSTEM 238
TABLE F.2-63: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR ACCESSORY SUBSYSTEM 239
TABLE F.3-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 241
TABLE F.3-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 2 241
TABLE F.3-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR CASS SUBSYSTEM 243
TABLE F.3-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR TRANSMISSION CASE
SUBASSEMBLY 245
TABLE F.3-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL CASE SUBSYSTEM 245
TABLE F.3 -6: SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR CASE SUBSYSTEM 246
TABLE F.3-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR GEAR TRAIN SUBSYSTEM 246
TABLE F.3-8: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE GEAR TRAIN SUBSYSTEM
248
TABLE F.3-9: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR GEAR TRAIN SUBSYSTEM 249
TABLE F.3-10: SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR CASE SUBSYSTEM 250
TABLE F.3-11: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR LAUNCH CLUTCH SUBSYSTEM 251
TABLE F.3-12: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE LAUNCH CLUTCH
SYSTEM 252
TABLE F.3-13: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR LAUNCH CLUTCH SYSTEM 253
TABLE F.3-14: SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR LAUNCH CLUTCH SYSTEM 254
TABLE F.3-15: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR OIL PUMP AND FILTER SUBSYSTEM 254
-------
Page xlii
TABLE F.3-16: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR THE OIL PUMP AND FILTER SUBSYSTEM,
255
TABLE F.3-17: PRELIMINARY SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR OIL PUMP AND
FILTER SUBSYSTEM 256
TABLE F.3-18: PRELIMINARY SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR LAUNCH CLUTCH
SYSTEM 257
TABLE F.3-19: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR DRIVER OPERATED EXTERNAL CONTROLS SUBSYSTEM
259
TABLE F.3-20: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE DRIVER-OPERATED
EXTERNAL CONTROLS SUBSYSTEM, 260
TABLEF.3-21: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DRIVER OPERATED EXTERNAL CONTROLS SUBSYSTEM 260
TABLE F.3-22: PRELIMINARY SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR DRIVER OPERATED
EXTERNAL CONTROLS SUBSYSTEM 261
TABLE F.3-23: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR NEW TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 262
TABLE F.4-1: OPTIMIZATION OBJECTIVE, RESPONSE, AND CONSTRAINTS 266
TABLE F.4-2: OPTIMIZED WEIGHTS 275
TABLE F.4-3: FINAL WEIGHT SUMMARY FOR OPTIMIZED VEHICLE 277
TABLE F.4-4:NVH RESULTS SUMMARY FOR OPTIMIZED BIW MODEL 278
TABLE F.4-5: DASH INTRUSION COMPARISON BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED 284
T ABLE F.4-6: DASH INTRUSIONS, BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED MODEL FOR EURO NCAP 290
TABLE F.4-7: DASH INTRUSIONS-BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED MODEL FOR EURO NCAP 291
TABLE F.4-8: OPTIMIZED MODEL, RELATIVE INTRUSIONS OF SIDE STRUCTURE @1200L FORFMVSS 214 294
TABLE F.4-9: OPTIMIZED MODEL, RELATIVE INTRUSIONS OF SIDE STRUCTURE @1650L FORFMVSS 214 295
TABLE F.4-10: BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED MODEL - RELATIVE INTRUSIONS OF SIDE STRUCTURE @1200L FOR FMVSS
214 296
TABLE F.4-11: BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED MODEL, RELATIVE INTRUSIONS OF SIDE STRUCTURE @1650L FOR FMVSS
214 297
TABLE F.4-12: SUMMARY OF STRUCTURAL DEFORMATION MEASURING 302
TABLE F.4-13: SUMMARY OF ROOF CRUSH LOAD vs. DISPLACEMENT PLOT 305
TABLE F.4-14: WEIGHT AND COST IMP ACT OF OPTIMIZED VEHICLE 307
TABLE F.4-15: COST IMPACT OF PART LASER WELDED ASSEMBLY 307
TABLE F.4-16: COST IMPACT OF PART LASER WELDED ASSEMBLY 308
TABLE F.5-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR BODY SYSTEM GROUP B 311
TABLE F.5-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR BODY SYSTEM GROUP B 312
TABLE F.5-3: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE INTERIOR TRIM AND
ORNAMENTATION SUBSYSTEM 326
TABLE F.5-4: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE INTERIOR TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION SUBSYSTEM 327
TABLE F.5-5: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR INTERIOR TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION
SUBSYSTEM 329
TABLE F.5-6: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE SOUND AND HEAT CONTROL SUBSYSTEM (BODY).330
TABLE F.5-7: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE SOUND AND HEAT
CONTROL SUBSYSTEM (BODY) 331
TABLE F.5-8: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR SOUND AND HEAT CONTROL SUBSYSTEM (BODY) 332
TABLE F.5-9: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR SOUND AND HEAT CONTROL SUBSYSTEM
(BODY) 332
TABLE F.5-10: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR SEALING SUBSYSTEM 333
TABLE F.5-11: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE SEALING SUBSYSTEM336
TABLE F.5-12: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE SEALING SUBSYSTEM 338
TABLE F.5-13: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR SEALING SUBSYSTEM 338
TABLE F.5-14: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE SEATING SUBSYSTEM 339
TABLE F.5-15: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE SEATING SUBSYSTEM344
TABLE F.5-16: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE SEATING SUBSYSTEM 345
TABLE F.5-17: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR SEATING SUBSYSTEM 361
TABLE F.5-18: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE INSTRUMENT PANEL AND CONSOLE SUBSYSTEM .362
-------
Page xliii
TABLE F.5-19: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE INSTRUMENT PANEL AND
CONSOLE SUBSYSTEM 369
TABLE F.5-20: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE INSTRUMENT PANEL AND CONSOLE
SUBSYSTEM 371
TABLE F.5-21: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE INSTRUMENT PANEL AND CONSOLE SUBSYSTEM 372
TABLEF.5-22: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE OCCUPANT RESTRAINING DEVICE SUBSYSTEM....373
TABLE F.5-23: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE OCCUPANT RESTRAINING
DEVICE SUBSYSTEM 381
TABLE F.5-24: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE OCCUPANT RESTRAINING DEVICE
SUBSYSTEM 382
TABLE F.5-25: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE OCCUPANT RESTRAINING DEVICE SUBSYSTEM 384
TABLE F.6-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR BODY SYSTEM GROUP C 386
TABLE F.6-2: MASS REDUCTIONS AND COST IMPACT FOR SYSTEM GROUP C 386
TABLE F.6-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR EXTERIOR TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION SUBSYSTEM. ...387
TABLE F.6-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE EXTERIOR TRIM AND
ORNAMENTATION SUBSYSTEM 390
TABLE F.6-5: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS SELECTED FOR THE EXTERIOR TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION
SUBSYSTEM 392
TABLE F.6-6: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACTS FOR THE EXTERIOR TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION
SUBSYSTEM 392
TABLE F.6-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR REAR VIEW MIRRORS SUBSYSTEM 393
TABLE F.6-8: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE REAR VIEW MIRRORS
SUBSYSTEM 395
TABLE F.6-9: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS SELECTED FOR THE REAR VIEW MIRRORS SUBSYSTEM .... 3 95
TABLE F.6-10: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION & COST IMPACT CONCEPTS FOR THE REAR VIEW MIRROR SUBSYSTEM
396
TABLE F.6-11: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE FRONT END MODULE SUBSYSTEM 3 96
TABLE F.6-12: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FRONT END MODULE
SUBSYSTEM 398
TABLE F.6-13: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS SELECTED FOR THE FRONT END MODULE SUBSYSTEM 398
TABLE F.6-14: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION & COST IMPACT FOR THE FRONT END MODULE SUBSYSTEM 399
TABLE F.6-15: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE REAR END MODULE SUBSYSTEM 400
TABLE F.6-16: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE REAR END MODULE
SUBSYSTEM 401
TABLE F.6-17: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS SELECTED FOR THE REAR END MODULE SUBSYSTEM ....402
TABLE F.6-18: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION & COST IMPACT CONCEPTS ESTIMATES FOR THE REAR END MODULE
SUBSYSTEM 402
TABLE F.7-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR THE BODY SYSTEM GROUP-D- 403
TABLE F.7-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR THE BODY SYSTEM GROUP-D- 404
TABLE F.7-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE GLASS (GLAZING), FRAME, AND MECHANISM
SUBSYSTEM 405
TABLE F.7-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE GLASS (GLAZING),
FRAME, AND MECHANISM SUBSYSTEM 409
TABLE F.7-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE GLASS (GLAZING), FRAME, AND
MECHANISM SYSTEM 411
TABLE F.7-6: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE GLASS (GLAZING), FRAME, AND MECHANISM
SUBSYSTEM 412
TABLE F.7-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR HANDLES, LOCKS, LATCHES AND MECHANISMS
SUBSYSTEM 413
TABLE F.7-8: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE HANDLES, LOCKS, LATCHES
& MECHANISMS SUBSYSTEM 416
TABLE F.7-9: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR HANDLES, LOCKS, LATCHES & MECHANISMS SUBSYSTEM
ANALYSIS 417
TABLE F.7-10: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR REAR HATCH LIFT ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM 418
-------
Page xliv
TABLE F.7-11: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE REAR HATCH LIFT
ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM 420
TABLEF.7-12: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR REAR HATCH LIFT ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS 420
TABLE F.7-13: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR WIPERS AND WASHERS SUBSYSTEM 421
TABLE F.7-14: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE WIPERS & WASHERS
SUBSYSTEM 425
TABLE F.7-15: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS SELECTED FOR THE WIPERS & WASHERS SUBSYSTEM ...426
TABLE F.7-16: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION & COST IMPACT FOR THE WIPERS & WASHERS SUBSYSTEM 427
TABLE F.7-17: SUMMARY OF MASS BENCHMARKING FOR THE FRONT WIPERS & WASHERS SUBSYSTEM 427
TABLE F.7-18: SUMMARY OF MASS BENCHMARKING FOR THE REAR WIPERS & WASHERS SUBSYSTEM 428
TABLE F.8-1: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE BODY STRUCTURE SUBSYSTEM 428
TABLE F.8-2: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE NONMETALLIC
COMPONENTS OF THE BODY STRUCTURE SUBSYSTEM 430
TABLE F.8-3: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS SELECTED FOR THE NONMETALLIC COMPONENTS OF THE
BODY STRUCTURES SUBSYSTEM 431
TABLE F.8-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION & COST IMPACTS FOR THE NONMETALLIC COMPONENTS OF THE BODY
STRUCTURE SUBSYSTEM 431
TABLE F.8-5: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE FRONT END MODULE SUBSYSTEM 432
TABLE F.8-6: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE NONMETALLIC
COMPONENTS OF THE FRONT END SUBSYSTEM 433
TABLE F.8-7: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS SELECTED FOR THE NONMETALLIC COMPONENTS OF THE
FRONT END SUBSYSTEM 433
TABLE F.8-8: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACTS FOR THE NONMETALLIC COMPONENTS OF THE
FRONT END SUBSYSTEM 434
TABLE F.9-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR THE SUSPENSION SYSTEM 435
TABLE F.9-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE SUSPENSION SYSTEM 435
TABLE F.9-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE FRONT SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM 437
TABLE F.9-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FRONT SUSPENSION
SUBSYSTEM 451
TABLE F.9-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED FRONT SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS .454
TABLE F.9-6: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR THE FRONT SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM 466
TABLE F.9-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE REAR SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM 468
TABLE F.9-8: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE REAR SUSPENSION
SUBSYSTEM 477
TABLE F.9-9: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED REAR SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS ...480
TABLE F.9-10: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR THE REAR SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM 487
TABLE F.9-11: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE SHOCK ABSORBER SUBSYSTEM 490
TABLE F.9-12: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FRONT STRUT / SHOCK/
DAMPER SUB-SUBSYSTEM 501
TABLE F.9-13: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED SHOCK ABSORBER SUBSYSTEM (REAR STRUT /
DAMPER ASSEMBLY SUB-SUBSYSTEM) ANALYSIS 505
TABLE F.9-14: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED SHOCK ABSORBER SUBSYSTEM (FRONT STRUT
/DAMPER ASSEMBLY SUB-SUBSYSTEM) ANALYSIS 506
TABLEF.9-15: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE SHOCK ABSORBER SUBSYSTEM (REAR&FRONT STRUT
/DAMPER ASSEMBLY SUB-SUBSYSTEM) 516
TABLE F.9-16: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE WHEELS AND TIRES SUBSYSTEM 517
TABLE F.9-17: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE TIRES AND WHEELS
SUBSYSTEM 524
TABLE F.9-18: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED WHEELS AND TIRES SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS
526
TABLE F.9-19: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR THE WHEELS AND TIRES SUBSYSTEM 532
TABLE F. 10-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR DRIVELINE SYSTEM 534
TABLE F. 10-2: CALCULATED MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR DRIVELINE SYSTEM 534
TABLE F. 10-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR FRONT DRIVE HOUSED AXLE SUBSYSTEM 535
-------
Page xlv
TABLE F. 10-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FRONT DRIVE HOUSED
AXLE SUBSYSTEM 538
TABLE F. 10-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR FRONT DRIVE HOUSED AXLE SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS 538
TABLE F. 10-6: CALCULATED SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR FRONT DRIVE HOUSED
AXLE SUBSYSTEM 539
TABLEF.10-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR FRONT DRIVE HALF-SHAFTS SUBSYSTEM 541
TABLE F. 10-8: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FRONT DRIVE HALF-
SHAFTS SUBSYSTEM 544
TABLE F. 10-9: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR FRONT DRIVE HALF-SHAFTS SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS 545
TABLE F. 10-10: CALCULATED MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR THE FRONT DRIVE HALF-SHAFTS
SUBSYSTEM 547
TABLE F.I 1-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR THE BRAKING SYSTEM 548
TABLE F.I 1-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR THE BRAKING SYSTEM 548
TABLE F. 11-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE FRONT ROTOR / DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM .551
TABLE F. 11-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FRONT ROTOR / DRUM
AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM 559
TABLE F. 11 -5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED FRONT ROTOR / DRUM AND SHIELD
SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS 561
TABLE F. 11 -6: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE FRONT ROTOR / DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM 575
TABLE F. 11-7: CALCULATED MASS-REDUCTIONS AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR THE FRONT ROTOR / DRUM
COMPONENTS AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS 575
TABLE F. 11 -8: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE REAR ROTOR / DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM ... 577
TABLE F. 11-9: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE REAR ROTOR / DRUM
AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM 585
TABLE F. 11-10: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED REAR ROTOR/DRUM AND SHIELD
SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS 589
TABLE F. 11 -11: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE REAR ROTOR/DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM 602
TABLE F. 11-12: CALCULATED SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTIONS AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR THE REAR ROTOR /
DRUM COMPONENTS AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS 603
TABLE F. 11-13: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE PARKING BRAKE AND ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM .605
TABLE F. 11-14: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE PARKING BRAKE AND
ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM 610
TABLE F. 11 -15: MASS-REDUCTION IDEA SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED PARKING BRAKE AND ACTUATION
SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS 612
TABLE F.I 1-16: MASS-REDUCTIONS AND COST IMPACT FOR THE PARKING BRAKE AND ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM...^ 15
TABLE F.I 1-17: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE BRAKE ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM 616
TABLE F. 11-18: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE BRAKE ACTUATION
SUBSYSTEM 622
TABLE F. 11-19: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED BRAKE ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS
624
TABLE F.I 1-20: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR THE BRAKE ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM 630
TABLE F. 11 -21: CALCULATED SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR THE BRAKE
ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS 631
TABLE F. 11-22: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE POWER BRAKE (FOR HYDRAULIC) SUBSYSTEM..631
TABLE F. 11-23: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE POWER BRAKE (FOR
HYDRAULIC) SUBSYSTEM 637
TABLE F. 11-24: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAILED POWER BRAKE (FOR HYDRAULIC) SUBSYSTEM
ANALYSIS 640
TABLEF.11-25: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR THE POWER BRAKE (HYDRAULIC) SUBSYSTEM 644
TABLE F. 11-26: CALCULATED SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR THE POWER BRAKE
(FOR HYDRAULIC) SUBSYSTEM 645
TABLE F. 12-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR FRAME & MOUNTING SYSTEM 645
TABLE F. 12-2: CALCULATED MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR FRAME & MOUNTING SYSTEM 646
TABLE F. 12-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR FRAME SUBSYSTEM 647
TABLE F. 12-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FRAME SUBSYSTEM. ...653
-------
Page xlvi
TABLE F.12-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR FRONT DRIVE HOUSED AXLE SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS 655
TABLE F. 12-6: CALCULATED SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR FRAME SUBSYSTEM660
TABLE F. 13-1: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUBSYSTEM FOR EXHAUST SYSTEM 661
TABLE F. 13-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR EXHAUST SUBSYSTEM 662
TABLE F. 13 -3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR ACOUSTICAL CONTROL COMPONENTS SUBSYSTEM ... .662
TABLE F. 13-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE ACOUSTICAL CONTROL
COMPONENTS SUBSYSTEM 664
TABLEF.13-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR ACOUSTICAL CONTROL COMPONENTS SUBSYSTEM 665
TABLE F. 13-6: SGF EXISTING EXHAUST SYSTEM RECOMMENDATION 668
TABLE F. 13-7: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR ACOUSTICAL CONTROL COMPONENTS
SUBSYSTEM 671
TABLE F. 13-8: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR EXHAUST GAS TREATMENT COMPONENTS SUBSYSTEM
671
TABLE F. 13-9: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE EXHAUST GAS
TREATMENT COMPONENTS SUBSYSTEM 673
TABLE F. 13-10: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR EXHAUST GAS TREATMENT COMPONENTS SUBSYSTEM ..674
TABLE F. 13-11: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR EXHAUST GAS TREATMENT
COMPONENTS SUBSYSTEM 675
TABLE F. 14-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR FUEL SYSTEM 676
TABLE F. 14-2: CALCULATED MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR FUEL SYSTEM 677
TABLE F. 14-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR FUEL TANK AND LINES SUBSYSTEM 678
TABLE F. 14-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FUEL TANK & LINES
SUBSYSTEM 685
TABLE F. 14-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR FUEL TANK & LINES SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS 686
TABLE F. 14-6: CALCULATED SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR FUEL TANK & LINES
SUBSYSTEM 692
TABLEF.14-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR FUEL VAPOR MANAGEMENT SUBSYSTEM 693
TABLE F. 14-8: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FUEL VAPOR
MANAGEMENT SUBSYSTEM 696
TABLE F. 14-9: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR FUEL VAPOR MANAGEMENT SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS 696
TABLE F. 14-10: PRELIMINARY BALLPARK SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR FUEL
VAPOR MANAGEMENT SUBSYSTEM 700
TABLE F. 15-1: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUBSYSTEM FOR STEERING SYSTEM 701
TABLE F. 15-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR STEERING SYSTEM 701
TABLE F. 15-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR STEERING GEAR SUBSYSTEM 702
TABLE F. 15-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE STEERING GEAR
SUBSYSTEM 703
TABLE F. 15-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE STEERING GEAR SUBSYSTEM 704
TABLE F.15-6: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR STEERING GEAR SUB-SUBSYSTEM 705
TABLE F. 15-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE POWER STEERING SUBSYSTEM 705
TABLE F. 15-8: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE POWER STEERING
SUBSYSTEM 706
TABLE F. 15-9: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE POWER STEERING SUBSYSTEM 706
TABLE F. 15-10: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR POWER STEERING ELECTRONIC CONTROLS
SUB-SUBSYSTEM 708
TABLE F. 15-11: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE STEERING COLUMN SUBSYSTEM 708
TABLE F. 15-12: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE STEERING COLUMN
SUBSYSTEM 710
TABLE F. 15-13: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE STEERING COLUMN SUBSYSTEM 710
TABLEF.15-14: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE STEERING COLUMN SUBSYSTEM ...711
TABLE F. 15-15: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE STEERING COLUMN SWITCHES SUBSYSTEM 712
TABLE F. 15-16: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE STEERING COLUMN
SWITCHES SUBSYSTEM 713
TABLE F. 15-17: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE STEERING WHEEL SUBSYSTEM 714
-------
Page xlvii
TABLE F. 15-18: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE STEERING WHEEL
SUBSYSTEM 716
TABLE F. 15-19: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE STEERING WHEEL SUBSYSTEM 717
TABLE F. 15-20: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR STEERING WHEEL SUBSYSTEM 717
TABLE F. 16-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR THE CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM 718
TABLE F. 16-2: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR THE CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM 719
TABLE F. 16-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE AIR HANDLING/BODY VENTILATION SUBSYSTEM 720
TABLE F. 16-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE AIR HANDLING/BODY
VENTILATION SUBSYSTEM 727
TABLE F. 16-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE AIR HANDLING/BODY
VENTILATION SUBSYSTEM 728
TABLE F. 16-6: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE AIR HANDLING/BODY VENTILATION SUBSYSTEM ....729
TABLE F. 16-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE HEATING/DEFROSTING SUBSYSTEM 730
TABLE F. 16-8: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE HEATING/DEFROSTING
SUBSYSTEM 731
TABLE F. 16-9: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE HEATING/DEFROSTING SUBSYSTEM
732
TABLEF.16-10: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE HEATING/DEFROSTING SUBSYSTEM 732
TABLE F. 16-11: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE CONTROLS SUBSYSTEM 733
TABLE F. 16-12: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE CONTROLS SUBSYSTEM
734
TABLE F. 16-13: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE CONTROLS SUBSYSTEM 735
TABLE F. 16-14: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR THE CONTROLS SUBSYSTEM 736
TABLE F. 17-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR INFO, GAGE & WARNING DEVICE SYSTEM 736
TABLE F. 17-2: PRELIMINARY MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR INFO, GAGE & WARNING DEVICE SYSTEM
737
TABLE F. 17-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR INSTRUMENT CLUSTER SUBSYSTEM 738
TABLE F. 17-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE INSTRUMENT CLUSTER
SUBSYSTEM 739
TABLE F. 17-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL INFO INSTRUMENT CLUSTER SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS
740
TABLE F. 17-6: CALCULATED SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR INSTRUMENT CLUSTER
SUBSYSTEM 741
TABLE F. 18-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR IN-VEHICLE ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM 743
TABLE F. 18-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR BODY SYSTEM GROUP 744
TABLE F. 18-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR RECEIVER AND AUDIO MEDIA SUBSYSTEM 744
TABLE F. 18-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE RECEIVER AND AUDIO
MEDIA SUBSYSTEM 747
TABLE F. 18-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEA SELECTED FOR RECEIVER AND AUDIO MEDIA SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS 749
TABLE F. 18-6: SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR RECEIVER AND AUDIO MEDIA SUBSYSTEM .750
TABLE F.I8-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR ANTENNA SUBSYSTEM 751
TABLEF.18-8: COST SUMMARY BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR ANTENNA SUBSYSTEM 752
TABLE F. 19-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR THE LIGHTING SYSTEM 754
TABLE F.I 9-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR THE LIGHTING SYSTEM 754
TABLE F.I 9-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE FRONT LIGHTING SUBSYSTEM 755
TABLE F. 19-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FRONT LIGHTING
SUBSYSTEM 761
TABLE F. 19-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE FRONT LIGHTING SUBSYSTEM.. .761
TABLE F.I 9-6: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR THE FRONT LIGHTING SUBSYSTEM 762
TABLE F.20-1: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUBSYSTEM FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEM 765
TABLE F.20-2: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR ELECTRICAL WRING AND CIRCUIT PROTECTION
SUBSYSTEM 766
TABLE F.20-3: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE ELECTRICAL WRING AND
CIRCUIT PROTECTION SUBSYSTEM 767
-------
Page xlviii
TABLE F.20-4: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR ELECTRICAL WIRING AND CIRCUIT PROTECTION SUBSYSTEM
770
TABLE F.20-5: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR ELECTRICAL WRING AND CIRCUIT
PROTECTION SUBSYSTEM 772
TABLE H.2-1: LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE MASS-REDUCTION PUBLISHED ARTICLES, PAPERS, AND JOURNALS REFERENCED
AS INFORMATION SOURCES IN THE ANALYSIS 784
TABLE H.6-1: TABLE OF COMMON ENGINEERING PROPERTIES [26] 792
TABLE H.6-2: MATERIAL CURVES OF STRESS vs. STAIN (1 OF 2) 793
TABLE H.8-1: ENGINE SYSTEM CMATs 799
TABLE H.8-2: TRANSMISSION SYSTEM CMATs 800
TABLE H.8-3: BODY SYSTEM, GROUP A, BIW AND CLOSURES CMATs 801
TABLE H.8-4: BODY SYSTEM, GROUP B, INTERIOR CMATs 803
TABLE H.8-5: BODY SYSTEM, GROUP C, EXTERIOR CMATs 804
T ABLE H.8-10: BODY SYSTEM, GROUP D, GLAZING & BODY MECHATRONICS CMATs 807
TABLE H.8-11: SUSPENSION SYSTEM CMATs 807
TABLE H.8-12: DRIVELINE SYSTEM CMATs 808
TABLE H.8-13: BRAKE SYSTEM CMATs 809
TABLE H.8-14: FRAME AND MOUNTING SYSTEM CMATs 810
TABLE H.8-15: EXHAUST SYSTEM CMATs 811
TABLE H.8-16: FUEL SYSTEM CMATs 876
TABLE H.8-17: STEERING SYSTEM CMATs 877
TABLE H.8-18: CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM CMATs 878
TABLE H.8-19: INFO, GAGE AND WARNING SYSTEM CMATs 879
TABLE H.8-20: IN-VEHICLE ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM CMATs 880
TABLE H.8-21: LIGHTING SYSTEM CMATs 881
TABLE H.8-22: ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION AND ELECTRONIC CONTROL SYSTEM CMATs 882
-------
Page 1
A. Executive Summary
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracted FEV to perform a
Phase 2 light-duty vehicle (midsize crossover utility) mass reduction study. The
supplementary analysis is founded on a Phase 1, Low Development mass-reduction and
cost analysis study completed by Lotus Engineering for the Internal Council on Clean
Transportation (ICCT). 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 study includes a
safety analysis of the body-in-white (BIW), a detailed cost analysis, and a mass-reduction
technology review.
For selected systems, namely body-in-white (BIW), where mass-reduction could have a
significant effect on vehicle safely, more rigorous engineering analyses (i.e., computer-
aided engineering) were performed. This level of analysis was not included in the
originally Lotus Phase 1 analysis establishing uncertainty in the level of NVH
performance degradation (i.e., torsion and bending stiffness) as well as vehicle crash
safety degradation. Another area of advancement in the Phase 2 analysis, relative to the
initial Lotus Phase 1 analysis, was assessing the incremental direct manufacturing costs of
the mass-reduced components relative to the production stock components. The costing
methodology and tools are the same as those successfully utilized on previous EPA
advance light-duty vehicle powertrain 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 (hrtp://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420r09020.
pdfj.
The analyses for this report by FEV began with an evaluation of the mass-reduction
opportunities presented in the Lotus report as well as investigation of additional mass
reduction opportunities. This was done both for vehicle systems originally covered in the
Phase 1 report as well as those which were not; namely the powertrain vehicle systems.
("Powertrain System" was defined as anything in the powertrain that would change in
going from a conventional internal combustion engine and transmission powertrain
configuration to a hybrid powertrain configuration) All mass-reduction ideas were
evaluated in terms of product function and performance risk, manufacturing
implementation readiness and risk, and overall value of mass-reduction in term of weight
savings versus manufacturing cost. Design, material, and manufacturing processes
determined likely to be available for the 2017-2020 model year time frame were
considered in the mass reduction technology analysis.
-------
Page 2
The goal of both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies was to identify 20% mass saving
opportunities while maintaining performance parity relative to the current vehicle. Lotus
originally achieved 20% mass reduction without powertrain in their draft report.
However, additional information on the baseline BIW materials came in during the peer
review of the draft report and resulted in a decrease in the mass reduction to 19% without
powertrain at an estimated 1% direct manufacturing cost save. The mass reduction with
powertrain was approximately 17.6%.
FEV's work was focused to achieve 20% mass reduction across all vehicle systems
including the powertrain. The mass-reduction ideas could not result in a function,
performance, or safety degradation from the baseline (i.e., current production stock)
vehicle. In addition no powertrain, nor any other vehicle system architecture changes,
were permitted in the analysis. For example the 14 naturally aspirated (NA), port fuel
injected (PFI) internal combustion engine was only downsized (due to reduction in gross
combine weight rating) to a slightly smaller 14, NA, PFI, ICE. It was not assumed that the
ICE could be downsized further with the addition of turbocharging and direct injection
ICE technology. The automatic transmission (AT) remained a 6-speed AT with weight
reduction measures employed. No change to a duel clutch transmission or any other
advanced transmission configuration, which could potentially result in a reduction in
mass, was made. The BIW geometry and packaging space remained the same between the
baseline vehicle and the mass-reduced vehicle as the mass-reduction ideas evaluated in
the analysis were primarily limited to material substitutions with minor design
modifications to support the material substitutions.
To support the mass-reduction and cost analysis project, FEV subcontracted with two
knowledgeable, industry-recognized suppliers: Munro and Associates, Inc.® and EDAG
GmbH & Co. FEV had partnered with Munro on several other EPA light-duty vehicle
advance powertrain technology cost analyses conducted over the last several years (2009-
2012). Munro provides value engineering type services including component
benchmarking, lean manufacturing consultation and component/assembly cost analysis.
Munro provided support on the mass-reduction opportunities and cost analysis for all
systems with the exception of Body System, Group -A- (BIW and closures). To support
the BIW and closure portion of analysis, FEV subcontracted with EDAG. EDAG is
worldwide engineering firm that provides "ready for production (engineering) solutions"
across entire vehicle platforms27. The EDAG product development team has vast
experience in BIW and closure design and manufacturing. In additional they have
participated in several vehicle mass-reduction studies including the 2011 Future Steel
Vehicle Analysis (http://www.worldautosteel.org/projects/).
-------
Page 3
The vehicle mass-reduction and cost analysis process employed in this project is
summarized with the following five steps:
fingerprint the baseline vehicle;
mass-reduction idea generation;
mass-reduction optimization (weights vs. costs);
selection of mass-reduction level with best value; and
detail technology feasibility and cost analysis.
The first step (Step 1) in this analysis was to establish and document the attributes of the
baseline production stock vehicle, a 2010 Toyota Venza. The process included reviewing,
acquiring, and recording primary vehicle attributes (e.g., 4 corner vehicle mass, ride
height, engine maximum horse power, transmission torque capacity, fluid volumes/mass,
etc.) as well as digitally scan the complete vehicle and key systems/subsystems prior to
initiating vehicle disassembly. Following the vehicle level review and documenting
process, the vehicle was completely disassembled: starting at the system level, eventually
working down to the component level. Components, as they were removed from the
vehicle, were photographed, weighed, and recorded in their respective vehicle systems.
During the disassembly process, the EDAG team continued to scan BIW and other key
components required to support the vehicle mass-reduction CAE analysis. The first
EDAG objective in step one was to produce a surrogate Toyota Venza CAE baseline
model from which mass-reduction design alternative could be evaluated. Part details
crucial for building the CAE model (i.e., material thickness, material specifications, weld
locations) were obtained and recorded. EDAG also purchased available NVH data on a
Toyota Venza (with a panoramic roof) and acquired NHTSA crash results from an actual
Venza (with no panoramic roof). In order to utilize the NVH data, EDAG modified their
original CAE model to match the BIW on which the NVH data was based by adding a
panoramic roof. The NVH characteristics including torsional and bending stiffness
matched very well. The panoramic roof was then removed and NVH characteristics were
noted. To compare the crash safety of the CAE model to the available NHTSA data, the
remaining masses for the vehicle systems were added in and the CAE model was run
under chosen NHTSA and IIHS crash scenarios. Results were visually comparable to
available crash information on a physical Venza from NHTSA. This established the
baseline model to which future light-weighted model would be compared relative to NVH
and crash performance.
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, functionality/
performance risk, and value (i.e., cost/mass-reduction). 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
-------
Page 4
of this study. 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. FEV included the ideas presented in the Lotus report for the low-
development scenario. Product and manufacturing engineering technical experts
identified opportunities at the component and assembly levels to reduce mass during the
teardown and evaluation process. In addition, preliminary validation work was initiated to
support grading of the mass-reduction concepts (mainly on the BIW initial mass-
reduction concepts). The starting point for the BIW mass-reduction analysis was the
evaluation of the Lotus Phase 1 BIW recommend changes. Comparison of the Lotus
Phase 1 low-development BIW model to the baseline CAE model showed bending and
torsional stiffness to be insufficient in meeting the design target of no expected NVH
degradation. As a result, selected Lotus mass-reduction BIW ideas were excluded from
further evaluation. Ideas that displayed promise were carried forward by EDAG into
future mass-reduced BIW mass-reduced iterations.
Step 3 was the beginning of the 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 (e.g.,
cost/kg). Two (2) 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." For the majority of systems (with exception of BIW), the
optimization process was an objective but manual process. For the BIW optimization
process EDAG utilized HEEDS® MDO software, which automates the design
optimization process28. As promising, optimized BIW iterations were developed (for
weight and cost), EDAG validated the performance with respect to the baseline using
CAE evaluation cases including structural stiffness (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).
Step 4, though relatively short in duration, was an important step in the process. Here the
team evaluated 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.
Based on the selected vehicle mass-reduced solution, a detailed mass-reduction feasibility
and cost analysis on the vehicle solution was initiated (Step 5). The detailed mass-
reduction feasibility analysis focused on developing and refining the component mass-
-------
Page 5
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. 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.
Once the final details on the component mass-reductions 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. Both a net incremental direct
manufacturing unit cost and tooling cost were developed as part of the analysis. The
direct manufacturing cost calculations were founded on a set of explicit boundary
conditions (e.g., production timeframe, production volumes, manufacturing cost structure,
market maturity). Additional details on the boundary conditions established for the
analysis, including what is and what is not included in the costing, can be found within
the report.
In addition to developing the net increment direct manufacturing cost for a single mass-
reduced 2010 Toyota Venza solution, FEV also developed cost curves (cost/kg versus
percent vehicle mass reduction) to estimate the cost impact at alternative percent vehicle
mass-reduction points. This was achieved by first removing the secondary mass savings
(mass compounding benefit) from those components that included additional mass-
reduction based on a 20% overall vehicle mass-reduction. Secondary mass-reduction
savings, on selected system components (e.g. brake, suspension, engine), were included
in the optimized vehicle solution, based on the percent of vehicle mass-reduction
generated during the initial brainstorming phase of the project.All components that
achieved mass-reduction, now exclusive of mass-reduction benefits from other systems,
were ordered from greatest value (i.e., least cost/kilogram) to lowest value (i.e., greatest
cost/kilogram). Starting at the greatest mass-reduction value, the components' mass-
saving and cost impact were progressively summed to establish a non-compounded cost
curve. Interpolating the calculated benefit of compounding, established from the
optimized vehicle solution, to other percent vehicle mass-reductions a cost curve with
compounding, was also developed.
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). In Table B.l-1 below, is a
summary of the calculated mass reduction and cost impact for each major system
evaluated. This project recorded a mass reduction of 18.26% (312.5kg vehicle mass
reduction) at a cost savings of $0.47/kg ($148 decrease) without tooling. Tooling impact
-------
Page 6
is calculated to be an increase of $0.04/kg at the mass reduction point of 18.26% for a
total of $0.43 cost savings - not inclusive of certain OEM markups.
Figure B.l-1 Illustrates the mass reduction cost curves develop from the Toyota Venza
analysis. Cost curves with and without mass-compounding are presented. As with the cost
calculations provided above, the values in the cost curves are developed from the net
incremental direct manufacturing cost calculations.
Table B.l-1: Mass-Reduction and Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing Cost Impact for each
Vehicle System Evaluated
Description
Engine System
Transmission System
Body System) ..5.IMP ..:*:L?M..*.£[?™.™*
Body System) Group -B-j Interior
Bo'iy ^yS'.H--ii .; * .: ystem
In-Vehicle Entertainment System
Lighting System
Electrical 0
.___...
Vehicle
2010
Production
Toyota Venza
System Mass
Contributions
"kg"
172.60
92.76
528.88
220761
26757
63.46
24l749
33l6
86771
"43773
26762"
24.28
24723
IIjsSTZ
1.90
'4759
16764
23.94
69766
1711.38
System
Mass
Reduction
30.25
18796'
68'.32
42766
2737
6.16
66783
1.50
32775"
16734"
7752"
12770
l".82"
2744
6768
il?
6753
'6789
6766
312.48
(Decrease)
System
Incremental
Direct
Manufacturing
Cost
Impact
£
33.69
(114715"]"
(227745)
122798
7752
(15725)
144771
ZllilZ
169.56
(3728)
2.47
3791
ii7"6"5
ZIEMZI
6.19
2735
ZSzaZ
1.35
616
$148.06
(Decrease)
System
Incremental
Tooling
Impact
Cost
"S"(x1000)'"
5,892.20
j"7"3507iJC'j
(22.000 00)
9,966.15
6766
616
J7.544.37)
(B85.S6]
IlvisZZ
i3.700.lM)
6766
leslo
17.352770
mob"
6766
07516
466.66
103750"
6766
($23.006.09)
(Increase)
Average
System
Cost/Kilogram
w/o Tooling
"I/kg" |z|
1.11
Z5SZ
.(3,33)
2.93
3.17
ZllliZ
2.17
Z11EZ
5.18
poj
0.33
673"i
os
3783"
Z3:iZZ
2.19
Z1-1EZ
1.52
6^66
0.47
(Decrease)
Average
System
Cosb'Kilogram
with Tooling
"S.'kg" (z|
1.22
Z1MZ
(3.51)
3.'66
3'7l7
(2748)
2.T6"
IJiMZ
5.15
Z1MZ
0.33
6738
sue"
3792
2745
2779
ZHMZ
1.58
6766
0.43
(Decrease)
% System
Mass
Reduction '"
17.53%
26737%
ZJJ2.1?%Z
19.04%
8792%
9771%
27768*"
4."47%
3"77r7%"
48754%
'2"8T2"5%'
5273"3'%"
7750%"
15755%
4.01%
23739%
5729%
3771%
6766%
% Vehicle
Mass
Reduction '"
1.77%
1.10%
'i'm
'2745%
oii'4%
6.36%
'3791%
Zj^09*Z
1.91%
6.95%
b!'44%
6.74%
0.11%
Zj7jlCZ
b.6b%
6766%
6.63%
'6765%'
616%
18.26%
Notes:
(1) For the mass-reduction analysis, differential values were calculated by subtracting the baseline vehicle component weights from the mass-reduced vehicle
component weights. Therefore a mass reduction is represented by a positive "-*-" value and a negative value "-" represents a mass increase.
(2) For the cost analysis, differential values were calculated by subtracting the baseline vehicle component costs from the mass-reduced vehicle
component costs. Therefore a cost reduction is represented by a positive "+" value and a negative value "-" represents a cost increase.
-------
Page 7
Vehicle Level Cost Curve
6.00
—#— w/ Compounding
• W/Q Compounding
)l( Optim ized Vehicle Solution
(-50.47/kg, 18.26%)
-12.00
% Vehicle Mass-Reduction
Figure B.l-1: Toyota Venza Mass-Reduction Cost Curves
The EPA, in order to create a thorough, transparent, and robust study, invited various
government entities to participate and/or provide feedback during the study duration.
Customers that participated and partnered financially in this study with EPA are
International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) and Environment Canada.
Additional input was provided during periodic project reviews by National Highway
Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and
California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board (CARB). SRA was
subcontracted by the EPA to conduct the peer review for this project. The peer review
team selected by SRA included William Joost (U.S. Department of Energy), Douglas
Richman (Kaiser Aluminum), Srdjan Simunovic (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), and
Glenn Daehn, David Emerling, Kristina Kennedy, and Tony Luscher (The Ohio State
University).
The Peer review report and FEV responses to the peer review comments are available at
www.regulations.gov in EPA docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799.
-------
PageS
B. Introduction
B.1 Project Overview
B.1.1 Background for Studying Mass-Reduction
In addition to regular cadence of vehicle redesign and refresh, vehicle manufacturers are
also 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 manual transmissions, automated start-
stop systems, electric-hybridization, aerodynamic improvements 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 performance, interior volume and utility by combining lightweight
materials and innovative vehicle design. There are many examples of mass reduced
designs currently in production today that use light-weight materials such composites,
engineering plastics, high strength steels, aluminums, magnesium, and other materials.
These 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.
While the vehicle architectures being investigated for this timeframe (2017-2020 model
year product) 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.
-------
Page 9
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 below,
Image B.l-1 ) is representative of current CUVs 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
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-1: 2009 Toyota Venza
(Source: http:/Avww.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.
-------
Page 10
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.
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: http://www.theicct.org/sites/default /files/publications
/Mass_reduction_fmal_2010.pdf. In Appendix H.I, the executive summary from the
Lotus report listed above can be found. In summary, Lotus Engineering initially
determined that a 21% (277kg) mass-reduction (no powertrain contribution considered)
was possible at a vehicle piece cost reduction of 2% nominal relative to the baseline
Venza vehicle in the 2017 timeframe. Subsequent updates to the analysis (post peer
review) resulted in a 19% (244kg) mass-reduction at a vehicle 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 Tier 1 (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 mass reduction of light-duty vehicles
(Reference Appendix H.2: Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction
-------
Page 11
Published Articles, Papers, and Journals Referenced as Information
Sources in the Analysis)
e. Alternative industry mass-reduction practices
f. Mass-reduction ideas 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
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.
-------
Page 12
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.
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 development 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-1. Additional details on the processes and tools used in each of
the steps can be found in Sections 0 and D. Although the analysis objectives outlined
above are similar for all systems, the detailed processes and tasks completed at each of
major project steps, as outlined below in Figure B.l-1, varied from vehicle system to
system. This was especially true for the BIW analysis versus the remaining vehicle
systems evaluated. For this reason two different project paths/roadmaps were established.
Additional details of these roadmaps and differences are captured in Section D.
Stepl
Baseline
VehicleFinger
Printing
Step 2
Mass-
Reduction
Idea
Generation
Step 3
Reductions
Cost
Optimization
Process
Step 4
Selection of
VehicleMass-
Reduction
Solution
StepS
Mass-
Reduction
Feasibility and
Cost Analysis /
Figure B.l-1: Key Steps in the Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis Project
-------
Page 13
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, Engine, Transmission, Fuel, etc., 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, functionality/performance risk, value (i.e., cost/mass-reduction), etc. For
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 0 (
-------
Page 14
Cost Analysis Methodology).
-------
Page 15
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 "off-the-shelf 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.
The general, sources of information used to develop mass-reduction ideas are shown in
Figure C.l-1. 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.
-------
Page 16
Implementation Ready
"Off-The-Shelf
Technology
Figure C.l-1: Sources of Information used to develop Mass-Reduction Components
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 applications 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.
Based on the production timeframe established as part of the analysis boundary conditions
(i.e., production implementation readiness 2017-2020 model year program), there were no
-------
Page 17
technologies selected in the optimized vehicle solution which the team felt could not be
implemented in time.
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
speed 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 additional information on the cost analysis
assumptions are covered.
Within the mass-reduction and cost analysis results sections (Section F. Mass Reduction
and Cost Analysis Results) 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 volume, manufacturing location,
manufacturing period), market conditions, etc. exist for either technology. This common
framework for costing permits reliable comparison of costs between new (i.e., mass-
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 0
-------
Page 18
Cost Analysis Methodology.
Table C.2-lcaptures the primary universal cost analysis assumptions which are
applicable to both the new and baseline configurations evaluated in the analysis.
Table C.2-1: Universal Case Study Assumption Utilized in the Mass-Reduction Analysis
-------
Page 19
Item
Description
Universal Case Study Assumptions
Incremental Direct Manufacturing Costs
(Included in the analysis)
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.).
Incremental 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-42Q-R-G9-003, Februarv 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/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.
Table C.2-1: Universal Case Study Assumption Utilized in the Mass-Reduction Analysis (Con't)
-------
Page 20
Item
5
6
7
S
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
Time frame
( 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
201 0/201 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 / carrying 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.
-------
Page 21
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-1). 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.
Step 1
Step 2
line
Vehicle Finger
Printing
Mass-
Reduction
Idea
Generation
on /
StepS
Preliminary
Mass-
Reduction
and Cost
Estimates
Step 4
Mass-
Reduction
and Cost
Optimization
Process J
StepS
Task 1: Non BIW Analysis Roadmap
Vehicle
Teardown,
Measurements,
Baseline BOMs
^^H Review,
Develop, Grade,
and Rank Mass-
Reduction Ideas H|^
Initial Idea
Down-Selection
Task 2: BIW Analysis
Vehicle
\^ Scanning
Model
Development
and Validation /
Roadmap
^V
Lotus BIW Mass-
* Reduction
Model Runs /
/
Preliminary
Mass Reduction
and Cost
Estimate ^V
Final Idea
Down-Selection
^Wea^nto'0'1 Mass-Reduction
Optimized
Vehicle Solution Anal^ls
\Eliminationof
Unsuccessful *
Lotus Ideas f
BIW Lightweight
CAE Design Detailed Cost
Optimization Analysis /
Process f /
-------
Page 22
Figure D.l-1: 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
Component
Information
Acquisition
Detial System
Bill of
Materials
The process started with the purchase of the baseline vehicle, 2012 Toyota Venza. 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
-------
Page 23
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 (Image D.2-1). 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.
Image D.2-1: 2010 Toyota Venza Front Sub-frame Module as Removed During the Teardown
Process
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
Page 24
D.2.2 Mass-Reduction Idea Generation
Assembly
Teardown and
Component
Review , .^^_
Grading of
Mass-Reduction
Ideas
Mass-Reduction
Idea Generation
Initial Idea
Down-Selection
Process
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.2-2, 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, qT~ "^hts, etc.).
Image D.2-2: Toyota Venza Fuel Tank Disassembled
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
Page 25
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 ICCT 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
by the vehicle system teams. As shown in Figure C.l-1, 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.2, 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
-------
Page 26
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.2-1, 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.
Primary Idea Down-Select Ranking Process Im
Manufacturing
Readiness Risk
"Possible for 2017
Timeframe"
< 1 > High Production
Automotive
< 2 > High Production
Other
< 3 > Low Production
<5> Still In
Development/Rao
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 > >25H
Increase
1
1
2
2
2
Total Ranking
Low Ranking = High
Potential Solution
High Ranking = Low
Potential Solution
I
We
6
6
0
12
42
18
Figure D.2-1: Primary Idea Down-Select Process Excerpt from FEV Brainstorming Template
-------
Page 27
D.2.3 Preliminary Mass-Reduction and Cost Estimates
Mass-Reduction Final Down- Grouping of Ideas
and Cost ^^ Selection of Mass- ^^ Based on Value
Estimates Reduction Ideas (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.
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.2-2). 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 comparable "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.
-------
Page 28
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
Incremental
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)
given to Manfred@lv1unro 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.2-2: 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
sacrifice of function and/or performance (Figure D.2-3). 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.
-------
Page 29
Figure D.2-3: Mass-Reduction Idea Grouping/Binning Bases on Mass-Reduction Value
D.2.4 Mass-Reduction and Cost Optimization Process
Optimization
of Mass-
Reduced
Vehicle Sub-
Subsystems
Optimization
of Mass-
Reduced
Vehicle
Subsy
Optimization of
Mass-Reduced
Vehicle Systems
Optimization
Of Mass-
Reduced
Vehicle
Solutions
Selection of
Optimized
Vehicle
Solution
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
-------
Page 30
starting point is combining mass-reduction ideas into various component and assembly
mass-reduced options. Shown in Figure D.2-4, 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.
Mass-Reduction Ideas => Mass-Reduced Component/ Assembly Options
( Exarrmle: Front Rotor)
Cost Group: A
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"
A
<$0
IDEA#1 ^
Reduce Rotor
Thickness
IDEA #2 ^
Reduce Rotor
Diameter
Rotor Option
#1 is pla
the Low
Solut
Assem
Compo
Mas
Reduc
Mat
ced in
Cost
bly/
nent
s
iton
rx
Cost Group: B
Subgroup
Range
"$/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$2.50
fr IDEA m Sj
II Rotor ID Scaliping I
I (Hat Perimeter)
r IDEA #7 Tj
Rotor CD
Scaliping
/J
V
^>
Cost Group: D
Subgroup
Range
"$/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
f ROTOR ^
Option #2
IDEA#1
IDE A #2
IDE A #3
IDE A #4
IDE A #5
IDE A #6
IDE A #7 +
IDE A #9 +
$3.56/kg
V J
Cost Group: X
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"
X
>$4.88
f IDEA #9
2 PC Rotor Design 1
(Iron&CF)
( IDEA #10 ^
Change to
Composite Rotor
V J
Rotor Option
#2 is placed in
the
Engineered
Solution
Assembly/
Component
Mass
Reduciton
Matrx
Figure D.2-4: Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Optimization Process
-------
Page 31
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.2-4. In rotor option #1, ideas #1 through #7 were summed to develop a mass-
reduce 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 rotor 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.2-5) 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, built using the Low Cost Solution methodology,
also exists.
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.2-5). The same principles apply for Low Cost
Solutions: subscript "c" identifies Low Cost Solutions.
-------
Page 32
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
Ae
,$0
I Rotor
Option #2
Brake Caliper
Option #2
|[ Option #2 J|
I Caliper Bracket 1
Option #2
:ess Repeated
ost Solution
ystems
;ing Low Cost
Component
Dly Matrix
Cost Group: B
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"
Be
>$o.oc
£$1.0
Dust Shield
Option #2
Brake Caliper
Option #3
Caliper Bracket
Option #3
3
Cost Group: B
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"
Be
>$o.oo -
£$1.00
s^~ """"x
' FRDSS Option
#2
Rotor #2 +
Dust Sh eld #3 +
Brake Caliper #4 +
Pad Kit #2
Caliper Brkt #4
$0.93/kg
Cost Group: C
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg'
Ce
>$1.00-
<$2.50
1 Rotor
Option #3
1 Brake Caliper 1
Option #4
1 Caliper Bracket 1
Option #4
V
}
iU
Cost Group: D
Subgroup
Range
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.2-5: 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.2-6. The same process applies for Low Cost Solutions. The same process
was followed for all vehicle systems.
-------
Page 33
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
HPBS
Option #3
1
/J 1 L^
Cost Group: D
Subgroup De
Range >$2.50 -
"S/kg" £$4.88
FRDSS
Option #3
RRDSS
Option #2
BAS
Option #3
Cost Group: C
Subgroup Ce
Range >$l.OO -
"S/kg" £$2.50
Brake System
Option #2
FRDSS #2 +
RRDSS #3 +
PBAS #2 +
BAS #3
HPBS #2
$2.33/kg
k. J
Cost Group: X
Subgroup Xe
Rs7ksg" >S4-88
IRRDSS
Option #3
BAS
Option #4
HPBS
Option #4
Figure D.2-6: System Mass-Reduction Optimization Process - Engineered Solution
The vehicle optimization process was completed using a similar methodology as
previously detailed. Four different vehicle optimization processes were performed.
Similar to the subsystem and system levels above, Low Cost Vehicle Optimized Solutions
(C) and Engineering Vehicle Optimized (E) Solutions were developed.In addition, a
hybrid Low Cost Vehicle Optimized Solution was developed using a combination of
system solutions from the Low Cost systems matrix and Engineering Solution systems
matrix; designated Low Cost Solution (C&E) in Figure D.2-7. Similarly a hybrid
Engineering Vehicle Solution was developed using a combination of system solutions
from both the Low Cost systems matrix and Engineering Solution systems matrix;
designated Engineered Soltuion (C&E).
-------
Page 34
Figure D.2-7 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.
$5 000 -
ttA nnn -
$0 nnn -
2
O tto nnn
£
8
Q_ J1 QQQ
*j
B
o
O
$
nnni
Toyota Venza Mass-Reduction Versus S/kg
/
I
I
/ "*-
/ Selected Analysis Point
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^x^T ^^^^^^^^^^
ooooooooooooooo ^^ ooooooooooo
OOOQOOOOOOOOO O^^_C3--^O OOOOOOOOOOO
Oi«-CNCo^TmtDr-cooJO'r-: oj^^^jy^^r iotDr^coa)o-*-CNCo*Tifi*D
-- -T->^T& T-^^^^T-CsJCMfNOJCMCSCNI
.X
Percent Vehicle Mass Reduction
— *— Low Cffit Solutior fCAEJ
— » — Engineaed Solution
('C&E)
Uiw Cent Solution (C)
Engines-Ed Solution (E)
— 'l»- Average
Figure D.2-7: Potential Mass-Reduction Vehicle Solutions Developed Through the Mass-Reduction
Optimization Process
D.2.5 Detailed Mass-Reduction Feasibility and Cost Analysis
Detailed Mass-
Reduction
Calculations and
Feasibility
Analysis
Detailed Mass-
Reduction Cost
Analysis
Development of
Final Cost Curve
-------
Page 35
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 (post peer review), for all systems other than Body Group -A- (body-in-
white, bumpers, closures) was approximately +0.75% (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 0. In addition, a Vehicle summary of the costing results can be found in Section
F.I
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 19.8% vehicle mass-reduction. In the final detailed
-------
Page 36
analysis, a 18.3% mass-reduction yielded a $0.47/kilogram savings. The difference is not
so surprising as the inflection point in Figure D.2-7 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.
Since 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). 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 and compare 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 NVH
correlation targets (<5% difference), the EDAG baseline model was utilized as the
baseline reference for further development of NVH and crash-iteration models and
lightweight optimization processes.
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
-------
Page 37
impact FMVSS208/US NCAP, 40% offset frontal Euro NCAP; side impact FMVSS214;
rear impact FMVSS301; and roof crush resistance FMVSS216A/IIHS).
D.3.2 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.3-1. Various inputs, outputs, and tools used for the steps in each process are
provided in Figure D.3-2.
Phase 1: Data Generated from Toyota Venza
Perform
Scan:
-Body
-Parts
Build FEA
Model
EOAG CAE
Guidelines
Vehicle Tear Down > Vehicle Scan
Run FEA
Simulation
(StirTness/NVHI
Physical
Testing Results
(StOTnessTNVH)
Phase 2: Data Generated from the FEA Models
CAE & ran
Validated
Model
EDAG CAE
Guidelines
Full Vehicle
CrashFEA
Baseline
Model
Comparison
Between
Testing and
Virtual
Build Initial
FEAModel
FEA Model
Validation
CrashFEA
' Model Build
Crash FEA
• Model
Comparison
Factors
(between
Baseline &
Iterations)
-Intrusion
-Crash Pulse
- Oof. Modes
Define
1 Comparison
Factors
Figure D.3-1: CAE Evaluation Process and Components
-------
Page 38
Phase 1 : Data Generated from Toyota Venza
• A
Vehicle Tear Down
>
rkfltat
Property
Input i«»a,r
UjOMk
Systems ana
Pads Weigh)
Output and
Dimensions
\ Vehicle Scan
Body
Structure
Other parts
(Powertreln.
Chasis. I
Systems end
Parts Scan
Geometry
Weld points
locations
>Bu*J Initial
FEA Model
Material
Coupon
Scan Data
EOAGCAC
Modtl.nf
Guidelines
initial BlP
FEA Model
Validated
Material Spec
Phase 2: Data Generated from the FEA
Models
> FEA Model \ Crash fEA
Validation ^ Model Budd
Physical Body-
in.Pnrre (BlP I
Testing
NVHana
Stiffness
results
correiaoon
^^^^| EOAGExpemse in virtual validation ana Model Generation
EDAG Tear
TOOIS Down/
Used Benchmark
Guidehnes
Garage
Services
White Light
Scan
Ansa
Advanced
EDAG FEA
Software for
Model Quality
Check
Sensrlivity
Analysis
Software
EDAGCAE
Guidelines
Initial Crash
Vehicle FEA
Model
> Crash FEA >
Model
Compernlon >
Physical
Vehtde
Crash
Crash results
Comparison
> Define ^
Comparison
FKIOIS ^
Intrusion
Values
Crash Pulse
EDAG Engineering (CAE and Vehicle InleoraOon > Eipertise
Ansa
Advanced
EDAG FEA
Software for
Model Quality
Check
LS-Dyna
A3 Animator
EDAG
Results
DataBase
and Tools
Figure D.3-2: CAE Evaluation Process Inputs, Outputs, and Tools
D.3.3 Vehicle Teardown
Phase 1 : Data Generated from
Input
Output
Tools
Used
Physical
Property
Repair
Manuals
Systems and
Parts weight
and
Dimensions
ED AGE
EDAG Tear
Down/
Benchmark
Guidelines
Garage
Body
Structure
Other parts
(Powertram.
Chassis. |
Systems and
Parts Scan
Geometry
Weld point!
Locations
Toyota Venza
. ^V Budd Initial
ln / FEA Model
/ S
Material
Coupon
Scan Data
EDAGCAE
Modeling
Initial BlP
FEA Model
Validated
Material Spec
Phase 2: Data Generated from the FEA
Models
> FEA Model \ Crash FEA
Validation J Model Bund
Physical Body
in-Prime (BlP)
Testing
NVHand
Stiffness
results
correlation
icrtise in virtual validation and Model Generation
Ansa
White Light Advanced Sensitivity
Scan
EDAG FEA
Software for
Model Quality
Check
EDAGCAE
Guidelines
initial Crash
Vehicle FEA
Model
V Crash FEA >
y Model
f CorriMlislon J
Physical
Vehicle
Crash
Crash results
Comparison
v Deltne "^
y Comparison
' Factors ^k
values
Crash Pulse
EDAG Enotneenng {CAE and Vehicle Inugrabon) Expertise
Ansa
Advanced , _ _ „ EDAG
Analysis EOAGFEA
Software I Software lor
Model Quality
Check
^
A3 Animator
Results
Database
and Tools
A Toyota 2010 Venza was purchased and completely disassembled by skilled body
technicians. Toyota body repair manuals were used to aid in the 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 (Figure D.3-3).
-------
Page 39
Vehicle Database (DB)
•Pictures
• Part Id, Part Name, Gauge
• Part Weight, Material
Figure D.3-3: Vehicle Teardown Process
Photos of the disassembled body parts used in the CAE model are shown in Appendix
H.3.
EDAG's project scope included determining the baseline vehicle weights through
measurement or calculation. Upon obtaining these weights; the overall body weight,
major subassembly weights and key component weights were then tabulated. This
information was used as the baseline weights in the subsequent CAE evaluation process
(Figure D.3-4).
-------
Page 40
Area
System
Sub-system
Baseline
System Mass
Sub-Total
Door Frt
53.2
Door RR
42.4
Closures
Hood
17.8
Tailgate
15.0
Fenders
6.8
Sub-Total
135.3
Underbody Asy
40.2
Front Structure
42.0
BIW
Roof Asy
31.3
Bodyside Asy
161.9
Ladder Asy
102.6
Sub-Total
378.0
Radiator Vertical Support
0.7
BIW Extra
Compartment Extra
4.5
Shock Tower Xmbr Plates
3.1
Sub-Total
8.2
Bumper fit
5.1
Bumper
Bumper rear
2.4
Sub-Total
7.5
Edag Target System Total
528.9
Weight Distribution of Edag Target System: Total 528.9 kg
Radiater Vertical Support
.0%
.Compartment Extra
IN
Front Structure Underbody Asy
8% 8%
Fenders
1%
Figure D.3-4: Baseline Vehicle Weights
-------
Page 41
D.3.4 Vehicle Scanning
Input
TOOlS
Used
Phase 1: Data Generated from Toyota Venza
1 Vehicle T««r Down
Physical
Property
t Repair
Manuals
Systems and
Parts Weight
Ut and
Dimensions
EDACE)
EDAG Tear
S Down/
j Benchmark
Guidelines
Garage
Services
Body
Structure
Other parts
(Powertrain.
Chassis. 1
Systems and
Parts Scan
Geometry
weld points
Locations
lertue in Virtual Vali
White Light
Scan
Phase 2: Data Generated from the FEA
Models
V BuMMual \ FEAModel \ C.ashFEA X C'""fA \ /..££.'
> FEAMode, > WM.M, > ModetBu* > Co^iior > C
-------
Page 42
Set Target FEA Load Cases
I
Identify system configuration for Load Cases j
Reference NVH
FEA Models
Reference Dash
FEA Models
Analyze
Stress & Strain Density
& Concentration for
Major Systems
Analyze
Load Path & Deforming
Behavior for
Major Systems
[ Integrating &Fihenng Major & Minor Paris ]
I
Identify J Determine
minimum required sub-systems and components
Figure D.3-5: White Light Scanning Part Identification Methodology
Sample images of raw STL data obtained by WLS of the body structure parts are shown
in Figure H.4-1 in Appendix H.4. Additionally, an example of the weld point locations
captured from the scanning process is shown in Figure H.4-2 in Appendix H.4.
-------
Page 43
D.3.5 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.
Phase 1: Data Generated from Toyota Venza
Phase 2: Data Generated from the FEA
Models
MMHM
Coupon
ScanDsti
EOAGCAE
Modeling
Guideline!
Structure
Other parts
|Po«rtr*n.
EOAGCAE
Guidelines
Physical
Vehicle
Crash
Systems and
Parts Weight
and
Dimensions
Initm 6IP
FEA Model
vihdMed
Materul Spec
NVHand
Stiffness
results
correlation
initial Crash
vehicle FEA
Model
Crash results
Comparison
EDAGEngineenngiCAE ana Vehicle IntegrationlExpertise
ED AO Expertise in Virtual vai lawm and Model Oe nKM
EDAGTeai
Down/
Benchmark
Guidelines
Gang.
S«mc*>
Ansa
Advanced
EOAGFEA
Software (or
Model Quality
Check
SensrtrvTty
Analysis
SoTI.'.,irr
EDAG
Results
Database
and Toots
LS-Dyna
A3 Animator
D.3.5.1Material Data
The Toyota body repair manualm was used to identify many of the material grades for the
major parts of the body structure. After disassembly of the vehicle, samples for coupon
testing were cut out of the body parts and sent out for material analysis. Confirmation of
the material grades shown in the manual along with the material grades for additional
parts not shown in the manual were obtained through this material coupon testing. A
picture of the typical samples that were taken from the body is shown in Appendix H.5.
D.3.5.2FE Modeling from Scan Data
A commercially available FE meshing tool (ANSA) [25] was used to generate FE mesh
from the raw STL geometry data obtained from WLS. A schematic of the process of
meshing from raw STL data is shown in Figure D.3-6.
-------
Page 44
Figure D.3-6: 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.
Figure D.3-7 shows the completely assembled FE model of the Toyota Venza body
structure.
Figure D.3-7: FE Model of Toyota Venza Body Structure
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
-------
Page 45
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. Figure D.3-8 represents the gauge
map for the BIP. Figure D.3-9 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
1.20mm to 1.60 mm 1.60 mm to 2.00 mm
i
Figure D.3-8: Gauge Map of Baseline BIP Model
-------
Page 46
HSLA 490 Group
( >
DP 350
Figure D.3-9: Material Map of Baseline BIP Model
D.3.5.3FE Materials Selection
Most FE simulation solutions are affected by the material data, especially crash
simulations. Crash simulations are characterized by non-linear boundary condition
loading and required the use of non-linear material modeling. Also, they are very
dependent on the accuracy of material data used in the calculations. The material data
used in this study is expressed with stress-strain curves for different strain rates.
The steel materials used in most parts of the body structure are known as strain rate
sensitive materials. These materials show different yield and tensile strength behavior at
different elongation rates. Therefore, the parameters for the material model selection
considered in this study were material type, material mechanical characteristic data and
material fracture criteria.
The major material model types used in this study were MAT-24, MAT-123, and
MAT_SIMPLIFIED_JOHNSON_COOK in LS-DYNA. The material fracture/failure is
usually not considered in most conventional analysis. However, with the selection of high
strength materials in this study, the material fracture/failure was a real concern and was
considered in the material model.
-------
The details of the material curves used in this study are shown in Appendix H.6
Page 47
D.3.6 FEA Model Validation—Baseline NVH Model
Phase 1: Data Generated from
_^|
• Vehicle Tear Down
S
Physical
Property
t Repair
Manuals
Systems and
Parts weight
Output and
Dimensions
*— —
Toyota Venza Phase 2: Data Generated from the FEA
Models
> Build mum \ FEAModel \ CiashFEA
FEA Model / Validation S Model Bund
Body
Structure
Other parts
(Powertrein.
Chassis. I
Systems and
Parts Scan
Geometry
Weld points
Locations
Material
Coupon
Scan Data
EDAG CAE
Modeling
Guidelines
Initial BIP
FEA Model
validated
Material Spec
EDAG Expense in Virtual validation and Model G<
EDAG Tear
TOOlS Down/
Used Benchmark
Guidelines
Garage
Services
wrute Light
Scan
Ansa
Advanced
EDAG FEA
Software for
Model Quality
Check
Physical Body
in-Prime (BIP)
Testing
NVH and
Stiffness
results
correlation
leiatton
Sensitivity
Analysis
Software
EDAG CAE
Guidelines
initial Crash
vehicle FEA
Model
> Crush FEA \
Model
Comparislon >
Physical
vehide
Crash
Crash results
Comparison
. Define ^
} Comparison
" Factors ^
Intrusion
values
Crash Pulse
EDAG Enomeenng (CAE and Vehicle integration) Expertise
Ansa
Advanced
EOAGFEA
Software for
Model Quality
Check
LS-Oyna
A3 Animator
EDAG
Results
Database
and Tools
The initial FE model needed to be validated 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.3.6.1Model 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
-------
Page 48
explained in detail for each of the NVH load cases. Figure D.3-10 shows the NVH model
before incorporating the boundary and load conditions.
Figure D.3-10: Toyota Venza Initial NVH Model
D.3.6.1.1 Static Bending Stiffness
In the bending stiffness model, the BIP was constrained and loaded as shown in Figure
D.3-11. 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.
-------
Page 49
FORCE - 2.22e*03
FORCE • 2.22e*03
Figure D.3-11: 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.3.6.1.2
Static Torsion Stiffness
The torsion stiffness BIP model was constrained and loaded, as shown in Figure D.3-12.
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.
-------
Page 50
FORCE = 1.206*03
Figure D.3-12: 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.3.6.1.3 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 [5]
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 is
defined with the help of the NASTRAN PARAM control cards in which the input and
output requirements are embedded with the EIGRL card.
D.3.6.2 FE Model Validation
The validation of the CAE model was carried out in 3 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.3-13.
-------
Page 51
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
i +
Create EDAG BIP
Test Configuration
Run Analytical Test
Compare to Physical Test Results
+
Correlate Model
Step III
Build Baseline NVH Model
Analytical Test
* i
Create EDAG BIP
EDAG Configuration
>
Run Analytical Test
Establish Baseline NVH Results
Figure D.3-13: Process Flow to Build Baseline Model
Step-I: NVH test setup. Collect NVH test results for the 2009 Toyota Venza with
panoramic roof.
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.3.6.3 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.3.6.3.1
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.3-1. The deformations at different locations were measured by applying a 2,224N force
at the left and right rocker sections of the front door opening.
-------
Page 52
Bending Stiffness Testing Setup
BIP with the displacement gages
Image D.3-1: 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
D.3-14 and Figure D.3-15show the static bending CAE setup equivalent to the test
vehicle.
Figure D.3-14: Bending Stiffness CAE Setup
D.3.6.3.2 Static Torsional Stiffness Test Setup
Similarly, the vehicle was instrumented for measurement of torsion stiffness
characteristics as shown in Image D.3-2. The necessary deformations were measured at
-------
Page 53
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.3-2: Torsion Stiffness Testing Setup
The CAE model was created by incorporating the same boundary and loading conditions
as seen in the physical test setup. Figure D.3-15 shows the equivalent CAE model for the
torsion stiffness test setup.
FORCE • 1 ?0e>03
Figure D.3-15: Torsion Stiffness CAE Setup
D.3.6.3.3 Dynamic Modal Test Setup
-------
Page 54
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.
Image D.3-3: Dynamic Modal Test Setup
D.3.6.4 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.3-3. 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 Figure D.3-14, Figure D.3-15, and Figure D.3-16 were used
to correlate the CAE model. The results are shown in Table D.3-1.
-------
Page 55
Figure D.3-16: CAE Model for NVH Correlation
NVH Correlation Summary
The MSC NASTRAN solver (SOL 101 & 103[5]) 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.3-1.
Table D.3-1: FEA Model Test Correlation Comparison with Test Data
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.m/rad)
686.7
703.0
97.6%
Bending
Stiffness
(KN:m)
17991.0
17725.7
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
The data in Table D.3-1 shows the initial FE model correlated well with the test vehicle
and thus was qualified to create further EDAG CAE baseline models for the remaining
NVH and crash load cases.
-------
Page 56
D.3.6.5 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.3-2. 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.
Table D.3-2: NVH Results Summary for CAE Baseline Model
Study Description
ActualTest Results
(Panoramic Roof)
Phase 1
EDAG CAE Model
( Panoramic Rool)
Phase II
EDAG CAE Model
(Full Roof)
Baseline Model
Phase III
Overall
Torsion
Mode
(Hz)
23.0
23.0
54.6
Overall
Lateral
Bending
Mode
(HZ)
Rear- End
Match -Boxing
Mode
(Hz)
35.3
34.2
34.3
36.4
35.6
32.4
Overall
Vertical
Bending,
Rear-End
Breathing
Mode
(Hi)
Torsion
Stiffness
(KN.m.'ud)
44.5
41.9
41.0
686.7
703.0
1334.0
Bending
Stiffness
(KN/m)
Weight
Test
Condition
(Kg)
Comments
17991.0
17725.7
18204.5
400.5
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
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.3.7 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.[4] 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 the focus on substituting existing parts, thus yielding the weight savings.
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.
-------
Page 57
The scope of this project was to validate the findings of the low-development study,
which states that without any major performance degradation, the body structure mass
savings would be approximately 6.6%. Figure D.3-17 and Figure D.3-18 show the
material and the thickness map of Lotus Engineering's optimized low-development study
[4], respectively.
Material Map by Lotus
MLD140
BH210
DP300
DP700
DP280
DP350
DP500
Figure D.3-17: Material Map Based on Lotus Engineering information
0.5 mm to 0.8 mm
IV
0.8 mm to 1.20mm
L
Above 2.00mm
1.60 mm to 2.00 mm
X
\
.->
-
'
Figure D.3-18: Thickness Map Based on Lotus Engineering information
-------
Page 58
EDAG attempted to validate the findings of the Lotus Engineering's low-development
study for NVH performance using the materials and gauges shown in Figure D.3-17 and
Figure D.3-18. This information was incorporated into the EDAG baseline NVH model
by substituting the thickness values and material selection of the various components
identified in the updated Lotus Report into the EDAG baseline model. This substitution
resulted in a body structure weight reduction of 6.5% vs. the reported reduction of 6.6%.
This overall weight reduction comparison would indicate that the model represented the
Lotus Study fairly well.
The results of the validation in comparison to the EDAG baseline model are shown in
Table D.3-2. The modal analysis results were comparable to the baseline, but the static
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 target
performance value established by EDAG.
Table D.3-2: NVH Results Summary for Lotus CAE Model
Study Description
EDAG CAE Model
(Full Roof)
Baseline Model
EDAG CAE Baseline
Model with
Lotus Recommended
Substitutions
Percentage
Difference
Overall
Torsion
Mode
(Hz)
54.6
53.4
-2.2
Overall
Lateral
Bending
Mode
(HZ)
34.3
33.7
-1.8
Rear-End
Match-Boxing
Mode
(Hz)
32.4
31.8
-1.9
Overall
Vertical
Bending,
Rear-End
Breathing
Mode
(Hz)
41.0
39.7
-3.2
Torsion
Stiffness
(KN.m/rad)
1 334.0
1062.2
-20.4
Bending
Stiffness
(KN/m)
18204.5
14560.0
-20.0
Weight
Test
Condition
(Kg)
407.7
384.6
-5.7
Weight
BIW
(Kg)
376.4
352.1
-6.5
Comments
CAE Model of 2010
Full Roof Venza
Baseline Vehicle
EDAG CAE Model
with Lotus
Recommendations
Torsion and Bending
Outside of the
Acceptable Limits
Crash simulations based on the Lotus Engineering's study were not conducted since the
structure did not meet the NVH targeted performance.
-------
Page 59
D.3.8 Baseline Crash Model
Phase 1: Data Generated from Toyota Venza
Phase 2: Data Generated from the FEA
Models
Vehicle Tear Down > Vehicle Scan
Body
Structure.
Other parts
(Powertrain.
Systems and
Parts Weight
and
Dimensions
Systems and
Parts Scan
Geometry
weld point!
Tools
Used
EDAG Tear
Down;
Benchmark
Guidelines
Garage
Services
'.Vhite Liqra
Scan
\ Buik) Initial
S FEAModel
X >
Material
Coupon
Sun D>U
EDAGCAE
Mooetnc
Gu.del.nes
initial BIP
FEA (Model
Validated
Material Spec
'aiioati on »nd Model Ger
Ansa
Advanced
EOAGFEA
Software for
Model Quality
Check
> FEA Model
Valuation
fhyw^Bodv
In-Prime (BIP)
Testing
NVHand
sutmess
results
oocnttDon
erabon
Sensitivity
Analysis
Software
gggl
EDAGCAE
Guidelines
Initial Crash
Vehicle FEA
Model
EDAG Engineer
Ansa
Advanced
EDAG FEA
Software for
Model Quality
Chec-
. Crash FEA \
\ Hotel )
' Conipamlon S
Pnysical
Vetwae
Crash
Crash results
Comparison
9 (CAE and vehicle int
LS-Oyna
A3 Animator
DeOiw ^
Comparison
Factors A
intrusion
values
Crash Pulse
egrabon) Expertise
EDAG
Results
Database
and Tools
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)
A baseline crash model was developed and correlated for the frontal and side-impact load
cases of testing specifications in 1 and 3 above. The remaining load cases were then
carried out using the correlated crash model.
D.3.8.1 Model Building
D.3.8.1.1 Major System for Full Vehicle Model
-------
Page 60
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.3-19 below
shows the different major systems of the full-vehicle crash model.
Body in White
(BIW)
Closures
Figure D.3-19: 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 Figure D.3-20 and Figure D.3-21, respectively. The gauge and material data
for the remaining closure parts were also incorporated accordingly. Figure D.3-20 and
Figure D.3-21 represent the gauge map and material grade map of the closure parts.
-------
Page 61
0.5mm to 0.8 mm
-tr
-:
Figure D.3-20: Gauge Map of Closures Models of Baseline
Mild-Steel Group
Figure D.3-21: Material Map of Closures Models of Baseline
D.3.8.1.2 Mass Validation
-------
Page 62
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.3.8.1.3 FE Modeling Technique
There are many aspects of FE modeling that affect the accuracy of the simulation and the
turn-around time of the numerous iterations required in the project. In order to meet the
scope and timing of the project, it is critical to select these factors carefully so that the FE
models will meet the requirements for simulation accuracy, consistency of the various
iterations and provide efficiency of the iteration turn-around time.
A partial list of the factors that were considered is listed below. These factors and the
resulting factors assigned to them were determined by following the recent FE analysis
trends and increasing the focus on factors that provide improved simulation accuracy. In
part this is now possible by virtue of the enhanced computing power available today.
However, it must also be noted some of these factors are still being debated throughout
the automotive industry since the solver code and modeling techniques still have
limitations in the correlation accuracy with physical tests.
• Welding Property
The spot welds on the structure are used with mesh independent hexa solid weld
element of LS-DYNA. Its mechanical property is determined to use 500MPa
Yield Stress which represents the average level strength of the baseline material
and candidate material of the optimized structure.
• 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.
• Element Type
The element formulation in this BIW model is used with LS-DYNA Type-16 fully-
integrated Bathe-Dvorkin shell element for major load path parts.
• Integration Points
-------
Page 63
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.
• Element Formulation
For the more accurate material stress strain behavior, option of the material
formulation for strain rate effect, VP=1.0 is used.
• Material Failure Criteria
When 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 is used for the 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). The data used for both static loading and
dynamic loading failure of HSS and AHSS are presented in Appendix H.6.
D.3.8.2 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.3.8.3 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
using trifilar suspension apparatus. [18] 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
-------
Page 64
MOI and CG were recorded as per trifilar suspension testing procedures.[1>] The CG
location is shown in Image D.3-4; the powertrain mass and inertia matrix are shown in
Figure D.3-22.
~ Centerof Gravity Refrence :
Image D.3-4: 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)
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.3-22: Powertrain Mass & Moment of Inertia Results
D.3.8.4 Baseline Crash Model Set-up
The crash load cases considered in this study are
-------
Page 65
• FMVSS 208—35 MPH flat frontal crash (US NCAP)
• Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB frontal crash (Euro NCAP/IIHS)
• FMVSS 214—38.5MPH MDB side impact
• FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB rear impact
• FMVSS 261 a—Roof crush (utilizing IIHS roof-crush criteria)
Figure D.3-23 shows all five different load case configurations with appropriate barriers
placed against the full vehicle baseline model.
FMVSS208
FRONT
5MPH
Figure D.3-23: 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.3-3.
Table D.3-3: Contents of EDAG CAE Baseline Model
Model Detail
Count
-------
Page 66
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
1,372,930
1,374,947
1,275,631
97,099
91
1157
It should be noted that there was no effort to correlate the baseline models with actual
vehicle crash results due to a lack of supporting information i.e., mounting information,
seat model, trims, chassis suspension, etc.
The crash model comparisons with the test results are explained in detail in the following
sections.
D.3.8.5 Baseline Crash Model Evaluation
For reasonable representation of a realistic vehicle crash test, the FE baseline crash model
needs 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.3.8.5.1 FMVSS 208—35 MPH Flat Frontal Crash (US NCAP)
Model Setup
-------
Page 67
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.3-5 below shows the FMVSS 208 frontal impact test setup of a
2009 Toyota Venza.
Image D.3-5: 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
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.[6]
To measure passenger compartment structure integrity, data analysis points as shown in
Figure D.3-24 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 cross
member.
-------
Page 68
A pillar
Toe-C
Figure D.3-24: Intrusion Measurement Locations
The LS-DYNA simulation was carried out for an 80 milliseconds (ms) analysis time
frame. Following are the results of the analysis and comparison with the test results.
Deformation Mode Comparison
Global vehicle deformation and vehicle crash behaviors were analyzed and compared to
the deformation modes of test photographs. Figure D.3-25 through Figure D.3-30 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.
Figure D.3-25: Deformation Mode Comparison: Right Side View @ 80msec
-------
Page 69
Figure D.3-26: Deformation Mode Comparison: Left Side View @ 80msec
Figure D.3-27: Deformation Mode Comparison: Top View @ 80msec
Figure D.3-28: Deformation Mode Comparison: ISO View @ 80msec
-------
Page 70
Figure D.3-29: Deformation Mode Comparison: Bottom View Front Area @80msec
Figure D.3-30: Deformation Mode Comparison: Bottom View Rear Area @80msec
Similarly, the following figures compare the deformation modes at 30 ms. Figure D.3-31
shows the bottom view of the engine compartment and front cradle deformation. The
deformation mode at 46 ms (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 Figure D.3-32.
-------
Page 71
Figure D.3-31: Intermediate Time Front Engine Room and Front Cradle @ 30msec
Figure D.3-32: Intermediate Time Front Engine Room and Front Cradle @ 46msec
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 cross member. Figure D.3-33 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 cross member). The velocity was differentiated to obtain the acceleration pulse.
-------
Page 72
VEHICLE ACCELEROMETER LOCATION
AND DATA SUMMARY
^A
-p.
1_
i
5 '
fT-;
r+—
7
*
j
— i
d
^ i
-'
F
r
6
X
[^^^-^
CENT
i
^
~T
2
ERLINE/ <- |
N
1
I
B
V I
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.3-33: 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 D.3-34. The vehicle pulse of the baseline model is LH-
45.9/RH-44.9G, and the test model is LH-40.9/RH-38.4G. When compared to the test
results, the vehicle pulse of the CAE simulation is higher by LH-5.0/RH-6.5G. 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 mountings transfer the crash
loads to the engine compartment and under the floor structures: Some of the bushing
-------
Page 73
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.
0,02 0.04 006 0.06 0.1
0,04 0 06
. Venza 2010 CAE Baseline
Venza 2009 Test
Figure D.3-34: Body Pulse: CAE Baseline Model vs. Test
Even though the pulse of the CAE baseline model is higher, it is believed to be acceptable
for the baseline model. This model gave an acceptable frontal crash performance based on
an analysis of the dynamic crush and compartment intrusions (explained below).
Dynamic Crush and Intrusions
Dynamic crush is the total vehicle body deformation at the end of the crash event with
respect to the un-deformed vehicle. The initial crush of the Toyota Venza baseline was
measured to be 605 mm as shown in Figure D.3-35.
-------
Page 74
Figure D.3-35: Initial Crush Space
The dynamic crush of flat frontal simulation is plotted in Figure D.3-36.
Figure D.3-36: FMVSS 208 Baseline Dynamic Crush
Table D.3-4 shows the maximum vehicle crush of 610.5mm for the baseline model
compared to the test results of 592mm. A summary of performance indicators of the
baseline model for the flat frontal crash load case is listed in Table D.3-4 and Table
D.3-45
-------
Page 75
Table D.3-4: Pulse and Dynamic Crush
No.
1
o
4
Frontal crash
measurements
Pulse (G's)
Dynamic Crush (mm)
Weight (kg)
Venza 2009 Test Model
lstpeak=17.0@13.8ms
2nd peak=40.9 @ 84.5 ms
592.0
1839.9
Venza 2010 CAE Baseline
Model
1st peak= 16.0 @ 9.4ms
2nd peak=45. 2 @ 44.9ms
610.5
1843.2
Table D.3-5: Compartment Dash Intrusion
Model
Baseline
Driver Footwell
(mm)
56.7
Driver Toe Pan
Left (mm)
131.3
Driver Toe Pan
Center (mm)
147.2
Driver Toe Pan
Right (mm)
105.2
Table D.3-5 lists the compartment dash intrusions measured at locations shown in Figure
D.3-24.
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.3.8.5.2 FMVSS 214—38.5MPH MDB Side Impact
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 Figure D.3-37.
-------
Page 76
Figure D.3-37: FMVSS 214, 38.5MPH MDB Side Impact CAE Model Setup.
The LS-DYNA simulation was carried out for a 100 ms analysis time frame. The
necessary results were analyzed and compared with the test results.
Deformation Mode Comparison
Side-structure deformation and vehicle crash behaviors were analyzed and compared to
the deformation modes of test photographs. Figure D.3-38 shows the pre-crash
conditions for comparison purposes and Figure D.3-39 through Figure D.3-41 show the
comparative deformation modes at 100 ms (end of crash) in different views. By
comparing the deformation modes, it can be observed the EDAG baseline model shows
similar deformation modes.
Figure D.3-38: Side Impact: Pre-Crash
-------
Page 77
Figure D.3-39: Side Impact: Post-Crash
Figure D.3-40: Doors Deformation Mode Comparison
Figure D.3-41: Rear Door Aperture Deformation Mode Comparison
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 Figure D.3-41.
-------
Page 78
Intrusion Comparison
Another critical parameter to be compared for the side impact case is the Side Structure
intrusion at the levels at 1200L & 1650L of the driver-side compartment (Figure D.3-42).
The compartment structure intrusions were specified as intrusion numbers (Figure
D.3-43and Figure D.3-44). 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 longitudinal sections such as 1200L
& 1650L of each levels 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 to represent B-pillar & rear door areas. Figure
D.3-43 shows a section-cut view of the B-pillar intrusion at 1200L section and Figure
D.3-44 shows Rear Door deformation at 1650L location. The gray contour represents the
undeformed structure and the red contour represents the deformed structure.
-------
Page 79
Figure D.3-42: Side Structure Exterior Measuring Location & Points
Relative Instruslon of Baseline
Longitudinal I200L location section
-cr
I I I I I I I I I I
Measure Location : Longitudinal 1200 Coord.
Uv*l
2
3
I
&
Description
Sil' T.-^ H*-.-]--J>
Otcu££n1 M Point HeoN
MM-Ooor HetDTit
WviOow S* Hejjrit
Wmdcpw Top Ht^jM
Height Atx>v*
O'ound unmi
we
630
'•
10?0
.. .,
Figure D.3-43: Side Structure Deformation Section Cut at 1200L
V
Relative Instrusion of Baseline
Longitudinal 1650L location section
Measure Location : Longitudinal 1650 Coord.
Level I Description
I Height Abov* I
Ground (mm) |
-------
Page 80
Figure D.3-44: Side Structure Deformation Section Cut at 1650L
A summary of the relative intrusions of side structure of the baseline model are shown in
Table D.3-6 and Table D.3-67.
Table D.3-6: Baseline, Relative Intrusions @ 1200L for FMVS214
Measured Level
Level -5
Level -4
Level -3
Level -2
Level -1
2009 Toyota Test
12
105
199
184
134
CAE 2010 Baseline
6.0
165.5
245.0
233.3
133.7
* All measured points are taken at the vehicle exterior point
Table D.3-7: Baseline, Relative Intrusions @ 1650L for FMVSS 214
-------
Page 81
Measured Level
Level -5
Level -4
Level -3
Level -2
Level -1
2009 Toyota Test
11
120
258
242
69
CAE 2010 Baseline
7.0
149.7
282.2
269.9
146.6
* All measured points are taken at the vehicle exterior point
In analyzing the comparison between the FE model and actual 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 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 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.
-------
Page 82
D.3.9 Baseline Crash Results
Phase 1 : Data Generated from
•
• Vehicle Tear Down
/
Physical
Property
Input R«P«'
Mouth
•
—
Systems and
Parts Weigh!
Output and
Dimensions
Toyota Venza
>v«lwl. Scan N Bund Initial
1 f FEA Model
8ody
Structure
Other parts
(Powertrwn.
Chassis. )
Systems and
Parts Scan
Geometry
Weld points
Locations
Material
Coupon
Stan Data
EDAGCAE
Modebtf
Guidelmes
Initial BIP
FEA Model
validated
Material Spec
Phase 2: Data Generated from the FEA
Models
>FEA Model X CrMhFEA \ "-'JJll \ rn™
Wldm. > MoaelBu* ,> cJEJ" > C«5SS" J
Physical Sody-
m-PrimelBIP)
Testing
NVHand
Stiffness
results
correlauon
EDAO Experts! in Virtual Validation and Mosei Generation
E DAG Tear
TOOlS Down/
LUsed Benchmark
Guidelines
Garage
Services
White Ligw
Scan
Ansa
Advanced
EOAGFEA
Software lor
Model Quality
Check
Sensitivity
Analysis
Software
I
EDAGCAE
Guidelines
initial Crasti
Vehicle FEA
Model
EDAG Engineer
Ansa
Advanced
EDAGFEA
Software for
Model Quality
Check
Physical
vernde
Crash
Crash results
Comparrson
igtCAE and Vehicle
LS-Dyna
A3 Animator
Intrusion
values
Crash Pulse
itegrauon) Expertise
EDAG
Results
DataBase
and Toots
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 D.3.8.5). 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)
These baseline results were treated as performance targets for further iterations.
D.3.9.1 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 D.3.8.5.
D.3.9.2 Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB Frontal Crash (Euro NCAP/IIHS)
Model Setup
-------
Page 83
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 Figure D.3-45.
Figure D.3-45: Euro NCAP Baseline Model Setup
To measure passenger compartment structure integrity, data analysis points as shown in
Figure D.3-46 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 cross
member.
-------
Page 84
A-Pillar
Footrest
Figure D.3-46: Intrusion Measurement Locations
The LS-DYNA simulation was carried out for a 100 ms 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.
Deformation Mode
The post-crash vehicle deformation modes of the CAE simulation are shown in Figure
D.3-47 to Figure D.3-50.
Figure D.3-47: Euro NCAP Baseline Deformation Mode - Top View
-------
Page 85
Figure D.3-48: Euro NCAP Baseline Deformation Mode - Isometric View
Figure D.3-49: Euro NCAP Baseline Deformation Mode - Left Side View
Figure D.3-50: Euro NCAP Baseline Deformation Mode - Bottom View
-------
Page 86
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 without any connectivity issues.
Body Pulse, Dynamic Crush, and Intrusion
The vehicle velocity was measured in the x-direction and is shown in Figure D.3-51. The
velocity was differentiated to obtain the vehicle acceleration in terms of crash pulse (in
G's).
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Time (sec.)
0.1 0.12 0.14 0 0.02
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Time (sec.)
0.12 0.14
Figure D.3-51: Euro NCAP Baseline Vehicle Pulse
The CAE simulation shows the crash pulse of LH-45.0/RH-43.0G and it shows
acceptable frontal crash performance when analyzing the dynamic crush and compartment
intrusions (explained below). This, coupled with the dynamic crush and compartment
intrusion performance, led the engineering team to conclude the performance was
acceptable as the baseline target.
Dynamic crush is the total vehicle body deformation at the end of the crash event with
respect to an un-deformed vehicle. The available crush of the Toyota Venza baseline was
measured to be 605 mm, as shown in Figure D.3-52.
-------
Page 87
Figure D.3-52: Allowable Crush Space
Graphs of the dynamic crush of frontal offset with and without barrier deformations are
plotted in Figure D.3-53 and Figure D.3-54, respectively.
Figure D.3-53: Euro NCAP Baseline Dynamic Crush with Barrier Deformation
-------
Page 88
300
100
0.02
0.06 0.08
Time (sec.)
0.1
0.14
Figure D.3-54: Euro NCAP Baseline Dynamic Crush Without Barrier Deformation
The dynamic crush shown in Figure D.3-53 includes the barrier deformation. Subtracting
the barrier deformation, the vehicle crush is 566.7 mm as shown in Figure D.3-54.
Therefore, the dynamic crush of the baseline model is within the acceptable range.
Another approach for analyzing the offset frontal crash performance is 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 Figure D.3-46 previously). They 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.3-55. The CAE baseline model shows
a good rating (green) at the foot well, right toe-pan, brake pedal point, and left instrument
panel cross member point and door opening area. The CAE baseline model also shows an
acceptable rating at the left toe-pan, the center toe-pan and right-IP points.
-------
Page 89
La-OTH* keyword deck by L3-PrcPoil
? L*ruo* J;C«m«rTo*4;R
-------
Page 90
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.3.9.3 FMVSS 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 D.3.8.5)
D.3.9.4 FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB Rear Impact
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 Figure D.3-56. The MDB
used in the test and analysis weighed 1,380 kg.
Figure D.3-56: 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 ms analysis time frame. FMVSS 301 test results are
not available for this selected Toyota Venza vehicle configuration. What follows is an
analysis of the results using the EDAG crash baseline model.
Deformation Mode
The deformation modes of the rear-impact simulation are shown in Figure D.3-57 to
Figure D.3-60. These deformation modes indicate that rear structures protect the fuel
tank system during the crash event. In Figure D.3-57 the rear door area shows no
jamming shut of the door opening.
-------
Page 91
The skeleton view of the rear inner structure deformation in Figure D.3-58 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.
Figure D.3-57: Deformation Mode - Left Side View
Figure D.3-58: Deformation Mode of Rear Underbody Structure - Left Side View
-------
Page 92
The bottom view of the rear underbody structure around the fuel tank area at the end of
the crash (100 ms) is shown in Figure D.3-59 and Figure D.3-60. This deformation mode
shows the rear rail structure and the rear suspension mounting are intact and that the fuel
tank system is protected.
Figure D.3-59: Deformation Mode - Bottom View at 100 ms
Figure D.3-60: Deformation Mode of Rear Underbody Structure - Bottom View at 100 ms
Fuel Tank Integrity
-------
Page 93
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.
Figure D.3-61and Figure D.3-62 show the plastic strain spot of the top and bottom of the
fuel tank system at the end of the crash. It indicates 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/Solid)
0.1111
0.1333
0.1556
.0.1778
Figure D.3-61: Fuel Tank Plastic Strain Plot of Baseline - Top View
max. pi. strain (Shell/Solid)
r
I I
Figure D.3-62: Fuel Tank Plastic Strain Plot of Baseline - Bottom View
-------
Page 94
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 Figure
D.3-63. In addition to the zone deformations, the rear-door opening area deformation was
also measured in two more areas: the beltline and the dogleg.
Figure D.3-63: Rear Impact, Structural Deformation Measurement Area
-------
Page 95
The rear impact deformation measurements of the baseline model are summarized in
Table D.3-10.
Table D.3-10: Rear Impact Structural Performance
Model
Baseline
Under Structure Zone Deformation (mm)
Zone -I
140.2
Zone -2
292.5
Zone-3
0
Zone-4
0
Door Opening (mm)
Beltline
1.9
Dogleg
0.2
Table D.3-10 shows the door is able to be opened on the baseline model after the crash.
D.3.9.5 FMVSS 216a Roof Crush Resistance
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. Figure D.3-64 below shows the typical roof crush resistance model
setup with the platen positioned on the driver side roof.
-------
Page 96
Figure D.3-64: Roof Crush Baseline Model Setup.
The LS-DYNA simulation was carried out for a 140 ms analysis time frame. The strain
contour plot of the upper BIP structure and the loading forces were recorded with respect
to loaded platen travel.
Deformation Mode
The roof crush deformation mode at 140 ms after crush event is shown in Figure D.3-65.
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 un-deformed. As
a result, a majority of the roof rail and B-pillar deformation modes were analyzed.
-------
Page 97
Figure D.3-65: Roof Crush Baseline After Crush View
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. Figure D.3-66 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.
-------
Page 98
,.;
Figure D.3-66: 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 D.3-67.
-------
Page 99
Root
N
n
H
•to
Edag Light Weight Vehicle Judging Criteria:
4 Times of UNW = 67.1 kN
* Vehicle Unloaded Weight = 1710.5kg
60
Figure D.3-67: 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 1,710.5
kg. From Figure D.3-67 it is observed the maximum load (85.8 kN) is greater than 4
times UVW (67.1 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.
-------
Page 100
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.
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
-------
Page 101
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
- i.e., 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
(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
-------
Page 102
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.7, 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/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.
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
-------
Page 103
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
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
-------
Page 104
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
defined volume. Figure E.2-1 illustrates the fundamental steps incorporated into the cost
methodology.
-------
Page 105
•O O) 3
O 3 ~O
o 2 =
S£*
»|.|
sr
1
Functional Sections
Summary (MAQS) wort
C a,
£ 3
0 °
> -D
£ C
» i
1 I
jS «
sulate Standardized Quote Wor
o referred to as Manufacturing As
at
Quote Summary
Sections B,C,E&F)
— '
J *
3 * 1
£ c S
3 — w
ata generated in the Ma
n Section of the MAQS, s
asting Databases, a net
/assembly cost impact
o -2 " S
ttl 1
™ 5 £ £
(fl (fl p O
= < t o
1
1 JL "
« tl
used in final calculatio
d pieces/hour
pecification, quantity, anc
ssification , number of ope
o .. ^ _ ^-j
1 ~ ! JJ jj
i- 5 ro ™ ro
= £ A A A
^
£ "S
« °
lassification, number of m
plier Classification, perce
U ZJ
o -S o i „
^ = ^ ri
i
i
c
1
s| s
5 '§) °
° -1 £.
3 ro m
| A | A E A |
Manufacturing Assumptions
(Section D of MAQS)
2?
* -a 3
the data captured in the Process Fk
s, multiple calculations are performe
ishing the mass production manufa
iptions.
IP i
= O a) ro
O)
1
1 B
lies included the following:
VI and Supplier classifications are selec
on component type and processes, es
ilicable mark-up rates
LJJ A 5 £ A
a=t
i s S.
ons where applicable
rations, both serial and/or parallel, are
gh volume parallel processes where ap
pment numbers calculated to support c
liii
1 1
ments
equipment selection and associated b
re established
ber of operators required to support de
a during process calculated
e per hours calculated
— c
-------
Page 106
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.3-1 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
Packaging 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.
Figure E.3-1: Unit Cost Model - Costing Factors Included in Analysis
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.
-------
Page 107
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.6.
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 was calculated as part of the analysis. Net incremental direct
manufacturing costs per kilogram are presented with and without tooling. Details on the
tooling analysis are covered 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.3-1 include considerations for shipping, investment, and
product 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.
-------
Page 108
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 (NIDMC) is the incremental
difference in cost of components and assembly, to the OEM, between the mass reduced
technology configuration and the baseline technology configuration.
A more detailed discussion on the elements which make-up the unit cost model follows in
Section E.5, Costing Databases.
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 &
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).
-------
Page 109
E.5 Costing Databases
E.5.1 Database Overview
The Unit Cost Model shown in Figure E.3-1 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
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-
-------
Page 110
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.
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.
-------
Page 111
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
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
-------
Page 112
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.
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
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
-------
Page 113
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.
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
-------
Page 114
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
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.
-------
Page 115
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: 2000-2011). Taking an average of the "Total Compensation" divided by "Wages
and Salaries" for manufacturing years 2008 thru 2011, an average fringe rate of 52% was
calculated.
Due to the dynamic change of OEM wage and benefit packages over the last few years
(2008-2011), 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
-------
Page 116
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
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 )
-------
Page 117
• 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
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
-------
Page 118
• 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
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.
-------
Page 119
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 $0.00 I/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%
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 500T 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
-------
Page 120
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
(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.
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
-------
Page 121
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.5-1.
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:
• 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.5-1. 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
-------
Page 122
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 (Table E.5-1).
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
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.5-1: 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
End Item
Scrap
Mark-up
0.7%
0.5%
0.3%
SG&A
Mark-up
7.0%
6.5%
6.0%
Profit
Mark-up
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
ED&T
Mark-up
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
Total
Mark-up
17.7%
14.0%
10.3%
-------
Page 123
Tier 1 Complete System/Subsystem Supplier
(System/Subsystem Integrator)
Tl High Complexity Component Supplier
Tl Moderate Complexity Component
Supplier
Tl Low Complexity Component Supplier
0.7%
0.7%
0.5%
0.3%
7.0%
7.0%
6.5%
6.0%
8.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.5%
1.0%
21.7%
19.7%
15.5%
11.3%
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
-------
Page 124
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.
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.
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.
-------
Page 125
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.
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
-------
Page 126
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 cost model
analysis templates (CMATs) to calculate the net component/assembly cost impact to the
OEM.
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 (http://www.regulations.gov).
E.7.2 Main Sections of Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary
Worksheet
The MAQS worksheet, as shown following in Figure E.7-21 and Figure E.7-2, 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.
-------
Page 121
£
1
s i
Ji?
i P
c g
S£
is
™ o
=
i
It
> c
II
ro O
<
<
/
h
(
c
?
s
t!
||
it
11
^
i
i
8
•o
1
^
i
1
I
1
E
O
1
*|
7
M
4
fl
U,16VDOHCGDITurb
5
|
1
i
i
a
i
a
2
&
!
I
i
i
i
^
i
»
i
^
.
R
>
1
E
O
!
i
i
t
p-
Solenoilt 7 Hole
*
|
t
1
i
a
i
a
=
|
a
•" n
|
3
£
1
LU
|
J
I
a
I
L
1
|
1
L
1
a
i
H
*
I
1
1
5
o
Investment Assimptions
"xlOOO "
"xlOOO "
Total2'QtyperAss'y
Total 1 + Total Mark-up
i|tl
3* ^S
£1 =«
Illl
III
lit
SI III
Total! =
Material* Labor* Blrrder
Is
1
I
II
IP!
jut
iiii
pit
Material Usage "Ibs"
Parallel Processing
Multiplier
Number of Lines
Finished Pieces Per Hour
il
•a
.1
ii
5I
ij
1!
So
5 =
II
p
QTY Per Assembly
1
£.
1
I
Reference t
s
g
g g g i g g g
g g g i g g g
§ § § i i i i
i i i i i i i
S S S S S S S
i i i i i i i
s s s s s s s
!!!!!!!
i i i 5 i I i
i II I ! I i
S S t R 8 S S
£ g g g g g g
§8 S 8 8 S S
8 § i i I I
1 11 1 1 1 1
S S S S S S S
i is i i i i
! ! I ! ! ! !
- - 3 - - -
S S S S S S
3 is' ss i
III I
% % % S i i
||||= |
1 1 1 1 j 1
1
i 1 f i i i i
I 11 f f f f
1 11 1111
£ £ £ « * * *
|l ft t| (I !|*4*4
1 ll llll
I i I l! !
t f 1 i S ! 1
i i i i !i !
i j i = -, ji =
s s s s s s s
S S S SPSS
1 ; J
1 11 i i i 1
1 S a llll
I5
1
,°
^
purchase Part- High Impact Item
i g g g g g g
i g g g g g g
1555388
iiiiiii
1111111
£££££££
SSSSISS
1111111
5 i I i i ii
1 1 I ii
33 3 33
g g g g g
§8 5 55
II I II
e e s e e
11 1 11
= 1 i
- 5 3 S - S3
1 s 2 S 1 SS
iiiiiii
1 1 1 M 1 |
a a a a 5 ± i
III
8111111 '
'
| i i' i 1
i i g i i
e e e | k | |
0006 - i I
Illlsll I
1 1
!| 1 !
^
.
5555555 ^
iil ;
I
111 j '
ill '
1 1 1 i i
1
p
\
/
)
J
J
1
^
1
1
E
p
^
£•
1
E
E
i
gggggggg g
ggggggggg
S5S5SSSgg
Illllllll
;•- p
f ill S
I I£ I i
1 L| ! i" 1
1 t
s s ^ s EL
I1 1
I I1?! It
I E f c » "1
i. ill! «
•^ l £ = §^ is
^5 ^FSi ?5
.......
5555555
*,
f . i
•I ! l*i ji
1 1 1 1 1 1 J
>i
H
1 1
i
!
I
1
i
1
1
•e
1
j
j
I
sis
g =a
i 1 3;
!!l
III
sis
1 i
g ! !
S ! !
I i!
ill
HI
i "I
tt
~^
\-
o
(O
1 1
1 1
j
II
i
Figure E.7-1: Sample MAQS Costing Worksheet (Part 1 of 2)
-------
Resulting Pieces/Hoi
Number of Equivah
Multiplier, If Required fc
3l Processing
(1'Nothing)
Piece/Cycle/Machine
Parallel
OperationsflUlachine or
Stations/Line
Cycle Time/Operation (5
Stated Efficiency "Sec.1
j
l
!i
I
!
Total Mfg'ing Cost
(Component/ Assembly)
Is 1155
8 8 8855
S 3 S 3
5 55 5555
3 33 3333
888
ESS
55351s:
o rj o
3333333
8888888
Page 128
Supplier. Customer
III
Jill
SI"
Hi'
u
z
D
u
II
aililliii
ill
Figure E.7-2: Sample MAQS Costing Worksheet (Part 2 of 2)
-------
Page 129
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 E.7-3.
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 Plant Location: North America
1 Classification: T1 High Assembly Complexity
shipping Method: mu Hhip
Annual Component Volume
Weekly Component Volume
Estimated Product Life
Packaging Specification:
Returnable Container & Internal Dunnage
II or OEM lotal Manufacturing Cost
T1 or OEM MartUJp Rates:
(SflJCl ST1 or OEM ManVUp Values:
$1.47 $&44 $10.07 $0.11 $1.18 $1.26 $0.10 lift)
Base Cost Impact to Vehicle:
Packaging Cost
Net Cost Impact to Vehicle:
OEM Operating Pattern (Weeks/Year):
Annual Engine Volume (CPV):
Components per Engine:
47
Figure E.7-3: Excerpt Illustrating Automated Link between OEM/T1 Classification Input in
MAQS Worksheet and the Corresponding Mark-up Percentages Uploaded from the Mark-up
Database
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
-------
Page 130
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 (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.
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
-------
Page 131
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 T1 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
Partsare 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. As previously mentioned, for the purpose of
this study component/assembly packaging costs were considered to be neutral due to the
-------
Page 132
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 (CMATs) 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
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
-------
Page 133
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.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 (+/-).
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
-------
Page 134
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, selected brake components, etc.)
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:
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)
-------
Page 135
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.I 0-1). 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).
Technology Level: Light Weighting Technology
Vehicle Class: Mid to Large Size Passenger Vehicle, 4-6 Passengers
Study Case#: N0502{N = New, 05 = Technology Package, 02 = Vehicle Class)
OEM Plant Location: USA
Supplier Plant Location: USA
System Description: Brake system
OEM/T1 Classification: Tl High Assembly Complexity
Shipping Method:"Fb¥ship Point
Component Description: Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem: Front Rotor and Shield Sub- Packaging Specification: Returnable Dunnage
Component Quote Level: f^ Full Quote
Differential Quote (Quote Su
9 coating for both Technology Packages)
Mean Year Quoted: 2011
EOP:" 2023
GENERAL COMPONENT INFORMATION
»
§ Part Description
*
Tie 1 Supplier or OEM Processing
Frore Brake Rowr (Dec 8 Hal)
From Brake Rotor (Disc 8 Ha!)
FrwiBrate Rccr (Disc S Hat)
From Brake Rw>r (Disc S Hat)
Fran Brake Ro»r (DtK & Hat)
Fron; Brake Ro®r (Dec)
Frorr Brake Row (Due)
Frorr. Brake Rcwr (Disc)
Fron: Brake Roor (Dtscl
Frorc Brake Rcsor (Dee)
Part Number
& Assembly (Full Cost
QTY Per Assembly
map
2
2
GENERAL MANUFACTURING INFORMATION
Primary Process
Description
ping)
IT** gag**
Wash
Surface Grr
-------
Page 136
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:
• Assumed Average Component Volume 450K units per year
• Average product/tooling life 5 years
• Cost of money 8%
• Calculated incremental vehicle tooling cost: Increase $23M
• Calculate mass-reduction/vehicle = -312.48kg (18.26%)
Calculations (for the 18.xx% mass reduced vehicle):
• Cost of Over 5 years = Increase $28M (constant rate, uniform monthly
payments)
• Incremental Tooling Cost per Vehicle = $+12.44 ($28M tooling/[450K
units/year x 5 years])
• Incremental Tooling Cost per Kilogram @ Vehicle Level = $0.04/kilogram
($12.44 Vehicle/312.48kg)
E.11 Cost Curve - % Mass Reduction vs. Cost per Kilogram
E.11.1 Cost Curve Development Overview
As previously discussed, the majority of the Toyota Venza baseline components were
reviewed for potential mass reduction. 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,
-------
Page 137
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 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 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 (also referred to as secondary mass savings) were considered compounded.
Mass-reduction ideas not relying on a reduction in the overall vehicle mass were
considered non-compounded.
All sub-subsystems were then sorted by cost per kilogram in ascending order, i.e. least
expensive to most expensive. Since all compounded sub-subsystems were created with a
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. 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 18.26% vehicle mass-reduction point, the line graph stops at approximately 9.3%
vehicle mass-reduction with a single data point at 18.26%. Figure E.ll-1 illustrates the
data (Data-Trend Line) selected to establish a 2nd order polynomial trend line cost curve.
Note these values are only incremental direct manufacturing costs and do not include
tooling.
-------
Page 138
$(100)
0.0 XK 2.000K 4.000% 6.0OO% B.OOO% lo.OOO% 12.OOO% 14.OOOK 16.00O% 1S.OO*% 20.000%
V = -436.89x!4 155.01X-12.059
-•—S/kgDerta
••—Data- Trend Line
% Vehicle Mass-Reduction
Figure E.ll-1: Development of Cost Curve using Mass-Reduction Ideas without Mass
Compounding
The Data-Trend Line above (Figure E.ll-1) only provides data points between the 2%
and 9% vehicle mass-reduction. To develop a Data -Trend Line further along the percent
mass-reduction axis, additional mass-reduction ideas were required. To accomplish this
objective, those ideas which assumed secondary mass savings (SMS), as a result of the
entire vehicle being reduced in mass by approximately 20%, were reevaluated. The
vehicle system team leads (e.g. engine, brake, suspension, fuel, BIW) estimated the
percent mass, and associated costs, which should be added back into the components with
no SMS/compounding. In doing so, additional mass-reduction ideas were available to
support the development of a Data - Trend Line between 2.5% and 15.5% vehicle mass-
reduction (Figure E.I 1-2). As the new updated mass-reduction ideas were added back
into the master list, a new sort was established as some of the ideas which were not
originally included in the list now offered better value than ideas used to create the
original Data-Trend Line. This explains the differences between the two cost curves in
the 2-9% vehicle mass-reduction region.
-------
Page 139
Sd.oo)
0.0)0% 2000% 4.000% 6000% S.OOO% 10000% 12.000% 14000% M=.000% 18000%
= -4573.8x"+6754.8xJ-1726.1xz+201.51x-12.696
S/kg Delta
Data-Trend Line
Poly. (Data-Trend Line)
% Vehicle Mass-Reduction
Figure E.ll-2: Development of Cost Curve using Mass-Reduction Ideas with Compounding
Removed from Initial Assessment
The non-compounded cost curve shown in Figure E.I 1-3 below was developed by taking
the average of the two polynomial cost curves above (Figure E.I 1-1 and Figure E.ll-2)
calculated between 0 and 20% vehicle mass-reduction. To create a cost curve with
compounding, the difference in the cost/kilogram from the optimized vehicle solution,
relative to the value without compounding, at the same percent vehicle mass-reduction
(18.26%), was interpolated (Figure E.ll-3). At 18.26% vehicle mass-reduction, the
benefit from compounding was $2.44/kg (savings). Without compounding the cost
increase due to mass-reduction is $1.97/kg. The mass-reduction cost savings as a result
of compounding yielded a net cost/kilogram savings of $0.47/kg.
-------
Page 140
Vehicle Level Cost Curve
6.00
-12.00
% Vehicle Mass-Reduction
—#— w/ Compounding
• W/Q Compounding
)l( Optim ized Vehicle Solution
(-50.47/kg, 18.26%)
Figure E.ll-3: Toyota Venza Mass-Reduction Cost Curves
-------
Page 141
F. Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Results
F.1 Vehicle Results Summary
F.1.1 Mass-Reduction, Cost and Volume Study Assumptions
As stated in the introduction, the foundation of the mass-reduction and cost analysis was a
2010 model year, Toyota Venza. The midsize crossover-utility-vehicle (CUV) evaluated
came equipped with a 2.7 liter, 14 internal combustion engine and a 6-speed automatic
transmission.
The weight of production stock Toyota Venza vehicle, as measured, was 1711 kg (3772
Ibs). Figure F.l-1 shows the starting mass for each of the major vehicle systems
evaluated. The target for the vehicle mass-reduction was 20% or 342 kg (754 Ibs).
The purchase price of the vehicle was $25,063. Based on the assumption of a 1.5 times
retail price equivalent (RPE), the estimated direct manufacturing cost of the Venza
vehicle was $16,709. The upper boundary condition to the vehicle direct manufacturing
costs increase was set at 10% or $1671.
The 2011/2012 Toyota Venza annual production sales volume range is 60k-75k
units/year. (http://pressroom.toyota.com/releases/june+2012+sales+chart.htm). For the
overall project, an annual vehicle production volume of 200K units was assumed. In the
case of the Toyota Venza, many of the components and assemblies (e.g. engine,
transmission brake and other vehicle system components) are cross-platform shared well
beyond the 200K units per year (i.e., 500K+ units per year). For the cost portion of the
analysis all components other than BIW were assumed to be manufactured at 450K
units/year. The BIW and closures were assumed to be manufactured at 200K units per
year.
-------
Page 142
600.00
550.00
50C.OC
450.00
400.00
350.00
I
2
150.00
100.00
5C.CC
3.33
1
X
2010 Production Stock Toyota Venza
Vehicle System Mass Breakout
Vehicle Mass (1711kg)
| |
1.
i • • • • _.•!
-<£" a*4' o?1 .5v^ 8? rf c-fc -4-° *$> •£" ^ . <<^ .(*> . .5" \*>
** ^ .«* V°' .^ ,/ ^ ** ^ .^ «* .
-------
if ^
Page 143
53C.X
=i/i 450.00
E
ro 4oo.oo
M
_O 350.00
s 300.00
1/1
jg 25000
P zoo oo
£ 150.00
£• 100.00
50.0O
n nn
•
1
I •
• •
Fin
.
System Mass-Reduction Relative
System Starting IV
to Baseline Vehu
lass
•la
.16
. |
i
• • B • Br •
1 . . I • 1 I • . .
• Baseline System Mass
n Amount of System
Mass Reduction
• _ •
Vehicle Systems (as defined by FEV)
Figure F.l-2: Calculated System Mass-Reduction Relative to Baseline Vehicle Starting Mass
Table F.l-1 is the vehicle mass-reduction summary, including the mass reduction and
cost impact from each of the major vehicle systems and subsystems evaluated. The net
incremental direct manufacturing cost (NIDMC) per kilogram, for 18.26% vehicle mass-
reduction, is a save of $0.47/kg. With incremental tooling costs included, the NIDMC
equals a cost save of $0.43/kg.
-------
Page 144
Table F.l-1: System/Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Summary (1 of 3)
V
If §
1 1
01 00
01 00
01 02
01 03
01 04
01 05
01 06
01 07
01 08
01 09
01 10
01 11
01 12
01 13
01 14
01 17
01 60
01 70
02 00
02 00
02 01
02 02
02 03
02 05
02 06
02 07
02 08
02 09
02 20
03 00
03 00
03 01
03 02
03 03
03 19
03 00
03 00
03 05
03 06
03 07
03 10
03 12
03 20
03 00
03 00
03 08
03 09
03 23
03 24
Sub- Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
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
Valvetrain Subsystem
Timing Drive Subsystem
Accessory Drive Subsystem
Air Intake Subsystem
Fuel Induction Subsystem
Exhaust Subsystem
Lubrication Subsystem
Coding Subsystem
Breather Subsystem
Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Electrical Subsystem
Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.)
Transmission System
Transnission System Roll-up
External Components
Case Subsystem
Gear Train Subsystem
Launch Clutch Subsystem
Oil Pump and Fitter Subsystem
Mechanical Controls Subsystem
Electrical Controls Subsystem
Parking Mechanism Subsystem
Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem
Body System (Group -A-)
Body System(Group-A-)
Body Structure Subsystem
Front End 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
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
435.53
70.96
14.94
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"
30.25
10.37
1.11
0.69
0.00
7.11
1.05
3.71
1.45
0.00
0.51
0.11
0.00
0.23
2.59
0.22
0.39
0.71
18.90
0.00
7.75
3.49
4.90
1.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.73
68.32
0.00
43.46
16.69
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
% System/
Subsystem
Mass
Reduction
"%"
17.53%
6.01%
7.29%
2.78%
23.58%
4.96%
37.90%
33.72%
3.65%
21.32%
7.00%
18.38%
24.24%
14.64%
4.28%
20.37%
0.00%
31.52%
8.42%
50.32%
15.84%
69.55%
12.92%
9.98%
23.52%
48.46%
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%
0.01%
0.15%
0.01%
0.02%
0.04%
1.10%
0.00%
0.45%
0.20%
0.29%
0.06%
0.10%
3.99%
2.54%
0.98%
0.42%
0.02%
245%
0.52%
0.02%
0.12%
1.37%
0.37%
0.06%
a 14%
0.07%
0.01%
0.03%
0.03%
Estimated Cost Impact
"+" Cost Decrease,
"-" Cost Increase
"$"
33.69
38.42
(0.09)
6.88
(32.33)
11.89
(11.13)
4.79
3.01
2.13
(0.20)
4.62
4.93
1.00
(0.23)
(114.151
0.00
(11.03)
(119.68)
45.16
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
(29.49)
(227.45|
(109.78)
(80.70)
(29.96)
(10.71)
12298
37.72
0.38
15.70
84.55
(12.49)
(2.88)
7.52
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
(7,650.80)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(22,900.00)
(22,900.00)
0.00
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
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
W/O
Tooling
$/kg
1.11
3.71
(0.08)
10.00
(4.55)
11.35
(3.00)
3.29
5.90
18.51
(0.86)
1.78
22.52
2.57
(0.33)
(6.04)
0.00
(1.42)
(34.29)
9.21
0.87
0.00
0.00
(17.08)
(3.33)
(2.53)
(4.84)
(4.14)
(30.60)
2.93
4.23
1.40
7.74
3.61
(1.97)
(2.71)
3.17
2.01
3.33
4.56
4.52
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
W/
Tooling
$/kg
1.22
3.71
(1.43)
10.24
(4.77)
12.49
(3.32)
4.60
7.94
25.73
(0.80)
2.40
26.76
3.05
(0.93)
(6.26)
0.00
(1.42)
(34.29)
8.36
0.87
0.00
0.00
(17.08)
(3.51)
(2.81)
(4.84)
(4.14)
(30.60)
3.06
4.23
1.40
7.74
3.95
(2.43)
(2.32)
3.17
2.01
3.33
4.56
4.52
-------
Page 145
Table F.l-1: System/Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Summary (1 of 3)
V
If §
1 1
03 00
03 00
03 11
03 14
03 15
03 16
04 00
04 00
04 01
04 02
04 03
04 04
05 00
05 00
05 02
05 03
05 04
06 00
06 00
06 03
06 04
06 05
06 06
06 07
06 09
07 00
07 00
07 01
09 00
09 00
09 01
09 02
^^ ^^
10 00
10 00
10 01
10 02
11 00
11 00
11 01
11 02
11 04
11 05
11 06
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Description
Body System (Group -D-) Glazing & Body Mechatronics
Body System(Group-D-)
Glass (Gazing), 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
Driveline System
Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Front Drivs Housed Axle Subsystem
Front Drivs 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 Sub System
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
0.55
2.29
Estimate Mass
Reduction
"+" Mass Decrease,
"-" Mass Increase
"kg"
6.16
6.06
0.10
66.83
11.57
8.32
14.11
32.83
1.50
0.00
0.00
0.73
0.77
32.75
0.00
12.65
6.24
9.63
2.98
1.24
0.00
16.34
0.00
16.34
7.52
0.00
2.79
4.73
12.70
0.00
12.21
0.50
1.82
0.00
0.12
0.21
1.15
0.34
% System/
Subsystem
Mass
Reduction
"%"
9.71%
12.63%
1.68%
25.13%
35.18%
35.28%
32.86%
23.11%
4.47%
11.54%
4.12%
37.77%
38.36%
26.62%
71.88%
53.90%
43.89%
48.54%
37.36%
28.25%
23.75%
31.79%
52.33%
58.08%
15.26%
7.50%
1.39%
2.81%
22.58%
0.00%
14.69%
% Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
036%
0.35%
0.01%
3.91%
0.68%
0.49%
0.82%
1.92%
0.09%
0.04%
0.04%
1.91%
0.74%
0.36%
0.56%
0.17%
0.07%
095%
0.95%
044%
0.16%
0.28%
074%
0.71%
0.03%
011%
0.01%
0.01%
0.07%
0.00%
0.02%
Estimated Cost Impact
"+" Cost Decrease,
"-" Cost Increase
"$"
(15.25)
(15.67)
0.42
144.71
3.04
4.91
57.99
78.77
(0.16)
0.00
0.00
1.54
(1.70)
169.56
0.00
35.91
17.44
82.98
31.87
1.35
(3.28)
(3.28)
2.47
(0.21)
2.68
3.91
2.70
1.21
11.05
0.24
0.10
10.39
0.00
0.32
Tooling Cost "$"
(X1000)
000
0.00
0.00
(7,544.37)
(5,172.38)
(2,459.05)
87.06
0.00
(685.86)
0.00
(6.50)
(679.36)
(1,426.12)
0.00
(2,182.66)
(1,897.51)
1,526.28
1,253.15
(125.39)
(3,700.39)
(3,700.39)
000
0.00
0.00
1,625.30
1,492.80
132.50
1,352.70
0.00
186.80
(1,910.00)
3,075.90
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
W/O
Tooling
$/kg
(2.48)
(2.59)
4.18
2.17
0.26
0.59
4.11
2.40
(0.11)
0.00
2.10
(2.21)
5.18
0.00
2.84
2.79
8.61
10.68
1.09
(0.20)
(0.20)
0.33
0.00
(0.07)
0.57
0.31
0.22
2.44
6.08
1.99
0.46
9.05
0.94
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
W/
Tooling
$/kg
(2.48)
(2.59)
4.18
2.10
0.02
0.43
4.11
2.40
(0.36)
2.09
(2.69)
5.15
0.00
2.75
2.63
8.70
10.91
1.03
(0.32)
(0.32)
0.33
0.00
(0.07)
0.57
0.38
0.29
2.59
6.48
0.00
1.99
0.94
8.15
5.89
Table F.l-1: System/Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Summary (1 of 3)
-------
Page 146
V
If §
1 1
12 00
12 00
12 01
12 02
12 03
12 04
13 00
13 00
13 01
13 06
14 00
14 00
14 01
15 00
15 00
15 01
15 02
15 03
'17 00
'17 00
'17 '01
'17 "03
'17 05
18 00
18 00
18 01
Sub- Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
"00
roo
'00
'00
'oo
00
00
00
Description
Climate Control System
Climate Control System
Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem
Heati
Refric
Contr
Inform;
Infor
Instru
Horn
Electri
Elect,
Serv
In-Veh
In-Ve
Rece
Anten
Spea
g/Defrosting Subsystem
eration/Air Conditioning Subsystem
ds Subsystem
tfion, Gage and Warning Device System
•nation, Gauge and Warning Device System
ment Cluster Subsystem
Subsystem
:al Power Supply System
rjca/ Power Supply System
e Battery Subsystem
cle Entertainment System
hide Entertainment System
vsr and Audio Media Subsystem
na Subsystem
-------
Page 147
Table F.l-2: Vehicle Level Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMATs): Baseline, New and
Incremental
SYSTEMS SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
BASETECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
U n».OaQ9*ifl wsrntfig lyrfem
I
2
3
=
,„
15
16
1 a-
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Sub-SuQsystem Description
00 Vehicle
1 —
03
3odv Svstem B
03 Bodv Svstem C
1 04
1 OS
3rake Svstem
07 Frame and Mounting Svstem
1 09
Exhaust Svstem
10 Fuel Svstem
I 12
I 14
Electrical PowerSuppIv
15 In-Vehicle Entertainment
18
Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control Svstem
SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
Manufadurmg
Matena,
619.51
776.46
335.28
5Z07
27.90
354.97
16.59
7tt04
4098
17.82
1.70
1.26
7.61
2,758.69
L*.
42.35
94.56
2.04
10.19
5.97
0.05
0.64
0.62
355.25
»"
8.24
5.87
73.30
41.52
17.74
0.31
0.78
0.58
1,146.60
Total
Assembly)
62.35
70.69
2.07
2.67
8.82
4,260.53
Markup
Scrap
0.44
0.82
0.48
0.01
0.03
1S.71
•»
23.84
6.84
43.36
15.50
8.54
5.28
1.38
0.12
0.27
0.45
179.25
Profit
20.47
0.74
5.52
34.25
2.57
13.08
9.40
5.61
0.14
0.18
0.34
144.10
—
0.15
1.11
0.95
4.30
2.47
0.07
0.02
0.05
40.97
Total Markup
Assembly)
56.68
13.90
23.05
13.84
0.34
0.49
3S3.04
Total
Packaging
(Component/
Assembly)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Net
Component/
AssenijIyCost
Intact to OEM
1,363.56
76.25
162.81
31.77
84.54
2.41
3.16
9.69
4,643.57
System
(X1000)
Tooling (xlOOO)
36,537.30
33,000.00
11,411.00
3,565.70
216.70
210.00
145,840.67
(X1000)
-------
Page 148
SYSTEM S, SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
I
1
3
3
5
9
13
16
17
1
£
s»s«,,=m «„„,„„
00 Vehicle
01 Engine
03 Bodv Svstem B
03 Bodv Svstem C
03
3odv Svstem D
04 SuspensionSvstem
05 Drivel ine Svstem
OS
07
3rake Svstem
=rame and Mounting Svstem
09 Exhaust Svstem
0 Fuel Svstem
?
Steering Svstem
Slimate Control
4 Electrical Power Supplv
H
n-Vehicle Entertainment
S Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control Svstem
9
Electronic Features
SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
ttnufectunrs
«»„„
34.02
20.73
4.95
0.19
5322
205
025
131
(97.25)
*,
USD
5 24
23
2211
,38
11
mis
=-
USD
35.35
1.06
27.62
0.09
70.08
0.08
14.79
3.28
0.04
,=..«
Total
(Component/
Aisemljly)
20.72
624
146.12
2.02
2.05
0.16
132
92.98
M.-kup
Scrap
0.53
1.16
0.70
0.16
0.01
0.03
0.10
0.00
1.2S
S^
USD
2 £3
5.97
0.72
(0.07
11£0
0.19
055
0.01
0.06
».„
P-
USD
2.15
6.14
0.40
0.40
0.00
21*6
ED™
USD
46
:a2
.1
B
2
07
08
0.01
8.70
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
4.97
23.44
1.06
*«
Total
Packaging
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
0
0
0
0
0
0
°
Assembly Cost
Imp act to OEM
USD
33£9
752
247
3.91
0.19
135
i«u»
EDST/RSD
(X1000)
USD
—
USD
5,89220
9,966.15
000
000
1,62530
000
10350
(X1000)
USD
Sections F.2 through F.21 below cover the details of the mass-reduction ideas reviewed
and selected as part of the vehicle analysis. Both mass-reduction and incremental cost
impact are presented at the vehicle system level (e.g. engine), susbsystem level (e.g.
crankdrive) and sub-susbystem level (e.g piston). For each vehicle system evalauated, a
major section (e.g. Section F.2, Engine) has been devoted. Each vehicle system is
broken down father into subsystems, each represented with its own subheadings (e.g.,
F.2.1 Engine Assembly, F.2.2 Frame and Mounting, F.2.3 Crankdrive, etc.).
Note at the conculsion of each vehicle system section, other than Section F.4 - Body
Structure System, references to the cited works can be found. The cited references for the
body structures and closures section can be found at the end of the report.
-------
Page 149
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.
-------
Page 150
Table F.2-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Engine System
(f>
><
cn.
oT
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.2-12 following 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,
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
-------
Page 151
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.
Table F.2-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Engine System
CO
*<
&
n>
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
0.234
2.591
0.000
0.000
0.219
0.388
0.709
30.248
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)
38.420
-0.087
$6.88
$0.00
-32.325
1 1 .887
-11.133
4.792
0.000
3.009
2.127
0.000
-0.201
4.620
$0.00
$0.00
$4.93
$1.00
-$0.23
33.687
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$3.71
-$0.08
$10.00
$0.00
-$4.55
$11.35
-$3.00
$3.29
$0.00
$5.90
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.86
$1.78
$0.00
$0.00
$22.52
$2.57
-$0.33
1.114
(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%
7.00%
18.38%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.28%
17.53%
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%
0.01%
0.15%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.04%
1.77%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
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.
-------
Page 152
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)
(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.
-------
Page 153
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.
Table F.2-3: Engine Downsize Selection
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/Tovota Venza
1AR-FE (Venza) DOHC 14 2672 (N*m) 247 @4200 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota 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/Toyota 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,...)
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.
-------
Page 154
Image F.2-2: Engine Downsize Selection (Toyota 2.4L 2AZ-FE)
(Source: www.japparts.com.au)
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.
-------
Page 155
Table F.2-4: Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Engine Downsize
u>
•<
2-
0
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
"
-------
Page 156
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.
Table F.2-6: Engine Downsize Cost Savings
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
F.2.2 Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem
F.2.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As seen below in Table F.2-67, 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.
-------
Page 157
Table F.2-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets
Subsystem
(f>
*<
cn.
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%
F.2.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
As pictured in Figure F.2-1, the Venza engine is secured in the vehicle with three (3)
engine mounts, a Torsion Strut, and Powertrain Dampening Element. Engine mounts
(Image F.2-3) are constructed from stamped steel weldment with an 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.
-------
Page 158
»t6.'j-noso
MMO-11C*?]
taao
woao-iMM
. ,
tT8J
am-^|
•s
•5
!>:•:•:; • r.-. :.i
11WCE
Figure F.2-1: Venza Engine Mount Diagram
(Source: www.villagetoyotaparts. com)
Image F.2-3: Venza Engine Mount (Stamped Steel Weldment)
(Source: autopartsnetwork.com)
-------
Page 159
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.2-4). Polyamide is being tested as a
lightweight material for engine mounts (Image F.2-5).
Image F.2-4: Polyamide Torque Image F 2-5: Polyamide
Dampener Engine Mount
Source: www.contitech.de/pases/produkte/schwinsunsstechnik/motorlaseruns/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.
-------
Page 160
Table F.2-8: Summary of mass-reduction concepts considered for the Engine Frames, Mounting,
and Brackets Subsystem
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
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.
Table F.2-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets
Subsystem
1
01
01
01
01
01
en
I
1
02
02
02
02
02
U)
c
7
Subsyste
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
Image F.2-6 shows the Torsion Strut Assembly as it is featured in the vehicle. Image
F.2-7 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.
-------
Page 161
Image F.2-6: Torsion Strut Assembly
Image F.2-7: Torsion Strut Link
Image F.2-8: Lower Engine Mounting Bracket
(Images F-7, F-8, Source: FEV, Inc. photos)
Image F.2-8 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.2-3)
could be done in aluminum or plastic.
-------
Page 162
F.2.2.6
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
As shown in Table F.2-100, 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.
Table F.2-10: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Cylinder Head Subsystem
(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
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" d)
0.000
1.114
0.000
0.000
1.114
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
Page 163
O>
*<
21
oT
3
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
05
10
15
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.
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"
18.185
2.177
2.680
1.688
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
24.730
172.598
1711
14.33%
1.45%
F.2.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Venza Crankshaft is a forged steel design with a pressed gear to drive the balance
shafts and a pressed trigger wheel for crank speed monitoring. The connecting rods are
hot forged with fully machined and doweled caps. System components are pictured in
Image F.2-9.
-------
Page 164
Image F.2-9: Key Components - Crank Drive
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.2.3.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
Aluminum connecting rods (Image F.2-10) 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.2-11) and the Porsche GTS. Although titanium connecting rods have
superior performance at high rpm titanium's cost limits its use to high performance
applications.
-------
Page 165
Image F.2-10: Aluminum
Connecting Rod
(Source: www.extremepsi.com)
Image F.2-11: Titanium Connecting
Rod
(Source: http.V/www.citycratemotors. com)
F.2.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.2-122 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.
Table F.2-12: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for the Crank Drive Subsystem
-------
Page 166
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
F.2.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.2-13 lists the mass reduction ideas applied to Crank Drive subsystem.
Table F.2-13: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Crank Drive Subsystem
OT
U>
0
01
01
01
01
01
ni
ni
01
01
OT
c
I
3
03
03
03
03
03
m
n?
03
03
c
rr
OT
of
3
00
01
02
03
04
PI'S
10
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)
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
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
-------
Page 167
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.2-12) is a plain carbon wrought forged design, requiring full machining and doweling
of the cap connection (Image F.2-13). 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.2-14).
Image F.2-12: Fully Machined &
Doweled Rod Cap
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.2-13: Crack Break
Rod Cap
(Source: www.pirate4x4. com)
Image F.2-15 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.2-16) 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.
-------
Page 168
mnHLE
Image F.2-14: Connecting Rod
Assembly (Venza)
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.2-15: Connecting Rod Assembly
(Lightweighted)
(Source: Mahle Engineering)
-------
Page 169
Image F.2-16: Forged In Oil Pockets
(Lightweighted)
(Source: Mahle Engineering)
Table F.2-144 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[2].
Table F.2-14: Summary of Mahle Lightweighted PCU components
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
-------
Page 170
F.2.3.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
As shown in Table F.2-155, mass reductions for the Crank Drive subsystem save $10/kg.
The cost savings for this subsystem is a result of processing savings utilizing split break
connecting rod technology.
Table F.2-15: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Crank Drive Subsystem
(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
u>
•$
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
"k9"(D
0.000
0.000
0.596
0.092
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.688
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
II (Ml
* (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
F.2.4 Counter Balance Subsystem
F.2.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table F.2-166 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.
Table F.2-16: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Counter Balance Subsystem.
-------
Page 171
O>
*<
21
oT
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
04
04
04
04
04
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
99
Description
Counter Balance Subsystem
Dynamic Parts
Static Parts
Drives
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"
2.583
2.494
0.000
2.141
7.218
172.598
1711
4.18%
0.42%
F.2.4.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
Common on larger displacement 4-cylinder engines, the 2.7L Venza uses a balance shaft
assembly (Image F.2-17) to counter vibrations from reciprocating piston mass. The
assembly consists of two rotating shafts with offset weights and is housed underneath the
crankshaft. A gear on the crankshaft drives the long balance shaft which in turn drives the
short balance shaft. A set of oil ported journal bearings were used to support each balance
shaft.
Image F.2-17: Venza Balance Shaft Assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
Page 172
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.2-177 summarizes ideas considered for balance shaft lighweighting.
Table F.2-17: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for the Crank Drive Subsystem
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
Schaeffler AG, winner of the 2011 Pace Awards, was recognized for applying roller
bearings to the balance shaft in automotive applications (Image F.2-18). 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.
-------
Page 173
Image F.2-18: 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.2-188, 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.
-------
Page 174
Table F.2-18: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Cylinder Block Subsystem
V)
><
cn.
oT
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.
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"
19.955
3.640
0.000
0.138
6.172
0.190
0.000
0.040
30.135
172.598
1711
17.46%
1.76%
F.2.5.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Toyota 2.7L cylinder block assembly incorporates lightweight technology (Image
F.2-19). The cylinder block is made from lightweight, low-cost die cast aluminum with
thin 2.5mm cylinder liners, further reducing weight. The crank case is ladder style with
cast iron bearing caps. The Crankcase Adaptor is die cast aluminum, providing added
strength to the engine block and integrates the oil filter. The crank case is ladder style
with cast iron bearing caps. Oil jets, bolted to the block, provide bottom side piston
cooling. A water jacket insert directs coolant flow where it is needed most, evening block
operating temperatures.
-------
Page 175
Image F.2-19: 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.
Changes for successful implementation include ethylene glycol coolant with magnesium
-------
Page 176
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.
Table F.2-19: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for the Crank Drive Subsystem
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
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
Highlighted in an April 2005 edition of MTZ was work performed by Audi on
development of a magnesium engine block (Image F.2-20). The object of the study was
to design, build and test a 1.8L turbo diesel engine with aluminum inserted (Image
F.2-21) magnesium engine block. The publication details the many different factors
considered in the use of magnesium applied to an engine block. The prototype passed
-------
Page 177
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.2-20: Audi Lightweight Magnesium Hybrid Engine
(Source: MOTORTECHNISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT April 2005)
-------
Page 178
integrierter
Wassermantel
ubereutektische
Zylinderlaufbahn
Gewindc fur
Zylinderkopf-
veracfiraubung
Zulnif fur
Turbolader
kuhlung
V»rbindungs-
strebe
Gewintiu fur
Hauptlagerverschraubung
Durehbruche fur
Verankerung im
Mg-Umguss
Bild 1: Closed-deck Aluminium-Zvlindereinsatz (AISi17Cu4)
Figure I: Closed-deck aluminium cylinder insert (AISH7Cu41
Image F.2-21: AlSil7Cu4 Gravity Die Casting
(.Source: MOTORTECHNISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT April 2005)
F.2.5.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.2-20: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Cylinder Block Subsystem Analysis
O)
*<
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
F.2.5.5.1
Cylinder Block
-------
Page 179
Aluminum inserted Magnesium was selected as a replacement to the all Aluminum 2.7L
engine block. Like BMW's 3.0L N52 (Image F.2-22), a cylinder insert including cooling
duct (Image F.2-23) is die cast from Aluminum Silicon Alloy (Image F.2-24). 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.2-25). 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.
-------
Page 180
Image F.2-22: BMW N52 Magnesium Aluminum Hybrid Engine Block
(Source: http://www.mwerks.com/artman/publish/features/printer_960.shtml)
Image F.2-23: Aluminum Cylinder Insert with Integrated Water Jacket and Bulkheads
(Source: http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogld=zhravlik27&logNo =30080774016)
Image F.2-24: Die Casting - Aluminum Cylinder Insert
Source: http://www. 7-forum, com/news/news2004/6zyl/bmw_6zylinder_ottomotor4.php
-------
Page 181
F.2.5.5.2
Image F.2-25: Die Casting - Aluminum Cylinder Insert
(Source: http://blog. naver. com/PostView.nhn ?blogld=zhravlik2 7&logNo =30080 774016)
Cylinder Liner
Toyota's 2.7L uses standard cast iron cylinder liners (Image F.2-26). 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.2-27). 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.
-------
Page 182
Image F.2-26: [Base Technology] Cast Iron
Cylinder Liners
Source: http://dwolsten. tripod. com/articles/jan96a. html
Image F.2-27: [New Technology] Plasma Transfer
Wire Arc (PTWA)
Source: http://www.greencarcongress. com/2009/05/ptwa-
F.2.5.5.3 Crankcase Adapter
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.2-28).
BMW's N52 Engine uses a Magnesium Bedplate with integrated bearing caps bolted to
the engine block, trapping the crankshaft (Image F.2-29). The 2.7L Crankcase Adapter
was lightened by using a direct material replacement from Aluminum to Magnesium
Alloy.
Image F.2-28: [Base Technology] Aluminum Crankcase Adapter
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
Page 183
Image F.2-29: [New Technology]
Magnesium Bedplate BMW N52
Source:http:/Avww.imverks.com/artman/publish/features/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 and are nearly cost neutral at $-0.36 per kg.
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.
Isolating the cylinder block costs from the liner results in a Magnesium cylinder block
cost per kilogram of $-8.08 per kg. This analysis assumes an additional 7% material
scrap factor for Mg and a 5% scrap factor for over molding.
Table F.2-21: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Cylinder Block Subsystem
-------
Page 184
w
•<
S2.
o>
3
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
65
66
67
99
Description
Cylinder Block Subsystem
Cylinder Block
Crankshaft Bearing Caps
Bedplates
Piston Cooling
Crankcase Adaptor
Water Jacket
Clinder Barrel
Misc.
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
D
A
C
D
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (D
5.058
0.000
0.000
0.124
1.924
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.106
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)
-$26.33
$0.00
$0.00
$0.65
-$6.64
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-32.325
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
-$5.21
$0.00
$0.00
$5.20
-$3.45
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$4.55
(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
F.2.6 Cylinder Head Subsystem
F.2.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As seen in Table F.2-212, the most significant mass contributors to the Cylinder Head
subsystem are the cylinder head, camshaft carrier and cylinder head cover.
Table F.2-22: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Cylinder Head Subsystem.
-------
Page 185
O>
*<
21
oT
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.
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"
13.657
0.000
0.280
1.288
0.000
3.077
0.464
2.349
0.000
21.115
172.598
1711
12.23%
1.23%
F.2.6.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
Image F.2-30 highlights the key Cylinder Head subsystem components. The 2.7L
cylinder head is a machined aluminum sand casting with dual overhead camshafts housed
in a die cast aluminum camshaft carrier. Five independent aluminum camshaft bearing
caps trap the camshafts in the carrier. A specialized bearing housing includes integrated
pluming for the Cam Phaser hydraulic circuit. The cylinder head cover is made from cast
Magnesium and adjoins via an inlay rubber seal. Providing access to the cylinder head
cooling cavity is a steel threaded plug.
-------
Page 186
Image F.2-30: 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
-------
Page 187
cylinder head height and mass reductions. Table F.2-23 summarizes ideas considered for
cylinder head subsystem.
Table F.2-23: Summary of mass-reduction concepts considered for the 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
F.2.6.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.2-234 following 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.
Table F.2-24: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Cylinder Head Subsystem
OT
*<
tfl
n>
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
-------
Page 188
The Magnesium Cylinder head cover was changed to plastic as a weight save, cost save,
and performance benefit (Image F.2-31). 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 control circuitry. Base Venza integrates the valve mounting
into the Cam Cover. A plastic cam cover would require a bolt-on housing for the cam
phaser actuators. The plastic cam cover would seal around the bolt-on housing. Bolt-on
housing cost and mass were included in the plastic cam cover. With detailed design
work, an alternative would be a cylinder head with integrated control valve housing.
Image F.2-31: Mahle Composite Cam Cover
(Source: www. mahle. com/MAHLE/en/Products/Air-
Management-Systems/Engine-and-cylinder-head-covers)
The coolant cavity Access Plug (Image F.2-32 and Image F.2-33) 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.
-------
Page 189
Image F.2-32 (Left): Access Plug - Cylinder Head
Image F.2-33 (Right): Access Plug (close-up) - 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.
Table F.2-25: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Cylinder Head Subsystem
(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
-------
Page 190
CO
•<
S.
n>
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
"$" (2)
$3.49
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$8.40
$0.00
11.887
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$3.88
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$162.52
$0.00
$11.35
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
6.59%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
20.56%
2.20%
0.00%
4.96%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.05%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.06%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.2.7 Valvetrain Subsystem
F.2.7.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As seen below in Table F.2-256, the most significant subsystem mass contributor is the
camshafts. Second to the camshafts, the cam phasers make up a large portion of
subsystem mass.
-------
Page 191
Table F.2-26: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Valvetrain Subsystem.
V)
><
cn.
oT
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
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.
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"
0.392
0.352
0.544
0.160
1.008
4.898
2.429
0.000
9.783
172.598
1711
5.67%
0.57%
F.2.7.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
2.7L Valvetrain Assembly can be seen in Image F.2-34. Venza baseline technology
begins with solenoid actuated hydraulic cam phasers. These cam phasers independently
vary the valve intake and exhaust timing events making this a Variable Valve Timing
Engine. Toyota distinguishes this cam phaser design from their earlier tandem lobe
concept by adding the character (i), meaning with intelligence (VVTi) engine. The cam
phasers consist of three main components; the stator, rotor, and drive gear. These
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.2-34). The camshafts on Venza
are traditional solid cast design.
-------
Page 192
Image F.2-34: 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.2-35). 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 led 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.
-------
Page 193
Image F.2-35: 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.
Table F.2-27: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for Valvetrain
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
Mubea, a development leader in lightweight vehicle technology supplies composite
camshafts to the European passenger car market (Image F.2-36). Mubea's process uses
internal high pressure fluid to expand the camshaft tube inside servo positioned camshaft
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]
-------
Page 194
Image F.2-36 (Left): Hydroformed Camshaft
Source: http.V/www.mubea. com/english/dawnload/NW_engl.pdf
Image F.2-37 (Right): Mahle Sheet Steel Valve
Source: http://www.tokyo-motorshow.com/show/2007/eng/public/gallery/photo/80_010_Parts-W/004.html
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.[10]
Mahle has developed a new lightweight engine valve with a welded structure made from
cold formed steel sheet parts (Image F.2-37). The precision laser-welded joint and cold-
formed features require no additional processing: only the functional areas are still
ground. Sodium can be introduced to the hollow cavity of the exhaust valves reducing
valve temperatures. Weight reductions of up to 50% are possible over conventional solid
stem valves. Lighter valves enable lighter cam lobes, cam followers, tappets and valve
springs.
[ii]
Mubea offers a lightweight optimized option for valve springs. Not only are the new
technology springs lighter than conventional, but they are shorter as well, impacting
mating components.
-------
Page 195
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.
Table F.2-28: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Valvetrain Subsystem
OT
1
3
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
r/>
c
cr
tn
in
0)
3
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
c
OT
c
cr
in
5f
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
Solid cast camshafts selected by Toyota (Image F.2-38, below) were replaced with
Tubular composite camshafts (Image F.2-39). 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.2-38: [Base Technology] Solid Cast Camshaft
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
Page 196
Image F.2-39: [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.2-40 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.2-41). 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.2-42). SHW in conjunction
with HILITE International, have produced Aluminum cam phaser assemblies, including
aluminum sprockets for the BMW N52 & N55.
Image F.2-40: [Base Technology] Sintered Iron Cam Phaser Rotor, Stator, Sprocket
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
Page 197
Image F.2-41: [New Technology]
PM Al Rotor, Die Cast Al Stator
Image F.2-42: [New Technology] SHW PM Al Sprocket
(Source: FEV, Inc. photos)
The base valve spring used on Venza is a symmetrical cylinder design with round cross
section Image F.2-43. Mubea offers an optimized version with two advancements that
enable reduced spring length Image F.2-44. 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.
-------
Page 198
Image F.2-43: [Base Technology]
Valve Spring
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.2.7.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
Image F.2-44: [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.
Table F.2-29: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Valvetrain Subsystem
-------
Page 199
(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
u>
*<
2-
0
3
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" CD
0.015
0.015
0.154
0.000
0.000
2.133
1.391
0.000
3.707
(Decrease)
Estimated
Cost
Impact
II (Ml
* (2)
$0.17
$0.17
-$1 .06
$0.00
$0.00
-$9.25
-$1.17
$0.00
-11.133
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$11.60
$11.60
-$6.92
$0.00
$0.00
-$4.34
-$0.84
$0.00
-$3.00
(Increase)
Sub-
Subs ./Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
3.81 %
4.25%
28.24%
0.00%
0.00%
43.55%
57.26%
0.00%
37.90%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.00%
0.00%
0.01 %
0.00%
0.00%
0.12%
0.08%
0.00%
0.22%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.2.8 Timing Drive Subsystem
F.2.8.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As seen following in Table F.2-2930, the most significant mass contributors to the
Timing Drive subsystem are the Cover and Guides. Timing Sprockets and Chain make up
the remainder of the weight.
Table F.2-30: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Timing Drive Subsystem.
-------
Page 200
V)
><
cn.
oT
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.
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"
0.184
0.247
0.539
0.522
2.820
0.000
4.312
172.598
1711
2.50%
0.25%
F.2.8.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
Image F.2-45 shows the 2.7L timing drive. Toyoda used a timing chain to drive the
valvetrain. A steel gear mounted to the crankshaft translates rotation to the overhead
intake and exhaust camshaft sprockets. The action of the chain is contained by a fixed
Guide, Vibration Dampener Guide, and Tensioning Guide.
-------
Page 201
Image F.2-45: 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 F.2-2).
-------
Page 202
Timing chain drive systems
Timing belt drive systems
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
2004
2005
2006
Figure F.2-2: Industry Trend Timing Belt vs. Chain Applications
(Source: http://www.ntn.co.jp/english/products/review/pdf/NTN_TR73 _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.
-------
Page 203
Table F.2-31: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for Timing Drive
Subsystem
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
F.2.8.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
As seen in below in Table F.2-312, 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.
Table F.2-32: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Timing Drive Subsystem
CO
1
3
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
co
c
rr
tn
*<
in
ft
3
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
co
a
cr
CO
c
cr
tn
*<
1
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
-------
Page 204
The 2.7L Tensioning Guide has a nylon contact pad over top an Aluminum base (Image
F.2-46). 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.2-47). 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.2-46: [Base Technology] Image F.2-47: [New Technology]
Timing Chain Tensioning Guide Timing Chain Tensioning Guide
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo) (Source: DSM)
The Timing Chain Tensioner 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.2-48). Other applications including, 3.6L Pentastar are using
aluminum housings (Image F.2-49).
-------
Page 205
Image F.2-48: [Base
Technology]
Tensioner Housing - Cast Iron
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.2-49: [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.2-50). Mann+Hummel, located in Ludwigsburg, Germany,
recently showcased a plastic concept integrating the engine bearing, oil filter and oil
cooler (Image F.2-51). 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.2-50:
[Base Technology]
Front Cover
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.2-51:
[New Technology]
Front Cover
(Source: http.V/www.plasticstoday. com/articles)
-------
Page 206
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.
Table F.2-33: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Timing Drive Subsystem
(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
u>
•$
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"(i)
0.000
0.125
0.054
0.000
1.276
0.000
1.454
(Decrease)
Estimated
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)
$0.00
$0.50
$0.04
$0.00
$4.25
$0.00
4.792
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$0.00
$4.00
$0.72
$0.00
$3.33
$0.00
$3.29
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs./ Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.00%
50.47%
9.94%
0.00%
45.24%
0.00%
33.72%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.00%
0.01 %
0.00%
0.00%
0.07%
0.00%
0.08%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.2.9 Accessory Drive Subsystem
F.2.9.1 Subsystem Content Overview
The Accessory drive pulleys were paired with their associated assemblies and not
included in this subsystem. The only components contained in this subsystem are the
Accessory Drive Tensioner and Accessory Drive Belt (Table F.2-34). The Accessory
Drive Tensioner uses lightweight aluminum for the tensioning mechanism and a plastic
idler pulley. No lightweighting ideas were identified for this subsystem.
-------
Page 207
Table F.2-34: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Accessory Drive Subsystem.
V)
><
cn.
oT
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
09
09
09
09
09
09
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
05
99
Description
Accessory Drive Subsystem
Pulleys
Tensioners
Guides
Belts
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
0.440
0.000
0.114
0.000
0.554
172.598
1711
0.32%
0.03%
F.2.10.1
F.2.10 Air Intake Subsystem
Subsystem Content Overview
As shown in Table F.2-35, the leading mass contributor to the Air Intake Subsystem is
the Intake Manifold followed by the Throttle Housing Assembly.
Table F.2-35: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Air Intake Subsystem.
-------
Page 208
V)
><
cn.
oT
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.
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"
7.122
1.517
0.181
3.089
0.000
2.085
13.994
172.598
1711
8.11%
0.82%
F.2.10.2
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Air Intake Subsystem consists of a variety of components used to plumb air to the
engine. Image F.2-52 shows the base components used on Venza. The intake manifold is
an all plastic vibration welded assembly. The manifold design features vacuum actuated
dual runners for a broadened torque curve. A 65mm cast aluminum throttle body meters
mass air flow through the intake. The air box and remaining components are injection
molded plastic with exception to the EPDM Main Intake Hose. Blow-molded and
injection-molded resonators are used, though, the system to muffle engine noise.
-------
Page 209
F.2.10.3
Image F.2-52: Air Intake Subsystem Components
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
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.
Table F.2-36: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for Timing Drive
Subsystem
-------
Page 210
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
F.2.10.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Ideas selected to lightweight the Air Intake Subsystem are listed in Table F.2-37.
Table F.2-37: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Timing Drive Subsystem
OT
*<
tfl
n>
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
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
The Venza Throttle Body Housing is die cast aluminum (Image F.2-53). Plastic
applications are now emerging on vehicles like the Mini Cooper (Image F.2-54).
Aluminum, although still considered lightweight, has nearly twice the density of its
plastic counterpart.
-------
Page 211
Image F.2-53: [Base Technology]
Throttle Body: Aluminum Housing
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.2-54: [New Technology]
Throttle Body: Plastic Housing
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
The fasteners and threaded inserts (Image F.2-55) used to join the upper and lower Air
Filter Box were replaced with light weight, low cost, quick clamps ().
Image F.2-55: [Base Technology]
Air Filter Access Fasteners
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.2-56: [New Technology]
Air Filter Access Clamp
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
After Consulting Trexel, MuCell was applied to all applicable intake components (Image
F.2-58 through Image F.2-62). Due to the basic geometry of these components, material
delivery webs could not be thinned and a 9% mass reduction was applied. MuCell
technology is currently used by major OEM's like, Audi, Ford, BMW and VW as
introduced in section F.4B. 1
-------
Page 212
Image F.2-58 : Air Intake Housing
MuCell - 9% Mass Savings
Image F.2-57: Air Intake Cover
MuCell - 9% Mass Savings
Image F.2-60: Air Intake Duct
MuCell - 9% Mass Savings
Image F.2-59 : Main Intake Hose
MuCell - 9% Mass Savings
Image F.2-61: Air Box Upper
Image F.2-62: Air Box Lower
-------
Page 213
F.2.10.6
(Source, Images F-55 through F-60: FEV, Inc. photo)
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 $5.60/kg savings for this system.
Table F.2-38: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Air Intake Subsystem
u>
•$
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
F.2.11.1
F.2.11 Fuel Induction Subsystem
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.
Table F.2-39: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Fuel Induction Subsystem
-------
Page 214
O>
*<
21
oT
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.
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"
0.387
0.152
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.539
171.648
1711
0.31%
0.03%
F.2.11.2
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Venza Fuel Induction system consists of a fuel rail, pulsation damper, and fuel
injectors (Image F.2-63). The fuel system is returnless, meaning the regulator is located
in the fuel tank. A returnless system eliminates the need for a return fuel line and
minimizes tank fuel temperature reducing evaporation. The pulsation dampener acts as an
accumulator to steady the injector supply pressure in the wake of injection pulse events.
Image F.2-63: Fuel Induction Subsystem Components
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
Page 215
F.2.11.3
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.2-64).
F.2.11.4
Image F.2-64: Fuel Rail with Integrated Pulsation Dampener
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
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.
Table F.2-40: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for Fuel Induction Subsystem
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
-------
Page 216
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.2-65). 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.
Table F.2-41: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Fuel Induction Subsystem
OT
U>
0
3
01
01
01
01
01
01
OT
c
m
oi
3
11
11
11
11
11
11
c
rr
|
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
Image F.2-65: 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.
-------
Page 217
Table F.2-42: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Fuel Induction Subsystem
(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
u>
*<
(/)
ro
3
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" CD
0.115
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.115
(Decrease)
Estimated
Cost
Impact
II (Ml
* (2)
$2.13
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2.127
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$18.51
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$18.51
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs ./Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
29.69%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#DIV/0!
21.32%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.01 %
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.2.12.1
F.2.12 Exhaust Subsystem
Subsystem Content Overview
As seen in Table F.2-43, the Exhaust Manifold and Oxygen Sensor were included in the
Exhaust subsystem.
Table F.2-43: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Exhaust Subsystem
-------
Page 218
O>
*<
21
oT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
04
05
06
07
08
99
Description
Exhaust Subsystem
Exhaust Manifold
Collector Pipes
Catalysts
Particle Filters
Silencers (Mufflers)
Oxygen Sensors
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"
7.210
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.177
0.000
7.387
172.598
1711
4.28%
0.43%
F.2.12.2
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
Image F.2-66 shows the manifold with integrated catalyst assembled to the Engine.
These systems feature time to heat reductions and increase operating temperatures,
improving emissions. The tubular weldment with integrated catalyst has a significant
weight advantage over its cast counterpart with bolted catalyst.
No mass reduction ideas were identified for the Exhaust subsystem.
-------
Page 219
F.2.13.1
Image F.2-66: Manifold with Integrated Catalyst - 2.7L Toyota
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.2.13 Lubrication Subsystem
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.
Table F.2-44: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Lubrication Subsystem
-------
Page 220
V)
><
cn.
oT
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.
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"
1.754
1.036
0.099
0.305
0.148
3.342
172.417
1711
1.94%
0.20%
F.2.13.2
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Venza oil pump is a rotor type design. The Inner Rotor is driven on center with the
Crankshaft and the Outer Rotor is housed in the Front Cover. The Oil Pump Cover houses
the Pressure Regulator. A Baffle Plate mounted under the counter balance system reduces
oil turbulence. The Oil Pan is a simple stamping and integrates no other features. Other
components include the Oil Strainer, Dip Stick assembly, and Oil Filter Cap (Image
D.2-2)
-------
Page 221
F.2.13.3
Image F.2-67: 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.
Table F.2-45: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for Lubrication Subsystem
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
F.2.13.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.2-46 summarizes the Ideas Implemented for the Lubrication subsystem.
-------
Page 222
Table F.2-46: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for 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
The stamped steel Oil Baffle Plate (Image F.2-68) 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.
Image F.2-68: Oil Pan Baffle Plate
Image F.2-69: Oil Pan Baffle Plate Assembled
(Source: FEV, Inc. photos)
-------
Page 223
Austrian supplier, Schneegans Silicon GmbH, supplies a plastic Dip Stick Tube for
BMW's 2L diesel engine (Image F.2-70). 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.2-71). The Dipstick Tube was lightweighted by a material change to
plastic and scaling the volume up by 2.5.
Image F.2-70: Plastic Dip Stick Tube (BMW 2L Diesel)
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.2-71: Steel Dip Stick Tube (Venza)
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
Page 224
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.
Table F.2-47: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Lubrication Subsystem
(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
CO
•<
en
ST
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
0.000
0.000
0.067
0.234
(Decrease)
Estimated
Cost
Impact
iiq.li
* (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
-$0.86
(Increase)
Sub-
Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
9.51%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
45.40%
7.00%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Page 225
F.2.14.1
F.2.14 Cooling Subsystem
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.
Table F.2-48: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Cooling Subsystem.
V)
><
cn.
oT
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%
-------
Page 226
F.2.14.2
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Venza radiator (Image F.2-72) 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.
Image F.2-72: 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
-------
Page 227
heat exchangers assembled in the radiator are now being made from lightweight
Aluminum (Image F.2-73) instead of copper alloy (Image F.2-74) and can save 50%
mass.
Image F.2-73: Transmission Heat Transfer Element - Aluminum
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.2-74: 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.
Table F.2-49: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for Cooling Subsystem
-------
Page 228
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
F.2.14.4 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.2-50 summarizes lightweighting ideas selected for the Cooling subsystem.
Table F.2-50: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Cooling Subsystem
OT
1
3
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
r/>
c
cr
tn
in
(D
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
c
OT
c
cr
m
1
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
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.
-------
Page 229
The water pump housing was changed to a two piece design. One section left as
aluminum (Image F.2-76) 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.2-75) and
plastic impellers on commonplace.
Image F.2-76: [Base Technology] Water
Pump Assembly - Aluminum
(Source: FEV, Inc. photoy)
Image F.2-75: [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.
MuCell technology is currently used by major OEM's like, Audi, Ford, BMW and VW as
introduced in Section F.5.1.
-------
Page 230
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
saved 1.6 kg and $2.84. MuCell applied to the Fan Shroud and Blades saved .170kg and
$.68.
Table F.2-51: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Cooling Subsystem
(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
u>
•$
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
"$" (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
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.
-------
Page 231
F.2.17 Breather Subsystem
F.2.17.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table F.2-52 summarizes the mass breakdown of the Breather Subsystem.
Table F.2-52: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Breather Subsystem
V)
><
cn.
oT
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
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.2-71). 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)
-------
Page 232
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.
Table F.2-53: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for Breather Subsystem
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
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.
-------
Page 233
Table F.2-54: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Cooling Subsystem
OT
"3
n>
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
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
As seen in Table F.2-55, the metal to plastic change and elimination of fasteners saved
mass and cost.
Table F.2-55: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Breather Subsystem
(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
w
•5
ro
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" d)
0.219
0.000
0.000
0.219
(Decrease)
Estimated
Cost
Impact
"
-------
Page 234
F.2.18.1
F.2.18 Engine Management. Engine Electronic. Elec. Subsystem
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.
Table F.2-56: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Cooling Subsystem.
V)
><
cn.
oT
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
60
60
60
60
60
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
99
Description
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.
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"
0.196
1.303
1.065
0.086
2.650
172.598
1711
1.54%
0.15%
F.2.18.2
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Engine Management, Electronic Subsystem includes the ECM, ECM Brackets,
sensors, coils, and spark plugs (Image F.2-79).
-------
Page 235
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.
Table F.2-57: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for Engine Management,
Electronic Subsystem
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
-------
Page 236
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-piece injection molded component.
Table F.2-58: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Engine Management, Electronic Subsystem
OT
1
3
01
01
ni
01
01
c
cr
tn
in
n>
60
60
fin
60
60
c
cr
OT
c
cr
tn
1
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
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.
-------
Page 237
Table F.2-59: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Breather Subsystem
(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
w
I
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
F.2.19.1
F.2.19 Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator etc.)
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.
Table F.2-60: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Accessory Subsystem
-------
Page 238
CO
*<
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
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%
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)
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.
-------
Page 239
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.
Table F.2-61: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for Accessory Subsystem
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
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.
-------
Page 240
Table F.2-62: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Accessory Subsystem
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
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)
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.
-------
Page 241
Table F.2-63: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Accessory Subsystem
(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
w
•$
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" CD
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.709
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.709
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
iirt-M
* (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
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://clavmore.engineer.gvsu.edu/~nguvenn/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
-------
Page 242
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-varves-guides/Lightweight-varves
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.
-------
Page 243
Table F.3-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Transmission System
(f>
><
21
oT
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%
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.
Table F.3-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Transmission System 2
-------
Page 244
w
•<
2-
0
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
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
"
-------
Page 245
Image F.3-2: Transaxle Housing
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Table F.3-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Cass Subsystem
-------
Page 246
0)
*<
23-
a>
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%
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 experts 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.
-------
Page 247
F.3.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.3-4shows 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 found their way into drive train components in their
vehicles.
Table F.3-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for Transmission Case
Subassembly
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
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.
Table F.3-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Case Subsystem
CO
I
3
2
02
02
02
02
CO
c
sr
*<
£
3
2
02
02
02
02
en
a
cr
CO
c
cr
*<
(ft
t
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
-------
Page 248
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.
Table F.3-6: Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Case Subsystem
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
"
-------
Page 249
0)
*<
23-
a>
3
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%
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.
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.
-------
Page 250
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
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.
Table F.3-8: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Gear Train
Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
Planetary Gear Sub-
Subsystem
Carrier Gear Sub-
Subsystem
Carrier Gear Sub-
Subsystem
Mass-Reduction Idea
Replace Thrust Bearings
with VespelSP-21D
Replace cast iron
differential carrier with
aluminum
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
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.
-------
Page 251
Table F.3-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Gear Train Subsystem
1
ST
3
2
02
02
02
w
o>
3
03
03
03
w
cr
W
c
cr
a
o>
3
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
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.
Image F.3-3: Vespel Thrust Bearing
-------
Page 252
Table F.3-10: Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Case Subsystem
w
•<
2-
0
3
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" CD
0.263
3.227
3.490
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
iirt-M
* (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
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.
-------
Page 253
Image F.3-4: Torque Converter Assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Table F.3-11: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Launch Clutch Subsystem
V)
><
a
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%
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.
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
-------
Page 254
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.
Table F.3-12: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Launch Clutch
System
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
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
full Aluminum torque converter assembly in our system. Aluminum torque converters are
-------
Page 255
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.
Table F.3-13: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Launch Clutch System
V)
><
£-
oT
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
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.
Image F.3-5: Aluminum Torque Converter
(Source : alcastcompany.com)
-------
Page 256
Table F.3-14: Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Launch Clutch System
w
•<
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)
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
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.
Table F.3-15: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem
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%
-------
Page 257
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 lightweight 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.
Table F.3-16: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered for the Oil Pump and Filter
Subsystem,
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
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
-------
Page 258
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.
Table F.3-17: Preliminary Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Oil Pump
and Filter Subsystem
O)
><
1
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
Image F.3-6: Aluminum Oil Pump Assembly
-------
Page 259
(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.
Table F.3-18: Preliminary Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Launch
Clutch System
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
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.
-------
Page 260
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.
Image F.3-7: Shift Module
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
Page 261
Table F.3-19: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Driver Operated External Controls
Subsystem
CO
*<
a
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%
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.
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.
-------
Page 262
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.
Table F.3-20: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Driver-Operated
External Controls Subsystem,
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
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.
Table F.3-21: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem
v>
•<
-------
Page 263
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.
Table F.3-22: Preliminary Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Driver
Operated External Controls Subsystem
•2
(/)
ro
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" d)
1.726
1.726
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
Page 264
Table F.3-23: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for New Transmission System
I
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" ID
0.000
7.745
3.490
4.904
1.034
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.726
18.900
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
Page 265
F.4 Body Structure System
F.4.1 System 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 .
-------
Page 266
EDAG Lightweight Optimization Process
Structural
Variations
Design
Responses
Target and
Constrains
I -Material Properties and
1 substitution (HSS, Al.,..)
I -Joining Technologies
I -Material Thickness
I -Tailor Blank Technology
| -System Targets
• BIWNVH/Stiffness
•Vehicle Targets
• Full Vehicle Crash
• Full Vehicle NVH
•Weight Reduction
•Maintain Manufacturing costs
-Manufacturability
All Technical
Requirements
met
Manufacturing and
Cost Targets met
Figure F.4-1: Lightweight Design Optimization Process
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
o Vary the combinations of part thicknesses and material grades within
allowable limits
• Change joining technologies
o Convert spot-weld connections into laser-weld connections on the body
structure
• Apply alternative materials
o Use aluminum alternatives for panel parts (closures) and bumpers
• Explore alternate manufacturing technologies
o Use tailor rolled blanks (TRB) instead of tailor welded blanks (TWB)
• Geometry changes
-------
Page 267
o Make minimum, if any, design changes needed to meet the performance
targets
• Manufacturability constraints
o Incorporate simultaneously the manufacturability of the parts that are
undergoing the changes, in each stage of the optimization process.
• Cost constraints
o 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
F.4.2 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
-------
Page 268
• Perform computer automated optimization
• Extract optimized design variables (response surface)
• Validate optimized results
F.4.3 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.4-2.
Figure F.4-2: Toyota Venza Body Weight Optimization Model
The objective, constraints, and responses considered for this optimization model are
found in the Table F.4-1.
Table F.4-1: Optimization Objective, Response, and Constraints
-------
Page 269
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
IfflS
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%)
F.4.4 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
-------
Page 270
obtained for all the load cases was investigated to determine the best optimized design.
Figure F.4-3shows the response surface output of the optimization cycle.
veiua_ful_opt_2: Response Surface (Al bad cases)
mass_totalvs.loadmax
• mass_totalvs.pulse_odb
» mass_totjlv$.footjntru2
* mass_totalvs.to«_ljntru2
o mass_totalvs.toe_c_rtni2
D mass_totalv$,to«_r_iitru2
mass.totalrt.pulM.ftjt
massjotalvs.foot.mrui
« mass_totalvs.to«J_ttnil
» mass_tot3lv$.toe_c_ntJul
• mass_totalv5.toe_r_fitrul
• mass_totalvs,b_ritnj
• mass_totalvs.rearjitrul
• mass_totalvs.rearjntru2
o mass.totalvs,rear.rtru3
o mass_totalvs.zonel_ntnj
* mass.totalvs.2one2.rtru
4 mjss.totalvs.Z.Osp.left
* mass.totalvs.Node.!d.l
» mass.totalvs.cost
E Baselne
!
»65 1.47 1.473
nw« total
'
1.48
'
1.485
\
Best Design
Figure F.4-3: Response Surface Output from Optimizer
F.4.5 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.
-------
Page 271
F.4.6 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.4-4 represents the areas in
green where the spot welds were replaced with laser welds.
Figure F.4-4: Laser Welds Application on Body Structure
F.4.7 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.
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 Figure F.4-5 and Figure F.4-6.
-------
Page 272
Figure F.4-5: Gauge Map of Optimized Closure parts
Mild-Steel Group
BH 340 Group
Aluminum Group
MS 1250
Figure F.4-6: Material Map of Optimized Closure parts
-------
Page 273
F.4.8 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 cross members
are examples of the parts which were assessed using TRB technology. The parts replaced
using TRB technology are shown in Figure F.4-7 and Figure F.4-8.
A-Pillar, Roof Rail and
B-Pill.ii Replaced with
TRB'sof Hot Forming
Steel Material Grade
(HF 1000/1 500)
Figure F.4-7: Body Side Parts Replaced with TRB Parts
-------
Page 274
Cross-Members Replaced
WithRB'sof DP500/700
Material Grade
Figure F.4-8: Crossmembers Replaced with TRB Parts
F.4.9 Geometry Change
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 Figure F.4-9. 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.
Bulkhead
Reinforcements
-------
Page 275
Figure F.4-9: Design Change on Side Inner Rocker (Driver Side)
F.4.10 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 cross member parts
• Design change on front rail side members
The optimized gauge and grade map on the Toyota Venza body structure is shown in
Figure F.4-10 and Figure F.4-11.
0.4 mm to 0.3 mm
, >k 1.21 mm to 1.60 mm 4..61 mm to 2.00 mm
»/ ^-
Figure F.4-10: Gauge Map of Optimized Model
-------
Page 276
DP 300
DP 350
HF 1050
Figure F.4-11: Material Map of Optimized Model
The major subassembly weights were calculated and tabulated with respect to the baseline
weights.
Table F.4-2 lists the major subassembly weights of the optimized model against the
baseline model.
-------
Page 277
Table F.4-2: Optimized Weights
Area
System
Closures
BIW
BW Extra
Bumper
Edag System
Total
Sub-system
Door Fit
DoorRR
Hood
Tailgate
Fenders
Sub-Total
UndeibodyAsy
FrontStrucnire
RoofAsy
BodysideAsy
Ladder Asy
Sub-Total
RadiaterVeiUealSupport
Com partment Extra
ShocK Tower Xmbr Plates
Sub-Total
Bum per fit
Bumper rear
Sub-Total
Baseline
System Mass
512
42.4
17.8
15.0
6.8
40.2
42.0
31.3
ma
102.6
0.7
4.5
3.1
5.1
2.4
Sub-Total
135.3
378.0
8.2
75
528.9
Final Opnmzied Model
System Mass
532
42.4
10.1
7.7
43
32X1
362
24.1
141.9
902
0.7
32
4.4
4.7
2.4
Sub-Total
118.3
324.4
8.3
7.1
458.1
Weight Reduced
Percentage
13%
14%
-2%
5%
13%
The UVW of the optimized model was 1,403.1 kg, which includes a combined 13%
weight reduction from BIW, closures, and bumper parts (
-------
Page 278
Table F.4-2). 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.
The final weight distribution of the optimized full vehicle is tabulated in Table F.4-3,
showing the UVW of baseline and optimized models.
-------
Page 279
Table F.4-3: Final Weight Summary for Optimized Vehicle
Area
System
FEV Systems
-Chassis
owertrain
-Electrical
-Body Interior
Edag Systems Total
Closures
-DoorFrt
-Door RR
-Tailgate
-Fenders
BTW
-UnderbodyAsy
-Front Structure
-Roof Asy
-Bodyside Asy
-Ladder Asy
BIW Extra
- Radiator Vertical Support
- Compartment Extra
-Shock Tower Xmbr Hates
Bumper
-Front
-Rear
UVW
Basel" Model Rnal °Pfimzied Weight Reduced
Model Percentage
Sub-Total
(kg)
528.9
135,3
378.0
8.2
7.5
1710.6
Sub-Total
(kg)
nje J
lMa.4
458.1
118.3
324,4
8.3
7.1
1403.5
13%
13%
14%
-2%
5%
18%
From this it can be seen that an overall 18% weight reduction was achieved by weight
optimization.
F.4.11 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
-------
Page 280
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.
F.4.11.1
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.4-4 lists the results of the
optimized model for bending stiffness, torsion stiffness, and modal frequency load cases.
Table F.4-4: NVH Results Summary for Optimized BIW Model
Study Description
EDAG CAE Model
(Full Roof)
Baseline Model
EDAG CAE
Optimized Model
Change
Overall
Torsion
Mode
(Hz)
54.6
52.2
-4.4
Lateral
Bending
Mode
(HZ)
34.3
32.7
-4.7
Rear-End
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
(Kg)
407.7
356.9
-12.5
Weight
BIW
(Kg)
376.4
323.9
-14.0
Comments
CAE Model of 2010
Full Roof Venza
Baseline Vehicle
Optimized CAE Model
Vehicle Configuration
Same as Baseline
Comparison between
Baseline and
Optimized 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% when compared to the
BIW weight of the baseline model.
F.4.11.2
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),
-------
Page 281
3) FMVSS 214—38.5 MDB side impact,
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.4.11.3
FMVSS 208—35 MPH flat frontal crash (US NCAP)
Deformation Mode
The deformation modes at 80ms (end of crash event) of the optimized model were
compared to that of the baseline model. The deformation modes are presented in Figure
F.4-12 to Figure F.4-15. 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
Figure F.4-12: Deformation Mode Left Side View @ 80ms
-------
Page 282
Baseline
Optimized
Figure F.4-13: Deformation Mode Right Side View @ 80ms
Baseline
Optimized
Figure F.4-14: Deformation Mode Top Side View @ 80ms
Baseline
Optimized
Figure F.4-15: Deformation Mode Top Side View @ 80ms
The underbody structural deformation modes are compared as shown in Figure F.4-16. 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
-------
Page 283
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.
Baseline
Optimized
Figure F.4-16: Deformation Mode Top Side View @ 80ms
Crash Pulse
Figure F.4-17 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. The velocity was differentiated to
-------
Page 284
get pulses: 47.2G for the driver side and 46.2G for the passenger side. The baseline model
pulses are 45.9G and 44.9G for the driver and passenger sides, respectively.
BaselmeJM
Optimized_04
Baselme_04
Optimized_04
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Driver
Optimized (LH-47.2/RH-46.2G)
Baseline (LH-45.9/RH-44.9G1
Passenger
Figure F.4-17: Vehicle Pulse Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized
The optimized model pulse, then, met the performance target requirement of baseline
model within a <5% difference.
Dynamic Crush and Dash Intrusions
The deformation indicator of the vehicle structure dynamic crush is compared as shown in
Figure F.4-18. The optimized model shows a shorter dynamic crush (578.0 mm) than that
of the baseline model (610.5 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.
-------
Page 285
Figure F.4-18: 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.4-19.
-------
Page 286
Figure F.4-19: TTZV Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized
The TTZV of the optimized model (57.2 ms) is less than that of the baseline model (60.5
ms), showing improved front-end stiffness.
For comparison purposes, the dash intrusions also were measured and are summarized in
Table F.4-5.
Table F.4-5: Dash Intrusion Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized
Vehicle
Baseline
Optimized
Driver Footwell
(mm)
56.7
22.0
Driver Toe pan
Left (mm)
131.3
46.3
Driver Toe pan
center (mm)
147.2
79.5
Driver Toe pan
Right (mm)
105.2
101.3
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 baseline targets.
-------
Page 287
F.4.11.4
Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB Frontal Crash (Euro NCAP/IIHS)
Deformation Mode
The deformation modes at 140 ms (end of crash event) of the optimized model were
compared to that of the baseline model. The deformation modes are presented in Figure
F.4-20 to Figure F.4-22 . 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
Figure F.4-20: Deformation Mode Top View @ 140ms
Baseline
Optimized
Figure F.4-21: Deformation Mode ISO View @ 140ms
-------
Page 288
Baseline
Optimized
Figure F.4-22: Deformation Mode Left Side View @ 140ms
The underbody structural deformation modes are compared as shown Figure F.4-23 and
Figure F.4-24 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.
1 ». * V*na tr irt«»p_46kph 8***H>C_04 State 18 *t time 0 1
Figure F.4-23: Deformation Mode Bottom View @ 140ms - Baseline
-------
Page 289
Figure F.4-24: Deformation Mode Bottom View @ 140ms - Optimized
Crash Pulse
Figure F.4-25 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 < 44G for driver side and passenger side, measured at driver and passenger side rear-
seat cross members respectively.
-------
Page 290
004 turn a.os a.i c •:• 0.14 »
Driver
Passenger
Figure F.4-25: 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.
Dynamic Crush
The deformation indicator of the vehicle structure dynamic crash is compared in Figure
F.4-26 and Figure F.4-27. The total dynamic crush shown in Figure F.4-26 includes the
barrier deformation, also consistent for comparison purposes. Subtracting the barrier
deformation from the total crush (Figure F.4-27), the optimized model shows less
dynamic crush (505.3 mm) than the baseline model (566.7 mm) at the same level of body
pulse. This is an improvement from the baseline model showing a better structural
performance. This indicates the optimized model retains an acceptable level of vehicle
dynamic stiffness even though there is significant mass reduction.
-------
Page 291
Figure F.4-26: Dynamic Crush Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized (with Barrier Deformation)
Figure F.4-27: Dynamic Crush Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized (without Barrier Deformation)
Dash Panel Intrusions
-------
Page 292
The compartment dash panel intrusions measured at the footwell, toe pan, brake pedal,
instrument panel cross member, and door openings is plotted with respect to the
performance rating chart and is shown in Figure F.4-28.
LS-DYNA keyword deck by LS-PrePost
Optimized
Baseline
Marginal
Acceptabl
i 3
1 :Footwell 2:LeftToe 3:CenterToe 4:RlghtToe 5:BrakePedal 6:Left IP 7:Rlght IP 8:Door
Figure F.4-28: Dash Panel Intrusion Plot for Euro NCAP
The intrusion plot shows the optimized model has improved in terms of fewer intrusions
and has achieved the better rating (good) as that of the baseline model for all of the
critical dash panel locations.
A summary of Euro NCAP performance measurements is provided in Table F.4-6 and
Table F.4-7.
Table F.4-6: Dash Intrusions, Baseline vs. Optimized Model for Euro NCAP
-------
Page 293
No.
1
2
Frontal crash
Measurements
Dynamic Crush (mm)
UVW Weight (kg)
Baseline
1082.9
1710.5
Optimized
1021.3
1403.1
Table F.4-7: Dash Intrusions - Baseline vs. Optimized Model for Euro NCAP
Vehicle
Baseline
Optimized
Driver
Footrest
(mm)
141.6
48.1
Driver Toe
pan Left
(mm)
180.7
68.8
Driver
Toe pan
center
(mm)
179.0
74.7
Driver Toe
pan Right
(mm)
84.6
28.6
Based on the analysis, the optimized model meets the frontal offset impact performance
requirements.
F.4.11.5
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 Figure F.4-29 to Figure F.4-31. Figure F.4-29 shows the global deformation
of the driver side. It indicates both the baseline and the optimized models have similar
deformation.
-------
Page 294
Baseline Model
Optimized Model
Figure F.4-29: Global Deformation Modes of Baseline and Optimized Models
Figure F.4-30 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.
-------
Page 295
Baseline
Optimized
Figure F.4-30: Deformation Modes of Front and Rear Doors of Baseline and Optimized Models
Similarly, Figure F.4-31 shows the same characteristics of rear door aperture area
deformations for both the baseline and the optimized models.
Baseline
Optimized
Figure F.4-31: 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. Figure F.4-32 shows the relative intrusion of the
side structure in the optimized model at sections 1200L and 1650L with respect to the un-
deformed model. The sectional contour in red indicates the deformed shape and the
sectional contour in black indicates the un-deformed shape.
-------
Page 296
I I
I
*.:U£.i4£...A'..yv....,s...^,. ,,.<•....,'
•.'.••••.•• ",......,.,.,,...,,... .^^^^k
,'i I,,-,.,.. •^^^^
Measure Location : Longitudinal 1200 Coord.
L«v»l
7
4
5
D**cnp(ton
'-„: ' ,:, -„ . ,f'
'_'<_'. :_i;,jn1 " ?'•:••.:-. Hr?yr-<
Ud-Doof Height
W«dow S* Hmgni
Wndcr* Top H*qhl
Height Abov»
G
-------
Page 297
Relative Instrusion of Optimized
Longitudinal 1650L location section
•4 .............. !- .....................
••«• .............. »•-•• ........... \»"
--"j
fe
I J:
dt
Measure Location : Longitudinal 1650 Coord.
Level
•
2
3
4
'j
Description
sj iii •'•.'•r-i
UaLj;j,U!l H---0 n' H./ L)N:
Mid-Door Height
Window Sdl Heighl
Window Top Height
Height Above
Ground (mm)
S2K
'•:••-'•
671
•02i,
1531
Figure F.4-33: Side Structure Intrusion Plot of Optimized Model @ 1650L Section
Table F.4-9: Optimized Model, Relative Intrusions of Side Structure @1650L for FMVSS 214
Measured Level
Level -5
Level-4
Level -3
Level -2
Level -1
CAE 2010 Baseline
7.0
149.7
282.2
269.9
146.6
CAE 2010 Optimized
3.1
132.7
244.4
232.9
127.2
* All measured points are taken at the vehicle exterior point
-------
Page 298
The summary of intrusion numbers is shown in Table F.4-10 and Table F.4-11. The
negative sign indicates the optimized model shows less deformation than the baseline.
Baseline vs Optimized
Longitudinal 1200 L Section
Measure Location : Longitudinal 1200 Coord
L*v«l
•
3
4
5
D*scftpiton
i_j ;-•.:
OttUWM H P.'.'"' HP.JC'
lAd.Ooo* Httflhl
WmtoA $* Height
/. -! '.•'•{' ;
Hugh! Above
Ground I mm)
630
C71
1 E)?0
•-..1
Figure F.4-34: Side Structure Intrusion Plot of Baseline vs. Optimized Model @ 1200L Section
Table F.4-10: Baseline vs. Optimized Model - Relative Intrusions of Side Structure @1200L for
FMVSS214
Measured Level
Level -5
Level -4
Level -3
Level -2
Level -1
Baseline
6.0
165.5
245.0
233.3
133.7
Optimized
3.1
145.0
215.6
205.2
131.6
Difference
-2.9
-20.5
-29.4
-28.1
-2.1
* All measured points are taken at the vehicle exterior point
-------
Page 299
JiJ*»
'!
Measure Location : Longitudinal 1650 Coord.
Figure F.4-35: Side Structure Intrusion Plot of Baseline vs. Optimized Model @ 1650L Section
Table F.4-11: Baseline vs. Optimized Model, Relative Intrusions of Side Structure @1650L for
FMVSS 214
Measured Level
Level -5
Level-4
Level -3
Level -2
Level -1
Baseline
7.0
149.7
282.2
269.9
146.6
Optimized
3.1
132.7
244.4
232.9
127.2
Difference
-3.9
-17.0
-37.8
-37.0
-19.4
* All measured points are taken at the vehicle exterior point
As shown previously in Table F.4-10, the maximum side structure intrusions of 215.6
mm at 1200L section and 244.4 mm at 1650L section are less than the baseline results of
245.0mm at 1200L section and 282.2 mm at 1650L section. Therefore, the side structure
intrusion performance of the optimized model is judged to be acceptable.
-------
Page 300
F.4.11.6 FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB Rear Impact
Deformation Mode
The deformation modes of the rear impact simulation of the optimized model are shown
in Figure F.4-36 to Figure F.4-39. 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.4-36, the rear door area shows no jamming shut of the door opening.
The skeleton view of the rear inner structure deformation view in Figure F.4-37 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.
Figure F.4-36: Deformation Mode of Optimized Model - Left Side View
-------
Page 301
Figure F.4-37: 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 ms) is shown Figure F.4-38 and Figure F.4-39. This deformation mode shows
the rear rail structure and the rear suspension mounting are also intact to protect the fuel
tank system.
Figure F.4-38: Deformation Mode of Optimized Model - Bottom View
-------
Page 302
Figure F.4-39: Deformation Mode of Optimized Model Rear Structure Area - Bottom View
Fuel Tank Integration
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.4-40 shows the
comparison of the top and bottom of the fuel tank system's strain plot after the crash.
-------
Page 303
No Damages on Fuel Tank (Plastic Strain < 20%)
Plastic Strain @ Strap < 20%
'
i
Baseline
.
Optimized
Figure F.4-40: 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.
Figure F.4-41 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.4-12.
-------
Page 304
Figure F.4-41: Structural Deformation Measuring Area in Rear Impact
Table F.4-12: Summary of Structural Deformation Measuring
Model
Baseline
Optimized
Under Structure Zone Deformation (mm)
Zone-1
140.2
112.2
Zone-2
292.5
340.5
Zone-3
0
0
Zone-4
0
0
Door Opening (mm)
Beltline
1.9
0.9
Dogleg
0.2
0.4
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.4.11.7 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 ms after crush event is
shown in Figure F.4-42. 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 un-deformed. The optimized model structure
thus has the same level of roof crush resistance performance as the baseline model.
-------
Page 305
Baseline
Optimized
Figure F.4-42: 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. Figure F.4-43 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.
-------
Page 306
j
i.—-^-* rooUnj$h_venzajter21_12_mubea_
Figure F.4-43: 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.4-44.
-------
Page 307
4 times of UVW
for Optimized Criteria
Figure F.4-44: Roof Crush Load vs. Displacement Plot
As explained in Section F.4.10, the UVW of the optimized roof crush resistance model is
1,403.1 kg. From Figure F.4-45, it is seen the maximum load (66.4 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.4-13.
Table F.4-13: Summary of Roof Crush Load vs. Displacement Plot
-------
Page 308
Model
Name
Baseline
Optimized
UVW (kg)
UVW
1710.5
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)
67.1
55.1
Max Load
(kN)
85.8
66.4
F.4.12 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
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 C02 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
-------
Page 309
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.4-14.
Table F.4-14: Weight and Cost Impact of Optimized Vehicle
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
12.1
-0.1
7.7
0.0
0.0
7.2
2.0
0.4
0.0
68.1
"+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
"+" = cost decrease, "•" = cost increase
Estimated
Cost
Impact "S"
-5.84
-7.14
4.61
-81.40
-2.11
-14.75
-39.11
0.00
0.00
-29.96
-21.85
-10.71
0.00
-208.26
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
"$/Kg"
-0.72
-1.25
0.64
-4.57
-0.17
147.50
-5.08
0.00
0.00
-4.16
-10.93
-26,78
0.00
-3.06
The cost impact of assembling the parts due to laser welding is shown in Table F.4-15.
Table F.4-15: Cost Impact of Part Laser Welded Assembly
-------
Page 310
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
The cost impact of introducing rocker bulkhead reinforcements is shown in Table F.4-16.
Table F.4-16: Cost Impact of Part Laser Welded Assembly
Assembly Cost Adding Rocker Reinforcements
Assembly
Number
10
Total
Assembly
New Rocker Reinforcements
Assembly
cost
$13.58
$13.58
From the information in the tables, the overall weight savings on the Toyota Venza is
about 68.1 kg, with a manufacturing cost increase of $208.26 and an assembly cost
increase of $19.63.
-------
Page 311
F.4.13 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 14% weight reduction
on a BIW only (
Table F.4-2) and a 13.0% weight reduction including closures and bumpers (Table
F.4-3), 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 18% was achieved (Table F.4-3).
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 $208.26 in manufacturing costs (Table F.4-14) and a
$6.05 increase in assembly costs of the body parts (Table F.4-15).
F.4.14 Future Trends and Recommendation
Common practices followed in automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) are
within the strategies of component integration, functionality tweaking,
-------
Page 312
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
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 [11]. 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
-------
Page 313
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 application to
chassis member, frames, cross members, etc., are 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.
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.5 Body System Group B
Body System Group B includes the subsystems shown in Table F.5-1. The largest mass
contributors are the Seating, Interior Trim, and Instrument Panel/Console subsystems. As
seen in Table F.5-2, 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.
Table F.5-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Body System Group B
-------
Page 314
CO
><
(/)
1— 1-
03
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
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%
•J?
V)
a>
03
03
03
03
03
03
Subsystem
05
06
07
10
12
20
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
00
Description
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
"
-------
Page 315
F.5.1 Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
F.5.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview
The Toyota Venza uses a conventional interior trim package as well as upgrade packages.
Considerable focus has been paid to the interior regarding the different types of materials
used: plastic, rubber, cloth, leather, and steel. As with many of today's vehicle
manufacturers, the larger amount of the vehicle sought for weight reductions are those
areas which can do so without sacrificing looks, comfort and performance. Image
F.5-1 shows the inside interior of the Toyota Venza
Image F.5-1: Toyota Venza Interior
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
F.5.1.2 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
-------
Page 316
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
material savings. MuCell® is not recommended for Class "A" surfaces; however, all non-
Class "A" surfaces were quoted with a 10% mass reduction as a conservative estimate.
With re-engineering of the component up to 30% is possible
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
-------
Page 317
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
15% 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.5-1: MuCell® by Trexel™ Foaming Process Presentation
(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-Mold)
• High dimensional stability
-------
Page 318
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
-------
Page 319
ell® Application
Automotive
Application: Trunk Liner
Manufacturer: VW
Benefits:
Weight reduction of 10%
-------
Page 320
MuCell® Application
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.
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
-------
Page 321
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.
(PolyOne® presentation information provided by PofyOne™)
PolyOne OnCap™ CFA Solutions
-------
Page 322
Image F.5-2: Sample part cross section view
Image F.5-3: Sample part front face view
(Images supplied by PolyOne)
PolyOne's OnCap™ CFA additive family of density reduction and anti-sink technologies
provide customized solutions enabling you to reduce scrap rates caused by sink marks and
become cost effective by off-setting resin costs. OnCap™ CFA technology has been
tested and proven and is compatible across a wide range of polymers.
OnCap™ CFA will positively impact the bottom line in the following ways:
-------
Page 323
Reduce Part Weight Without compromising performance:
The most direct way that reducing your part density will improve your profitability, is by
displacing resin costs.
Improved Production Efficiencies:
Density reductions typically range from 10-50%. Value determination is based
operational savings through density reduction, and less scrap generated from surface
flaws.
Acceptable for regrind in-line streams.
Reduced Scrap- more profits derived from increased part quality.
Density Reduction- Resin Cost off-set, competitive advantage for new and existing
business.
Examples: automotive parts such as dash frames, and fan guards
(PolyOne® presentation information provided by PolyOne™)
GM SUV Instrument panel
-------
Page 324
GM SUV Instrument panel results
Sample Shot Size (inch) Volume reduction (%) Re^"^2n % Part we'9ht
-------
Page 325
• Improving Production Efficiencies
OnCap™ Foaming Agents promote increased nucleation to reduce cooling times and thereby
reduce production cycle times.
• Helping Customers Grow
Many industries are required to reduce the weight of their products because of government
mandates or just a desire to reduce shipping costs. OnCap™ Foaming Agents help customers
achieve these goals.
• Reduces scrap caused by sink -marks or unfilled areas of the products
Resulting in increased profitability and competitiveness.
(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.
• Potential weight reduction would be more in the 5-10% range at 1-3% LDR.
-------
Page 326
• 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.
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.
20% Glass-filled Polyamide (PA-GF20)
-------
Page 327
• 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.
• 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.
-------
Page 328
PolyOne's Chemical Foaming Agents are currently used in production in industrial
housings and structural foam applications, and the automotive industry. Its CFAs, are
also currently undergoing testing by many automotive OEMs and can be feasibly
implemented by the 2017 model year.
Please refer to PolyOne's Technical Data Sheets for more information.
F.5.1.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Some ideas that were considered for weight reduction on the interior trim are shown in
Table F.5-3.
Table F.5-3: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Interior Trim and
Ornamentation Subsystem
Component/Assembly
Interior trim with class
"A" surface
Interior trim with class
"A" surface
Interior trim with class
"A" surface
Interior trim with class
"A" surface
Interior trim with class
"A" surface
Interior trim with non-
class "A" surface
Carpet floor mats
Retractable cargo cover
Mass-Reduction Idea
Carbon fiber
Laminated surface to wood
underlayment
Laminated surface to wood
fiber underlayment
Laminated surface to foam
underlayment
PolyOne® foaming process
MuCell® gas foaming
process
Reduce total weight
Replace heavy pull cover
with pull screen
Estimated Impact
10 to 20% Mass
Reduction
10 to 20% Mass
Reduction
10 to 20% Mass
Reduction
15 to 25% Mass
Reduction
10% Mass
Reduction
10% Mass
Reduction
20 to 30% Mass
Reduction
50 to 65% Mass
Reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
High cost of raw material, high cost of
processing
Added processing, Wood underlayment
availability
Added processing, Wood fiber
underlayment availability
high processing cost
No added capital equip, needed, Faster
5Y2l§JJ01!Lfi§Lfi§d
Added capital equip., faster cycle time
Less material, may have durability issues,
mayjBguir^testing
Diff. product for same function, may have
customer preference issues
F.5.1.4 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.
-------
Page 329
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.5-4).
Table F.5-4: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
-------
Page 330
•s?
CO
CD"
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
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
nFioornvic^
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"
Sjurfaces
MuCell® Non-Class "A"
Surfaces
Replace heavy pull cover
wjtiTj3u]|j3cj^;en
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
-------
Page 331
F.5.1.5 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates
Table F.5-5 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.
Table F.5-5: Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Interior Trim and
Ornamentation Subsystem.
g
sa
CD
03
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
ai'Ii
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
$6"64
$2.05
$2.05
$0.58
$1.13
$0.11
$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
$401
$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%
a'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%
o.o'i'%
0.05%
0.06%
0.02%
0.05%
0.00%
0.52%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Page 332
F.5.2 Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)
F.5.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As Table F.5-6 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.
Table F.5-6: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Sound and Heat Control Subsystem
(Body)
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 System 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%
F.5.2.2 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
either flat or in a roll, and is formed at installation. High-performance, flexible heat
shields sometimes include extras, such as insulation. Image F.5-4 shows the under-hood
heat and engine shields of the Toyota Venza.
-------
Page 333
Image F.5-4: Toyota Venza Heat and Engine Shields
(Source: FEV Photo)
F.5.2.3 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.5.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.5-7 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.
Table F.5-7: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Sound and Heat
Control Subsystem (Body)
Component/Assembly
Interior trim with non-
class "A" surface
Mass-Reduction Idea
MuCell® gas foaming
process
Estimated Impact
1 0% Mass
Reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Added capital equip., faster cycle time,
lower cost
-------
Page 334
F.5.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.5-8 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.
To see more about the MuCell®or PolyOne® process's reference section F.4B.1 Interior
Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem.
Table F.5-8: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)
«-
CD
3
03
03
g
CO
06
06
1
&
CO
CO
ED"
3
00
03
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Sound and ly)
Engine Compartment Trim
Mass-Reduction Ideas
Selected for Detail
Evaluation
MuCell® Non-Class "A"
Surfaces
F.5.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates
Table F.5-9 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.
Table F.5-9: Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Sound and Heat Control
Subsystem (Body)
-------
Page 335
g
sa
CD
03
03
03
Subsystem
06
06
06
Sub- Subsystem
01
02
03
Description
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
n QII
* (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
F.5.3 Sealing Subsystem
F.5.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table F.5-10 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.
Table F.5-10: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Sealing Subsystem
-------
Page 336
CO
><
(/)
1— 1-
CD
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
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%
F.5.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
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.5-5 shows the Toyota Venza's door weather stripping
-------
Page 337
Image F.5-5: Toyota Venza Door Weather Stripping
(Source: FEV Photo)
F.5.3.3 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.5.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.5-11 contains the ideas considered for mass reductions on the Sealing subsystem.
-------
Page 338
Table F.5-11: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Sealing
Subsystem
Componient/Assemb^
Front Side Door
Use TPV
25% Mass
Reduction
Lower cost for material and processing
Static Sealing
Use TPV
25% Mass
Reduction
Lower cost for material and processing
Rear Side Door Dynamic
\A/ealHTej^tri£
Hood Dynamic
Fender Seals
25% Mass
Reduction
25% Mass
Reduction
Lower cost for material and processing
Lower cost for material and processing
Lower cost for material and processing
F.5.3.5 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 EPDIvt 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.
-------
Lead by Jyco, TPV sealing systems quickly gained the interest of North American OEMs.
Through innovations such as their own JyFlex'1-' 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~y 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.
Page 339
TPV «. EPDM
MANUFACTURING PROCESS FLOW
TPV -GREEN MANUFACTURING PROCESS & PRODUCTS
•Energy Utage
-TW. 80 bVA
-BOM 250 bVA
•Emissiom into Enuironment
-iw No VOCs* & low carbon dioxide
-tpow VOC* & higher cartoon dioxide
'-Volatll O^CTHIC Compound
•Scrap
-TPV 4% Soap-All scrap recyclable
-(POM, B«t-15% Scrap
•Extrusion Line
-™. lOOft
-EMU 400ft
.Labor
Direct Supervision
.Material Movements
-m, 290 ft
-a,,, 930 ft
T^^E^*
.Manufacturing Time
-TO, < i Hour
-EPOM: > 1 Day
•MoUTIm
-iw30sec
-emu 120 iec
Total
EPDM
A >V
The global leader in TPV solutions for automotive sealing systems.
lYCO
Figure F.5-2: Jyco Presentation
(Allpresentation information supplied by Jyco)
-------
Page 340
Table F.5-12: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Sealing Subsystem
CO
•35
CD"
03
03
03
03
03
03
Subsystem
07
05
05
05
05
05
Sub-Subsystem
00
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
F.5.3.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates
Table F.5-13 shows the 2.029kg weight and the $15.70 cost reductions per sub-
subsystem. Using the Jyco TPV material and process provided 100% of the weight and
cost savings per the Sealing subsystem.
Table F.5-13: Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Sealing Subsystem
g
C£
CD
3
03
03
03
03
03
Subsystem
07
07
07
07
07
Sub-Subsystem
01
02
03
04
05
Description
Front Side Door Dynamic Weatherstrip
Static Sealing
Rear Side Door Dynamic Weatherstrip
Hood Dynamic Weatherstrip
Fender Seals
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
A
A
A
A
_A_
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)
0.427
1.198
0.356
0.030
_O018_
2.029
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
"$" (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%
JH3J3%_
24.67%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.02
0.12%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Page 341
F.5.4 Seating Subsystem
F.5.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table F.5-13 shows included in the Seating subsystem are the Front Drivers Seat, Front
Passengers Seat, Rear 60% Seat, and Rear 40% Seat sub-subsystems.
Table F.5-14: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Seating Subsystem
CO
><
(/)
1— 1-
CD
03
03
03
03
03
Subsystem
10
10
10
10
10
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
Description
Seating Subsystem
Frt Drivers Seat
Frt Passenger Seat
Rear 60% Seat
Rear 40% Seat
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
16.406
92.548
220.604
1711
41.95%
5.41%
F.5.4.2 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.
Image F.5-6 through Image F.5-12 show the seat and seat frames for the Toyota Venza.
-------
Page 342
Image F.5-6: Front Seat Frame
(Source: FEV Photo)
Image F.5-7: Front Passenger Seat Image F.5-8:Front Passenger Seat Frame
(without tracks and active head rest)
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
Page 343
Seat "split" line
Image F.5-9: 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-11) 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-12 is the bottom frame2
removed from the bottom frame 1.
Image F.5-10: Rear 40% Seat Frame
(Source: FEV Photo)
-------
Page 344
Image F.5-11: Bottom pivot frame for the rear 60% seat;
both 40% & 60% have these frames
(Source: FEV Photo)
Image F.5-12: 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
F.5.4.3 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,
-------
Page 345
carbon fiber, plastics, cast magnesium, and aluminum. 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
mag and other lightweight materials are too volatile. Mag was over $6 per kg in 2008 and
as low as $2.1 in 2007 as were today it's at $3.1. Also some seat suppliers are not
concerned with weight over cost. Carry over seat construction is another reason that new
technologies are not being used. The cost of design and testing can add considerable
costs. Some OEMs 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 process's the thought process will
change. In the Venza study steel to mag seat frames was 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.
F.5.4.4 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.
-------
Page 346
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
reflect the overall reduction in the weight of the seat backs. Table F.5-15 shows some of
the ideas considered.
Table F.5-15: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Seating
Subsystem
-------
Page 347
Component/Assembly
Frt Seat Bottom & Back
Frames
Frt Seat Bottom & Back
Frames
Frt Seat Bottom & Back
Frames
Frt Seat Bottom & Back
Fj^mes
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
__^tin/\rekdjnste^d_ofjTTJg__
Use Velcro to attach fabric
to frame
Eliminate center cross rod
^^^PILlPJ^^t^PJ^^LIl^nit^^^,
Replace strain gauges with
pressure sensitive mat
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
Reduction
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
Reduction
5 to 10% Mass
Reduction
10% Mass
Reduction
1 0% 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
E°£§§Eioy^Di§n!
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
F.5.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.5-16 contains the mass-reduction ideas selected for the Seating subsystem.
Table F.5-16: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Seating Subsystem
-------
Page 348
f
CD"
3
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
Subsystem
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
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
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
Woodbridge® PU/EPP
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
-------
Page 349
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 High Pressure magnesium die casting, the porosity is a major issue with
High Pressure Die Casting - HPDC. In order to get a good porosity from HPDC
expensive specialty heat treatable alloys must be used or a squeezing process during
solidification would need to be done and both add cost. Also ductility and elongation with
the Thixomolding process is better. There is no need for a holding furnace for molting
metal, in the Thixomolding process which has a high energy cost as well. HPDC is not
recyclable due to dross and slag whereas Thixomolding is heated during the injection
cycle and does not produce slag or dross and therefore it is recyclable back into the
process. Thixomolding is not a hazard to personal whereas HPDC operations need
personal safety guards put into place at an added cost. HPDC has its place in
manufacturing, but for this study and the seat frames Thixomolding was chosen as a
better process due to cost, recyclability and safety.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE
INSTITUTE FOR PROSPECTIVE TECHNOLOGICAL
STUDIES
One significant development is the adoption by Johnson Controls of the new Thixomold
casting process for some magnesium seat components to go into production for the 1996
model year. In this process, the metal is forced into the dies in the form of slurry - a state
between liquid and solid metal - which results in high-density castings free of porosity.
This highly productive process is another factor improving the prospects of magnesium,
and for that matter, aluminum. The seat structure is produced as magnesium castings by
-------
Page 350
the new method, and weighs 2.02 kg, compared with 3.84 kg for optimized steel
components, offering a weight reduction of 9.1 kg/car.
Also other industries use the Thixomolding process, such as Panasonic 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 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 high pressure die casting makes them good candidates for
coating or plating without blistering or out gassing;
• Superior mechanical properties and faster cycle rates compared with high pressure
die casting;
. EMI-RFI shielding;
• 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 as compared to high pressure die casting;
• Excellent dimensional repeatability, tight tolerances and the ability to mold thin
walls;
• Better ductility then high pressure die casting;
-------
Page 351
Longer die life compared to high pressure die casting , due to lower temperature of
material entering mold, 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 in die casting);
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.
Automatic vaouum
convoying system
Moid
Product
Non-
return
valve \ \ Highspeed
3. jr. Heater bands Screw injection system
rotory
drive
Foinieily pioduceil as stamped steel this piotolype
Thixoinolded magnesium seat back measuies 18" x 22
1'2" and is contrasted against a pan of plieis to give an
idea of lelative si;e. By switching to Thixomolded mag-
nesium, weight was (educed appioximately 35pei cent
to 2.2 kilos anil paitsiequited foi the assembly weie cut
fiom 13 to 3. The finished pai I is as moulded, and has a
leai load stiength of about 4500 Mm.
Manufactur ng Method
Thixomolding
Foreign aluminum die caster
Domestic aluminum die caster
Zinc die caster
Relative Component Cost
100%
145%
172%
241%
Figure F.5-3Thixomolding® examples
-------
Page 352
(Allpresentation material supplied by Thixomolding®)
Actual production example of a Thixomolded® seat back. Due to confidentiality reasons
the current vehicle or OEM cannot be mentioned
Image F.5-13: Thixomolding® examples
(Allpresentation material supplied by Thixomolding®)
-------
Page 353
Image F.5-14 (top); Image F.5-15 (bottom): Thixomolding® examples
(Allpresentation material supplied by Contractor: United States Automotive Materials Partnership
(USAMP) Contract No.: DE-FC26-020R22910 through the DOE National Energy Technology
Laboratory
The above Thixomolded Ford F150 Shotgun from the Light weighting Materials FY 2007
Progress Report by the USAMP & DOE is approximately 21.5" x 13.95"
X-rays were obtained for approximately 75 shotgun parts and representative tensile, yield,
and elongation (TYE) testes were obtained along with porosity, solids fraction,
-------
Page 354
dimensional variation for numerous parts and operating conditions. Dimensional
performance was found to be excellent.
Full front-end structure system-durability testing indicates the Mg shotgun equals the
performance of the current steel version and weighs approximately 50% less than the steel
components. 240 castings per hour from a single cavity die in the Thixomolding® process
were made
Utilizing a process such as HPDC to make structural parts is highly desirable by the
industry. Unfortunately, the presence of porosity in HPDCs has a detrimental effect on
mechanical properties. A plethora of counter-measures have been developed to combat
porosity (and other shortcomings) of the HPDC process by introducing into the process
vacuum, non-turbulent filling of the shot sleeve, and "squeezing" during solidification.
There are also expensive, specialty, heat-treatable alloys that are used along with one or
more of the countermeasures to lower porosity levels and improve quality, but not without
significant increase in cost. In spite of these enhancements and spin-off HPDC-based
processes, HPDCs continue to be challenged by tradeoff between quality and cost. This
inhibits the wide use of HPDCs as primary structural parts.
Besides porosity and non-uniform mechanical properties, adapting HPDC to ULCs-
Ultra-Large Castings, presents other challenges such as low yield. In some cases, over
50% of the shot weight consists of biscuits, runners and overflows. This has an effect on
economics, especially for Mg die-castings since Mg is not able to be recycled in-process.
As casting size increases, runner systems become larger and more complex, increasing
tooling cost and necessitating the use of larger tonnage die-casting machines. This
significantly increases the cost of capital equipment.
(Front seat specific) As part of the front seat frames weight reduction, the Lear EVO™
Mini Recliner was selected to replace the current Venza recliner mechanisms. The Lear
EVO™ provides 35% weight reduction and uses 50% less packaging space.
-------
Page 355
Image F.5-16: Lear EVO® Recliner Image F.5-17: Toyota Venza recliner
(Source: Lear™ web-site) (Source: FEV Photo)
o
LEAR.
CORPORA T 1 Q
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;
-------
Page 356
Image F.5-18: 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 he ad restraint by improving posture
Figure F.5-4: ProBax® System
-------
Page 357
(All ProBax® presentation material and information provided by ProBax®)
• Removal / reduction of lumbar and active head rest mechanisms
Image F.5-19: Top of Toyota Venza Active Head Rest (left)
Image F.5-20: Bottom of Toyota Venza Active Head Rest (right)
(Source: FEV Photo)
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 carryover seat from the
Toyota Highlander. Even though the carryover of the seat saved Toyota in a unique
design and manufacturing costs it was very heavy and not designed for the Toyota Venza
application.
-------
Page 358
[w| 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
2. ASSEMBLE ATTACHMENTS
INSERT STRUCTURELITE INTO
LID OF POLYURETHANE TOOL"
4. POUR POLYURETHANE
CLOSE TOOL
CURE POLYURETHANE ON
STANDARD RACETRACK LINE
-------
Page 359
Examples
Figure F.5-5: The Woodbridge Group™ Concept and Process
(Allpresentation material and information provided by The Woodbridge Group™)
Economics
• Reduced trim assembly labor
• 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
-------
Page 360
• 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.5.4.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates
Table F.5-17 shows the 22.908kg weight and $83.44 cost reductions per sub-subsystem.
Front Drivers Seat
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. Carry over
seat construction is another reason that new technologies are not being used. The cost of
design and testing can add considerable costs. Or the cost fluctuation of plastic and mag
and other lightweight materials are too volatile. Mag was over $6 per kg in 2008 and as
low as $2.1 in 2007. Also some seat suppliers are not concerned with weight over cost.
Company's 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 process's the thought process will
change. In the Venza study steel to mag seat frames was 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.
Back Frame
For the front driver's 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
-------
Page 361
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. To see more about the MuCell® or PolyOne® process's reference section F.4B.1
Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
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.
-------
Page 362
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
-------
Page 363
the arm rest bracket a total weight savings of 4.061kg and a cost savings of $14.94 can be
achieved.
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 $4.56.
Table F.5-17: Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Seating Subsystem
-------
Page 364
o^
3
03
03
03
03
Subsystem
10
10
10
10
Sub-Subsystem
01
02
03
04
Description
Seating S im
Seat Drivers Frt
Seat Passenger Frt
Seat Rear 60%
Seat Rear 40% ((Weight & Cost reduction of
40% seat base & bottom w/60% Seat, the weight
and cost save calculated here is for the rear 40%
seat back & trim only))
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
A
D
A
D
A
Mass
Reduction
"k9" d)
4.715
3.638
13.551
1.488
23.392
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
"$" (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
0.79
0.09%
1.37%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.5.5 Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
F.5.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As seen in Table F.5-18, 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).
Table F.5-18: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Instrument Panel and Console
Subsystem
-------
Page 365
0)
*<
-------
Page 366
F.5-24) 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.5-22: Top of Dash, IP Base with Skin Cover
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
Image F.5-23: Bottom of Dash, IP Base
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
-------
Page 367
Image F.5-24: 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.5.5.3 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.5-6) 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.
-------
Page 368
Roll gap Control
Correction
Profile check
—B
Figure F.5-6: 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.5-25. This magnesium beam differs significantly in design and
manufacturing process than the baseline Venza beam in Image F.5-21. 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.5-26. 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.
-------
Page 369
(a) Front View
.-4
m K. QJ
(b) Back View
Image F.5-25: Dodge Caliber Magnesium Cross-Car Beam
(Source: A2macl
http://www.a2macl. com/A utoreverse/reversepart. asp ?productid= 150&clientid= 1 &producttype =2)
-------
Page 370
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.5-26: CCB Examples Compared by the Stolfig® Group
(Source: Stolfig http://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. MuCell
technology is currently used by major OEM's like Audi, Ford, BMW and VW as
introduced in section F.4B.1. Fob/One technology is currently used in production in
industrial housings and structural foam applications as introduced in section
F.4B.1.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.
-------
Page 371
According to SABIC®, a mass 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.5.5.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Ideas that were considered to reduce the Instrument Panel and Console subsystem mass
are compiled in Table F.5-19. 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.
Table F.5-19: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Instrument
Panel and Console Subsystem
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
F.5.5.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The three sub-subsystems to which mass reduction ideas were applied are shown in Table
F.5-20. 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
-------
Page 372
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. 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
/ components. But rather the configuration was the same as actually tested in the NVH
Lab. While it is true the CCB plays a significant role in vehicle level NVH modal
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.
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
-------
Page 373
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%. PolyOne's CFAs were applied to eligible
plastic parts that had Class A surface finishes resulting in a 10% mass reduction per part.
MuCell technology is currently used by major OEM's like Audi, Ford, BMW and VW as
introduced in Section F.5.1. PolyOne technology is currently used in production in
industrial housings and structural foam applications as introduced in Section F.5.1.
Table F.5-20: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Instrument Panel and
Console Subsystem
O)
*<
1
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.
-------
Page 374
F.5.5.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
Table F.5-21 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®.
MuCell technology is currently used by major OEM's like Audi, Ford, BMW and VW as
introduced in Section F.5.1. PolyOne technology is currently used in production in
industrial housings and structural foam applications as introduced in Section F.5.1.
Table F.5-21: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
•2
(/)
ro
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
"
-------
Page 375
F.5.6 Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
F.5.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview
The Occupant Restraining Device subsystem includes seat belt assemblies and airbag
modules. The sub-subsystem breakdown by name and mass is shown in Table F.5-21.
The Seat Belt Assembly Front Row sub-subsystem and Seat Belts - Second Row sub-
subsystem weights largely come from the gear and spring mechanisms that retract the seat
belt and lock it into position. There are a total of seven airbags in the Toyota Venza:
Steering Wheel, Driver's Side Knee, Passenger Side, Front Driver's Seat, Front
Passenger's Seat, Driver's Side Air Curtain, and Passenger's Side Air Curtain.
The seat belt restraints did not have any mass reduced and were assumed to remain
unchanged going from the baseline to the redesign. An engineering analysis may have to
be performed on the seat belt reaction time for the new vehicle due to its overall reduction
in mass and different response to a crash, but such an investigation was beyond the scope
of this study.
Table F.5-22: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
-------
Page 376
0)
*<
-------
Page 377
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.5-28: Toyota Venza Passenger Side Airbag Housing (with airbag)
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.5-29: Toyota Venza Passenger Side Airbag Housing (rear view with inflator)
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Despite the numerous fastening commodity components in the Steering Wheel Airbag
(Image F.5-30), it is initially a lightweight design. The main housing is die cast from
magnesium and is even lighter than many plastic housings.
-------
Page 378
Spring Assembly
(Qty:3)
Image F.5-30: Toyota Venza Steering Wheel Airbag Assembly, showing various fasteners
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
F.5.6.3 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 Figure F.5-7. As seen, the design remains quite similar when
changed from a multi-piece steel unit to a single-piece injection-molded housing. This
allows for easy integration into an existing product line. Figure F.5-8, 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.
-------
Page 379
Figure F.5-7: Passenger Side Airbag Housings, Fabricated Steel Assembly (left) and Injection
Molded Plastic Component (right)
(Source: Images Courtesy of DSMEngineering Plastics & Takata)
Figure F.5-8: Toyota Venza's Steel Airbag Housing (left) and Plastic Airbag Housing Rendering
(right)
(Left Picture Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
(Right Picture Source: Photo Courtesy of DSM Engineering 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
-------
Page 380
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.5-31.
Image F.5-31: Standard Airbag Module (left) and VFT Module (right)
(Source: Photo Courtesy ofTakata)
To keep the airbag tightly packed in a low-pressure state, it is sealed in a multi-layer
plastic foil as shown in Figure F.5-99. This foil is the only added component in a VFT
airbag module and weighs only a few grams.
-------
Page 381
Lower Foil
Highly compressed
cushion pack
Cushion
Retention
Ring
Upper Foil
Figure F.5-9: VFT Airbag Foil
(Source: 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.5-32), which are both low-volume production vehicles. In
2012, a high-volume vehicle will be released utilizing Takata's VFT airbag.
Image F.5-32: VFT Airbag used in Ferrari 458 Italia (left) and McLaren MP4-12C (right)
(Source: Photo Courtesy ofTakata)
-------
Page 382
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.5-32. 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.5-33weighs 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.5-33: 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.5-28 and Image F.5-29) for steering wheel airbag
housings also. A high volume production example is shown in Image F.5-34, 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 cover
eliminating the need for fastening components thus simplifying design, reducing mass,
and reducing cost.
-------
Page 383
Image F.5-34: Steering Wheel Airbag Housing for Chevrolet Cruze
(Source: Part Courtesy ofTakata, FEV, Inc. Photo)
F.5.6.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Mass reduction ideas that were considered for the Occupant Restraining Device
subsystem are shown in Table F.5-23 . 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.5-23 are relative to the component(s) for that line
item, not relative to the entire airbag assembly. MuCell technology is currently used by
major OEM's like Audi, Ford, BMW and VW as introduced in Section F.5.1. PolyOne
technology is currently used in production in industrial housings and structural foam
applications as introduced in Section F.5.1.
Table F.5-23: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Occupant
Restraining Device Subsystem
-------
Page 384
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
F.5.6.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
All ideas that were considered for weight savings for this subsystem from Table
F.5-23were applied as shown in Table F.5-24. 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.
Table F.5-24: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Occupant Restraining
Device Subsystem
-------
Page 385
O)
*<
1
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.
F.5.6.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
The estimated mass reduction and associated cost impacts are shown in Table F.5-25 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.
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.5-25. There were four separate ideas applied to the Steering Wheel Airbag. The
-------
Page 386
breakdown on a percentage basis of how much each contributed to the 0.2 kg savings is
shown in Figure F.5-1010.
Single Trace Horn
29%
Plastic Housing
20%
Inflator Down-size
41%
Figure F.5-10: 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.
Table F.5-25: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
-------
Page 387
•2
1
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" CD
0.000
0.483
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.377
0.000
0.200
1.060
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
iirt-M
* (2)
$0.00
-$0.72
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.41
$0.00
-$1 .75
-$2.88
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$0.00
-$1 .49
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$1 .08
$0.00
-$8.76
-$2.71
(Increase)
Sub-
Subs./ Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.00%
19.90%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
18.64%
0.00%
18.19%
6.08%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.00%
0.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
0.01 %
0.06%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.6 Body System Group C
The Body System Group C includes the Exterior Trim and Ornamentation, Rear View
Mirror, Front End Module and Rear End Module subsystems. Table F.6-1 identifies the
-------
Page 388
Exterior Trim and Ornamentation subsystem as the most significant weight contributor to
this system, supplying approximately 50% of the system mass.
Table F.6-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Body System Group C
(f>
*<
-------
Page 389
•2
1
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
"k9"(D
1.147
0.218
0.514
0.514
2.393
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
II (Ml
* (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
F.6.1 Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
F.6.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table F.6-3 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.
Table F.6-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
-------
Page 390
CO
><
en
t-t-
CD
3
'03
'03
'03
'03
F03
'03
03
'03
'03
Subsystem
'08
'08
'08
F08
^08
'08
'08
'08
'08
Sub-Subsystem
'oo
'01
'02
'04
F07
'12
'14
'15
'99
Description
Exterior Trim and Ornamentation
'Radiator Grill
Lower Exterior Finishers
Upper Exterior and Roof Finishers
Rear Closure Finisher
Emblems
Rear Spoiler
Cowl Vent Grill Assembly
Exterior Trim 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"
1.460
4.350
0.870
1.334
0.096
1.843
2.720
0.710
13.383
26.57
1711
50.38%
0.78%
F.6.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Toyota Venza's Exterior Trim and Ornamentation is typical for the industry. There is
a chrome-plated plastic grill with emblem, a rear hatch finishing panel with license plate
lighting provisions, and emblems. Also, there is a spoiler, door finishing panels, roof
ditch moldings, and cowl vent screen. The materials and the thickness used are common:
the differences lay in the size and the intent of their utilization.
-------
Page 391
Image F.6-1: Exterior Trim - Lower Exterior Finisher
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.6-2: Exterior Trim - Cowl Vent Grill Assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.6-3: Exterior Trim - Rear Spoiler
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.6-4: Exterior Trim - Radiator Grill
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
Page 392
F.6.1.3 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. . MuCell technology is currently used by major
OEM's like Audi, Ford, BMW and VW as introduced in Section F.5.1. PolyOne
technology is currently used in production in industrial housings and structural foam
applications as introduced in Section F.5.1.
F.6.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.6-4 compiles the mass reduction ideas considered for the Exterior Trim and
Ornamentation subsystem.
Table F.6-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Exterior Trim and
Ornamentation Subsystem
-------
Page 393
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
F.6.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The mass reduction ideas selected that fell into the "Ae" group are shown in Table F.6-5.
-------
Page 394
Table F.6-5: Summary of mass-reduction concepts selected for the Exterior Trim and Ornamentation
Subsystem
rn
nT
3
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
c
Q
n>
=i
'08
'08
'08
'08
'08
'08
'08
&
in
CD
3
'00
'01
'02
'04
'07
14
15
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description
Exterior Trim and Ornamentation
[Radiator Grill
Lower Exterior Finishers
Upper Exterior and Roof Finishers
Rear Closure Finishers
Rear Spoiler
Cowl Vent Screen
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
PolyOne Process - Injection Molding
PolyOne Process - Injection Molding
PolyOne Process - Injection Molding
PolyOne Process - Injection Molding
PolyOne Process - Injection Molding
PolyOne Process - Injection Molding
F.6.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates
The PolyOne process was utilized on the Exterior Trim and Ornamentation sub-
subsystems listed in Table F.6-6. 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.
Table F.6-6: Summary of Mass-Reduction and Cost Impacts for the Exterior Trim and Ornamentation
Subsystem
-------
Page 395
•2
1
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" CD
0.155
0.463
0.090
0.145
0.190
0.104
1.147
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
iirt-M
* (2)
$0.23
$0.83
$0.31
$0.23
$0.42
$0.29
$2.31
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$1.48
$1.79
$3.44
$1.59
$2.21
$2.79
$2.01
(Decrease)
Subsys./
Sub-
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
1.16%
3.46%
0.67%
1 .09%
1 .42%
0.78%
8.58%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.01 %
0.03%
0.01 %
0.01 %
0.01 %
0.01 %
0.07%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.6.2 Rear View Mirrors Subsystem
F.6.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table F.6-7 shows that the most significant contributor to the mass of the Rear View
Mirror subsystem is the outside rear view mirrors. This includes both front driver and
passenger side outside rear view mirrors. The inside rear view mirror and the trim cover
make up the balance of the mass.
Table F.6-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Rear View Mirrors Subsystem
-------
Page 396
O>
*<
21
oT
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
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"
0.530
2.218
0.012
2.760
26.566
1711
10.39%
0.16%
\
Image F.6-5: Outside Rear View Mirrors
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.6.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Toyota Venza's rear view mirrors utilize materials and the thicknesses used by most
automobile manufacturers and their suppliers.
-------
Page 397
F.6.2.3 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.
MuCell technology is currently used by major OEM's like Audi, Ford, BMW and VW as
introduced in Section F.5.1. PolyOne technology is currently used in production in
industrial housings and structural foam applications as introduced in Section F.5.1.The
F.6.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.6-8 compiles the mass reduction ideas considered for the Rear View Mirrors
subsystem.
Table F.6-8: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially 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
F.6.2.5 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected
The mass reduction ideas selected that fell into the "Ae" group are shown in Table F.6-9.
Table F.6-9: Summary of mass-reduction concepts selected for the Rear View Mirrors Subsystem
-------
Page 398
OT
I
3
03
03
03
OT
c
I
m
-------
Page 399
O>
*<
21
oT
03
03
Subsystem
23
23
Sub-Subsystem
00
02
Description
Front End Module Subsystem
Module - Front Bumper & Fascia
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"
5.033
5.033
26.57
1711
18.95%
0.29%
Image F.6-6: Front Fascia
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.6.3.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The materials and thickness used are in common use by many automobile manufacturers
and their suppliers.
-------
Page 400
F.6.3.3 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.
MuCell technology is currently used by major OEM's like Audi, Ford, BMW and VW as
introduced in Section F.5.1. PolyOne technology is currently used in production in
industrial housings and structural foam applications as introduced in Section F.5.1.The
F.6.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.6-12 compiles the mass reduction ideas considered for the Front End Module
subsystem.
Table F.6-12: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially 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
F.6.3.5 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected
The mass reduction ideas selected that fell into the "Ae" group are shown in Table
F.6-13.
Table F.6-13: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected for the Front End Module Subsystem
-------
Page 401
OT
I
3
03
03
OT
c
I
m
oi
3
23
23
en
c
cr
OT
c
cr
0)
of
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
F.6.3.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
The PolyOne gas assist system was utilized for all components in Table F.6-14. This
produced a mass savings of .514 kg and a cost savings of $2.24 primarily from the front
fascia.
Table F.6-14: Summary of Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact for the Front End Module Subsystem
•2
(/)
ro
3
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" (D
0.491
0.491
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
Page 402
Table F.6-15: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Rear End Module Subsystem
(f>
*<
-------
Page 403
Image F.6-7: Rear Fascia
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.6.4.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The materials and thickness used are in common use by many automobile manufacturers
and their suppliers.
F.6.4.3 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.
MuCell technology is currently used by major OEM's like Audi, Ford, BMW and VW as
introduced in Section F.5.1. PolyOne technology is currently used in production in
industrial housings and structural foam applications as introduced in Section F.5.1.
F.6.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.6-16: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Rear End Module
Subsystem
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
-------
Page 404
F.6.4.5 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected
The mass reduction ideas selected that fell into the "Ae" group are shown in Image F.4C-
17.
Table F.6-17: Summary of mass-reduction concepts selected for the Rear End Module Subsystem
OT
*<
3
03
03
OT
c
cr
m
td
3
24
24
c
cr
c
cr
0)
jj-
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
F.6.4.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
The PolyOne gas assist system was utilized for all components in Table F.6-18. 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.
Table F.6-18: Summary of Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Concepts Estimates for the Rear End Module
Subsystem
$
1
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" CD
0.514
0.514
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Mrt-ii
* (2)
$2.32
$2.32
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$4.51
$4.51
(Decrease)
Subsys./
Sub-
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
9.54%
9.54%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.03%
0.03%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Page 405
F.7 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.7-1. 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.
Table F.7-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for the Body System Group -D-
(f>
*<
-------
Page 406
Table F.7-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Body System Group -D-
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
"
-------
Page 407
Table F.7-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism
Subsystem
(f>
*<
-------
Page 408
Image F.7-1: Toyota Venza Window Regulator.
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Window Clips
Image F.7-2: 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 (Figure F.7-1). Laminated glass is typically used when there
is a possibility of human impact or where the glass could fall if shattered. The PVB
interlayer also gives the glazing a much higher sound insulation rating, due to the
damping effect, and blocks 99% of incoming UV radiation.
-------
Page 409
Glass Interlayer Glass
Figure F.7-1: 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.7.1.3 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.
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
-------
Page 410
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.7-3. This
can be a styling, aerodynamic, and potential cost reduction advantage as well as a weight-
savings opportunity.
-------
Page 411
Image F.7-3: 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.7.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.7-4 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.7-4. 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.
Table F.7-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Glass (Glazing),
Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem.
-------
Page 412
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
F.7.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The mass reduction ideas selected are shown in Table F.7-5. 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.
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
-------
Page 413
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).
Table F.7-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Glass (Glazing), Frame, and
Mechanism System.
O)
*<
1
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
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)
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
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
steel
Reduce backlight thickness from 3. 85 to 3.15mm
n/a
Reduce glass thickness from 3. 85 to 3.15mm
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
F.7.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
The mass reduction and cost impact results for the Glazing subsystem can be seen in
Table F.7-6. 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 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
-------
Page 414
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.
Table F.7-6: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism
Subsystem
•2
1
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" CD
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
Mrt-ii
* (2)
-$1 .68
-$2.37
-$0.81
-$2.37
-$4.29
$0.00
-$4.15
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-15.670
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
-$1 .08
-$2.52
-$3.53
-$2.52
-$3.52
$0.00
-$3.53
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$2.59
(Increase)
Sub-
Subs./ Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
9.91 %
29.98%
10.80%
29.99%
17.31%
0.00%
17.85%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
12.63%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.09%
0.05%
0.01 %
0.05%
0.07%
0.00%
0.07%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.35%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.7.2 Handles, Locks, Latches & Mechanisms Subsystem.
F.7.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table F.7-7 illustrates that the Latches are the most significant contributor to the mass of
the Handles, Locks, Latches, Frame, & Mechanisms subsystem. This includes the front
-------
Page 415
doors, rear doors, and the rear hatch. The handle assemblies and the prop rod provide the
remainder of the subsystem weight.
Table F.7-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Handles, Locks, Latches and Mechanisms
Subsystem.
(f>
*<
-------
Page 416
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.7-5: Outer Door Handle and Carrier
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.7.2.2 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).
-------
Page 417
F.7.2.3 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
• 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
-------
Page 418
• 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)
F.7.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.7-8 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.
Table F.7-8: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Handles, Locks,
Latches & Mechanisms Subsystem
-------
Page 419
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
F.7.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The mass reduction ideas selected that fell into the "Ae" group are shown in Table F.7-9.
Table F.7-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Handles, Locks, Latches & Mechanisms
Subsystem Analysis
V)
*<
1
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
-------
Page 420
F.7.2.6 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.7.3 Rear Hatch Lift Assembly Subsystem
F.7.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As seen in Table F.7-10, 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.
Table F.7-10: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Rear Hatch Lift Assembly Subsystem.
-------
Page 421
0)
*<
-------
Page 422
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.7.3.3 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.
F.7.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.7-11 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.
Table F.7-11: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Rear Hatch Lift
Assembly Subsystem
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
F.7.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.7-12: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Rear Hatch Lift Assembly Subsystem Analysis
-------
Page 423
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
F.7.3.6 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
this time. Most mass savings and cost impacts were modest yet proposed risks to both
durability and safety.
F.7.4 Wipers and Washers Subsystem
F.7.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table F.7-13 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.
Table F.7-13: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Wipers and Washers Subsystem.
-------
Page 424
0)
*<
-------
Page 425
Image F.7-8: Rear Wiper Assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
I
Image F.7-9: Solvent Bottle
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
Page 426
F.7.4.2 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.7.4.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
Some of the different wiper blade schemes used by various Automotive Manufacturers:
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
-------
Page 427
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
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.7.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.7-14 compiles the mass-reduction ideas considered for the Wiper & Washers
subsystem.
Table F.7-14: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Wipers & Washers
Subsystem
-------
Page 428
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
F.7.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The mass-reduction ideas selected for detailed analysis are shown in Table F.7-15.
Table F.7-15: Summary of mass-reduction concepts selected for the Wipers & Washers Subsystem
-------
Page 429
O)
*<
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
F.7.4.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
Table F.7-16: Summary of Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact for the Wipers & Washers Subsystem
w
•$
ro
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" CD
0.091
0.091
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
iirt-M
* (2)
$0.42
$0.42
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$4.62
$4.62
(Decrease)
Subsys./
Sub-
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
1 .53%
1.53%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.01 %
0.01%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Table F.7-17 and Table F.7-18 illustrate that there are very limited opportunities for
mass reduction in the Toyota Venza Front & Rear Wiper systems. The Venza Front Wiper
Assembly is very close in mass to the Ford Focus Direct Drive Wiper system; the Venza
Rear Wiper system is close in mass to the Ford Fiesta Rear Wiper Assembly. There was
potential shown for mass reduction within this subsystem.
Table F.7-17: Summary of Mass Benchmarking for the Front Wipers & Washers Subsystem
-------
Page 430
w
•<
2-
0
3
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.7-18: Summary of Mass Benchmarking for the Rear Wipers & Washers Subsystem
•2
1
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
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.
F.8 Body System Misc (Group A Components Not Include in EDAG Analysis)
F.8.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table F.8-1 shows that the most significant nonmetallic contributor to the Body Structure
subsystem mass is the Rear Wheelhouse Arch Liners (Image F.8-1).
Table F.8-1: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Body Structure Subsystem
-------
Page 431
O>
*<
cn.
oT
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%
Image F.8-1: Rear Wheelhouse Arch Liner
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.8.1.1 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.
-------
Page 432
F.8.1.2 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.8.1.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.8-2 compiles the mass reduction ideas considered for the Body Structure
subsystem. Emphasis was placed on materials and processing to create mass reduction
ideas.
Table F.8-2: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Nonmetallic
Components of the Body Structure Subsystem
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
F.8.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected
The mass reduction idea selected that fell into the "A" group is shown in Table F.8-3.
-------
Page 433
Table F.8-3: Summary of mass-reduction concepts selected for the nonmetallic Components of the
Body Structures Subsystem
O)
*<
1
3
03
03
OT
c
sr
*<
m
(D
3
01
01
en
a
cr
OT
c
cr
tn
*<
B)
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
F.8.1.5 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
The PolyOne gas assist system was utilized for all components, as shown in Table F.8-4.
The mass was reduced .043 kg and cost decreased $0.21.
Table F.8-4: Summary of mass-reduction & cost impacts for the nonmetallic components of the
Body Structure Subsystem
w
•$
ro
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" CD
0.043
0.043
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Mrt-ii
* (2)
$0.21
$0.21
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$4.88
$4.88
(Decrease)
Subsys./
Sub-
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.01%
0.01%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.00%
0.00%
F.8.2 Front End Subsystem
F.8.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table F.8-5 demonstrates that the most significant nonmetallic contributors to the Front
End subsystem mass are the Rock Shields and the Front Wheelhouse Arch Liners.
-------
Page 434
Table F.8-5: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Front End Module Subsystem.
V)
oT
03
03
03
V)
en
n>
3
02
02
02
rn
cr
In
o-
*<
(V
3
00
04
10
Description
Front End Subsystem
Front Wheelhouse Arch Liners
Under Engine Closures or rock shields
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"
1.598
2.145
3.743
517.860
1711
0.72%
0.22%
F.8.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The materials and thickness used are in common use by many automobile manufacturers
and their suppliers. They protect the wheelhouse and engine components from noise and
damage caused by rocks, debris, tires and conditions caused by inclement weather. The
wheelhouse arches also serve to finish off the wheel wells.
F.8.2.3 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 and under engine closures, 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.
MuCell technology is currently used by major OEM's like Audi, Ford, BMW and VW as
-------
Page 435
introduced in section F.4B.1. PolyOne technology is currently used in production in
industrial housings and structural foam applications as introduced in section F.4B. l.The
F.8.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.8-6: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Nonmetallic
Components of the Front End Subsystem
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
F.8.2.5 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected
The mass reduction ideas selected that fell into the Ae group are shown in Table F.8-7.
Table F.8-7: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected for the Nonmetallic Components of
the Front End Subsystem
-------
Page 436
(n
ciT
3
'03
r
03
V)
Q
t-t-
CD
3
'02
f
02
1
I
tn
CD
3
'00
r
10
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description
Front End Subsystem
Under Engine Closures or Rock
Shields
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
PolyOne Process -Injection Molding
F.8.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
The PolyOne gas assist system was utilized for all components in Table F.8-8. The
resulting mass reduction is 0.103 kg and a $0.25 cost decrease.
Table F.8-8: Summary of Mass-Reduction and Cost Impacts for the Nonmetallic Components of
the Front End Subsystem
m
*<
~
(D
'03
03
en
(IS
*<
~
(D
'02
02
en
cr
1
*<
fr
ST
d
'oo
10
Description
Body Structure Subsystem
Under Engine Closures or Rock Shields
"(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Lev=l
Select
A
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (1)
0.103
0.103
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)
$0.25
$0.25
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$2.43
$2.43
(Decrease)
Subsys./
Sub-
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
1.73%
1.73%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.01%
0.01%
"(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Page 437
F.9 Suspension System
The Suspension system is composed of seven subsystems: Front Suspension, Rear
Suspension, Shock Absorber, Wheels and Tires, Suspension Load Leveling Control, Rear
Suspension Modules and Front Suspension Modules subsystems, as shown in Table
F.9-1. Comparing the seven subsystems, the greatest mass is located in the Wheels and
Tires subsystem with approximately 53.6%.
Table F.9-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for the Suspension System
(ft
*<
(/>
»-§-
CD
3
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
(f)
c
O"
u>
*<
u>
CD
3
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
(f)
5T
C/)
c
cr
u>
•<
(A
i-t-
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%
The Final Calculated Results Summary for the entire Toyota Venza Suspension system is
shown in Table F.9-2. This combination of proposed solutions was selected for this cost
group due to the significant weight savings calculated to be obtained (approximately
66.835kg) while also allowing for lower overall costs (approximately $ 144.71).
Table F.9-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Suspension System
-------
Page 438
CO
*<
ff
5T
'04
'04
'04
'04
'04
'04
'04
'04
Subsyste
3
'00
'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
Level
Select
Suspension Load Leveling Control Subsystem
Rear Suspension Modules
Front Suspension Modules
Mass
Reduction
"kg" m
1 1 .572
8.320
14.111
32.833
' 0.000
' 0.000
" 0.000
66.835
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
"$" (2)
-$3.04
-$4.91
-$57.99
-$78.77
0.000
0.000
0.000
-$144.71
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
-$0.26
-$0.59
-$4.11
-$2.40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.46
(Increase)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
55.40%
41 .53%
35.88%
25.69%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
26.47%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.68%
0.49%
0.82%
1 .92%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.91%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.9.1 Front Suspension Subsystem
F.9.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Image F.9-1 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.9-1: Front Suspension Subsystem Relative Location Diagram
-------
Page 439
(Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)
As shown in Image F.9-2, 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.9-2: Front Suspension Subsystem Current Major Components
(Source: FEVInc photo)
As seen in Table F.9-3, 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%).
Table F.9-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Front Suspension Subsystem
-------
Page 440
CO
-<
a
CD
3
04
04
04
04
co
c
w"
><
(/)
CD
3
01
01
01
01
CO
c
0"
CO
CT
(/)
><
(/)
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%
F.9.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Toyota Venza's Front Suspension subsystem (Image F.9-3) 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.9-5)
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.9-6) are typical cold headed steel fabrications. The Control Arm
Assembly (Image F.9-4) is made up of many components assembled to the control arm.
The Control Arm Sub-Assembly (Image F.9-5) is composed of several components,
including the Control Arm (Image F.9-8), which is made from various stamped steel
pieces welded together at several locations. The Control Arm Mounting Shaft (Image
F.9-9) is a single-piece steel design. The Steering Knuckle (Image F.9-10) is cast iron
and precision machined. The Stabilizer Bar system (Image F.9-11) contains the Stabilizer
Bar, Bar Mounts, Mount Bushings, and Link Assemblies. The Stabilizer Bar (Image
F.9-12) is a solid steel bar bent into shape and pinched flanges with punched holes for
mounting points. The Stabilizer Bar Mounts (Image F.9-13) are of standard construction
-------
Page 441
with stamped steel brackets. The Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings (Image F.9-14) are
molded rubber isolators. The Stabilizer Link Assemblies (Image F.9-15) are standard
steel design. The steel components include the link rod, link cup diameters, cup bottom
plates and ball studs.
Image F.9-3: Front Suspension Subsystem Current Assembly Example
(Source http://www. vehicledynamicsinternational. com)
F.9.1.3 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
studies have shown cost comparisons near parity with well-designed parts using alternate
materials, primarily high strength steel.
-------
Page 442
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.9.1.3.1 Front Control Arm Assembly
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Control Arm Assembly (Image F.9-4) 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.
-------
Page 443
Image F.9-4: Front Control Arm Current Assembly Example
(Source: http://www.piranamotorsports.com/servlet/the-990/Toyota-Sienna-2004-2005/Detail)
F.9.1.3.1.1 Front Ball Joint Sub-Assembly
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Ball Joint Assembly (Image F.9-5) 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.9-5: Front Ball Joint Sub-Assembly
(Sour ce:http://www. laauto. com/lA/BallJoint/Toyota)
-------
Page 444
F. 9.1.3.1.2 Front Ball Joint Fasteners
The OEM Toyota Venza Ball Joint design utilizes bolt fasteners, Image
F.9-6, 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.9-6: Front Ball Joint Sub-Assembly Fastener Example
(Source :\dtp://www. laauto. com/lA/BalUoint/Toyota)
F. 9.1.3.1.3 Front Control Arm Sub-Assembly
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Control Arm Sub-Assembly (Image
F.9-7) 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.
-------
Page 445
Image F.9-7: Front Control Arm Current Sub-Assembly Example
(Source: http://www. autopartsexpress. com/Parts/TOYOTA_Control_Arm. html)
F. 9.1.3.1.4 Front Control Arm
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Control Arm Sub-Assembly
(Image F.9-8) 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.
-------
Page 446
Image F.9-8: 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. 9.1.3.1.5 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.9-9) 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.
-------
Page 447
Image F.9-9: Front Control Arm Mounting Shaft Current Component Example
(Source: http://autoparts2k. com/moog-control-arm-bushings-lower-k20003 7)/
F.9.1.3.2 Front Steering Knuckle
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Steering Knuckle (Image F.9-10) 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.9-10: Front Steering Knuckle Current Component
(Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)
-------
Page 448
F.9.1.3.3 Front Stabilizer Bar System
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Stabilizer Bar system (Image F.9-11) 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.9-11: 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.
To remedy this problem, BMW has developed Active Roll Stabilization (Image F.9-12)
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
-------
Page 449
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.
Image F.9-12: BMW Active Roll Stabilization System
(Source : http:/Avww.search-autoparts.com/searchautoparts/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=68222)
F.9.1.3.3.1 Front Stabilizer Bar
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Stabilizer Bar (Image F.9-13) 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.
-------
Page 450
Image F.9-13: Stabilizer Bar Current Component
(Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)
F. 9.1.3.3.2 Front Stabilizer Bar Mountings
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Stabilizer Bar Mountings (Image
F.9-14) 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.9-14: Stabilizer Bar Mounting Current Components
(Source: FEVInc Photos)
-------
Page 451
F. 9.1.3.3.3 Front Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings
(Image F.9-15) 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.9-15: Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushing Current Components
(Source:http://www.wundercarparts.com/item.wws?sku=K90546&itempk=777630&mfr=MOOG&weight=3)
F. 9.1.3.3.4 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.9-16) 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.
-------
Page 452
Image F.9-16: Front Stabilizer Link Current Sub-Assembly
(Source:http://www.autopartswarehouse.com/details/QQToyotaQQVenzaQQMoogQQSway_Bar_LinkQQ2010QQ
MOK90344.html)
F.9.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Brainstorming activities generated the ideas shown in Table F.9-4 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.
-------
Page 453
Table F.9-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Front Suspension
Subsystem
-------
Page 454
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
1 0-20% 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.9-4 continued on next page
-------
Page 455
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.9-4 continued on next page
-------
Page 456
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.
1 00% wt save
Low Cost. In production - VW
Passat.
Not implemented due to wt
increase. In production - VW
Passat.
In production - VW Passat.
F.9.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.9-5 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).
Table F.9-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Front Suspension Subsystem Analysis
-------
Page 457
CO
en
CD
r04
04
5i
04
04
51
04
04
04
04
04
CO
1
2-
oT
3
r01
'01
*ioT
01
01
"of
01
01
01
01
01
CO
£
c
en
en
oT
3
roo
00
,,_
00
00
_
00
00
00
00
00
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description
JFraint^usgension^^
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 Steel
Tubing (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)
The new mass-reduced front suspension system configuration (Image F.9-17) 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.
-------
Page 458
Image F.9-17: Front Suspension Rotor Mass Reduced System Example
(Source http://www. vehicledynamicsinternational. com)
F.9.1.5.1
Front Control Arm Assembly
The solutions chosen for implementation on the final Front Control Arm Assembly
(Image F.9-18) 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.
-------
Page 459
Image F.9-18: Front Control Arm Mass Reduced Assembly Example
(Source: http://www.amazon.com/Dorman-521-026-Front-Lower-Control/dp/B0049E2L2I)
F. 9.1.5.1.1 Front Ball Joint Sub-Assembly
The solution used for the Ball Joint Assembly (Image F.9-19) 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.
-------
Page 460
Image F.9-19: Front Ball Joint Mass Reduced Sub-Assembly
(Source :\\ttp://www. laauto. com/lA/BalUoint/Toyota)
F. 9.1.5.1.2 Front Ball Joint Fasteners
The answer implemented for Ball Joint Fasteners (Image F.9-20) 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.9-20: Front Ball Joint Sub-Assembly Mass Reduced Fastener Example
(Source: http://www.ecklerscorvette.com/corvette-ball-joint-rivet-set-lower.html)
F. 9.1.5.1.3 Front Control Arm Sub-Assembly
-------
Page 461
The new Front Control Arm Sub-Assembly (Image F.9-21) 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.9-21: Front Control Arm Mass Reduced Sub-Assembly Example
(Source: http://www.amazon.com/Dorman-521-026-Front-Lower-Control/dp/B0049E2L2I)
F.9.1.5.1.3.1 Front Control Arm
The solution for Front Control Arm Sub-Assembly (Image F.9-22)
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
effective and are often being utilized in aftermarket and by OEMs.
Among some of these alternate mediums are Al, Ti, Steel and Mg.
-------
Page 462
Forming methods now include sand casting, semi-permanent metal
molding, die casting, machining from billet, and welded fabrications.
Image F.9-22: 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.9.1.5.1.3.2 Front Control Arm Mounting Shaft
The change utilized on the Front Control Arm Mounting Shaft
(Image F.9-23) 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.
-------
Page 463
Image F.9-23: 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.9.1.5.2 Front Steering Knuckle
The new Front Steering Knuckle (Image F.9-24) 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.
-------
Page 464
Image F.9-24: Front Steering Knuckle Mass Reduced Component
(Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)
F.9.1.5.3
Front Stabilizer Bar System
The proposed Front Stabilizer Bar system (Image F.9-25) 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 Steel
Tube with cast Mg mounting brackets and nylon bushings. Together, this new system has
reduced mass to a total of 2.879kg.
-------
Page 465
Image F.9-25: Stabilizer Bar System Mass Reduced System Example
(Source: http://www. tundraheadquarters. com/blog/toyota-tundra-trd-parts-accessories)
F. 9.1.5.3.1 Front Stabilizer Bar
The mass reduced Front Stabilizer Bar (Image F.9-26) is now of hollow
design with steel tubing material. Additional for increasing the bar diameter
from 25.0mm diameter solid to 28.0mm diameter hollow to allow an
adequate cross-section relative to being hollow versus solid. Hollow
stabilizer bars are mass produced by Mubea and are becoming common on
many European vehicles and beginning to being utilized in North America.
This new bar now has a mass of 2.329kg. As with other suspension
components, proper validation must be performed based on the vehicle
performance requirements.
-------
Page 466
Image F.9-26: Stabilizer Bar Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://www.i-club. com/forums/suspension-brakes-handling-wheels-tires-162)
F. 9.1.5.3.2 Front Stabilizer Bar Mountings
The new Front Stabilizer Bar Mountings (Image F.9-27) 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.9-27: Stabilizer Bar Mounting Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://www. tickperformance. com/products/UMI-Heavy-Duty-Billet-A luminum-Rear-S\vay-Bar-
Mounts.html)
F. 9.1.5.3.3 Front Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings
-------
Page 467
The redesigned Front Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings (Image F.9-28) 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.9-28: Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushing Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://www. suspensionconnection. com/cgi-bin/suscon/18-1116. html)
F. 9.1.5.3.4 Front Stabilizer Link Sub-Assembly
The new Front Stabilizer Link Sub-Assemblies (Image F.9-29) 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.
-------
Page 468
Image F.9-29: Front Stabilizer Link Mass Reduced Sub-Assembly
(Source: http://www. mjmautohaus. com/catalog/VW)
F.9.1.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
Table F.9-6 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 11.572kg and a cost increase differential of $3.04.
Table F.9-6: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Front Suspension Subsystem
-------
Page 469
OT
1
F04
'04
04
'04
'04
OT
c
at
U)
3
F01
'01
01
'01
F01
OT
1
c
cr
at
5T
3
roo
'01
0?
'03
F04
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
Level
Selec
t
A
A
C
A
Mass
Reduction
0.000
1.934
6.759
2.879
11.572
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
$0.00
$0.65
-$6.78
$3.09
-$3.04
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$0.00
$0.34
-$1 .00
$1.07
-$0.26
(Increase)
Sub-
Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.00%
39.31%
62.70%
65.93%
55.40%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.00%
0.11%
0.40%
0.17%
0.68%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
"+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.9.2 Rear Suspension Subsystem
F.9.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview
The Image F.9-30 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.
c«r
-------
Page 470
Image F.9-30: Rear Suspension Subsystem Relative Location Diagram
(Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)
As seen in Image F.9-31, 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.9-31: Rear Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem Current Major Components
(Source: FEV, Inc Photo)
As seen in Table F.9-7, 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%).
Table F.9-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Rear Suspension Subsystem
-------
Page 471
CO
•Si
t-t-
CD
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%
F.9.2.2 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 for additional information.
The Toyota Venza's Rear Suspension subsystem, Image F.9-32, 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.
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.9-33)
is a steel welded fabrication with two assembled rubber isolators, as is the Rear Arm #2
Assembly (Image F.9-34). The Rear Rod Assembly (Image F.9-35) is made from various
steel pieces are welded together and assembled with two rubber isolators. The Bearing
Carrier Knuckle (Image F.9-36) is cast iron and precision machined. The Stabilizer Bar
system (Image F.9-37) contains the Stabilizer Bar, Bar Mounts, Mount Bushings and
Link Assemblies. The Stabilizer Bar (Image F.9-38) is a solid steel bar bent into shape
and pinched flanges with punched holes for mounting points. The Stabilizer Bar Mounts
(Image F.9-39) are standard construction with stamped steel brackets. The Stabilizer Bar
Mount Bushings (Image F.9-40) are molded rubber isolators. The Stabilizer Link
Assemblies (Image F.9-41) are standard steel design. The steel components include the
link rod, link cup diameters, cup bottom plates, and ball studs.
-------
Page 472
Image F.9-32: Rear Suspension Subsystem Current Assembly Example
(Source http://www.bestcarsguide. com/what-is-rear-end-suspension)
F.9.2.3 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
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.9.2.3.1 Rear Arm Assembly #1
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Arm Assembly #1 (Image F.9-33) 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
-------
Page 473
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.
F.9.2.3.2
Image F.9-33: Rear Arm #1 Current Assembly
(Source: http://www. streetperformance. com/auto/2000-toyota-camry-ce/trailing-arm)
Rear Arm Assembly #2
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Arm Assembly #2 (Image F.9-34) is a multi-piece
assembly, with the major portions being made from steel tubing welded together. The
overall assembly mass is 1.130kg.
Image F.9-34: Rear Arm #2 Current Assembly Example
(Source: http://www. streetperformance. com/auto/2000-toyota-camry-ce/trailing-arm)
F.9.2.3.3
Rear Rod Assembly
-------
Page 474
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Control Arm Sub-Assembly (Image F.9-35) 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.9-35: Rear Rod Current Assembly Example
(Source: http://www.ebay.com/itm/REAR-SUSPENSION-LEFT-LATERAL-LINK-TOYOTA)
F.9.2.3.4 Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle (Image F.9-36) 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.
-------
Page 475
Image F.9-36: Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle Current Component
(Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)
F.9.2.3.5
Rear Stabilizer Bar System
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Stabilizer Bar system (Image F.9-37) 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
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.
-------
Page 476
Image F.9-37: Stabilizer Bar System Current Component Example
(Source: http://www.hotchkis.net/6472_gm_abody_extreme_sway_bar_set.html)
F.9.2.3.5.1 Rear Stabilizer Bar
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Stabilizer Bar (Image F.9-38) 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.
Image F.9-38: Stabilizer Bar Current Component Example
(Source: http://a2macl. com/A utoReverse/reversepart. asp)
F.9.2.3.5.2 Rear Stabilizer Bar Mountings
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Stabilizer Bar Mountings (Image
F.9-39) are of standard stamped steel construction and have a mass of
0.127kg. These brackets have had some recent changes in design, materials
-------
Page 477
and processing, including alternate configurations with materials such as
Al, Mg, HSS, and plastics. Process variations for manufacturing include
casting, molding, and forging.
T
Image F.9-39: Stabilizer Bar Mounting Current Components
(Source: FEVInc Photo)
F.9.2.3.5.3 Rear Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings
(Image F.9-40) 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.
-------
Page 478
Image F.9-40: Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushing Current Components
(Source:http://www.wundercarparts.com/item.wws?sku=K90546&itempk=777630&mfr=MOOG&weight=3)
F.9.2.3.5.4 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.9-41) 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.
Image F.9-41: Rear Stabilizer Link Current Sub-Assembly
(Source:http://www.autopartsrwarehouse.com/details/QQToyotaQQVenzaQQMoogQQSway_Bar_LinkQQ2010QQ
MOK90344.html)
F.9.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
The brainstorming activities generated the ideas shown in Table F.9-8 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.
-------
Page 479
Table F.9-8: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Rear Suspension
Subsystem
-------
Page 480
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. 160-3. 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
Risk & 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.9-8 continued on next page
-------
Page 481
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.
F.9.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.9-9 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).
-------
Page 482
Table F.9-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Rear Suspension Subsystem Analysis
CO
*<
1
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
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
The new mass-reduced Rear Suspension system (Image F.9-42) 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.
-------
Page 483
Image F.9-42: Rear Suspension Rotor Mass Reduced System Example
(Source http://www. wired, com/images_blogs/autopia/2010/09/lamborghini-miura-sv-05.jpg)
F.9.2.5.1
Rear Arm Assembly #1
The solution chosen for implementation on the final Rear Arm #1 Assembly (Image
F.9-43) 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.
-------
Page 484
F.9.2.5.2
Image F.9-43: Rear Arm #1 Mass Reduced Assembly
(Source: http://a2macl. com/A utoReverse/reversepart. asp)
Rear Arm Assembly #2
The solution chosen to be implemented on the final Rear Arm #2 Assembly (Image
F.9-44) 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.9-44: Rear Arm #2 Mass Reduced Assembly
(Source: http://a2macl. com/A utoReverse/reversepart. asp)
F.9.2.5.3
Rear Rod Assembly
The solution chosen to be implemented on the final Rear Rod Assembly (Image F.9-45)
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.
-------
Page 485
Image F.9-45: Rear Rod Mass Reduced Assembly
(Source: http://a2macl. com/A utoReverse/reversepart. asp)
F.9.2.5.4
Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle
The new Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle (Image F.9-46) is combination of a component
substitution from the Alfa Romeo 147 Knuckle (Image F.9-47) application and utilizing
an Al knuckle (Image F.9-48). 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.
Image F.9-46 (Left): Rear Carrier Alfa Romeo (Source: Lotus - 2010March EPA Report)
Image F.9-47 (Right): Rear Bearing Al Carrier (Source: http://forums.vwvortex.com)
-------
Page 486
Image F.9-48: Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http ://www.factory five. com/table/ffrkits/GTM/donorpartslist. html)
F.9.2.5.5
Rear Stabilizer Bar System
The proposed Rear Stabilizer Bar system (Image F.9-49) 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.
Image F.9-49: Stabilizer Bar System Mass Reduced System Example
(Source: http://www. tundraheadquarters. com/blog/toyota-tundra-trd-parts-accessories)
-------
Page 487
F. 9.2.5.5.1 Rear Stabilizer Bar
The mass-reduced Rear Stabilizer Bar (Image F.9-50) 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.9-50: Stabilizer Bar Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://www. i-club.com/fomms/suspension-brakes-handling-wheels-tires-162/racecomps-fmancial-crisis-
buy-parts-help-economy-sale-192991/)
F.9.2.5.5.2 Rear Stabilizer Bar Mountings
The new Rear Stabilizer Bar Mountings (Image F.9-51) 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.
-------
Page 488
Image F.9-51: 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.9.2.5.5.3 Rear Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings
The redesigned Rear Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings (Image F.9-52) 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.
Image F.9-52: Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushing Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://www. suspensionconnection. com/cgi-bin/suscon/18-1116. html)
F.9.2.5.5.4 Rear Stabilizer Link Sub-Assembly
-------
Page 489
The new Rear Stabilizer Link Sub-Assemblies (Image F.9-53) 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.9-53: Rear Stabilizer Link Mass Reduced Sub-Assembly
(Source: http://www. mjmautohaus. com/catalog/VW)
F.9.2.6 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 $-4.91.
Table F.9-10: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Rear Suspension Subsystem
-------
Page 490
CO
*<
fr
ST
r04
'04
04
'04
'04
'04
Subsystem
r02
'02
02
'02
'02
'02
Sub-Subsystem
roo
F01
02
'03
'04
'05
Description
Rear Suspension
Rear Road Spring
Rear Suspension Links/Arms Upper &
Lower
Rear Suspension Knuckle Assembly
Rear Stabilizer Bar Assembly
Heavy Truck Lifting Mechanism
r(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Selec
t
A
A
X
A
r(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (1)
0.000
0.995
5.765
1.560
0.000
8.320
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (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%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.00%
0.06%
0.34%
0.09%
0.00%
0.49%
F.9.3 Shock Absorber Subsystem
F.9.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Image F.9-54 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.
-------
Page 491
BOOT
LOWER SPRING SEAT
COIL SPRING
LOWER SPRING ISOLATOR
UPPER SPRING SEAT
UPPER STRUT MOUNT (ASSEMBLY)
Image F.9-54: 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.
Image F.9-55: Rear Strut / Damper Subsystem Current Major Components
(Source: FEVInc Photo)
-------
Page 492
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.9-56: Front Strut / Damper Subsystem Current Major Components
(Source: FEVInc 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%).
Table F.9-11: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Shock Absorber Subsystem
-------
Page 493
CO
•3
i-i-
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%
F.9.3.2 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.9-57: 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)
-------
Page 494
Image F.9-58: 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.9.3.3 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.
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
-------
Page 495
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.9-59: Delphi MagneRide (MR) Strut System
(Source: http://www.search-autoparts.com/searchautoparts/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=68222)
F.9.3.3.1
Strut / Damper Module Assemblies
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Strut/Damper Module Assemblies
(Image F.9-57 and Image F.9-58, 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.9-60) and the attached components of the interior
Strut Piston Shaft (Image F.9-61) and the Strut Lower Mount (Image F.9-62); the Strut
Dust Cover and the Strut Lower Mount Fasteners (Image F.9-63); the Bump Stop and the
Jounce Bumper components (Image F.9-64); the Boot, Tower Cover (Image F.9-65),
along with the Upper Spring Insulator (Image F.9-66), and the Lower Spring Insulator
(Image F.9-67); the Coil Spring (Image F.9-68); the Spring Upper Seat (Image F.9-69);
and the Strut Top Mount (Image F.9-70). These overall strut assemblies have a mass of
14.386kg and 13.150kg for the Rear and Front Struts, respectively.
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
-------
Page 496
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. 9.3.3.1.1 Shock Tower Sub-Assemblies
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Shock Tower Sub-
Assemblies (Image F.9-60) 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.9-60: Rear & Front Shock Tower Current Sub-assembly Example
(Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F.9.3.3.1.1.1 Strut Piston Shafts
The current OEM Toyota Venza Strut Piston Shafts (Image F.9-61),
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.
-------
Page 497
Image F.9-61: Rear & Front Strut Piston Shaft Current Component Example
(Source: FEVInc., Photo)
F.9.3.3.1.1.2
Strut Lower Mounts
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Strut Lower
Mounts (Image F.9-62) 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.9-62: Rear & Front Strut Lower Mount Current Component Example
(Source: http://a2macl. com/A utoReverse/reversepart. asp)
F. 9.3.3.1.2 Strut Lower Mount Fasteners
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Strut Lower Mount
Fasteners (Image F.9-63) are cold-headed steel components. These parts
have a mass of 0.39kg for both the rear and front struts, respectively. Some
vehicle models and manufacturers have begun utilizing alternate materials
-------
Page 498
for some of these fasteners depending on vehicle loading requirements
during normal operation.
Image F.9-63: Rear & Front Mount Fasteners Current Component Examples
(Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F. 9.3.3.1.3 Strut Bump Stops and Jounce Bumpers
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Strut Bump Stops and
Jounce Bumpers (Image F.9-64) 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.9-64: Rear & Front Bump Stop / Jounce Bumper Current Component Example
(Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
-------
Page 499
F.9.3.3.1.4 Strut Boots, Tower Cover
The current OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Strut Boot Tower Covers
(Image F.9-65) are single-piece molded plastic components, with a mass of
0.06kg for the Rear Boots and 0.04kg for the Front.
Image F.9-65: Rear & Front Strut Boot, Tower Covers Current Component Example
(Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F. 9.3.3.1.5 Strut Upper Spring Isolators
The OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Strut Upper Spring Isolators
(Image F.9-66) 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.
Image F.9-66: Rear & Front Strut Upper Spring Isolator Current Component Example
(Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
-------
Page 500
F. 9.3.3.1.6 Strut Lower Spring Isolators
The current OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Strut Lower Spring
Isolators (Image F.9-67) 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.9-67: Rear & Front Strut Lower Spring Isolator Current Component Example
(Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F.9.3.3.1.7 Strut Coil Springs
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Strut Coil Springs (Image
F.9-68) 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.
-------
Page 501
Image F.9-68: Rear & Front Strut Coil Spring Current Component Example
(Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F.9.3.3.1.8 Strut Spring Upper Seats
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear and Front Strut Spring Upper Seats
(Image F.9-69) 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.9-69: Rear & Front Strut Spring Upper Seat Current Component Example
(Source: March 2010 Lotus Report)
-------
Page 502
F.9.3.3.1.9 Strut Top Mount Sub-Assemblies
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Shock Tower Sub-Assemblies
(Image F.9-70) 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.9-70: Front Strut Top Mount Current Sub-Assembly Example
(Source: March 2010 Lotus Report)
F.9.3.4 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.9-12) and the Front Strut/Shock
Absorber/Damper sub-subsystem (Table F.9-13). 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.
-------
Page 503
Table F.9-12: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Front Strut /
Shock / Damper Sub-Subsystem
-------
Page 504
Component/ Assem bly
Shock Absorber Subsystem
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
1 0-20% 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
1 0-20% wt save
No change
60-70% wt save
40-50% wt save
30-40% wt save
20-30% wt save
1 0-20% 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.9-12 continued on next page
-------
Page 505
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.9-12 continued on next page
-------
Page 506
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
1 0-20% 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
10-20% wt save
1 0-20% wt save
No change
60-70% wt save
70-80% wt save
40-50% wt save
30-40% wt save
20-30% wt save
10-20% 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.9-12 continued on next page
-------
Page 507
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.
F.9.3.5 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.9-13) and the Front Strut/Shock Absorber/Damper sub-subsystem
(Table F.9-14).
Table F.9-13: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Shock Absorber Subsystem (Rear
Strut / Damper Assembly Sub-Subsystem) Analysis
-------
Page 508
CO
*<
1
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.9-14: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Shock Absorber Subsystem (Front
Strut / Damper Assembly Sub-Subsystem) Analysis
-------
Page 509
CO
-<
en
CD"
3
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)
The solution for the mass reduced Rear Strut/Damper (Image F.9-71) and Front
Strut/Damper (Image F.9-72) sub-systems are shown as represented by the configuration
utilized in an assembly replacement from the Alfa Romeo 147 and VW Passat,
respectively. The changes made at the individual component and sub-assembly levels are
each explained in greater detail.
-------
Page 510
Image F.9-71: Rear Strut Module Assembly Subsystem Mass Reduced Configuration Example
(Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
Image F.9-72: Front Strut Module Assembly Subsystem Mass Reduced Configuration Example
(Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F.9.3.5.1
Strut / Damper Module Assemblies
The solutions chosen to implemented on the Rear and Front Strut/Damper Module
Assemblies (Image F.9-71 and Image F.9-72, 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
primary sub-assemblies and components that were investigated for implemented changes
include: Shock Tower Sub-Assembly (Image F.9-73) and the attached components of the
interior Strut Piston Shaft (Image F.9-74) and the Strut Lower Mount (Image F.9-75);
the Strut Dust Cover and the Strut Lower Mount Fasteners (Image F.9-76); the Bump
-------
Page 511
Stop and the Jounce Bumper components (Image F.9-77); the Boot, Tower Cover (Image
F.9-78) along with the Upper Spring Insulator (Image F.9-79), and the Lower Spring
Insulator (Image F.9-80). The Coil Spring (Image F.9-81), the Spring Upper Seat (Image
F.9-82), and the Strut Top Mount (Image F.9-83). 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. 9.3.5.1.1 Shock Tower Sub-Assemblies
The new redesigned Rear and Front Shock Tower Sub-Assemblies (Image
F.9-73) 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.9-73: Rear & Front Shock Tower Mass Reduced Sub-assembly Example
(Source: http://www.ioffer.eom/c/Auto-Parts-Accessories-35000/1995%20-?view=0)
F.9.3.5.1.1.1 Strut Piston Shafts
The mass reduction change for Strut Piston Shafts (Image F.9-74),
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.
-------
Page 512
Image F.9-74: Rear & Front Strut Piston Shaft Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F.9.3.5.1.1.2
Strut Lower Mounts
The change for the Rear & Front Strut Lower Mounts (Image
F.9-75) 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.
Image F.9-75: Rear & Front Strut Lower Mount Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://www.ioffer.eom/c/Auto-Parts-Accessories-35000/1995%20-?view=0)
F. 9.3.5.1.2 Strut Lower Mount Fasteners
-------
Page 513
The solution found for the Rear & Front Strut Lower Mount Fasteners
(Image F.9-76) 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.
Image F.9-76: Rear & Front Mount Fasteners Mass Reduced Component Examples
(Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F. 9.3.5.1.3 Strut Bump Stops and Jounce Bumpers
The change for the Rear & Front Strut Bump Stops and Jounce Bumpers
(Image F.9-77) 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.
-------
Page 514
Image F.9-77: Rear & Front Bump Stop / Jounce Bumper Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F.9.3.5.1.4 Strut Boots, Tower Cover
The solution for the Rear & Front Strut Boot Tower Covers (Image F.9-78)
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.
Image F.9-78: Rear & Front Strut Boot, Tower Covers Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F. 9.3.5.1.5 Strut Upper Spring Isolators
The mass change implemented for the Rear & Front Strut Upper Spring
Isolators (Image F.9-79) is by replacing the single-piece molded rubber
-------
Page 515
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.9-79: Rear & Front Strut Upper Spring Isolator Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F. 9.3.5.1.6 Strut Lower Spring Isolators
The mass change implemented for the Rear & Front Strut Lower Spring
Isolators (Image F.9-80) 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 0.123kg
for the Rear Lower Isolators and 0.082kg for the Front.
Image F.9-80: Rear & Front Strut Lower Spring Isolator Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
-------
Page 516
F.9.3.5.1.7 Strut Coil Springs
The selected solution for the Rear & Front Strut Coil Springs (Image
F.9-81) 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.
Image F.9-81: Rear & Front Strut Coil Spring Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F.9.3.5.1.8 Strut Spring Upper Seats
The solution chosen for the Rear & Front Strut Spring Upper Seats (Image
F.9-82) 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.
-------
Page 517
Image F.9-82: Rear & Front Strut Spring Upper Seat Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: March 2010 Lotus Report)
F.9.3.5.1.9 Strut Top Mount Sub-Assemblies
The selected mass reduction for the Strut Top Mount Sub-Assemblies
(Image F.9-83) 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.9-83: Front Strut Top Mount Mass Reduced Sub-Assembly Example
(Source:http://performanceshock.comfmdex/manufacturers_id/19?zenid=c4c5cb77d94ed8395449208159712883)
-------
Page 518
F.9.3.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
Table F.9-15 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 $-57.99.
Table F.9-15: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Shock Absorber Subsystem (Rear & Front
Strut / Damper Assembly Sub-Subsystem)
OT
*<
S3.
(D
3
r04
r04
'04
'04
Subsystem
03
03
03
03
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
Description
Shock Absorber Subsystem
Front Strut / Damper Assembly
Rear Strut / Damper Assembly
Active Dampening
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Selec
t
A
A
A
r(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
r(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (D
9.326
4.785
0.000
14.111
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)
$26.10
$31.89
$0.00
$57.99
(Decrease)
Average
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%
F.9.4 Wheels and Tires Subsystem
F.9.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Figure F.9-1 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.
-------
Page 519
Figure F.9-1: 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.9-84) and
the Spare Wheel and Tire Assembly (Image F.9-86). The current OEM Toyota Venza
Wheels and Tires subsystem have a total mass of 141.815kg.
In Table F.9-16, 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 (approximately 86.4%) and the Spare Wheel and Tire Assembly
sub-subsystem (approximately 13.6%).
Table F.9-16: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Wheels and Tires Subsystem
-------
Page 520
CO
•Si
i-i-
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%
F.9.4.2 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.9.4.3 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 F.5.1.3, basalt fiber is a potential low-cost substitute for carbon
fiber when production capabilities can support automotive quantities.
F.9.4.3.1
Road Wheel & Tire Assemblies
-------
Page 521
The Venza uses four standard Road Wheel & Tire Assemblies (Image F.9-84) 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.9-84: Road Wheel & Tire Current Assembly
(Source: March 2010 Lotus Report)
F.9.4.3.1.1 Road Wheels
The Toyota Venza OEM Road Wheels (Image F.9-85) 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.
-------
Page 522
Image F.9-85: Road Wheel Current Component
(Source: March 2010 Lotus Report)
F. 9.4.3.1.2 Road Tires Sub-Assembly
The Toyota Venza OEM Road Tires (Figure F.9-2) 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.
-------
Page 523
Tread Ar*»
Rib
Bead Chaffers
Bead
Figure F.9-2: Road Wheel Current Component Design Example
(Source: http://www.vbattorneys.com/practice_areas/defective-product-lawyer-product-liability-attorney-houston-
texas.cfin)
F.9.4.3.2
Spare Wheel & Tire Assembly
The Spare Wheel & Tire Assembly (Image F.9-86) 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.9-86: Spare Wheel & Tire Current Assembly Example
(Source: http://media.photobucket.com/image/toyota%20spare%20tire/)
-------
Page 524
F.9.4.3.2.1 Spare Wheel
The Toyota Venza OEM Spare Wheel (Image F.9-87) 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.9-87: Spare Wheel Current Component Example
(Source:http://media.photobucket.com/image/toyota%20spare%20tire/)
F.9.4.3.2.2 Spare Tire Sub-Assembly
The Toyota Venza OEM Spare Tire (Image F.9-88) 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.
-------
Page 525
F.9.4.3.3
Image F.9-88: 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.9-89) 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.9-89: Lug Nut Current Components
(Source: FEVInc. Photo)
F.9.4.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
The brainstorming activities for the Wheels and Tires subsystem generated the ideas
shown in Table F.9-17. The majority of these mass-reduction ideas are related to
-------
Page 526
technologies in production on other vehicles and size alternatives. There are also ideas
that cover part design modifications as well as material substitutions.
Table F.9-17: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Tires and Wheels
Subsystem
-------
Page 527
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: 15. 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.9-17 continued on next page
-------
Page 528
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
5-10% 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
F.9.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.9-18 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.
Table F.9-18: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Wheels and Tires Subsystem Analysis
-------
Page 529
05
*<
(/)
t-t-
CD
r04
04
04
04
04
04
Subsystem
r04
04
04
04
04
04
Sub-Subsystem
roi
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description
Wheels and Tires Subsystem
All Tires (P225/60R19)
ITIII^^
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-
13.200 &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.
Downsize - Replace from 2008 Toyota Prius
(mass:10. 731-9.731 &cost:1.00)
Downsize - Replace from 2008 Toyota Prius
(mass:8. 435-7. 435 & cost:0.98)
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.9.4.5.1
Road Wheel & Tire Assemblies
The solution selected for the Road Wheel & Tire Assemblies (Image F.9-90) 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.
-------
Page 530
Image F.9-90: Road Wheel & Tire Mass Reduced Assembly
(Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F. 9.4.5.1.1 Road Wheels
The chosen mass reduction for the Road Wheels (Image F.9-91) 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.9-91: Road Wheel Mass Reduced Component
(Source:http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F. 9.4.5.1.2 Road Tire Assembly
-------
Page 531
The solution selected for the Road Tire Assemblies (Image F.9-92) 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.9-92: Road Tire Mass Reduced Assembly
(Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F.9.4.5.2
Spare Wheel & Tire Assembly
The solution implemented for the Spare Wheel & Tire Assembly (Image F.9-93) 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.
-------
Page 532
Image F.9-93: Spare Wheel & Tire Mass Reduced Assembly
(Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F.9.4.5.2.1 Spare Wheel
The new redesigned Spare Wheel (Image F.9-94) 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.9-94: Spare Wheel Mass Reduced Assembly
(Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F.9.4.5.2.2 Spare Tire
-------
Page 533
The mass-reduced Spare Tire Assembly (Image F.9-95) is achieved by
replacing the Venza tire with the Prius tire. This results in a new mass of
7.435kg.
Image F.9-95: Road Wheel Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp)
F.9.4.5.3
Lug Nuts
The Lug Nuts (Image F.9-96) 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.
-------
Page 534
Image F.9-96: Lug Nut Mass Reduced Component Examples
(Source: http://wviviMmazon.com/Drop-Engineering-ALG-RD-152-Aluminum-Thread)
F.9.4.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
Table F.9-19shows 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 $78.77.
Table F.9-19: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Wheels and Tires Subsystem
-------
Page 535
OT
*<
1
F04
r04
'04
'04
Subsystem
"04
"04
04
'04
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
04
Description
Wheels and Tires Subsystem
Road Wheels and Tires Assy
Spare Wheel and Tire Assembly
Tire Pressure Warning & Adjust
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Selec
t
A
A
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)
30.833
2.000
0.000
32.833
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)
$78.51
$0.26
$0.00
$78.77
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$2.55
$0.13
$0.00
$2.40
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
28.08%
10.41%
0.00%
25.69%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
1.80%
0.12%
0.00%
1.92%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
r(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.10 Driveline System
As shown in Table F.10-1, 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-
-------
Page 536
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.
Table F.10-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Driveline System
(f>
><
21
oT
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.I0-2 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.
Table F.10-2: Calculated Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Driveline System
-------
Page 537
CO
Hi
ro
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
"
><
Cfl-
oT
3
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%
-------
Page 538
F.10.1.2
Image F.10-1: Front Drive Hub Assembly
(Source: FEVphoto)
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.I0-2) are forged and machined to OEM specifications.
F.10.2 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
F.10.2.1
Drive Hubs
Drive hubs (Image F.10-2) 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
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.
-------
Page 539
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.10-2.
Image F.10-2: Front Drive Hub
(Source: FEVphoto)
F.10.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Image F.10-3 shows the mass reduction ideas considered from the brainstorming activity
for the Front Axle Hub.
-------
Page 540
Table F.10-4: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Front Drive
Housed Axle Subsystem
Componenti'Assembly! Mass-Reduction Idea i
Front. Axle Hub
| Scallop front axle hubs j
jDrili 'A' Holes in front axle!
! hubs |
1 Go to a 4 stud design i
! instead of 5 studs j
| Makeoutof6AL4V j
j Titanium Alloy |
Estimated Impact Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
20% Weight Save
3% Weight Save
30% Weight Save
50% Weight Save
10% Cost Increase
Minimal Cost Increase
Low Production Application
300% Cost Increase
F.10.4 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.I0-5 shows the selected mass reduction idea for the Front Drive Housed Axle
subsystem for detailed evaluation of both mass savings achieved and the cost to
manufacture.
Table F.10-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem Analysis
OT
5T
3
05
05
c
cr
^
-------
Page 541
Image F.10-3: Front Axle Hub
(Source: FEV)
F.10.5 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
Table F.10-6 shows the evaluated mass reduction results for the Front Drive Housed
Axle subsystem, which totaled an overall subsystem mass savings of 0.733kg and 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.
Table F.10-6: Calculated Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Results for Front Drive
Housed Axle Subsystem
-------
Page 542
en
•<
w
ro
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" CD
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
"%"
1 1 .54%
11.54%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.04%
0.04%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.10.6 Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem
F.10.6.1
Subsystem Content Overview
Image F.I0-4 shows 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.10-5).
is
1
Image F.10-4: Half Shafts
(Source: FEVphoto)
-------
Page 543
Image F.10-5: Bearing Carrier
(Source: FEVphoto)
Table F.I0-7 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.
Table F.10-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem
U)
•-<
(/)
t-t-
CD
05
'05
Subsystem
'04
'04
Sub-Subsystem
00
'01
Description
Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem
Front Half fihftfi (!-Ni; Shafts, Carrier Bearino)
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
sujbsji[sjtem^
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"
18.672
18.672
33.657
1711
55.48%
1.09%
-------
Page 544
F.10.7 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.10.8 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.10.8.1
Right-Hand Half Shaft
The Front RH Drive Shaft (Image F.I0-6) 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.10-6: Front RH Driveshaft
(Source: FEVphoto)
F.10.8.2
Bearing Carrier
The Bearing Carrier, Image F.10-7, was found to offer further weight reduction as it is
cast iron. There are several examples of bearing carriers being manufactured from cast
aluminum.
-------
Page 545
Image F.10-7: Bearing Carrier
(Source: FEVphoto)
F.10.8.3 Bearing Carrier Bolt
The Bearing Carrier Bolt (Image F.10-8) was found to provide further weight reduction
opportunity as it is not utilized in this Venza model.
Image F.10-8: Bearing Carrier Bolt
(Source: FEV photo)
-------
Page 546
F.10.9 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
The Front Drive Half-Shafts subsystem summary chart Table F.10-8 shows several mass
reduction ideas that suggest changing components from steel to titanium, magnesium, or
aluminum components.
Table F.10-8: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Front Drive Half-
Shafts Subsystem
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)
Make outof6AL4V
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
F. 10.10 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.10-9 shows ideas selected for detail evaluation.
-------
Page 547
Table F.10-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem Analysis
M
^=:
en
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
F.10.10.1
RH Half Shaft
The solution selected for implementation on the Front RH Driveshaft (Image F.10-9) is
hollowing out the driveshaft.
Image F.10-9: Front RH Driveshaft
F.10.10.2 Bearing Carrier
The solution selected for implementation on the Bearing Carrier (Image F.10-10) is to
cast the housing out of aluminum instead of steel.
-------
Page 548
Image F.10-10: Bearing Carrier
(Source: FEVphoto)
F.10.10.3 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.10-11).
Image F.10-11: Push-in plastic plug
(Source: FEV photo)
F.10.11 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
Table F.10-10 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
-------
Page 549
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.
Table F.10-10: Calculated Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Results for the Front Drive Half-
Shafts Subsystem
v>
•<
U)
ro
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" CD
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
-------
Page 550
F.11 Braking System
As shown in Table F.I 1-1, 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%.
Table F.ll-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for the Braking System
CO
*<
1
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%
The Final Calculated Results Summary for the entire Toyota Venza Brake system is
shown in Table F.I 1-2. This combination of proposed solutions were selected for this
cost group due to the significant weight savings that were calculated to be obtained
(approx. 38.708kg) while also allowing for lower overall costs (approximately $169.60).
Table F.ll-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Braking System
-------
Page 551
w
en
CD
'06
r06
r06
F06
F06
r06
r06
0)
"(2)
Subsystem
roo
r03
r04
F05
F06
r07
r09
Sub-Subsystem
roo
roo
roo
roo
roo
roo
roo
Description
Brake System
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
Brake Actuation Subsystem
Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic)
Brake Controls Subsystem
"+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
"+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas
Idea
Level
Select
A
A
A
A
A
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (D
14.839
10.055
9.635
2.984
1.196
0.000
38.708
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)
$35.91
$17.45
$82.98
$31.90
$1.35
0.000
$169.60
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$2.42
$1.74
$8.61
$10.69
$1.13
$0.00
$4.38
(Decrease)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
45.01%
44.75%
71.88%
53.90%
42.25%
0.00%
51.56%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
0.87%
0.59%
0.56%
0.17%
0.07%
0.00%
2.26%
F.11.1 Front Rotor/ Drum and Shield Subsystem
F.ll.1.1
Subsystem Content Overview
This pictorial diagram, Figure F.I 1-1 , 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.
-------
Page 552
Inspection hole for
checking pad thickness
Caliper
Wheel
stud
Bleed
valve
Piston
housing
Brake disc
or rotor
•Ventilating slots
Figure F.ll-1: Front Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem Relative Location Diagram
(Source: http://www.motorera.com/dictionary/di.htm)
As seen in Image F.ll-1, the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield subsystem consists of the
major components of the Front Rotor, Front Splash Shield, Front Caliper Assembly, Front
Caliper Mounting, and miscellaneous Anchor and Attaching components.
Image F.ll-1: Front Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem Current Major Components
(Source: FEVInc photo)
-------
Page 553
Table F.I 1-3 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%).
Table F.ll-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Front Rotor / Drum and Shield
Subsystem
03
•<
ST
06
06
06
Subsystem
03
03
03
Sub-Subsystem
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%
F.ll.1.2
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Toyota Venza's Front Rotor and Shield subsystem (Image F.I 1-2) follows typical
industry standards for design and performance. The Rotors (Image F.ll-3) are single
piece, vented design cast out of grey iron and manufactured to SAE specifications. The
Splash Shields (Image F.I 1-4) are typical stamped and vented steel fabrications. The
Caliper Assembly (Image F.I 1-5) is composed of several components. These include:
The Caliper Housings (Image F.I 1-6) which are high nickel content cast iron with the
appropriate machining. The Caliper Mountings, (Image F.I 1-7) are cast iron and
machined. The Brake Caliper Assembly houses the Brake Pads and Pistons. The Caliper
Pistons (Image F.I 1-8) are molded phenolic glass-filled plastic with standard seal
configurations. The Brake Pads (Image F.I 1-9) 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.
-------
Page 554
Image F.ll-2: Front Brake System Current Assembly Example
(Source: http://www. imakenews. com/tituswillford)
F.ll.1.3
Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
F.ll.1.3.1 Rotors
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Front Rotor (Image F.I 1-3) 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).
-------
Page 555
Image F.ll-3: 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.ll.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.I 1-4) 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.
-------
Page 556
Image F.ll-4: Front Splash Shield Current Component
(Source: FEVInc photo)
F.ll.1.3.3 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.I 1-5 , 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.ll-5: Front Caliper Current Assembly
(Source: http://cdnO.autopartsnetwork.com/images/catalog/brand/centric/640/14144280.jpg)
-------
Page 557
F. 11.1.3.3.1 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.I 1-6, 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.ll-6: 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.
-------
Page 558
F. 11.1.3.3.2 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.I 1-7) 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.ll-7: Front Caliper Mounting Current Component
(Source: FEVInc photo)
F.11.1.3.3.3 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.I 1-8) 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.
-------
Page 559
Image F.ll-8: Front Caliper Piston Current Components
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.I 1.1.3.3.4 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.I 1-9, 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.ll-9: Front Caliper Brake Pad Current Components
(Source: FEV Inc. photo)
-------
Page 560
F.ll.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.I 1-4 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.
-------
Page 561
Table F.ll-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Front Rotor /
Drum and Shield Subsystem
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%)
t(-\ £ •* 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
5-1 0% wt save
0-5% wt save
0-5% wt save
50-60% wt save
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 & I rade-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.ll-4 continued on next page
-------
Page 562
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
F.ll.1.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.I 1-5 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).
-------
Page 563
Table F.ll-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Front Rotor / Drum and Shield
Subsystem Analysis
ciT
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
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Equation
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rotor
Splash Shield
Brake Pads
Calipers
Caliper Mounting Bracket
Combination. Modify rotors with slotting, cross-
drilling, 2-pc design, Al Hat, downsize from Prius,
disc mat! cast iron, chg fin design (directional),
rotor ID & OD scalloping, holes in rotor top hat
surface & side perimeter.
Combination. Replace from Prius & make out of
£lastio
Combination. Replace from Prius and use thinner
pad materials
Combination. Replace from Prius, downsize for
mass reduction & chg mat! to cast Al
Combination. Replace from Prius, downsize for
mass reduction & chg mat! to cast Al
F.ll.1.5.1
Rotors
The solution(s) chose to be implemented on the final Front Rotor Assembly (Image
F.I 1-10) was the combination of multiple individual brainstorming ideas. These ideas
-------
Page 564
included the following modifications to component design, material utilized and
processing methods required:
• Two-piece Assembled Rotor Design, Image F.I 1-10
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.11-10: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http://www. wilwood. com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdj)
Al Hat (Material Substitution), Image F.I 1-11
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
-------
Page 565
Image F.11-11: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http.V/www.wilwood. com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdj)
Cast Iron Disc Surfaces (Material Substitution), Image F.I 1-12
o Sand Cast to Near-Net Shape
o Manufacturers and OEMs include: GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota,
Honda, Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini,
Lotus, Wilwood, Brembo, Motorcycles
Image F.11-12: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http://www. wilwood. com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdj)
Cast Directional Cooling Fins Between Disc Surfaces, Image F.I 1-13
o Casting Process Change. Enhanced Disc Cooling.
-------
Page 566
(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
Image F.ll-13: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source :http://www. highperformancepontiac. com/tech/hppp_l 101_brake_rotor_guide/photo _03.html)
• Disc Surface Slotting, Image F.I 1-14
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
-------
Page 567
Image F.11-14: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http://www. highperformancepontiac. com/tech/hppp_l 101_brake_rotor_guide/photo_l 3.html)
Disc Surface Cross-Drilling, Image F.I 1-15
o
o
Improved Disc Cooling and Mass Savings
(Disperse Built-Up Heat and Gases)
Manufacturers and OEMs include: Chevy, Pontiac, Cadillac,
Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Wilwood,
Brembo, Motorcycles
Image F.11-15: 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.ll-16
o Ratio Vehicle Net Mass and Rotor Size versus Prius Specs (Lotus) to
Reduce Rotor Size and Material Usage.
-------
Page 568
(Mass Savings Due to Less Material Usage)
Image F.11-16: Front Rotor Size Normalization Mass Reduced Component
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Scallop Rotor OD, Image F.I 1-17
o Improve Braking Performance and Mass Savings
o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Wilwood, Brembo, Numerous
Motorcycle Applications
Image F.11-17: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http://www. wilwood. com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdj)
Scallop Rotor ID, Image F.I 1-18
-------
Page 569
o Improve Braking Performance and Mass Savings
o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Audi, Mercedes, BMW,
Wilwood, Brembo, Numerous Motorcycle Applications
Image F.11-18: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http://www. clubcobra. com/forums/kirkham-motorsports/)
• Cross-Drill Hat OD, Image F.I 1-19
o Improved Drum Surface Cooling and Mass Savings
Image F.11-19: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php/'1=238563)
Drill Holes in Hat Top Surface, Image F.I 1-20
o Improved Drum Surface Cooling & Mass Savings
o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Audi, Mercedes, BMW,
Wilwood, Brembo
-------
Page 570
Image F.11-20: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http://www.pic2fly.com/Wihvood+Rotor+Hats.html)
The final Front Rotor Assembly (Image F.I 1-21) is the approximate design configuration
based on the above combined ideas. This redesigned Front Rotor solution has a calculated
mass of 5.335kg. 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
-------
Page 571
• Rotor Life and Durability vs. Warranty
• Braking Performance vs. Component Longevity
• NVH Testing vs. Functional Performance
• Rotor Assembly (Disc & Hat) Balancing
Image F.ll-21: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://www. dsmtuners. com/forums/blogs/secongendsm/2176-wihvood-brake-kit. html)
F.ll. 1.5.2 Splash Shields
The solution(s) chose to be implemented on the Front Splash Shields (Image F.I 1-22)
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)
-------
Page 572
Image F.ll-22: Front Splash Shield Mass-Reduced Component Examples
(Source: http://www.motorcycle-superstore, com)
F.ll.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.I 1-23 and
Figure F.I 1-2) 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.11-23: Front Caliper Mass Reduced Assembly Example
-------
Page 573
Guide Pin
Caliper Body
Pin Boot
Piston Boot
Shim
Boot Ring
Pad
Bleeder Screw
A
Bolt
Lock Pm
Bush
Piston Seal
'Piston
Support Bracket
Pad Clip
Wear Indicator
Figure F.ll-2: Front Caliper Assembly Component Diagram Example
(Source: http://www. brakewarehouse. com/)
F.11.1.5.3.1 Housings
The Front Caliper Housing (Image F.I 1-24) 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).
-------
Page 574
Image F.11-24: 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.11.1.5.3.2 Mountings
The Front Caliper Mounting, Image F.I 1-25, 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).
-------
Page 575
Image F.11-25: Front Caliper Mounting Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http.V/www.gforcebuggies. com/Parts)
F. 11.1.5.3.3 Brake Pads
The Brake Pads, Image F.I 1-26, 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.11-26: Front Caliper Brake Pad Mass Reduced Components
(Source: http://cdnO.autopartsnetwork.com/images/catalog/wp/full/WOl 3 3183 3409NPN.JPG)
-------
Page 576
The final Front Brake Corner assembly shown below, Image F.I 1-27, 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 14.839kg. 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.11-27: Front Brake System Mass Reduced Assembly Example
(Source: http://www. wilwood. com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdj)
F.ll.1.6
Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
Table F.I 1-6 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 14.839kg and a cost decrease differential of $35.91.
-------
Page 577
Table F.ll-6: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Front Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem
w
•<
21
ST
'06
06
06
(1)
'(2)
Subsystem
'03
03
03
Sub-Subsystem
roo
01
02
Description
Front Rotor and Shield
Front Caliper, Anchor and Attaching Components
"+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
"+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
D
A
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" ID
7.338
7.500
14.839
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)
$7.33
$28.58
$35.91
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$1.00
$3.81
$2.42
(Decrease)
Subsys/
Sub-
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
45.01%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.87%
Table F.I 1-7 shows the ideas for the Front Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem with the
Brake Rotors achieving the greatest mass reduction, 6.618kg, along with some cost
decrease of $3.42. The Caliper Housing was the next largest mass savings realized with
4.724kg and a significant cost reduction of $27.50.
Table F.I 1-7: Calculated Mass-Reductions and Cost Impact Results for the Front Rotor / Drum
Components and Shield Subsystem Components
-------
Page 578
0)
*<
en
i-h
w
r06
'06
'06
'06
'06
'06
Subsystem
r03
' 03
'03
r03
'03
'03
Sub-Subsystem
roo
'01
'01
'02
'02
'02
Component / Assembly Description
FrpTTjURotor/TDrum
Rotor
Splash Shield
Caliper Housing
Brake Pads
Caliper Mounting Bracket
Mass Reduction Results
1
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)
6.618
0.720
4.724
0.714
2.063
1
Cost
Impact
M(T>M
-------
Page 579
Image F.ll-28: Rear Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem Relative Location Diagram
(Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)
As seen in Image F.I 1-29, 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.
r
Image F.11-29: Rear Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem Current Major Components
(Source: FEVInc photo)
Table F.I 1-8 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%).
Table F.ll-8: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Rear Rotor / Drum and Shield
Subsystem
-------
Page 580
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%
F.ll.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.I 1-30) follows typical industry standards. Rotors (Image
F.I 1-31) are single piece design cast out of grey iron and manufactured to SAE
specifications. The Splash Shields (Image F.I 1-32) are typical stamped and welded steel
fabrications. The Caliper Assembly (Image F.I 1-33) is composed of several components.
These include: Caliper Housings (Image F.I 1-34) are high nickel content cast iron with
the appropriate machining. The Caliper Mountings (Image F.I 1-35) are cast iron and
machined. The Brake Caliper houses the Brake Pads and Pistons. The Caliper Piston
(Image F.I 1-36) is drawn, machined and coated steel with standard seal configurations.
The Brake Pads (Image F.I 1-37) 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.
-------
Page 581
Image F.11-30: Rear Brake System Assembly Example
(Source: http://www.wheels24.co.za/News/General_News/Scooby-STI-goes-auto-20090225)
F.ll.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
F.ll.2.3.1 Rotors
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Rear Rotor (Image F.I 1-31) is a single piece design
cast out of grey iron and has a mass of 5.742kg. 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 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).
-------
Page 582
Image F.11-31: 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
technology adds substantial costs if considered for regular high volume automotive
production capacities.
F.ll.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.I 1-32) 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.
-------
Page 583
Image F.11-32: Rear Splash Shield Current Component
(Source: FEVInc photo)
F.ll.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.I 1-33) 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.
-------
Page 584
Image F.ll-33: Rear Caliper Current Assembly
(Source: http://cdn2. autopartsnetwork. com/images/catalog/brand/centric/640/l4144640.jpg)
F.I 1.2.3.3.1 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.I 1-34) 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.ll-34: Rear 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 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
-------
Page 585
and the current cost of the material will be serious challenges for some time
to come.
F.ll.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.I 1-35, 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.ll-35: Rear Caliper Mounting Current Component
(Source: FEVInc photo)
F.I 1.2.3.3.3 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.ll-36) 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.
-------
Page 586
Image F.11-36: Rear Caliper Piston Current Component
(Source: FEVInc photo)
F.I 1.2.3.3.4 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.I 1-37) 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.
Image F.11-37: Rear Caliper Brake Pad Current Components
(Source: FEV Inc photo)
-------
Page 587
F.ll.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.I 1-9 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.
Table F.ll-9: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Rear Rotor /
Drum and Shield Subsystem
-------
Page 588
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
10-20% wt save
30-40% wt save
20-30% wt save
40-50% wt save
0-5% wt save
20-30% wt save
10-20% 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
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.I 1-9 continued next page
-------
Page 589
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:3.1 89-0.71 5 &
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:0.313-0.228 &
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
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.I 1-9 continued next page
-------
Page 590
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
F.ll.2.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.I 1-10 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).
-------
Page 591
Table F.ll-10: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield
Subsystem Analysis
O>
CD"
r06
06
06
'06
06
06
06
06
06
Subsystem
'04
04
04
'04
-p
04
04
f
04
04
04
Sub-Subsystem
r oo
00
00
' 00
00
00
00
00
00
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsyster
Rotor
Splash Shield
Access Plug
Hose
Brake Pads
Calipers
Caliper Mounting Bracket
Piston, Caliper
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation
i
Combination. Modify rotors with slotting, cross-
drilling, 2-pc design, Al Hat, downsize from Prius,
disc mat! cast iron, chg fin design (directional),
rotor ID & OD scalloping, holes in rotor top hat
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-
Combination. Replace from Prius and use thinner
pad materials
Combination. Replace from Prius, downsize for
masjSj^eduic^
Combination. Replace from Prius, downsize for
mass reduction & chg mat! to cast Al
Make piston body from molded plastic composite
(phenolic) vs machined steel
F.ll.2.5.1
Rotors
-------
Page 592
The solution(s) chosen to be implemented on the final Rear Rotor Assembly (Image
F.I 1-38) 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.I 1-38
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.11-38: 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.I 1-39
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
-------
Page 593
Image F.11-39: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http://www. wilwood. com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdj)
Cast Iron Disc Surfaces (Material Substitution) Image F.I 1-40
o Sand Cast to Near-Net Shape
o Manufacturers and OEMs include: GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota,
Honda, Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini,
Wilwood, Brembo, Motorcycles
Image F.11-40: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http://www. wilwood. com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdj)
Disc Surface Slotting, Image F.I 1-41
o Slight Mass Savings and Improved Brake Pad Performance
(Release Trapped Heat, Gas and Dust from Disc Surface)
-------
Page 594
o Manufacturers & OEMs include: Chevy, Pontiac, Cadillac,
Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Wilwood,
Brembo, Motorcycles
Image F.11-41: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http://www. highperformancepontiac. com/tech/hppp_l 101_brake_rotor_guide/photo_l3.html)
• Disc Surface Cross-Drilling, Image F.I 1-42
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.11-42: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http://www.pap-parts, com/products, asp ?dept=2 732)
-------
Page 595
• Down Sizing Based on the Scaling Utilizing the 2008 Toyota Prius, Image
F.ll-43
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.ll-43: Rear Rotor Size Normalization Mass Reduced Component
• Scallop Rotor OD, Image F.I 1-44
o Improve Braking Performance and Mass Savings
o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Wilwood, Brembo, Numerous
Motorcycle Applications
Image F.11-44: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http://www. wilwood. com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdj)
Scallop Rotor ID, Image F.I 1-45
-------
Page 596
o Improve Braking Performance and Mass Savings
o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Audi, Mercedes, BMW,
Wilwood, Brembo, Numerous Motorcycle Applications
Image F.11-45: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http://www. clubcobra. com/forums/kirkham-motorsports/)
• Cross-Drill Hat OD, Image F.I 1-46
o Improved Drum Surface Cooling & Mass Savings
Image F.11-46: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php/'1=238563)
Drill Holes in Hat Top Surface, Image F.I 1-47
o Improved Drum Surface Cooling & Mass Savings
o Manufacturers & OEMs include: Audi, Mercedes, BMW, Wilwood,
Brembo
-------
Page 597
Image F.ll-47: Rear Rotor Mass
Reduced Component
(Source:
http://www.pic2/ly.com/Wilwood+Rotor
+Hats.html)
The final Rear Rotor Assembly (Image F.I 1-48) is the approximate design configuration
based on the above combined ideas. This redesigned Toyota Venza Rear Rotor Assembly
solution has a calculated mass of 4.944kg. 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
• Rotor Braking Surface Wear
• Rotor Life and Durability vs. Warranty
• Braking Performance vs. Component Longevity
-------
Page 598
• NVH Testing vs. Functional Performance
• Rotor Assembly (Disc and Hat) Balancing
Image F.ll-48: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://www. dsmtuners. com/forums/blogs/secongendsm/2176-wihvood-brake-kit. html)
F.ll.2.5.2 Splash Shields
The solution(s) chosen to be implemented on the Rear Splash Shields (Image F.I 1-49)
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)
• Down Sizing Based on the Scaling Utilizing the 2008 Toyota Prius
o Ratio Vehicle Net Mass & Rotor Size vs. Prius Specs (Lotus)
-------
Page 599
Image F.ll-49: Rear Splash Shield Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://wiw.rjays.com/Superbell/SiBjmagesB513.jpg)
F.ll.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.I 1-50 and Image F.I 1-51) 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.
-------
Page 600
Image F.11-50: Rear Caliper Mass Reduced Assembly Example
(Source: http://www. sillbeer. com/blog/category/brakes)
Image F.11-51: Rear Caliper Assembly Component Diagram Example
(Source: http://www. brakewarehouse. com/remanufactured_brake_calipers. asp)
F.11.2.5.3.1 Housings
The Rear Caliper Housing (Image F.I 1-52) 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,
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).
-------
Page 601
Image F.11-52: 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.ll.2.5.3.2 Mountings
The Rear Caliper Mounting, Image F.I 1-53, 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).
-------
Page 602
Image F.11-53: Rear Caliper Mounting Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http.V/www.gforcebuggies. com/Parts)
F.I 1.2.5.3.3 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.I 1-54) 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.11-54: Rear Caliper Piston Mass Reduced Component
(Source: FEVInc photo)
F.I 1.2.5.3.4 Brake Pads
-------
Page 603
The Rear Brake Pads (Image F.I 1-55) 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.11-55: Rear Caliper Brake Pad Mass Reduced Components
(Source: http://cdnl.autopartsnetwork.com/images/catalog/wp/fullAV01331833410NPN.JPG)
The final Rear Brake Corner Assembly shown below (Image F.I 1-56) 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 10.055kg. 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.
-------
Page 604
' \V M
•.>.<.*•)
Image F.11-56: Rear Brake System Mass Reduced Assembly Example
(Source: http://www. wilwood. com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdj)
F.ll.2.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
Table F.I 1-11 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 10.055kg and a cost savings differential of $17.45.
Table F.ll-11: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
-------
Page 605
O3
3
"06
ll
Subsystem
_
Jl
Sub-Subsystem
roo
01
™— -— '
Description
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rear Rotor and Shield
JissLSsMsi^
Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas
Idea
Level
Select
D
A
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (D
4.944
5.110
10.055
(Decrease)
r(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
r(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)
-$2.73
$20.17
$17.45
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$1.74
(Decrease)
Subsys/
Sub-
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
44.75%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
29%
0.59%
Table F.I 1-12 shows the redesigned components for the Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield
subsystem. The Rear Brake Rotors achieve the greatest mass reduction, 2.672kg, along
with some cost expense of $1.68. The Caliper Housing is the next largest mass savings,
with 2.337kg and a significant cost reduction of $14.54.
Table F.ll-12: Calculated Subsystem Mass-Reductions and Cost Impact Results for the Rear
Rotor / Drum Components and Shield Subsystem Components
-------
Page 606
CO
oT
r06
'06
'06
'06
06
06
p.
06
'06
06
(1)
Subsystem
r03
'04
'04
'04
r—
'04
f
04
04
04
Sub-Subsystem
roo
'01
'01
'01
02
'02
02
'02
02
Re
Component / Assembly Description
ajMRotojVpjnu^^
Rear Brake Rotor (Disc)
Access Plug - Rear Brake Rotor (Disc)
Rear Brake Shield
Hose
Caliper Housing (Rear)
Pad Kit, Disc Brake, Rear (2 Inner & 2 Outer Pads)
JV^pjjntmcLCaNjger (Rear)
Rston^aliper(Rear)
"+" = decrease, "-" = increase
Mass Reduction Results
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)
2.672
0.016
2.256
0.085
2.337
1.336
1.142
0.210
Cost
Impact
M(MI
$ (1)
-$1.68
$0.01
-$1.06
$0.26
$14.54
$0.21
$2.40
$2.77
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
-$0.63
$0.47
-$0.47
$3.02
$6.22
$0.16
$2.10
$13.19
F.11.3 Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
F.ll.3.1
Subsystem Content Overview
Image F.I 1-57 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.
-------
Page 607
Image F.11-57: Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem Current Sub-assemblies
(Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)
The Parking Brake and Actuation subsystem (Table F.I 1-13) 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 Shoes and Hardware (approximately 56.69%) followed by the Parking
Brake Controls (approximately 27.52%).
Table F.ll-13: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Parking Brake and Actuation
Subsystem
03
•<
(/>
ST
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%
-------
Page 608
F.ll.3.2
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Toyota Venza's Parking Brake subsystem, Figure F.ll-3, 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.
TJ O O O
If II
riff
§• ^- -
111°
8-
I
Figure F.ll-3: Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem Layout and Configuration
(Source: http://www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP'_346.pdf)
F.ll.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.I 1-58) that
provides four-wheel park brake capability with associated claims of improved safety. VW
has utilized an Electro-Hydraulic Park Brake system (Image F.I 1-59) that is initiated by
an electric motor that drives a geared actuator providing direct hydraulic pressure
-------
Page 609
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.
Image F.ll-58 (Left): TRW Park Brake System
Image F.ll-59 (Right): VW Park Brake System
(ImageF.I 1-60Source : http://www.buzzbox.com/news/2010-09-29/gas:technology/?clusterId=2019488)
(Image Fll-61 Source: http://www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP'_346.pdf)
F.11.3.3.1 Pedal Frame and Arm Sub-Assembly
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Pedal Frame & Arm Sub-assembly (Image F.I 1-60) 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.
-------
Page 610
I
Image F.ll-60: Pedal Frame Current Sub-assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc photo)
F.ll.3.3.2 Cable System Sub-Assembly
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Cable Assemblies (Image F.I 1-61) 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.11-61: Cable System Current Sub-assemblies
(Source: Lotus - 2010'March EPA Report)
F.11.3.3.3 Brake Shoes and Attachments Sub-Assembly
-------
Page 611
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.I 1-62. All of these various components and the brake shoes are
housed as an assembly inside the rear rotor hat drum area, Image F.I 1-63. This sub-
assembly has a mass of 3.80kg.
•
I/MS
Image F.11-62: Brake Shoe and Attachment Hardware Current Sub-assembly Example
(Source: http://www.autopartsnetwork. com/catalog/2010/Toyota/Venza/Brake)
Image F.11-63: 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
-------
Page 612
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.
F.ll.3.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.I 1-14 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.
Table F.11-14: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Parking Brake
and Actuation Subsystem
-------
Page 613
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 -
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)
F.ll.3.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.ll-15shows one mass reduction idea for the Parking Brake and Actuation
subsystem that we selected for detail evaluation.
-------
Page 614
Table F.11-15: Mass-Reduction Idea Selected for the Detailed Parking Brake and Actuation
Subsystem Analysis
o>
nT
3
06
06
CO
cr
cn
^
8
3
05
05
cr
c
sr
1
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.
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 (Figure F.I 1-4) 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.
tad
Broke ptston
Broke drtc
Brok» linings/
pads
Figure F.ll-4: VW Electro-Mechanical Park Brake System
(Source: http://www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP_346.pdf)
-------
Page 615
F.11.3.5.1 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.I 1-64).
Even though wiring harnesses and a control module (Image F.I 1-65) 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*Oron*
-------
Page 616
BroktpiAxi
Geor mcchanitm
Swoih plot* flMr
Figure F.ll-5: 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 (Figure F.I 1-6) 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.
Swash plot* g «or
Brali* piston Spindl* driv
Figure F.ll-6: EPB System Engaging the Caliper and Rotor Components
(Source: http://www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP'_346.pdf)
F.ll.3.6
Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
Table F.I 1-16 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
-------
Page 617
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.
Table F.ll-16: Mass-Reductions and Cost Impact for the Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
w
•<
21
ST
'06
06
06
06
Subsystem
'05
05
05
05
Sub-Subsystem
roo
01
02
03
Description
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
2.487
iIZliIZZ
lIIs-iiH
9.635
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"<£"
•f (2)
$18.16
L_$29.90_
l_$3_4.92_
$82.98
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$7.30
$6.94
$8.61
(Decrease)
Subsys/
Sub-
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
71.88%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
15%
12%
29%
0.56%
r(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
"(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Page 618
F.ll.4.1
F.11.4 Brake Actuation Subsystem
Subsystem Content Overview
Image F.I 1-66 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.
Image F.11-66: Brake Actuation Subsystem Major Components and Sub-assemblies
(Source: FEVInc photos)
As seen in Table F.I 1-17, 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%).
Table F.ll-17: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Brake Actuation Subsystem
-------
Page 619
05
*<
|
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%
F.ll.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.I 1-67) with conventional
ABS controls and steel tubing (Image F.I 1-68) to each of the wheel brake systems. The
Brake Pedal Actuator sub-assembly (Image F.I 1-69) 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.I 1-73) is a set of plastic
injection molded components that are assembled together. The current OEM Toyota
Venza Brake Actuation subsystem assembly has a mass of 4.658kg.
F.ll.4.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
F. 11.4.3.1 Master Cylinder and Reservoir
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Master Cylinder and Reservoir sub-assembly (Image
F.I 1-67) 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.
-------
Page 620
Image F.ll-67: Master Cylinder and Reservoir Current Sub-assembly
(Source: http://www.autopartsnetwork. com/catalog/2010/Toyota/Venza/Brake)
F.11.4.3.2 Brake Lines and Hoses
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Brake Lines and Hoses (Image F.I 1-68) 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.
Image F.11-68: Brake Lines and Hoses Current Sub-assemblies
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
Page 621
F.ll.4.3.3 Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-assembly (Image F.I 1-69) 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.11-69: Brake Pedal Actuator Current Sub-assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.11.4.3.3.1 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.I 1-70). 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.
-------
Page 622
Image F.11-70: Brake Pedal Arm Frame Current Sub-assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.ll.4.3.3.2 Brake Pedal Arm Ratio Lever
While this steel Brake Pedal Arm Ratio Lever (Image F.I 1-71) 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
design as provide substantial weight savings. This current sub-assembly has
a net mass of 0.471kg.
Image F.11-71: Brake Pedal Arm Frame Current Sub-assembly
(Source: FEVInc photo)
-------
Page 623
F.ll.4.3.3.3 Brake Pedal Arm Assembly
This steel Brake Pedal Arm (Image F.I 1-72) 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.
Image F.11-72: Brake Pedal Arm Current Sub-assembly
(Source: FEVInc photo)
F.11.4.3.4 Accelerator Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Accelerator Pedal Actuator Sub-assembly (Image
F.I 1-73) 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.
-------
Page 624
Image F.11-73: Accelerator Pedal Actuator Current Sub-assembly
(Source: FEVInc 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.ll.4.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.I 1-18 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.
Table F.ll-18: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Brake
Actuation Subsystem
-------
Page 625
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. 147-0. 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
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.I 1-18 continued on next page
-------
Page 626
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
F.ll.4.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.I 1-19 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.
Table F.ll-19: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Brake Actuation Subsystem
Analysis
-------
Page 627
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)
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.11.4.5.1 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.11.4.5.2 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.ll.4.5.3 Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly
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
-------
Page 628
new sub-assembly net mass of 0.545kg. The example below, Image F.I 1-74, 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.ll-74: 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.I 1-75) 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.
Image F.ll-75: Brake Pedal Actuator Mass Reduced Sub-assembly Example
(Source http.V/www.worldcarfans.com/111040531267/bmw-reveals-lightweight-component-innovations)
-------
Page 629
F. 11.4.5.3.1 Brake Pedal Arm Frame Sub-Assembly
The conventional steel Brake Pedal Frame (Image F.I 1-76) 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.ll-76: Brake Pedal Arm Frame Mass Reduced Sub-assembly Example
(Source: FEVInc photo)
F.11.4.5.3.2 Brake Pedal Arm Ratio Lever
This steel Brake Pedal Arm Ratio Lever (Image F.I 1-77) 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.
-------
Page 630
Image F.ll-77: Brake Pedal Arm Frame Reduced Mass Sub-assembly Example
F.I 1.4.5.3.3 Brake Pedal Arm Assembly
The steel Brake Pedal Arm (Image F.I 1-78) 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.ll-78: Brake Pedal Arm Mass Reduced Sub-assembly Example
(Source: http://www. torquenews. com/auto-sector-stocks?page =2 7)
F.11.4.5.4 Accelerator Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly
-------
Page 63 1
The current design Accelerator Pedal Actuator Sub-assembly (Image F.I 1-79) 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.ll-79: 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.ll.4.6
Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
Table F.I 1-20 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 $31.90.
-------
Page 632
Table F.ll-20: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Brake Actuation Subsystem
05
*<
(/>
oT
'06
06
06
06
Subsystem
'06
06
06
06
Sub-Subsystem
roo
01
02
03
Description
Master Cylinder and Reservoir
r(1) "+" = mass
r(2) "+" = cost d
Actuator Assemblies
Brake Lines and Hoses
decrease, "-" = mass increase
ecrease, "-" = cost increase
Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas
Idea
Level
Select
A
A
A
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (D
0.000
1.443
1.541
2.984
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)
$0.00
$5.99
$25.91
$31.90
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$0.00
$4.15
$10.69
(Decrease)
Subsys/
Sub-
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
53.90%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
09%
0.17%
Table F.I 1-21 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.
-------
Page 633
Table F.I 1-21: Calculated Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Results for the Brake
Actuation Subsystem Components
CO
*<
(/)
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" d)
0.027
0.451
0.006
0.286
0.673
1.541
Cost
Impact
"
-------
Page 634
M
fir
3
06
06
m
c
rr
V)
V)
fiT
3
07
07
w
c
cr fn
») £J
in cr
5T '
3
00
01
Description
Power Brake (for hydraulic)
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%
F.ll.5.2
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Toyota Venza's Power Brake subsystem (Image F.ll-80) 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.
Image F.ll-80: Brake Power Brake Subsystem Major Sub-assembly Example
-------
Page 635
(Source:http://www.superchevy.com/technical/chassis/brakes/sucp_0901_power_brake_boosters)
F.ll.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.I 1-81)
configuration is utilized in the 2008 Toyota Prius. Another example of this technology is
the Hyperbrake™ system (Image F.I 1-82) 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.
Image F.ll-81: Toyota Prius Hydraulic Pressure Booster
(Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)
-------
Page 636
YHI-nnHAKti
Image F.ll-82: Janel Hyperbrake Hydraulic Pressure Booster
(Source: http:/Avww.janelhydro. com/)
F.11.5.3.1 Vacuum Booster Sub-Assembly
The baseline Venza Power Brake Sub-assembly (Image F.I 1-83) is a multi-piece steel
design. The major components within this assembly are made from stamped steel (Front
Shell - Image F.I 1-84; Rear Shell - Image F.I 1-85; Mount Stiffener - Image F.I 1-86;
Diaphragm Backing Plate - Image F.I 1-87), small fabricated steel parts (Clevis Pin and
Bracket, Center Plunger, Actuator Shaft, Mounting Studs) and a few plastic and rubber
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.11-83: Brake Pedal Actuator Mass Current Sub-assembly
-------
Page 637
(Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)
F.I 1.5.3.1.1 Front Shell
This Booster Front Shell (Image F.I 1-84) 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.
Image F.ll-84: Vacuum Booster Front Shell Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc photo)
F.I 1.5.3.1.2 Rear Shell
The current Booster Rear Shell (Image F.I 1-85) 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.
-------
Page 638
Image F.ll-85: Vacuum Booster Rear Shell Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F. 11.5.3.1.3 Plate Mount Stiffener
The stamped steel Plate Mount Stiffener (Image F.I 1-86) 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.11-86: Vacuum Booster Plate Mount Stiffener Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.11.5.3.1.4 Backing: Plate, Diaphragm
-------
Page 639
The baseline OEM Toyota Venza Diaphragm Backing Plate, Image
F.I 1-87, 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 a mass of 0.328kg.
Image F.11-87: Vacuum Booster Backing Plate, Diaphragm Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.ll.5.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.I 1-23 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.
Table F.ll-23: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Power Brake
(for Hydraulic) Subsystem
-------
Page 640
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
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.I 1-23 continued on next page
-------
Page 641
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
F.ll.5.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.I 1-24 shows mass-reduction ideas for the Power Brake subsystem that were
selected as final solutions for detailed evaluation for both mass and cost.
-------
Page 642
Table F.11-24: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detailed Power Brake (for Hydraulic)
Subsystem Analysis
O)
-<
H-
n>
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
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
F.11.5.5.1 Vacuum Booster Sub-Assembly
The new Brake Vacuum Booster Sub-assembly (Image F.I 1-88) 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.
-------
Page 643
Image F.11-88: Vacuum Booster Mass Reduced Sub-assembly Example
(Source: http://www.autohausaz.com/vw-auto-parts/vw-brake_booster-replacement.html)
F.11.5.5.1.1 Front Shell
The conventional steel Vacuum Booster Front Shell (Image F.I 1-89)
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.
-------
Page 644
Image F.11-89: Vacuum Booster Front Shell Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)
F.ll.5.5.1.2 Rear Shell
The steel Vacuum Booster Rear Shell (Image F.I 1-90) 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.11-90: Vacuum Booster Rear Shell Reduced Mass Component Example
(Source: http://www.walkertool.com/partl 7.htm)
-------
Page 645
F. 11.5.5.1.3 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.I 1-91) is one such major manufacturer that utilizes plastic
material for this type of design. Delphi (Image F.I 1-92) 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.ll-91 (Left): Bendix Mounting Plate
Image F.ll-92 (Right): Delphi Mounting Plate
(ImageF.I 1-93- Source: http://www.hooverautoparts.com/index.php?cruising=products&category=Brake%20Parts)
(Image F.I 1-94 - Source: http://www2.dupont.com/Automotive/en JUS/ne\vs_events/article20040126.html)
F.11.5.5.1.4 Diaphragm Plate
The stamped steel Diaphragm Plate (Image F.I 1-93) 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.
-------
Page 646
Image F.11-93: Vacuum Booster Diaphragm Backing Plate Mass Reduced Component Example
F.ll.5.6 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
Table F.I 1-25 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.
Table F.11-25: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Power Brake (Hydraulic) Subsystem
03
•<
(/>
ST
r06
06
Subsystem
'07
07
Sub-Subsystem
'00
01
Description
Vacuum Booster System Awn
Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas
Idea
Level
Select
A
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" ID
1.196
1.196
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"
-------
Page 647
reductions (83.8% and 48.3%, respectively) along with a small total cost reduction for
each.
Table F.11-26: Calculated Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Results for the Power
Brake (for Hydraulic) Subsystem
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
"
-------
Page 648
0)
*<
21
oT
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.12-2 shows the calculated mass-reduction results for the ideas generated related
to the Frame and Mounting system. A mass savings of 16.338kg was realized with a cost
increase of $3.28, resulting in a cost increase of $0.20/kg.
Table F.12-2: Calculated Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Frame & Mounting System
OT
1
"67
07
07
07
07
07
Subsystem
01
02
03
04
05
08
Sub-Subsyste
3
~6o
00
00
00
00
00
Description
Frame Sub System
Body Mounting Subsystem
_JEngineJj]ansr[^
^^JowillSnSiPjM^
Spare Tire Mounting (Chassis) Subsystem
Rolling Chassis Modules
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
—
B
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)
=
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
^opo_
16.338
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)
=
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
^oo_
-$3.28
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
=
$0.00
$0.00
^moo_
-$0.20
(Increase)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
—
0.00%
0.00%
^oo%_
37.36%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
—
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
^00%^
0.96%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
'(2) "+" =
(2)
: cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Page 649
F.12.1.1
F.12.1 Frame Subsystem
Subsystem Content Overview
As seen in Table F.12-3, the Frame subsystem is comprised of the Full Frame, Special
Protective Structures, Body Isolators, Front Strut Frame (Image F.12-1), Rear Strut
Frame (Image F.12-2), 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.
Table F.12-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Frame Subsystem
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%
-------
Page 650
Image F.12-1: Front Frame Assembly
(Source: Lotus Report)
Image F.12-2: Rear Frame Assembly
(Source: Lotus Report)
F.12.1.2
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.12-3) and Rear Cradle (Image F.12-4), 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.12-5), Front Damper Assembly
(Image F.8-6), Frame Side Rail Brackets (Image F.8-7), and Rear Suspension Brackets
(Image F.8-8), are bolted on to attach and/or provide support for other components
(including the radiator) to the body.
-------
Page 651
F.12.2 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. 12.2.1 Front Frame
The Front Frame (Image F.8-3) consists of approximately 34 individual steel stampings
welded together to form a single frame.
-------
Page 652
I
Image F.12-3: Front Frame
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.12.2.2
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.12-4: Rear Frame
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
Page 653
F. 12.2.3 Front Suspension Brackets
The Front Suspension Bracket (Image F.8-5) is made of two different steel stampings
that are welded together.
Image F.12-5: Front Suspension Bracket
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.12.2.4 Front Damper Assembly
The Front Damper Assembly (Image F.12-6) consists of one steel stamping and one
forging molded together to form the assembly.
-------
Page 654
Image F.12-6: Front Damper Assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F. 12.2.5 Frame Side Rail Brackets
The Venza Frame Side Rail Bracket (Image F.12-7) is formed by two different steel
stampings that are spot-welded together.
Image F.12-7: Frame Side Rail Bracket
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F. 12.2.6 RearSuspension Stopper Brackets
The Rear Suspension Stopper Bracket (Image F.12-8) is formed by two different steel
stampings that are spot-welded together.
-------
Page 655
Image F.12-8: Rear Suspension Stopper Bracket
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.12.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.12-4 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.
Table F.12-4: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Frame Subsystem.
-------
Page 656
Component JAssem
bly
BRACKET SUB-ASSY,
FRflMT ^1 RPFM^inM
MEMBER, RH(51023A)
BRACKET SUB-ASSY,
FRflMT ^l I^PFM^IflM
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,
FRAMF ^IFlF RAN RH
(51035)
PLATE SUB-ASSY,
FPAMF ^IFlF RAH 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 -
6QXGF
Make out of Nylon 66 -
6QXGF
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
6QX 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
SOX Mass
Reduction
SOX Mass
Reduction
10X Mass
Reduction
10X Mass
Reduction
40X Mass
Reduction
SOX Mass
Reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits
Cost savings due to reduced cycle time
Cost savings due (o 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 (o 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
F.12.3.1
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.12-5 shows the selected mass reduction ideas for the Frame subsystem for
detailed evaluation of both the mass savings achieved and manufacturing cost. Several
ideas 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).
-------
Page 657
Table F.12-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem Analysis
C/3
-<
tn
CD
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
C51024A)
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
(51 035)
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
F.12.3.2
Front Suspension Brackets
The solution chosen for implementation on the Front Suspension Bracket (Image F.12-9)
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).
-------
Page 658
Image F.12-9: Front Suspension Bracket
(Source: FEVphoto)
F.12.3.3
Rear Suspension Stopper Brackets
The solution chosen to be implemented on the Rear Suspension Stopper Bracket (Image
F.I2-10) is to change the material from steel to Nylon (PA66 - 60% GF). This idea has
been implemented in current production. 2012 Chevy Cruze with the 1.4L turbocharged
engine and 6 speed automatic transmissions has plastic engine mounts (Image F.12-11).
Image F.12-10: Rear Suspension Stopper Bracket
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
Page 659
F.12.3.4
Image F.12-11: 2012 Chevy Cruze Plastic Engine Mounts
Front Damper Assembly
The solution chosen to be implemented on the Front Damper Assembly (Image F.12-12)
is to ratio the Venza vehicle net mass and damper size versus the VW Passat specs
(Lotus) to reduce the Damper size.
Image F.12-12: Front Damper Assembly
(Source: FEVphoto)
F.12.3.5
Front Damper Assembly
The solution chosen for implementation on the Frame Side Rail Bracket (Image F.12-13)
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).
-------
Image F.12-13: Frame Side Rail Bracket
(Source: FEVphoto)
F.12.3.6
Front Frame Assembly
Page 660
The solution chosen to be implemented on the Front Frame Assembly (Image F.12-14) is
to change the material from a stamped steel construction to a cast magnesium structure.
Image F.12-14: Front Frame Assembly
Source: A2MAC1 -http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart. asp? productid=64&clientid=l&producttype=2
-------
Page 661
F.12.3.7
Rear Frame Assembly
The solution chosen for implementation on the Rear Frame Assembly (Image F.12-15) is
to ratio the Venza vehicle net mass and Rear Frame size versus the VW Passat specs
(Lotus) to reduce the Rear Frame size.
Image F.12-15: Rear Frame Assembly
(Source: FEVphoto)
F.12.4 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
Table F.12-6 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated for the
Frame subsystem. This resulted in a subsystem overall mass savings of 16.338kgs and a
cost increase of $3.28.
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 90% of the 13.8 kg weight save. The Front Strut Frame sub-subsystem also
includes (2) Suspension Brackets and (2) Radiator Support Brackets. These brackets are
made from a steel stamping construction which has been changed to an injection mold
process. The Suspension Bracket changes account for 2% of the mass savings. The
Radiator Support Bracket changes account for 8% of the mass savings. The cost of these
changes increases the cost of the sub-subsystem by $1.04
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 $2.23.
-------
Page 662
Table F.12-6: Calculated Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Results for Frame
Subsystem
OT
*<
Si
(D
07
07
07
Subsystem
01
01
Sub-Subsystem
04
05
Description
Frame £ em
Front Strut Frame
Rear Strut Frame
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
B
B
B
Mass
Reduction
"kg" ID
13.800
2.538
16.338
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)
-$1.04
-$2.23
-$3.28
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
-$0.08
-$0.20
(Increase)
Sub-
Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
42. 4C
37.36%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.81%
0.15
0.96%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
'(2) "+" =
(2)
•• cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Page 663
F.13 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.I3-1 shows the Toyota Venza muffler.
Image F.13-1: Toyota Venza Muffler
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
The Exhaust ystem is comprised of the Acoustical Control Components and Exhaust Gas
Treatment Components Subsystem (see Table F.13-1).
Table F.13-1: Mass Breakdown by Subsystem for Exhaust System.
g
CO
5T
3
09
09
Subsystem
01
02
Sub-Subsystem
66
00
Description
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%
-------
Page 664
Table F.13-2 provides the mass and cost impact for the exhaust subsystem.
Table F.13-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Exhaust Subsystem
CO
1
CD
3
09
09
Subsystem
00
01
02
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
Description
Acoustical Control Components Subsystem
Exhaust Gas Treatment Comp. Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
B
A
A
Mass
Reduction
"k9" d)
2.789
4.729
7.518
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
IIQII
* (2)
-$0.21
$2.68
$2.47
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
-$0.07
$0.57
$0.33
(Decrease)
Subsystem/
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
23.75%
31.79%
28.25%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.16'
0.44%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.13.1.1
F.13.1 Acoustical Control Components Subsystem
Subsystem Content Overview
As seen in Table F.13-3, the Acoustic Control Component sub-subsystem is included in
the Acoustical Control Components subsystem. This sub-subsystem is the only driver in
the subsystem.
Table F.13-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Acoustical Control Components Subsystem
-------
Page 665
CO
><
(/)
1— 1-
CD
09
Subsystem
01
Sub-Subsystem
01
Description
Acous
Acoustic Control Components
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Conwibijiioi" Rektivs t« System =
Subsystem Ifess GsriirOHjiion Refaiwo m Ifehide =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"
11.743
11.743
26.617
1711
44.12%
0.69%
F.13.1.2
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. Image F.I3-2 and Image F.I3-3 show a
section view of the Toyota Venza exhaust and the pipe as a whole.
F.13.1.3
Image F.13-2 (Left): Toyota Venza Exhaust
Image F.13-3 (Right): Toyota Venza Exhaust Pipe
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
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
-------
Page 666
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.13.1.4 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.13-4).
Table F.13-4: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Acoustical Control
Components Subsystem
-------
Page 667
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
Tubes TRT®
Down size to 2.4L Toyota
Matrix
,
Weld on Hanger Brkts
Hollow Hanger Brkts
SGF™ Rubber Grommets
Estimated Impact
20 to 30% Mass
Reduction
NA
15 to 20% Mass
Reduction
20 to 25% Mass
Reduction
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
require added operations
Higher cost of laser welding and added
capital cost
Small increase for manufacturing
Cost savings due to less material &
manufacturing
Already implemented
Already implemented
Low cost due to removal of the amount of
grommets and hangers
F.13.1.5
Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas
Table F.13-5 includes the mass-reduction ideas that were selected for the exhaust system
center and front pipes.
Table F.13-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Acoustical Control Components Subsystem
CO
*<
CO
CD"
3
09
09
CO
o-
%
CO
&
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
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, also 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®, 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.13-1 shows in detail
the basic Mubea rolling process.
-------
Page 668
Correction Longitudinal
profile check
Control ~~^m—•
^
Defined sheet metal thickness
contours
Uniform thickness transition areas
Highly efficient as strip rolling
process
Applicable to all reliable metallic
materials
Figure F.13-1: Basic Mubea® Process
Below is the Mubea TRB® exhaust pipe manufacturing process (Figure F.13-2).
flexible rolling
annealing: discontinuous, continuous
strip coating
slitting
Discontinuous tube production
Joining by laser welding
Min. diameter
Max diameter
Min. wall thickness
Max. wall thickness
Min. tube length
Max. tube length
40 mm
150mm"
0-7 mm
4.0 mm
300 mm
2,500 mm"
levelling & cutting
part production from coll tube forming and laser welding
Transition length between 2 diameters
(D1-D2)*5[mm]
Integration of additional processing
steps for component manufacturing
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.
-------
Page 669
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Sheet length in mm
0 200 400 600
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
Thanks to Flexible Rolling, components with varying thickness profiles
can be produced without additional costs.
Tailor Rolled Tubes - TRT®
Fully Automated Tube Production Line
Annual series production capacity of
60,000 tons
Product range:
Tailor Rolled Blanks -TRB®
Jailor Rolled Products -TRP®
Jailor Rolled Tubes -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 altem. 0
Bent TRT*
Hydroformed TRT5
TRT' with pierced nut
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.
-------
Page 670
Figure F.13-2: 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
• 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.13-6 shows.
Table F.13-6: SGF Existing Exhaust System Recommendation
-------
Page 671
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 £
68 grams/ 6 pcs
34 mm
EPDM
12mm
120°C; Z=45N +- 180N
120»C; Z=90N +- 360N
SGF LSOOO-EQ77-
002 A
4 Parts,
stopped without
any fault at 800000
cycles
Toyota 17565-OP041
•
Failed at 42000 cycles
Specimen No
l:Failed at 1600 cycles
2:Failed at 2379 cycles
We recommend 3 pieces of our hanger LSQOQ-EQ77-Q2
Figure F.I3-3 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
-------
Page 672
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.
In y-direction the cord inlay are
stiff, like a leaf spring.
Figure F.13-3: SGF® Hangers
(Allpresentation material and information provided by SGF®)
F.13.1.6
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
Table F.13-7 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®
-------
Page 673
system, one hanger in this sub-sub system 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.
Table F.13-7: Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Acoustical Control
Components Subsystem.
g
CO
oT
09
Subsystem
01
Sub-Subsystem
01
Description
Acoustic /stem
Acoustic Control Components
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
B
B
Mass
Reduction
"k9" d)
2.789
2.789
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
11
-------
Page 674
CO
><
(/)
1— 1-
CD
09
09
Subsystem
02
02
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
Description
Exhaust Gas Treatment Comp. Subsystem
Emission Control Components
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total %st«rt lfe;y =
Total Vrfiieift:' 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%
F.13.2.2
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.
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.
Image F.13-4: Toyota Venza Muffler
(Source: FEVphoto)
-------
Page 675
F.13.2.3
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.13.2.4
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.13-9).
Table F.13-9: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Exhaust Gas
Treatment Components Subsystem
Component/Assembly
Muffler
Muffler
Muffler
Muffler
Muffler
Muffler
Muffler
Muffler Rubber
Grommets
Mass-Reduction Idea
Titanium Alloy
304 Stainless Steel
Tailored Welded Blanks
Mubea™ Tailored Rolled
Blanks
Down size to 2.4L Toyota
Matrix
Weld on Hanger Brkts
Hollow Hanger Brkts
SGF™ Rubber Grommets
Estimated Impact
20 to 30% Mass
Reduction
NA
15 to 20% Mass
Reduction
20 to 25% Mass
Reduction
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
require added operations
Higher cost of laser welding and added
capital cost
Small increase for manufacturing
Cost savings due to less material &
manufacturing
Already implemented
Already implemented
Low cost due to removal of the amount of
grommets and hangers
-------
Page 676
F.13.2.5
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.13-10), 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.
Table F.13-10: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Exhaust Gas Treatment Components Subsystem
CO
ED"
3
09
09
CO
CO
•35
CD
02
02
1
&
CO
CO
ED"
3
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
-------
Page 677
F.13.2.6
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
Table F.13-11 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
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.
Table F.13-11: Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Exhaust Gas Treatment
Components Subsystem.
g
sa
CD
09
Subsystem
02
Sub-Subsystem
01
Description
Exhaus stem
Emission Control Components
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
A
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)
4.729
4.729
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
n QII
* (2)
$2.68
$2.68
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$0.57
$0.57
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
31.79%
17.77%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.28%
0.28%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Page 678
F.14 Fuel System
The Fuel Tank and Lines subsystem is comprised primarily of the fuel tank and associated
fuel lines between the fuel filler neck and the fuel tank. The fuel lines between the fuel
tank and fuel pump are also included in this subsystem. The Fuel Vapor Management
subsystem is comprised of a charcoal/vapor canister and the connecting lines between the
fuel tank and the charcoal canister. In comparing the sub-systems under the fuel system,
the greatest opportunity for mass reduction falls under the Fuel Tank and Lines subsystem
(Table F.14-1).
Table F.14-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Fuel System
-------
Page 679
CO
*<
-------
Page 680
OT
*<
S3.
0>
10
10
Subsystem
01
02
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
Description
Fue^S^stem
_JfufOl!!!]l^£!£^^
Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
A
A
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" ID
12.207
0.497
12.704
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)
$2.70
$1.21
$3.91
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
122
$0.31
(Decrease)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
58.99%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.71%
0.74%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
'(2) "+" =
(2)
•• cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.14.1.1
F.14.1 Fuel Tank & Lines Subsystem
Subsystem Content Overview
Table F.14-3 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-
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.
Table F.14-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem.
-------
Page 681
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%
F.14.1.2
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.I4-1) is a welded
sheet metal construction with thinner gauge metal on its upper half versus the bottom.
The fuel pump (Image F.I4-3), is retained by an outer retaining ring, Figure 1-6, and (8)
M5 x .80 fasteners (Image F.14-3). 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.14-5). The tank is held in place by a steel strap (Image F.14-56), which is
edge-protected by an extruded rubber edging material (Image F.I4-7). Finally, the fuel
delivery system consists of a steel fuel filler tube assembly (Image F.14-7). Several
brackets (Image F.14-9 through Image F.14-10) clamp the vapor tube to the fuel filler
pipe, as well as clamping the entire assembly to the vehicle.
F.14.2 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
F.14.2.1
Fuel Tank
Steel fuel tank construction is a common technology used by Toyota. However, it is no
longer the norm for the automotive industry.
-------
Page 682
Image F.14-1: 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.
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.
-------
Page 683
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.14.2.2
Fuel Pump
The Toyota Venza Fuel Pump (Image F.I4-2) is inserted into the fuel tank and held in
place by an outer retaining ring (Image F.I4-3) and (8) M5 x .80 fasteners (Image
F.14-4).
Image F.14-2: Fuel Pump
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
Page 684
Image F.14-3: Retaining Ring
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.14-4: Fuel Pump Retaining Fastener
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.14.2.3
Sending Unit
The Toyota Venza Sending Unit (Image F.I4-5) 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.14-6).
-------
Page 685
Image F.14-5: Sending Unit
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.14-6: Sending Unit Retaining Fastener
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.14.2.4
Fuel Tank Mounting Straps
The mounting straps (Image F.I4-7), which hold the fuel tank in place, are made of light
gauge stamped sheet metal with an extruded rubber protective edging, (Image F.I4-8).
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.
-------
Page 686
Image F.14-7: Fuel Tank Mounting Strap
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
I
T
t T T
Image F.14-8: Protective Edging
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.14.2.5
Fuel Filler Tube Assembly
The Fuel Filler Tube Assembly (Image F.14-9) 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.
-------
Page 687
Image F.14-9: Fuel Filler Tube Assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.14.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
The Fuel Tanks and Lines summary chart, shown in Table F.I4-4, 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.
Table F.14-4: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Fuel Tank & Lines
Subsystem.
-------
Page 688
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
Dupontplastic/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 & 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
F.14.4 Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas
We chose most of the ideas generated from the brainstorming activities for detail
evaluation as shown in Table F.14-5. In our team approach to idea generation, we
consider all components regardless of how big or small the opportunity.
Table F.14-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Fuel Tank & Lines Subsystem Analysis
-------
Page 689
CO
-<
en
CO
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
(Secondary)
Gage Asm, Fuel Sender, Bracket
[new)
Shield, Large
Protector, Fuel Fill Pipe
Support Bracket
N/A
Fill tube's
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
F.14.4.1
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.14-10: Cross-over Tube Assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
Page 690
F.14.4.2
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.14-11) 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.14-11: Plastic (HDPE) Fuel Tank
(Source: A2MAC1 - http://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.asp?productid=222&clientid=l&producttvpe=2')
F.14.4.3
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.14-12).
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.14-12: Fuel Tank Mounting Strap Assy
(Source: BTM Corp - http://www.btmcorp.com/tlapps.html')
-------
Page 691
F.14.4.4
Fuel Pump Retaining Ring
The solution(s) chosen to be implemented for the Fuel Pump Retaining Ring (Image
F.14-13) is to make it a "twist lock" design, thus eliminating the need for fasteners.
Image F.14-13: Fuel Pump Retaining Bracket "Twist Lock" Design
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.14.4.5
Fuel Sending Unit Retaining Bracket
The solution(s) chosen to be implemented for the Fuel Sending Unit Retaining Bracket
(Image F.14-14) is make the bracket out of plastic instead of stamped steel and making it
a "twist lock" design, thus eliminating the need for fasteners.
Image F.14-14: Sending Unit Mounting Bracket
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
Page 692
F.14.4.6
Large Bracket (Eliminated)
The solution chosen to be implemented for the Large Bracket (Image F.14-15) 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.14-15: Large Shield (Eliminated)
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.14.4.7
Protector Bracket (Eliminated)
The solution chosen to be implemented for the Protector Bracket (Image F.14-16) 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.14-16: Protector (Eliminated)
-------
Page 693
F.14.4.8
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Small Shield Bracket (Eliminated)
The solution(s) chosen to be implemented for the Support Bracket (Image F.14-17) 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.14-17: Support Bracket (Eliminated)
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.14.4.9
Fuel Filler Tube Assembly
The solution chosen to be implemented for the Fuel Filler Tube Assembly Image F.14-18
is to make the tubes out of HDPE using a blow mold process.
-------
Page 694
Image F.14-18: Fuel Filler Tube Assembly
(Source: Inergy Automotive - http://www.inergvautomotive.com/innovativesvstems/pfs/pfp/Pages/pfip.aspx')
F.14.5 Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
Table F.I4-6 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
4.399kg of the total 12.207 kg weight save. Due to vehicle overall weight reduction and
fuel economy improvement, Fuel tank can be downsized. The downsizing of the fuel tank
reduced 1.36kg of the tank weight and 5.9 kg of the fuel weight.
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 $2.90 savings
realized in the Fuel Tank Assembly sub-subsystem.
Table F.14-6: Calculated Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Results for Fuel Tank &
Lines Subsystem.
-------
Page 695
OT
*<
S3.
0>
10
10
10
Subsystem
00
01
L51
01
Sub-Subsystem
01
03
04
Description
Fuel Tank Assembly (Fuel Tank, Fuel Pump,
.JBendingJJnit)
Fuel Tank Assy (Steel to Plastic)
Fuel Tank Assy (Downsizing)
^^^^[Janilk^^
_Jfue]J3istri!^
Fuel Filler (Refueling) (Filler Pipes & Hoses)
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
A
B
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" ID
11.659
4.399
1.360
5.900
0.000
0.548
12.207
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)
$2.90
$2.22
$0.69
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.20
$2.70
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$0.25
$0.50
100
$0.22
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
62.07%
23.42%
7.24
0.00%
58.08%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.68%
0.26%
0.00%
0.03%
0.71%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
'(2) "+" =
(2)
•• cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.14.6.1
F.14.6 Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem
Subsystem Content Overview
In Table F.I4-7, 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.
Table F.14-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem.
-------
Page 696
O>
*<
1
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%
F.14.6.2
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.14-19) 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.14-20).
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.14.6.3
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
-------
Page 697
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.
I I
Image F.14-19: Vapor Canister
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.14-20: Vapor Canister Cover
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.14.6.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.14-8 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.
-------
Page 698
Table F.14-8: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Fuel Vapor
Management Subsystem.
Component/Assembly j
Canister Cover j
Charcoal Canister j
Bracket, Large |
Bracket, Medium j
Bracket, Small j
Mass-Reduction Idea j
Make Charcoal Canister j
Cover using MuCell© j
Microcellular Foaming j
Technology !
Make Charcoal Canister j
using MuCell® !
Microcellular Foaming j
Technology j
Make large bracket out of!
Polypro w/30% Glass Fill j
Make medium charcoal !
canister bracket out of !
Polypro w/30% Glass Fill j
Make small charcoal j
canister bracket out of j
Polypro w/30% Glass Fill j
Estimated Impact
10% Weight Save
10% Weight Save
30% Weight Save
80% Weight Save
80% Weight Save
Risks & Trade-offs and or Benefits
Cost Neutral
Cost Neutral
Cost Savings
Cost Savings
Cost Savings
F.14.6.5
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.14-9. In our team approach to
idea generation, we consider all components regardless of how big or small the
opportunity. Further development work needed for validation.
Table F.14-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem Analysis.
-------
Page 699
w
•-=:
en
S"
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
F.14.6.6
Canister Housing & Canister Cover
The solution(s) chosen to be implemented on the Vapor Canister Housing (Image
F.14-21) and the Canister Cover (Image F.14-22) is to use the MuCell® Microcellular
Foaming Technology during the injection molding process.
Image F.14-21: Vapor Canister Housing
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
Page 700
Image F.14-22: Vapor Canister Cover
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.14.6.7
Canister Brackets
The solution chosen to be implemented on the Large Canister Bracket (Image F.14-23)
Medium Canister Bracket (Image F.14-24) and the Small Canister Bracket (Image
F.14-25) is to redesign the brackets out of plastic instead of stamped steel.
I
Image F.14-23: Large Canister Bracket
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
Page 701
\ \
Image F.14-24: Medium Canister Bracket
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.14-25: Small Canister Bracket
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.14.6.8
Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
Table F.14-10 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.
-------
Page 702
Table F.14-10: Preliminary Ballpark Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for
Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem.
v>
•<
w
ro
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
F.15 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
-------
Page 703
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.15-1).
Table F.15-1: Mass Breakdown by Subsystem for Steering System
ss
CO
5T
3
11
11
11
11
11
11
Subsystem
01
02
04
05
06
Sub-Subsystem
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%
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.15-2.
Table F.15-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Steering System
-------
Page 704
g
CO
oT
11
11
11
11
11
11
Subsystem
01
02
04
05
06
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
Description
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
^ft^
A
Mass
Reduction
"k9" d)
0.123
0.210
1.148
0.000
0.336
1.817
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
IIQII
* (2)
$0.24
$0.10
$10.39
$0.00
$0.32
$11.05
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$1.99
$0.46
$9.05
$0.00
$0.94
$6.08
(Decrease)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
1.39%
2.81%
22.58%
0.00%
14.69%
7.50%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.01%
0.01%
0.07%
0.00%
0.02%
0.11%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.15.1 Steering Gear Subsystem
F.15.1.1
Subsystem Content Overview
As shown in Table F.I5-3, the Steering Gear subsystem includes the Steering Gear sub-
subsystem.
Table F.15-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Steering Gear Subsystem
CO
><
(/)
1— 1-
CD
11
11
Subsystem
01
01
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
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
8.825
24.227
1711
36.43%
0.52%
-------
Page 705
F.15.1.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Toyota Venza uses a conventional steering gear setup. Image F.15-1 shows the
Toyota Venza steering gear. Image F.15-2 is a close-up of the tie rod end.
Image F.15-1: Toyota Venza Steering Gear
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Image F.15-2: Toyota Venza Tie Rod End
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
F.15.1.3
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.15.1.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.15-4 shows weight deductions taken for the Steering Gear subsystem.
Table F.15-4: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Steering Gear
Subsystem
-------
Page 706
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
Comparison
Stamped Ball Joints
Estimated Impact :
20% Mass |
Reduction I
j
I
15 to 20% Mass |
Reduction j
i
i
20 to 25% Mass j
Reduction I
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Needs Engineering
Less over all material
Leak and Rust
F.15.1.5
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.15-5). Using this can result in a 1% .123kg savings.
Table F.15-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Steering Gear Subsystem
CO
en
CD"
3
11
11
CO
o-
co
><
CO
CD
01
01
CO
o-
r'o
c
o-
co
><
CO
CD
00
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
F.15.1.6
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates
Table F.15-6 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.
-------
Page 707
Table F.15-6: Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Steering Gear Sub-Subsystem
g
sa
CD
11
Subsystem
01
Sub-Subsystem
01
Description
Steering em
Steering Gear
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
A
A
Mass
Reduction
"k9" d)
0.123
0.123
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
IIQII
* (2)
$0.24
$0.24
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$1.99
$1.99
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
1.39%
0.51%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.01%
0.01%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.15.2 Power Steering Subsystem
F.15.2.1
Subsystem Content Overview
As seen in (Table F.I5-7), included in the Power Steering subsystem is the Power
Steering Electronic Controls sub-subsystem.
Table F.15-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Power Steering Subsystem
CO
><
(/)
ft-
CD
11
11
Subsystem
02
02
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
Description
Power Steering Subsystem
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"
7.477
7.477
24.227
1711
30.86%
0.44%
F.15.2.2
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Toyota Venza uses an advanced power steering system with power steering assist and
electronic stability control.
-------
Page 708
F.15.2.3
Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
The Toyota Venza follows industry norms for the mass reductions trends on the power
steering system.
F.15.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.15-8 shows the Power Steering subsystem and the ideas reviewed.
Table F.15-8: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Power Steering
Subsystem
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
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
__j3ncjineejTngjTa^^
Due to EMF Engineering would be
needed
No Weight Save
Material and Manufacturing savings
F.15.2.5
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.15-9). To see more about the
MuCell®or PolyOne® process's reference section F.4B.1 Interior Trim and
Ornamentation Subsystem.
Table F.15-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for the Power Steering Subsystem
-------
Page 709
CO
•<
CO
CD"
3
11
11
CO
><
CO
CD
02
02
CO
o-
o-
co
><
CO
CD
00
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
F.15.2.6
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
Table F.15-10 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. To see
more about the MuCell®or PolyOne® process's reference section F.4B.1 Interior Trim
and Ornamentation Subsystem.
-------
Page 710
Table F.15-10: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Power Steering Electronic Controls
Sub-Subsystem.
g
CO
oT
11
11
Subsystem
02
Sub-Subsystem
01
Description
Power S* stem
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
"
-------
Page 711
CO
><
(/)
1— 1-
CD
11
11
Subsystem
04
04
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
Description
Steering Column S
Steering Column Aysernbiy
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total &v«te««i 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%
F.15.3.2
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.
Image F.15-3and Image F.15-4 are the Toyota Venza steering shaft.
T
Image F.15-3 (Left): Toyota Venza Steering Shaft
Image F.15-4 (Right): Toyota Venza Steering Shaft
(Source: FEV Photo)
F.15.3.3
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.
-------
Page 712
F.15.3.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.15-12 shows the weight deductions taken from the Steering Column Assembly
sub-subsystem.
Table F.15-12: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Steering Column
subsystem
Lower Cover
Intermediate Shaft
Intermediate Shaft
Intermediate Shaft
Steering Adjustment
I^-WWT-W
lULajUjc HrHnr'tinn IHri
Change Firewall Steering
Boot (3 Piece) Design to 1
IcUc OIUIIIIIIGl DcSTyTl
Replace Yoke Forgings with
oictiii|jeu vveiu
Change Forgings to Die
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
CUUUUUI 1
30 to 40% Mass
cununui i
20 to 25% Mass
Reduction
5 to 10% Mass
P,....|.-M..i..u~-.
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
F.15.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Weight reductions used for the Steering Column subsystem are listed in Table F.15-13.
Table F.15-13: Mass-reduction ideas selected for the Steering Column subsystem
-------
Page 713
4?
CO
CD"
11
11
Subsystem
04
04
Sub-Subsystem
00
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
Piece Grommet Design
Change Intermediate Shaft
Steel Forgings to Die Cast
Aluminum
F.15.4 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
Table F.15-14 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.
Table F.15-14: Sub-subsystem mass-reduction and cost impact for the Steering Column subsystem
-------
Page 714
g
CO
oT
11
Subsystem
04
Sub-Subsystem
01
Description
Steering i
Steering Column Assembly
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
A
A
Mass
Reduction
"k9" d)
1.148
1.148
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
IIQII
* (2)
$10.39
$10.39
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$9.05
$9.05
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
22.58%
4.74%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.07%
0.07%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.15.5.1
F.15.5 Steering Column Switches Subsystem
Subsystem Content Overview
As displayed in Table F.15-15, 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.
Table F.15-15: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Steering Column Switches Subsystem
CO
><
(/)
ft-
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%
-------
Page 715
F.15.5.2
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.15.5.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
There are no mass-reduction trends for the clockspring or the multifunction stalk.
F.15.5.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
No weight reduction concepts were able for consideration in the Steering Column
Switches subsystem (see Table F.15-16).
Table F.15-16: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Steering Column
Switches subsystem
Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea Estimated Impact
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Angle Transmitter
Ignition Switch Assy
MuCell®
MuCell®
2 to 5% Mass
^JReductbn^^
2 to 5% Mass
Reduction
Not able to do due to transmitter is part of
^^^^^^^^^^clpckspring^^^^^^^^^
Not able to do due to being part of the
dash
Ignition Switch Assy Replace with Keyless Go
NA
Already done
F.15.5.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
No mass-reductions ideas were chosen for the Steering Column Switches subsystem.
-------
Page 716
F.15.6.1
F.15.6 Steering Wheel Subsystem
Subsystem Content Overview
Table F.15-17 shows that Steering Wheel subsystem includes the Steering Wheel,
Steering Wheel Mounted Switches, Steering Wheel Air Bag, Steering Wheel Trim sub-
subsystems.
Table F.15-17: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Steering Wheel Subsystem
CO
><
(/)
1— 1-
CD
11
11
11
11
11
Subsystem
06
06
06
06
06
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
Description
Steering Wheel 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%
F.15.6.2
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. Image F.15-5 and Image F.15-6 show the Toyota Venza
steering wheel and the trim cover, respectively.
-------
Page 717
F.15.6.3
Image F.15-5 (Left): Toyota Venza Steering Wheel
Image F.15-6 (Right): Steering Wheel Trim Cover
(Source: FEV Photo)
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. Image F.15-7 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.
Image F.15-7: Heating elements Wood & Carbon
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
Figure F.15-1 shows the cross-section view of a steering wheel.
-------
Page 718
Decorative Parts
Switches
Heating system
Frame
Figure F.15-1: Steering Wheel Cross-Section View
Image Courtesy ofTakata website (http://www.takata.com/en/products/steeringwheel.html)
F.15.6.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.15-18shows the ideas that were considered for weight reductions in the Steering
Wheel subsystem.
Table F.15-18: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Steering Wheel
subsystem
Component/Assembly
Rear Trim Cover
Steering Wheel
Steering Wheel
Steering Wheel
Mass-Reduction Idea
'
Use Polyone®
Make out of Carbon Fiber
Make out of Die Cast
Aluminum
Make out of Lexan
Estimated Impact
10% Mass
Reduction
15 to 20% Mass
Reduction
10 to 15% Mass
Reduction
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
^JVjagnejsjujrjja^^
Material and process save
F.15.6.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table F.15-19 shows the weight reductions idea used for the Steering Wheel subsystem.
-------
Page 719
Table F.15-19: Mass-reduction ideas selected for the Steering Wheel subsystem
CO
•<
CO
CD"
3
11
11
11
CO
><
CO
CD
06
06
06
CO
o-
o-
co
><
CO
CD
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.15.6.6
Reduction & Cost Impact
Table F.15-20 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 To see more about the MuCell®or PolyOne® process's reference section
F.4B.1 Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
The combined changes amounted to a total mass save of .336kg and a cost savings of
$.32.
Table F.15-20: Sub-subsystem mass-reduction and cost impact for Steering Wheel subsystem.
-------
Page 720
g
sa
CD
11
IT
11
11
11
Subsystem
06
06
06
06
Sub- Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
Description
Steering Wheel Subsystem
sleeringVVheel
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)
O326
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.336
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
n QII
* (2)
$6.27
$0.00
$0.00
$0.04
$0.32
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$6.84
$0.00
$0.00
$4.04
$0.94
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
1423%
0.00%
0.00%
0.46%
1.39%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
O02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.16 Climate Control System
The breakdown of the Climate Control system into its four subsystems is displayed in
Table F.16-1. 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).
Table F.16-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for the Climate Control System
-------
Page 721
0)
*<
-------
Page 722
F.16.1.1
F.16.1 Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem
Subsystem Content Overview
The mass breakdown of the Air Handling/Body Ventilation subsystem is shown in Table
F.I6-3. 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.
Table F.16-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Air Handling/Body Ventilation
Subsystem
V)
><
cn.
oT
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
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"
1.855
0.906
10.052
12.813
15.662
1711
81.81%
0.75%
F.16.1.2
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Venza contains high-density polyethylene (HDPE) blow-molded air duct
components. This is the most common material and manufacturing technique for these
types of parts. The Venza's Main Air Duct Manifold is shown in Image F.16-1. Floor air
ducts that distribute air from the Main HVAC Unit to the rear passenger area are shown in
Image F.16-2.
-------
Page 723
7
Image F.16-1: Toyota Venza Main Air Duct Manifold
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
Floor Distribution Ducts
Image F.16-2: 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.16-3). The assembly is shown out of the vehicle in Image F.16-4.
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
radiator). The refrigerant then travels through tubing and enters the expansion valve,
-------
Page 724
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 Main Unit
assembled to Cross-Car
Image F.16-3: Toyota Venza Instrument Panel with Interior Trim Removed
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
-------
Page 725
Image F.16-4: Toyota Venza HVAC Main Unit
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
F.16.1.3
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 Figure F.16-1. 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
-------
Page 726
(b) Nitrogen saturation in high pressure autoclave.
(c) Nitrogen expansion in low pressure autoclave.
Figure F.16-1: 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.16-5. A side-by-side comparison of the Zotefoams' duct with the baseline Venza
duct is shown in Image F.16-6. This illustrated similarity provides a pre-validation of
feasibly applying such a material to the Air Duct Manifold of the Toyota Venza.
-------
Page 727
(a) Close-up View of Zotefoams Duct
(b) Zotefoams Front Air Duct Manifold
Image F.16-5: Air Duct Manifold manufactured from a Zotefoams' foam
(Source: Part Courtesy of Zotefoams, Inc.; FEV, Inc. photo)
(a) Zotefoams Duct
-------
Page 728
(b) Toyota Venza Duct
Image F.16-6: 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.I6-7) 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.16-7: Examples of WEMAC Vent Styles
(Source: Chief Aircraft http://www. chiefaircraft. com/aircraft/windshields-vents/air-vents.html)
General Motors' Cadillac Ciel concept car integrates the dash vents behind a portion of
the instrument panel (Image F.16-8). This is not yet in production and it is not clear as to
-------
Page 729
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.16-8: 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.16.1.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.I6-4 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 Fob/One'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.5.1.
Table F.16-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Air
Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem
-------
Page 730
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
F.16.1.5
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.16-5. 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.
Table F.16-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Air Handling/Body
Ventilation Subsystem
OT
"3
0
3
12
1°
12
12
OT
c
cr
tn
*<
B)
0)
3
01
01
01
01
OT
ub-Subs
*<
ft
3
00
IY>
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.
-------
Page 731
F.16.1.6 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.16-6.
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 PolyOne'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.
Table F.16-6: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem
-------
Page 732
•2
1
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" CD
1.454
0.103
0.478
2.034
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
iirt-M
* (2)
$6.45
-$0.62
$1.45
$7.27
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$4.43
-$6.02
$3.03
$3.58
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs ./Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
78.35%
1 1 .36%
4.75%
15.88%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.08%
0.01 %
0.03%
0.12%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.16.2 Heating/Defrosting Subsystem
F.16.2.1
Subsystem Content Overview
The Heating/Defrosting subsystem includes the Defroster Ducts (Front
Window/Windshield Defrosting sub-sub system) and Heater Hoses (Supplementary Heat
Source sub-subsystem). This subsystem only contributes 6.59% of the Climate Control
system's total mass, as seen in Table F.16-7.
Table F.16-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Heating/Defrosting Subsystem
(f>
*<
£
CD
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%
-------
Page 733
F.16.2.2
Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Defroster Duct assembly is shown in Image F.16-9. 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.16-9: Toyota Venza's Defroster Duct Assembly Including Two Center Manifolds and Two
Side Ducts
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
F.16.2.3
Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
Zotefoams' Azote® material, as described in Section F.16.1.3, 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 the mass of this subsystem, however,
the baseline HOPE blow-molded part is by far what is most common in the industry
currently.
F.16.2.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Mass reduction ideas considered are shown in Table F.16-8. The four-component
assembly shown in Image F.16-8 could potentially be combined into one piece and made
out of a twin sheet forming process using Azote®.
Table F.16-8: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the
Heating/Defrosting Subsystem
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®
-------
Page 734
F.16.2.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Zotefoams' Azote® was chosen for the Heating/Defrosting subsystem (Image F.16-9). It
was merged into one piece.
Table F.16-9: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Heating/Defrosting
Subsystem
OT
*<
U>
0
3
12
12
12
OT
c
cr
m
td
3
02
02
02
c
cr
OT
cr
tn
jj-
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
F.16.2.6
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
The results of the mass reduction for the Heating/Defrosting subsystem are shown in
Table F.16-10. 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.
Table F.16-10: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Heating/Defrosting Subsystem
-------
Page 735
•2
1
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" CD
0.393
0.000
0.393
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
iirt-M
* (2)
$2.03
$0.00
$2.03
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$5.16
$0.00
$5.16
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs./ Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
76.99%
0.00%
38.03%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.02%
0.00%
0.02%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.16.3.1
F.16.3 Controls Subsystem
Subsystem Content Overview
The breakdown of the Controls subsystem is shown in Table F.16-11 . The Mechanical
Control Head sub-subsystem includes the user controls for the HVAC and is mounted in
the instrument panel. The Electronic Climate Control Unit sub-subsystem includes a
circuit board with a harness connector enclosed in a housing. Overall, the Controls
subsystem only accounts for approximately 3% of the system mass.
Table F.16-11: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Controls Subsystem
(f>
*<
£
CD
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%
-------
Page 736
F.16.3.2 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.16-10.
Image F.16-10: Toyota Venza HVAC User Controls
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
F.16.3.3 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.16.3.4 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.16-12. Also, integration of the HVAC user controls into a touch screen was considered.
Table F.16-12: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Controls
Subsystem
-------
Page 737
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
F.16.3.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
MuCell® was selected to reduce the weight of the Climate Control Unit's Housing
(Table F.16-13). 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.
Table F.16-13: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Controls Subsystem
OT
5T
3
12
12
12
r/>
c
rr
0)
Is
S
3
04
04
04
rn
c
OT
c
cr
m
if
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.
F.16.3.6
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
The results of lightweighting the Electronic Climate Control Unit Housing are shown in
Table F.16-14. MuCell was the only idea applied and it resulted in a $0.04 cost save.
-------
Page 738
Table F.16-14: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Controls Subsystem
•2
1
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" CD
0.000
0.009
0.009
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
iirt-M
* (2)
$0.00
$0.04
$0.04
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$0.00
$4.21
$4.21
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs./ Sub
Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.00%
5.62%
1.84%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.17 Info, Gage & Warning Device Systems
The Info, Gage & Warning Device systems typically includes five subsystems: instrument
cluster, horn, clock/timekeeping, parking or reversing aid, and non-automotive driver
information subsystems. The Toyota Venza contains mass in two of these subsystems -
the instrument cluster and horn subsystems, as seen in Table F.17-1. The
clock/timekeeping components were included in the In-Vehicle Entertainment system.
From the data shown, the instrument cluster subsystem is the biggest weight contributor
in this system. The Toyota Venza has a light weight horn subsystem for which there is
currently no better option in the market that can be applied to the vehicle (note: the horn
subsystem includes the horn mechanism itself and not the components used to activate the
horn in the steering wheel, which are in the Occupant Restraining Device subsystem of
the Body system). Therefore, the weight reduction analysis will focus on the instrument
cluster subsystem.
Table F.17-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Info, Gage & Warning Device System
-------
Page 739
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
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%
As Table F.I7-2 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.
Table F.17-2: Preliminary Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Info, Gage & Warning Device
System
CO
B)
0
13
13
13
13
13
13
Subsyste
3
00
01
06
07
13
21
CO
cr
CO
(!>
oT
3
00
00
00
00
00
00
Description
Instrument Cluster Subsystem
_^n^u^^Bm
^Ctocknimetee^naSubsystern
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
(Decrease)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"O/ "
0.00
0.00
4.01%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
^
0.004%
0.004%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Page 740
F.17.1.1
F.17.1 Instrument Cluster Subsystem
Subsystem Content Overview
The two sub-subsystems within the Instrument Cluster subsystem are pictured in Image
F.17-1 and Image F.I7-2. They are the driver information center and the IP cluster.
Image F.17-1 (Left): Driver Information Center
Image F.17-2 (Right): IP Cluster
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
As seen in Table F.I7-3, 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.
Table F.17-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Instrument Cluster Subsystem
V)
•-<
1
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%
-------
Page 741
F.17.1.2
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.17.1.3
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.17.1.4
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.17-4 shows. In the
Lotus report, they suggested MuCell® as the weight reduction idea for instrument cluster
subsystem.
Table F.17-4: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the 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
F.17.1.5
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
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.17-5. Each of these components is pictured in Image F.17-3 through Image F.17-8.
-------
Page 742
Table F.17-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Info Instrument Cluster Subsystem
Analysis
U)
~~<
-------
Page 743
Image F.17-6 (Right): Cluster Rear Housing
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
I
F.17.1.6
Image F.17-7 (Left): Display Housing
Image F.17-8 (Right): Cluster Mask Assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
Table F.17-6 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.
Table F.17-6: Calculated Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Results for Instrument
Cluster Subsystem
-------
Page 744
en
•<
w
ro
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%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.18 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 4.586 kg (Table F.18-1).
-------
Page 745
Table F.18-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for In-Vehicle Entertainment System
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%
Image F.18-1 :Toyota Venza Radio
(Source: FEVphoto)
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 $56 billion market for in-
vehicle entertainment.
-------
Page 746
Portable entertainment systems are quickly becoming a necessity for families of all sizes.
It is not only luxury cars that are installed with premium entertainment accessories such
as MP3 jacks, surround-sound audio, and video players with cinematic options: new fleets
of cars and minivans are already equipped with the latest DVD player and overhead TV
screens.
Table F.I8-2 shows the areas found in which mass weight reduction is available without
loss of functionality.
Table F.18-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body System Group
OT
*<
S3.
(D
15
15
15
15
Subsystem
01
02
03
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
Description
In-Vehic
_Receiwr_and_Audio_Meda_^
Antenna Subsystem
Speaker Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
A
A
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" ID
1.024
0.049
0.000
1.073
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)
$1.66
$0.69
$0.00
$2.35
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
4.17
$2.19
(Decrease)
System/
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
30. &
0.00%
23.39%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.06
0.00%
0.06%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
'(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.18.1 In-Vehicle Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem
As seen in Table F.18-3, 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.
Table F.18-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem.
-------
Page 747
0)
I
S"
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%
F.18.1.1
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.18-2:Toyota Venza Radio source
(Source: FEVphoto)
-------
Page 748
Entune™ is Toyota's next-generation infotainment system, integrating aspects of
navigation with media and other new technology gadgets, 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.18.1.2 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.18.1.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
Table F.18-4 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
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.)
-------
Page 749
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.
Table F.18-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Receiver and
Audio Media Subsystem
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
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
F.18.1.4
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
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
-------
Page 750
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.18.1.5 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
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.
-------
Page 751
F.18.1.6
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.18.1.7
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.
Table F.18-5: Mass-Reduction Idea Selected for Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem Analysis
w
*<
tfl
nT
3
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
-------
Page 752
F.18.1.8 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.18-6.
Image F.18-3: Delphi Ultra Light Radio source
(Source: Google images)
Table F.18-6: Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Receiver and Audio Media
Subsystem
-------
Page 753
Subsystem
01
01
01
01
07
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
00
Description
Enclosures
Electronic Boards
Plastic Enclosure
Multimedia Interface (USB)
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
A
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)
1.024
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.024
(Decrease)
Cost
I mpact
"t"
* (2)
$1.74
-$0.08
$0.00
$0.00
$1.66
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$1.7
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1.62
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
84.91%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
32.55%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.06%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.06%
"+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
"+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
F.18.2 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.18-7
shows the mass of the Antenna subsystem.
Table F.18-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Antenna Subsystem.
-------
Page 754
(f>
*<
23-
0>
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%
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.I8-8 will show the cost implication of using a RFI molded case in this
subsystem.
Table F.18-8: Cost Summary by Sub-subsystem for Antenna 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
"
-------
Page 755
F.18.4 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.
F.19 Lighting System
The Lighting system, broken down in Table F.19-1, 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).
-------
Page 756
Table F.19-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for the Lighting System
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%
The Front Lighting subsystem was the only subsystem with weight reduction applied as
seen in Table F.19-2, 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).
Table F.19-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Lighting System
-------
Page 757
•2
1
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
iirt-M
* (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
Lotus Engineering did not apply any mass reduction ideas to the Lighting system.
F.19.1.1
F.19.1 Front Lighting Subsystem
Subsystems Content Overview
A breakdown of the Front Lighting subsystem is shown in Table F.I9-3. 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.
Table F.19-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Front Lighting Subsystem
-------
Page 758
0)
*<
-------
Page 759
Image F.19-2: Toyota Venza Front Headlamp Housing
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
Image F.19-3: Toyota Venza Front Headlamp Housing with Inner Reflector & Project Magnifier
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
The Inner Reflector in Image F.19-3 reflects the light produced by the halogen bulb.
Behind the Projector Magnifier in Image F.19-3 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.19-4.
-------
Page 760
Image F.19-4: Toyota Venza Projector Reflector
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
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.19.1.3
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.19-5.
-------
Page 761
Recent Main Beam Ultem Reflectors
Image F.19-5: SABIC Ultem® Production Application Examples.
(Photo Courtesy of SABIC)
Although more expensive from a material standpoint, Ultem® saves some cost on
processing. As shown in Figure F.19-1, 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.
-------
Page 762
Benefits of Direct Metallization & Recycling
BMC
ULTEM* PEI
-w-
i
o
U
-------
Page 763
F.19.1.4
Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered
The mass reduction ideas considered for the Front Lighting subsystem are compiled in
Table F.19-4. Trexel's MuCell® process is considered for use on applicable plastic
housings along with PolyOne's Chemical Foaming Agents, reference Section F.5.1.1 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.
Table F.19-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Front Lighting
Subsystem
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
F.19.1.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The mass reduction ideas that were selected for the Front Lighting subsystem are listed in
Table F.19-5. 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.
Table F.19-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Front Lighting Subsystem
-------
Page 764
O)
*<
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
F.19.1.6
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.19-6. 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).
Table F.19-6: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Front Lighting Subsystem.
-------
Page 765
•2
1
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" CD
0.531
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.531
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
iirt-M
* (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./
Sub-
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
9.55%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
8.73%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.03%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Works Cited
1. http://chemlinks.beloit.edu/BlueLight/pages/hp/anll55-2.pdf
F.20 Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System
Cable harnesses are usually designed according to geometric and electrical requirements.
The wires are first cut to the desired length, usually using a special wire-cutting machine.
-------
Page 766
The wires may also be printed on by a special machine during the cutting process or later
on a separate machine. After this, the ends of the wires are stripped to expose the metal of
the wires, which are fitted with any required terminals and/or connector housings. The
cables are assembled and clamped together on a special workbench or to a pin board
(according to design specification) to form the cable harness. After fitting any protective
sleeves, conduit, the harness is either fitted directly in the vehicle or shipped. In spite of
increasing automation, in general, cable harnesses continue to be manufactured by hand,
and this will likely remain the case for the immediate future. This is due in part to the
many different processes involved, which are clearly difficult to automate. Nevertheless,
these processes can be learned relatively quickly, even without professional
qualifications. Figure F.20-1 shows the process for manufacturing some different types
of wire, from raw metal compounds to solid and braded wire with or without shielding.
Production Process of Automotive Wire
-I- Shipping
Specialty Wire and Cable
-1- Shipping
ABS Cable
Figure F.20-1: 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.20-1, this makes up the
total system.
-------
Page 767
Table F.20-1: Mass Breakdown by Subsystem for Electrical System.
ss
CO
CD"
3
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%
F.20.1.1
F.20.1 Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem
Subsystem Content Overview
Table F.20-2 shows the structure of the subsystem Electrical Wiring and Circuit
Protection. The included sub-subsystems, Front End and Engine Compartment Wiring,
Instrument Panel Harness, Body and Rear End Wiring, Battery Cables, Engine and
Transmission Wiring and Seat Harness. Image F.20-1 shows an instrument panel wiring
harness.
Image F.20-1: Instrument Panel Wiring Harness
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
-------
Page 768
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.20-2 shows the mass contribution of all included sub-subsystems.
Table F.20-2: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Electrical Wring and Circuit Protection
Subsystem
CO
><
(/)
1— 1-
CD
18
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 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%
F.20.1.2
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.20.1.3
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.
-------
Page 769
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.
F.20.1.4
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
(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.20-3.
Table F.20-3: Summary of mass-reduction concepts initially considered for the Electrical Wring
and Circuit Protection Subsystem
Component/Assembly
All Harness's
All Harness's
All Harness's
Eng Harness Cable
Trays
Eng Harness Brkts
Mass-Reduction Idea
PPO 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
-------
Page 770
F.20.1.5 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 clad
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.20-2: 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
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.
-------
Page 771
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 approximately $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 olefin. 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
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.20-4.
-------
Page 772
Table F.20-4: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection
Subsystem
CO
CD"
3
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
F.20.1.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
Table F.20-5 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
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: To see more about the
MuCell®or PolyOne® process's reference section F.4B.1 Interior Trim and
Ornamentation Subsystem
Front End/Engine Harness
Cable Tray #1
Cable Tray #2
Cable Tray #3
Cable Tray #4
Fuse Box
Front End and Engine Compartment Wiring - Sub 0.283 0.406
mass
0.099
0.016
0.006
0.005
0.007
0.150
cost
(0.051)
0.057
0.023
0.017
0.020
0.339
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:
-------
Page 773
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 0.014
Main connector box, Bottom, IP Wiring 0.007 0.019
Connector Box 1,Harness, IP 0.007 0.035
Connector Box 2,Harness, IP 0.003 0.003
Connector Box 3,Harness, IP 0.002 0.003
Instrument Panel Harness - Sub total> 0.110 0.030
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:
mass 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:
m ass 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-
-------
Page 774
subsystem. To see more about the MuCell® or PolyOne® process's reference section
F.4B.1 Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
mass cost
Harness Asm, Engine 0.043 (0.022)
Cable Tray #1, Engine 0.015 0.048
Cable Tray #2, Engine 0.004 0.017
Cable Support Harness 0.003 0.012
Bracket#1, Harness, Engine 0.041 0.132
Bracket#2, Harness, Engine 0.027 0.041
Bracket#3, Harness, Engine 0.011 0.001
Engine and Transmission Wiring-Sub total> 0.143 0.229
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:
m ass cost
Harness Weight Sensing RF Seat 0.001 (0.001)
Ground Strap 0.008 0.053
Seat Harness-Subtotal 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 $1.35.
Table F.20-5: Sub-Subsystem Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Wring and Circuit
Protection Subsystem
-------
Page 775
I
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
Subsystem
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
co
c
a-
CO
c:
a-
|
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
Description
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protect Subsystem
Front End and Engine Compartment Wiring
Instrument Panel Harness
Body and Rear End Wiring
Battery Cables
Engine and Transmission Wiring
Seat Harness
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
Mass
Reducion
"kg" d)
0.283
0.110
0.123
0.220
0.143
0.009
0.889
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
"$" (2)
$0.41
$0.03
-$0.06
$0.70
$0.23
$0.05
$1.35
(Decrease)
Average
Cos!/
Kilogram
$/kg
$1.43
$0.27
-$0.50
$3.17
$1.60
$5.73
$1.52
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reducion
"%"
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
F.21 Additional Weight Savings Ideas Not Implemented
The lightweight optimization study of the Toyota Venza utilized most ideas considered.
There are, however, additional possibilities of weight reduction. FEV developed further
weight reduction ideas that, for specific reasons, were not implemented, including:
eliminating the spare tire and instead using run-flat tires, and using aluminum door
closure. The elimination of the spare tire in lieu of a "run-flat" tire gives an estimated
5.25 kg weight savings, although at a cost increase of $2.20. If aluminum is used for
producing vehicle door closures, an estimated 28.48 kg will be reduced at a cost of
$107.78. In addition to the current weight savings (312.48 kg), the aforementioned ideas
would increase the total weight savings to a projected 346.2 kg (20.2%) at $0.1 I/kg.
-------
Page 776
G. Conclusion, Recommendation and Acknowledgements
G.1 Conclusion & Recommendation
The FEV study was an extension of the low development (20% mass reduction) scenario
presented in the ICCT commissioned study titled, "An Assessment of Mass Reduction
Opportunities for a 2017-2020 Model Year Vehicle Program." The Phase 1 study was
conducted by Lotus Engineering. To reiterate, the FEV primary analysis objectives were
as follows:
• Conduct a detailed CAE analysis of the Lotus proposed BIW mass-reduction
changes to assess the impact on NVH performance (i.e., static and dynamic torsion
and bending stiffness) and vehicle crash safety. In the case the proposed Lotus
BIW changes resulted in performance degradation, propose alternative mass-
reduction BIW alternative to support an overall vehicle mass-reduction of 20%.
• Review and expand on the initial Lotus mass-reduction ideas. Through additional
research and engineering assessment, verify the feasibility of the mass-reduction
ideas in terms of industry potential acceptance, product function degradation risk,
product implementation timeframe, manufacturing risk, and the value of mass-
reduction ideas in terms of the amount of mass reduction and the cost/kilogram of
the mass savings.
• Develop detailed cost models to calculate the net incremental direct manufacturing
cost (NIDMC) impact of the mass-reduced technology configuration over the
baseline production stock Toyota Venza technology configuration. Both unit
NIDMCs and incremental tooling cost calculations were required.
As covered in the prior report sections, mainly Section D: Mass Reduction Analysis
Methodology, Section 0:
-------
Page 777
Cost Analysis Methodology, and Section F: Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Results,
all three primary analysis objectives were successfully met.
The creation of the Toyota Venza baseline CAE model, validated with actual lab data,
and compared to NHTSA crash test data ensured a solid baseline for all BIW mass-
reduction comparisons. Substituting the Lotus BIW mass-reduction ideas into the baseline
CAE model, EDAG was able to effectively evaluate the performance of the recommended
mass-reduction ideas. The Lotus BIW mass-reduction ideas were estimated to reduce the
BIW mass by 6.6%. Determining that the mass-reduction ideas yielded a NVH
degradation of approximately 20% in bending and torsional stiffness, new BIW mass-
reductions alternative were required. Using advanced CAE tools for BIW mass-reduction
optimization, EDAG was able to reduce the BIW mass by approximately 14%. The entire
Body System, Group A (BIW and Closures) yielded a 12.9% system mass-reduction or
4% vehicle mass-reduction. The BIW mass-reduction ideas were primarily associated
with steel grade and gauge substitutions.
The NVH analysis on EDAG's final optimized BIW structure yielded less than 5%
difference for each of the NVH test cases (i.e., overall torsional stiffness, overall bending
stiffness, rear-end match-boxing, overall vertical bending, rear-end breathing mode,
torsion stiffness, and bending stiffness) compared to the baseline model. The optimized
mass-reduced vehicle model was validated further for the following five different crash
load cases:
• FMVSS 208—35 MPH flat frontal crash (US NCAP)
• Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB frontal crash (Euro NCAP/IIHS)
• FMVSS 214—38.5 MDB side impact
• FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB rear impact
• FMVSS 216a—Roof crush resistance (utilizing the more stringent IIHS roof crush
resistance requirement).
Using various crash comparison measurements (e.g., vehicle pulse, time-to-zero velocity,
deformation modes, sheet-metal intrusion, etc.), the mass-reduced BIW structure was
compared to the baseline model to ensure that crash performance integrity was maintained
with the implementation of the mass-reduction concepts. The detailed analysis conducted
by EDAG supports that the BIW and closure mass-reduction is a viable means to reduce
the overall vehicle weigh degrading performance and safety. This is important, since, in
the case of the Toyota Venza, the BIW and Closure Subsystems contribute 31% (529kg)
to the overall vehicle mass.
From the cost perspective, the BIW and closure mass-reduction landed near the top of the
-------
Page 778
list in terms of being most expensive. The average increase of BIW was $2.77/kg,
compared to $4.96/kg, for closures. The average of BIW and closures combined was
$3.33/kg.
On the remaining vehicle systems (i.e., those other than BIW and closures), the team
successfully came up with an additional 14.3% of vehicle mass-reduction ideas. A
combination of ideas published in the ICCT Phase 1 report and new ideas generated by
the FEV and Munro team were evaluated to achieve the 14.3% vehicle mass-reduction.
Many of the new ideas utilized in the analysis came from powertrain systems (i.e., engine,
transmission, exhaust, fuel), since the ICCT analysis considered replacing the
conventional powertrain system in the Toyota Venza with a light hybrid powertrain
system. Conversely, the FEV analysis explored mass-reduction measures on all vehicle
systems, including the conventional powertrain.
The ICCT mass-reduced vehicle analysis (minus powertrain) yielded a 19% mass-
reduction. Based on a similar vehicle system comparison (i.e., excluded engine,
transmission, exhaust, and the fuel systems from the calculation), the FEV analysis
yielded a mass-reduction of 17.4%. Adding the mass-reduction assumed for the hybrid
powertrain system back into the ICCT analysis, a 17.6% vehicle mass-reduction was
recorded in comparison to the 18.3% in the FEV analysis. Overall, the final vehicle level
mass-reduction calculations were reasonably compatible, even though the actual system
level contributions were moderately different.
In addition to reviewing and building upon the mass-reduction ideas captured in the ICCT
report, the FEV team also focused a great deal of their effort on ensuring the mass-
reduction ideas were feasible from a product, manufacturing, and timeframe standpoint.
To ensure this was the case, the ideas selected for the analysis generally met one of the
primary criteria outlined below:
• Mass-reduction ideas existing in current high-volume automotive production
• Mass-reduction ideas existing in current low-volume automotive production
• Mass-reduction ideas from nonconventional, non-production, mass-production
automotive market (e.g., racing, after-market)
• Mass-reduction ideas currently under development by suppliers (e.g., material
suppliers, Tier 1 suppliers), with a high potential for success
• Mass-reduction ideas employed in non-automotive industries
Detailed design and CAE work was not performed: the team conducted basic engineering
assessments, primarily in the form of reverse engineering, to determine the feasible
amount of mass-reduction. A combination of automotive supplier support, surrogate
benchmark data (i.e., purchased hardware and various benchmark databases), and
-------
Page 779
published literature facilitated the transfer of mass-reduction materials, designs, and
manufacturing methods to the Toyota Venza production stock components. Details on
where the mass-reduction ideas came from, how they were applied, and what engineering
assessments were made in incorporating the ideas can be found in the various vehicle
systems throughout Section F.
Determining and assessing feasible mass-reduction component alternatives was an
important aspect of the analysis; evaluating the incremental cost impact of the mass-
reduction alternatives was equally as important. When selecting new technologies, in
particular the selection of greenhouse gas (GHG)-reducing technologies, the "Value" of
the technology (i.e., technology ability to reduce GHG emissions/cost of the technology)
was used as a comparative means of evaluation relative to other competing GHG-
reducing technologies (i.e., turbocharging, direct inject, variable valve timing and lift, 8-
speed automatic transmissions, hybrid electric vehicles).
To evaluate the cost impact of the mass-reduction technologies identified in this analysis,
the same robust and reliable methodology and tools used in prior EPA light-duty vehicle
technology cost analyses was employed. For new manufacturing technologies (i.e.,
manufacturing technologies not preexisting in FEV's cost model databases), new custom
models were developed. The same methodology of developing and validating the models,
as with the previous models, was employed.
The net incremental direct manufacturing cost (NIDMC) analysis is an incremental
analysis based on exclusion costing. That is, costing out only the differences between the
two (2) technologies under comparison (i.e., the production stock Toyota Venza
components versus the proposed mass-reduced Toyota Venza components). The cost
analysis is based on a set of predefined boundary conditions (reference Section C.2),
some of which are listed here:
• 2017-2020 model year production timeframe
• Manufacturing cost structure (i.e., material costs, labor costs, manufacturing
overhead costs) based on 2011/2012 dollars (no forecasting included as part of
analysis)
• 200-45 OK production units per year
• All components manufactured in the United States
• Components and technologies have been in high-volume production for several
years
• Established marketplace competition.
The boundary conditions for the calculated NIDMC established a known reference point
for the costs. For example, if the estimated volume of the engine new technologies were
-------
Page 780
reduced to 10%, an adjustment could be made knowing the original costs were based on
450K units and within mature market conditions (i.e., mature mark-up assumptions).
Outside the scope of the FEV analysis, EPA applies learning factors to the NIDMCs to
account for the differences in boundary conditions.
One additional cost factor applied by the EPA to the NIDMCs was the Indirect Cost
Multiplier (ICM). As discussed in Section E.4, the ICM factors address the additional
indirect manufacturing costs incurred by the OEM. Similar to the learning factors, these
are also applied outside the scope of the analysis.
The long-term cost impact of innovative mass-reduction can result in an overall vehicle
cost savings. The mass-reduced Venza resulted in a $148 per-vehicle-unit cost savings.
Based on the associated vehicle mass-reduction (312 kg, or 18.3%), this resulted in an
average $0.47/kilogram savings. Compared to the Lotus analysis, which calculated an
average vehicle reduction cost of 1% (19% vehicle mass-reduction without powertrain),
FEV's comparable cost reduction (without powertrain systems) was 1.3%. With all
vehicle systems included in the FEV analysis, the NIDMC cost reduction was
approximately 0.9%.
When the tooling impact was considered (incremental increase in tooling of $23 M over
the production stock Venza), the cost/kilogram decreased by approximately $0.04/kg,
resulting in a net savings of $0.43/kilogram.
Clearly the adaptation of new mass-reduced vehicle components, subsystems and/or
systems, to each unique vehicle platform will require a comprehensive product/production
development vehicle plan. As more components are changed within a vehicle, to
accomplish a higher percent vehicle mass-reduction, one can foresee product
development costs exponentially growing in near term (i.e., engineering, design and
testing costs). However over the long-run, the cost impact of these new technologies,
based on the analysis findings, is expected to result in an overall, vehicle direct
manufacturing cost reduction.
The FEV, Munro, and EDAG team view mass-reduction as a viable and cost competetive
methodology for improving fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
in addition to the other potential vehicle technologies. This advanced preliminary
engineering assessment, indicates mass-reduction can be implemented without
diminishing the function and performance of a stock production vehicle; in this case a
2010 Toyota Venza. As such, the team would recommend the continued, industry wide,
engineering efforts and corresponding investments into mass-reduction research and
development in an effort to meet the fuel economy and GHG emission requirements of
tomorrow.
-------
Page 781
G.2 Acknowledgements
The EPA, in order to create a thorough, transparent, and robust study, invited various
government entities to participate and/or provide feedback during the study duration.
Customers that participated and partnered financially in this study with EPA are:
• International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
• Environment Canada
Additional input was provided during periodic project reviews by:
• National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA)
• U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
• California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board (CARB)
SRA was subcontracted by the EPA to conduct the peer review for this project.
Constructive comments were included in this final report and many compliments were
received from the peer reviewers. The peer review team selected by SRA included:
• William Joost (U.S. Department of Energy)
• Douglas Richman (Kaiser Aluminum)
• Srdjan Simunovic (Oak Ridge National Laboratory)
• Glenn Daehn, David Emerling, Kristina Kennedy, and Tony Luscher (The Ohio
State University)
The Peer review report and FEV responses to the peer review comments are available at
www.regulations.gov in EPA docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799.
-------
Page 782
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. 1: Executive Summary for the Lotus 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.2: List of light-duty vehicle mass-reduction published articles, papers,
and journals referenced as information sources in the analysis
• Appendix H.3: Photos of disassembled BIW parts used by EDAG to develop CAE
models
• Appendix H.4: BIW scan data from white light scanning (WLS)
• Appendix H.5: BIW material testing
• Appendix H.6: BIW material engineering properties
• Appendix H.7: EDAG load path analysis
• Appendix H.8: System level Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMATs)
• Appendix H.9: Suppliers who contributed in the analysis
-------
Page 783
H.1 Executive Summary for Lotus Engineering Phase 1 Report
Following is the Executive Summary for the Phase 1 Lotus 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, titled 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 bench marked 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
-------
Page 784
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.
-------
Page 785
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 Tallow-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.
-------
Page 786
H.2 Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction Published Articles, Papers, and
Journals Referenced as Information Sources in the Analysis
Table H.2-1: Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction Published Articles, Papers, and Journals
Referenced as Information Sources in the Analysis
Applicable
Model
Hyperlink to Document
reduce-vehicle-body-sti
MS/Wilwood EVO IV-IX Lightweight Brake
-------
Page 787
Document Name
s OMEGA trodel is a free desktop
Aide levels of vehicle greenhouse gas
GElCVlCCI2fJbDc&hl=en&ei=eE BTf: K&oi=book result&ct=resu
Developrrent" vehicle, targeted a 20%
zing technologies feasible for a 20U
MaCC/EMACC Annual Technical
Peer Review of DOE IE
-------
Page 788
3 News Release from BASF
] //vmw2 basf y
ts/2009rjooli
laov/rjdfsfTA/613PDF
-------
Page 789
H.3 Photos of disassembled BIW parts used by EDAG to develop CAE models
Image H.3-1: Front Shock Tower Assembly
Image H.3-2: Front Dash Panel Assembly
-------
Page 790
H.3-3: Side Panel Image Assembly
Image H.3-4: Front Floor Panel Assembly
-------
Page 791
Toyota Venza
Image H.3-5: Rear Floor Panel Assembly
Image H.3-6: Front and Rear Rail Assembly
-------
H.4 Scan Data from White Light Scanning
Page 792
Steering Column BRKT
Welding Points
Bulkheads
I loorl"andAssembly
Figure H.4-1: STL Data Samples of Sub-Assemblies, Small and Larger Parts
L
V Ax
Figure H.4-2: Weld Points Data from Scanning Process
-------
Page 793
H.5 BIW Material Testing
Image H.5-1: Material Coupon Samples
-------
H.6 Material Engineering Properties
Page 794
Table H.6-1: Table of Common Engineering Properties [261
Steel Grade
Mild 140/270
Mild BH
210/340
Mild BH
260/370
DP 300/500
HSLA 350/450
DP 350/600
DP 500/800
DP 700/1 000
CP 800/1 000
MS 950/1 200
CP 1050/1 470
HF 1050/1 500
Density(t/m
m3)
7.850e-09
7.850e-09
7.8506-09
7.8506-09
7.8506-09
7.8506-09
7.8506-09
7.8506-09
7.8506-09
7.8506-09
7.8506-09
7.8506-09
Poisson's
ratio
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Modulus of
Elasticity (MPa)
21.0x104
21.0x104
21.0x104
21.0x104
21.0x104
21.0x104
21.0x104
21.0x104
21.0x104
21.0x104
21.0x104
21.0x104
Lower YS
(MPa)
140
210
260
300
350
350
500
700
800
950
1050
1050
Ultimate
Tensile
Strength
(MPa)
270
340
370
500
450
600
800
1000
1000
1250
1470
1500
Tot EL
(%)
42-48
35-41
32-36
30-34
23-27
24-30
14-20
12-17
8-13
5-7
7-9
5-7
-------
Table H.6-2: Material Curves of Stress vs. Stain (1 of 2)
Page 795
I
Mild 140/270
o.ooo o.ioo
0.200 0300
True Strain
-0,OQl/*«
-0.1/SCt
- SO/wc
-10Q/KC
0.400 0.500
I
Mild BH 210/340
0 200 0.300
True Strain
- 100/sec
- SOOQ/s«e
Mild BH 260/370
DP 300/500
0000 0.100
0200 0300 0400 0500
True Strain
HSLA 350/450
OJJOOO D950g 9100P O.ISflO 0 30QO a ISOO g 1050
- SOD yt^—
00000 00500 01000 0.1500
True Strain
DP 350/600
035W 01900 01500
True Strain
Table H.6-2 (Con't): Material Curves of Stress vs. Strain (2 of 2)
-------
Page 796
DP 500/800
DP 700/1000
.- 800
^r,
0 1000 0 15.03
True Strain
- 0, W1/J«
-0,I/s*t
- 1/iec
- 10/Mi
- IOO/J«c
- 1000/MC
True Strain
CP 800/1000
MS 950/1250
00000 o Q:K> o 9*00 o (woo o osoo o IOQG 01:00
CP1050/1470
00 OJOO 0
True Strain
HF 1050/1500
0 0000 0 O&OO D.iOOQ 01SW 0 20OO 0 2SDQ
True Strain
3SOO 040OQ 04SDD
OJOOO 04000 06000 OB9QO
Tru« Strain
-------
Page 797
H.7 EDAG Load Path Analysis
In order to determine which components are the main contributors to the crash load path,
45 major section forces were measured in the 5 crash load cases.
Figure H.7-1 through Figure H.7-5 show the sectional force magnitude in the 5 crash
load cases of the baseline model. The section force of each member cross section was
specified at numbers in the figure with kN unit. The force level was shown as bar chart to
see the significance of each load case in Figure H.7-5.
Higher section force means the components are important in load path transfer in each
crash events. Since optimization process requires one single CAE model to iterate all load
cases simultaneously. So section force should be combined into as one load cases and the
magnitude of each section force should be normalized as combined section divided with 5
maximum section force of each load case.
Number is Sectional Force (kN)
19
29
27
25
66
74
46
Figure H.7-1: Section Force of Baseline Model in Front Crash
-------
Page 798
91
98
129
83
Figure H.7-2: Force of Baseline Model in Front Offset Crash
21
30
35
20
25
Left Side
Right Side
Figure H.7-3: Section Force of Baseline Model in Side Crash
-------
Page 799
Figure H.7-4: Section Force of Baseline Model in Rear Crash
Figure H.7-5: Section Force of Baseline Model in Roof Crush
-------
Page 800
_i_|_
FMVSS208 USNCAP: SECTION FORCES
• • —•- ILI lii III. Mi.
FMVSS208 ODB; SECTION FORCES
I I .1 I I I I I I I I . .. I
III Illlllll ll. III.
FMVSS214 SINCAP; SECTION FORCES
TT T
FIWSS301 REAR MDB: SECTION FORCES
.ll.ll .lll.ll. . -llllll. ..ill.- lllll.il
FMVSS216a ROOF CRUSH : SECTION FORCES
**" && ^ ^ ^ F &
Figure H.7-6: Section Force Bar Chart
As shown in Figure H.7-7, the corresponding components of highlighted area in the
normalized section force chart was considered as primary target parts.
Normalized Sectional Force with Combined of 5 Crash Load Cases
Top Priority Components
for Optimization Target
V
llinlihi I1UMJI I
!!li-iiI!*iil!i^l!fll!£^i3iiSSiItSIi
iilnji|H*inpHMnmminni
Figure H.7-7: Normalized Combined Sectional Force Bar Chart
-------
Page 801
H.8 System Level Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMATs)
Table H.8-1: Engine System CMATs
1
1
3
g
8
9
10
11
13
15
16
17
18
E
* I
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Sub- Subsystem Description
01 Engine
'01
02
System downsize (2.7L 14 to 2.4L 14)
Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem
03
Crank Drive Subsystem
04
Counter Balance Subsystem (NA)
05
06
Cylinder Block Subsystem
Cylinder Head Subsystem
07
08
Valvetrain Subsystem
Timing Drive Subsystem
09
LJ°_
11
12
Accessory Drive Subsystem (NA)
Air Intake Subsystem
Fuel Induction Subsystem
Exhaust Subsystem
1 13
14
Lubrication Subsystem
Cooling Subsystem
15
16
nduction Air Charging Subsystem (NA)
Exhaust Gas Re -circulation Subsystem (NA)
17
Breather Subsystem
60
Engine Management. Engine Electronic. Electrical Subsystem
70
Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor. Generator, etc.)
SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
Manuracunng
Matena,
USD
480.00
2.76
7.00
76.16
9.57
18.53
7.39
0.88
0.74
36.97
1.56
1.26
1.66
653.53
La»
USD
0.86
5.38
6.96
1.65
7.44
2.55
0.49
0.24
12.90
0.87
0.74
0.07
41.76
=„=„
USD
131
18.70
3258
432
24 SO
708
1.01
022
2358
251
029
089
119.55
Total
(Component/
Assembly)
480.00
5.52
31.07
115.70
16.15
49.97
17.02
2.39
1.21
4.94
2.29
2.62
814.84
Mar^p
Scrap
USD
0.12
0.21
1.48
0.58
1.13
0.83
0.10
0.01
0.70
0.18
0.02
0.10
5.61
so»
USD
058
288
687
1.60
459
209
027
0.13
5.14
059
026
050
26.47
P,-
USD
0.39
2.58
4.90
1.36
4.90
1.69
0.21
0.11
4.37
0.62
0.24
0.28
22.62
EC.™
USD
0.05
0.82
1.07
0.35
1.98
0.60
0.04
0.03
1.41
0.23
0.08
0.10
6.94
Total Marfcup
Assembly)
USD
649
1452
0.62
028
11 S2
1.62
0.61
0.78
61.65
Packaging
Cost
Assembly)
USD
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
0
o
0
o
0
Impact to OEM
USD
6.67
130.02
62.57
3.01
1.48
84.87
6.56
2.90
3.40
876.49
System
EDST/RSD
(X1000)
USD
(X1000)
USD
1,058.60
622.80
17,824.00
2,500.60
1,234.20
5,141.60
2,166.40
1,803.90
311.00
6,640.90
2,079.90
415.00
630.60
««».
(X1000)
USD
1
1
2
3
6
7
8
9
12
13
15
16
18
E
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Sub- Subsystem Description
01 Engine
'01
02
System downsize (2.7L 14 to 2.4L 14)
Engine Frames. Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem
03
04
05
Crank Drive Subsystem
Counter Balance Subsystem (NA)
Cylinder Block Subsystem
06
Cylinder Head Subsystem
07
Valvetrain Subsystem
08
09
Timing Drive Subsystem
Accessory Drive Subsystem (NA)
10
LLL
12
LJ3-
14
Air Intake Subsystem
Fuel Induction Subsystem
Exhaust Subsystem
Lubrication Subsystem
Cooling Subsystem
15
16
nduction Air Charging Subsystem (NA)
Exhaust Gas Re -circulation Subsystem (NA)
17
|_60_
70
Breather Subsystem
Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Electrical Subsystem
Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.)
SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
NEWTECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
Manures
Matena,
USD
441.58
2.57
5.35
88.72
3.42
15.50
12.43
8.59
35.12
0.95
1.25
618.29
ca»
USD
0.70
3.90
9.40
0.54
12.72
0.87
0.75
12.06
0.17
0.38
41.94
=„=„
USD
220
1628
4508
1.09
3325
039
084
2246
0.14
1.18
123.85
Total
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
5.47
5.05
10.18
1.27
2.81
784.08
Mar^p
Scrap
USD
0.19
0.17
4.10
0.03
0.54
0.12
0.06
0.52
0.01
0.10
5.88
S0»
USD
057
224
8.01
044
449
149
037
4.76
0.14
029
23.78
P,-
USD
0.44
2.06
5.73
0.39
4.94
1.26
0.78
4.02
0.15
0.31
20.43
EC8™D
USD
0.09
0.69
1.31
0.10
2.25
0.30
0.15
1.31
0.06
0.12
6.48
Total Marfcup
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
129
5.16
035
3.16
136
56.57
Packaging
Cost
Assembly)
USD
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
0
o
0
0
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD
441.58
6.76
30.69
6.00
73.70
17.45
12.14
1.62
3.63
840.65
System
EDST/RSD
(X1000)
USD
(X1000)
USD
3,837.20
320.00
20,742.00
301.00
3,405.20
1,619.20
241.70
3,663.30
359.80
1,418.90
36,537.30
(X1000)
USD
-------
Page 802
I
1
2
3
4
5
g
/
8
g
—
11
12
—
14
15
16
E
>• _&
-------
Page 803
- is
E
I
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Su.Su^te.Descnpt.on
02 Transmission
3
_^
J K
02
03
—
08
09
Case Sbsvstem
Gear Train Subsystem
OHPump and Filter Subsystem
Electriacl Controls Subsystem
Parking Mechanism Subsystem
SUBSYSTEMROLL-UP
'
m
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
SuthSuQsystem Description
02 Transmission
'
01
2
02
:ase Sbsvstem
5
7
OS
06
07
.aunch Clutch Subsystem
DilPump and Filter Subsystem
Vtechanical Controls Subsystem
— 1 20 Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem
SUBSYSTEMROLL-UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
ManufecurrB
Matena,
USD
59. (
427
22 (
166.5
L,.,
USD
.
4.02
7.60
24.32
,«,
USD
30.33
Total
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
221.17
,,«„,
E?,:m
USD
0.22
1.03
,0«,
USD
3.98
17.S
P-
USD
2.81
12.23
ED«™«.
USD
2.09
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
33.34
"ackaging Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
0
Component/
USD
254.51
System
USD
Tooling (X1000)
USD
3,836.70
inssr
USD
NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
.„„»„„„,
„,,,
USD
261.26
L,.,
19.48
B_
USD
10.27
33.32
Assembly)
USD
314.05
Mar^p
End Bern
USD
2.20
,„
USD
2.76
2S.S
P-
USD
20.12
ED«™«.
USD
0.59
0.56
0.06
3.30
Total Markup
USD
54.61
Packaging Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
o
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD
368.66
System
(X1000)
USD
Tooling(xlOOO)
USD
0,00
0,00
0,00
11,487.50
(X1000)
USD
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E
I | 1 Subsystem Descnpion
02 Transmission
2 02 Case Sbsvstem
3 03 Gear Train Subsystem
5 T OS ONPump and Filter Subsystem
6 07 Mechanical Controls Subsystem
8 T09 ParkindMschanism Subsystem
9 20 Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem
SUBSYSTEMROLL-UP
,„,„,
(94.73)
IN
anufaCtunnB
L*.r
USD
10.45
«.,«
:REMEr
,_
USD
(2.99)
TAL COST
Total
""ZTw*
USD
(24.80
(92.SS)
TO UPC
E?r
USD
(1.16)
RADE1
Ma
S08A
USD
-- 8)
(11.00)
ONEW
kup
praffl
USD
(7 .89)
TECHN
ED™
USD
(1.21)
3LOGY PA
Assembly)
USD
(21 .26)
CKAGE
=
USD
o
•
Component/
Assembly Cost
USD
(29.49!
(114.15)
USD
T ooling (X1000)
USD
„,„.„,
"'— "
USD
Table H.8-3: Body System, Group A, BIW and Closures CMATs
-------
Page 804
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E
| >• Sub-Subsystem Description
m
03 Body Subsystem
3 TO-I Bodv Structure Subsystem
4 I 01 Front Floor
6 I 02 Bodv Dash and Cowl
6 I 03 Roof and Cross -Member
7 I 04 Bodv Side
8 | 05 Parcel Shelf and Cross-Vehicle Framing Parts
9 I 06 Cab Back & Ring Frame
10 1 07 Rear Wheel Arch Liners
11 1 08 One Piece Bodv Structure
12 | 10 Rear Floor
13 | 11 Fuel Filler and Flap
14 1 99 Misc. Under Ladder Assemblv
15 102 Front End Subsystem
16 1 01 Front Structure
18 1 03 Front Fenders
19 1 OSHoodBIW Panel
20 | 10 Under Engine Closures/Air Dams
21 1 08 Front End Module Carrier
22 1 99 Misc. - Compartment Extras (AD
23 |03 Bodv Closures Subsystem
24 1 03 Rear Closure BIW Panel
25 |19 Bumpers Subsystem
26 | 01 Front Bumper Skin and Foams
SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
*.,.,
USD
26.21
45.07
227.08
2.37
145.15
44.93
9.91
25.49
4.92
6.35
19.76
9.00
600.48
Manufacturing
La,,
USD
150
359
3045
0.13
2650
1057
044
1.61
020
2.60
2B3
0.63
87.33
=„„.„
USD
1242
1728
15050
123.74
56.72
535
1246
037
12.67
17.11
435
446.34
Total
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
40.13
408.33
112.22
15.70
21.70
13.98
1,134.15
BASE
ESc,'aT
USD
0.04
0.02
FECHNC
Ma
SSIA
USD
0.61
0.37
)LOGY
kup
Pro,
USD
048
0.29
SENER;
EO™
USD
056
0.10
0.06
L PART \t
Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
0.74
JFORMA
Total
Assembly)
USD
DON
Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
Intact to OEM
USD
40833
4458
11222
15.70
21.70
39.70
13.98
1,136.11
(xlOOO)
USD
Tooling
(xlOOO)
USD
4500.00
1200.00
300.00_
4500.00
10,100.00
(X1000)
USD
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E
| >• Sub-Subsystem Description
03 Body Subsystem
3 T01 Bodv Structure Subsystem
4 I 01 Front Floor
6 | 02 Body Dash and Cowl
6 I 03 Roof and Cross-Member
7 I 04 Bodv Side
8 I 05 Parcel Shelf and Cross-Vehicle Framing Parts
9 I 06 Cab Back & Ring Frame
10 1 07 Rear Wheel Arch Liners
11 | 08 One Piece Body Structure
12 1 10 Rear Floor
13 1 11 Fuel Filler and Flap
14 1 99 Misc. Under Ladder Assemblv
1 5 |02 Front End Subsystem
16 | 01 Front Structure
18 1 03 Front Fenders
19 1 OSHoodBIW Panel
20 1 10 Under Engine ClosuresfAir Dams
21 1 08 Front End Module Carrier
22 1 99 Misc. - Compartment Extras (AD
23 |03 Body Closures Subsystem
24 1 03 Rear Closure BIW Panel
25 119 Bumpers Subsystem
26 I 01 Front Bumper Skin and Foams
SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
*.,.,
29.90
39.57
2.32
24.96
45.98
31.76
64.84
4.76
10.28
19.98
49.73
19.71
776.46
Manufacture
Lane,
155
457
0.11
1158
158
0.18
331
255
253
053
94.56
=„„.„
1359
17.77
0.72
5942
1225
1753
12.17
17.10
436
490.66
Total
(Component/
Assembly)
61.42
3.15
1,361.68
NEWT
ESc,"a7
0.02
0.02
ECHNO
SSIA
0.35
0.35
LOGYC
ku,
p..
028
046
0.28
ENERA
EO™
056
0.06
L PART IN
Total Markup
(Component/
Assembly)
0.70
0.70
FORMAT
Total
Assembly)
ION
Net
Assembly Cost
Intact to OEM
355
34.70
1,363.56
EDST/RSD
(xlOOO)
Tooling
(xlOOO)
3500.00
33500.00
(X1000)
-------
Page 805
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E
- -9 " eSCnP '°n
03 Body Subsystem
3 01 Bodv Structure Subsystem
4 I 01 Front Floor
6 I 02 Bodv Dash and Cowl
6 03 Roof and Cross -Member
7 04 Bodv Side
8 I 05 Parcel Shelf and Cross-Vehicle Framing Parts
9 I 06 Cab Back & RJnjj Frame
10 I 07 Rear Wheel Arch Liners
11 I 08 One Piece Bodv Structure
12 I 10 Rear Floor
13 11 Fuel Filler and Flap
14 99 Misc. Under Ladder Assemblv
15 02 Front End Subsystem
16 I 01 Front Structure
18 I 03 Front Fenders
19 I OSHoodBIW Panel
20 I 10 Under Enjjjne Closures/Air Dams
21 I 08 Front End Module Carrier
22 99 Misc. - Compartment Extras (AD
23 03 Bodv Closures Subsystem
24 03 Rear Closure BIW Panel
25 19 Bumpers Subsystem
26 I 01 Front Bumper Skin and Foams
SUBSYSTEM ROLL -UP
M»r.l
551
0.05
4.13
0.16
(175.99)
Msnufacturing
u-
(0.18]
0.02
(0.51]
0.13
17.23)
Burden
(049]
0.11
(2.70]
oao
050
0.01
(0.01]
[44.32)
INCREM
Total
Cost
Assembly)
4.83
0.17
(29.96
(227.54)
ENTAL (
Scrap
oao
0.00
:OSTT
M.
SG&A
0.02
0.02
3 UPGR
kup
Profit
002
0.02
ADETO
™
0.00
0.00
NEW TEC
Assembly)
0.04
0.04
HNOLOC
Total
(Component/
Assembly)
YPACKA
453
021
(227.45)
GE
EDST/RSD
(X1000)
Tooling
(xlOOO)
USD
1,000.00
(5,700.00)
(4,400.00)
(22500.00)
(X1000)
USD
Table H.8-4: Body System, Group B, Interior CMATs
-------
Page 806
E
- &
E
1
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Su,SUtey™cn,on
03
3
4
5
Body System B
OH
Interior Trim and ornamentation subsystem
06 Sound and Heat Control Subsystem
10
17
seatina subsystem
20 Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
SUBSYSTEM ROLL -UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
.„„»„„,„
..«,
USD
106.39
4.03
64.30
14.07
35S..1
L,,
USD
0.20
3.90
4.45
».«
,„„,„
USD
36.21
0.26
4.75
149,46
Manufacturing
(Component/
USD
»,.,.
.,«„,
"•;
USD
a 01
a oe
2.3.
,0«,
USD
0.23
1.21
3S.S3
P.
USD
0.15
19.26
0.01
2S.SS
ED«™«.
USD
0.04
0.20
9.1.
Total Markup
Assembly)
USD
T..97
Packaging
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
0
0
•
Assembly Cost
USD
677.47
System
(X1000)
USD
,„„,„,„„„
USD
21,53245
3,04210
1,573.00
B.I.7.*
(X1000)
USD
I 1
E
I
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Su,SUtey™cn,on
03 Body System B
1
4
5
6
05
Interior Trim and ornamentation subsystem
07 Sealing Subsystem
12
70
occubant Restrain™ Device subsystem
SUBSYSTEM ROLL -UP
NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION :
.„„»„„,„
..«,
43.95
33=.=
L.,
USD
9.42
47.7.
,„,_
USD
9.42
111.1.
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
494.18
.,«„,
E";
USD
1.77
,0«,
USD
2S.SS
P.
USD
4.10
0.09
22.55
E.«™«.
USD
6.13
"SIT
USD
S..3,
Packaging
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
•
Assembly Cost
USD
554.49
System
(X1000)
USD
,„„,„,„„„
USD
0,360.00
«,,„.«,
"rsr
USD
- a-
I
m
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
SuLvS^moesc^cn
03 Body System B
2 ros
4
5
Sound and Heat Control Subsystem
10 Seating Subsystem
6 T20
Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
SUBSYSTEMROLL-UP
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
Man^tunns
Matena,
0.26
20.73
L,»,
USD
39.22
51.24
,«,
USD
24.30
35.35
«»-
USD
107.32
Ma,kup
E"r
USD
0.42
0.53
,„
4.93
5.97
P.
4.97
6.14
E.™
2.45
3.02
ic=r
USD
15.66
Total
Packaging
Assembly)
USD
0
0
;3Es
USD
122.9S
System
(X1000)
USD
Tooling (X1000)
USD
14,507.05
777.00
,«,,5
"IT
USD
Table H.8-5: Body System, Group C, Exterior CMATs
-------
Page 807
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E
| >• Sub-Subsystem Description
m
03 Body System C
3 T08 Exterior Trim & Ornamentation Subsystem
_4 1 RadlatorGr"1
5 1 Lower Exterior Finishers
6 1 Upper Exterior & Roof Finish
— ' Rear Closure Finishers
8 | Rear Spoiler Assembly
9 1 Grill - Cowl Vent
10 T09 Rear View Mirrors Subsystem
1 1 1 Exterior Mirror - Driver Side
1 2 1 Exterior Mirror - Passenaer Side
13 | 23 Front End Module
14 1 Module - Front Bumper & Fascia
15 124 Rear End Module Subsystem
1 6 1 Module - Rear Bumper and Fascia
SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
*.,.,
2.02
— Mi
4.56
2.12
2.54
2.54
12.04
12.72
57.02
Manufacture
La,,
USD
008
Offi
0.12
0.16
026
026
032
035
2.27
=„„.„
USD
030
0.04
1.13
020
020
235
235
9.30
Total
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
3.00
3.00
14.71
68.59
BASE
ESc,'aT
USD
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.11
0.40
FECHNC
Ma
SG&A
USD
0.27
0.61
0.30
0.33
0.33
1.63
1.71
7.56
)LOGY
kup
Profit
USD
1.16
022
040
030
026
026
129
135
6.00
SENER;
™
USD
0.04
0.10
0.06
0.05
0.05
026
027
1.21
L PART \t
Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
0.55
OJ7
0.76
0.67
0.67
3.20
3.44
15.18
JFORMA
Total
Asseirfjly)
USD
DON
Ne,
Component/
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD
3.03
479
3 £7
17.99
83.77
(xlOOO)
USD
Tooling
(xlOOO)
USD
(X1000)
USD
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E
| >• Sub-Subsystem Description
03 Body System C
3 T08 Exterior Trim & Ornamentation Subsystem
4 | Radiator Grill
5 | Lower Exterior Finishers
1 PP
— ' Rear Spoiler Assembly
9 1 Grill - Cowl Vent
10 T09 Rear View Mirrors Subsystem
1 1 1 Exterior Mirror - Driver Side
1 2 1 Exterior Mirror - Passenaer Side
13 1 23 Front End Module
14 1 Module - Front Bumper & Fascia
15 1 24 Rear End Module Subsystem
1 6 | Module - Rear Bumper and Fascia
SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
*.,.,
USD
— ML
10.96
2.07
2.25
2.25
10.49
11.10
52.07
Manufacture
Lane,
USD
Offi
053
0.14
025
029
031
2.04
=„„.„
USD
1.05
0.96
0.19
2.10
2.11
8.24
Total
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
3.17
62.35
NEWT
ESc,"a7
USD
0.09
0.02
0.02
0.09
0.09
0.44
ECHNO
SSIA
USD
1.39
0.35
0.30
1.42
1.50
6.84
LOGYC
P,of,t
USD
1.10
020
024
1.13
1.19
5.52
ENERA
EO™
USD
OJ7
022
0.06
0.05
023
024
1.11
L PART IN
Total Markup
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
OJ3
0.71
0.60
2.07
13.90
FORMAT
Total
Assembly)
USD
ION
Ne,
Assembly Cost
Intact to OEM
USD
457
3 as
330
15.75
76.25
EDST/RSD
(xlOOO)
USD
Tooling
(xlOOO)
USD
(X1000)
USD
-------
Page 808
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E
- -9 " eSCnP '°n
03 Body System C
3 08 Exterior Trim & Ornamentation Subsystem
4 Radiator Grill
5 Lower Exterior Finishers
6 Upper Exterior & Roof Finish
7 Rear Closure Finishers
8 Rear Spoiler Assembly
9 Grill - Cowl Vent
10 '09 Rear View Mrrors Subsystem
11 | Exterior Mrror Driver Side
1 2 Exterior Mrror - Passenaer Side
13 23 Front End Module
14 Module - Front Bumper & Fascia
15 24 Rear End Module Subsystem
16 I Module - Rear Bumper and Fascia
SUBSYSTEM ROLL -UP
M,,,,,
0.16
020
0.15
020.
155
1.62
4.95
Msnufacturing
u-
0.01
0.01
0.01
Ml.
0.03
0.04
0.23
Burden
0.03
0.14
0.05
0.05
0.13
0.17
01
024
024
1.06
INCREM
Total
Cost
Assembly)
00
1.03
1.90
6.24
ENTAL (
Scrap
oao
oao
op_
0.01
0.01
(0.03)
:OSTT
M.
SG&A
0.00
0.02
0.04
OJ3
0.20
0.21
0.72
3 UPGR
kup
Profit
(0.03]
002
03
0.16
0.17
0.48
ADETO
™
0.00
0.00
Mi
0.03
0.03
0.11
NEW TEC
assembly)
0.04
07
1.27
HNOLOC
Total
(Component/
Assembly)
YPACKA
020
032
07
224
232
7.52
GE
EDST/RSD
(X1000)
Tooling
(xlOOO)
(X1000)
-------
Page 809
Table H.8-6: Body System, Group D, Glazing & Body Mechatronics CMATs
I I
1
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Su.-Su^Desc^n
03 Body System D
2
5
—
8
11
Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem
r~03 First Row Door Window Lift Assv
05 Back and Rear Quarter Windows (Fixed)
F"09 PowerWindowElectronics
L° : y.
12 Back Window Assv
I 13 Front Side Door Glass
SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
M^tuftro
"*««
5.70
„
0.40
,_
1.32
39.32
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
Markup
E?r
0.02
,0«
0.37
P.
0.25
E.«™.
a os
ass
1.15
'=-'
USD
13.05
'ackaging Cos!
Assembly)
USD
;3Es
USD
147.56
System
(X1000)
USD
Tooling ,™
(0.11)
ic;,=r
USD
(1.2S)
«r
USD
Component/
Impact to OEM
USD
(15.25)
System
USD
Tooling (X1000)
USD
(X1000)
USD
Table H.8-7: Suspension System CMATs
-------
Page 810
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
- 1
S^s,=mD=scn,,.n
04 Suspension System
01 Front Suspension Subsystem
2
02 Rear Suspension Subsystem
3
03 Shock Absorber Subsystem
4
04 Wheels and Tires Subsystem
05 Suspension Load Leveling Control Subsystem (NA)
06 Rear suspension Modules Subsystem (NA)
07 Front Suspension Modules Subsystem (NA)
SYSTEM ROLL-UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
Manufacture
Wen,.
USD
5855
8657
22342
429.10
u-
USD
1649
2640
46.85
103.60
=„„.„
USD
32.97
25.96
46.85
137.94
Total
Assembly)
USD
317.12
670.63
Markup
'solar
USD
2.07
038
ana
5.96
SG&A
USD
1132
15.18
15.93
=3.36
Profit
USD
9.68
1223
10.62
41.94
™
USD
2.77
3.16
2.66
11.32
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
3155
30.01
112*8
Packaging
Assembly)
USD
Component/
USD
134.14
347.13
783.22
System
(X1000)
USD
Tooling
(X1000)
USD
3,511.70
2,172.83
2,642.34
8,326.87
(X1000)
USD
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
~
-------
Page 811
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1 =
- (ft
05
1
1
m
Dr
Sub-Subsystem Description
veline System
03 Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
04 Front Drive Half Shaft Subsystem
* SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
Manufacturing
M,,,,,
694
16.79
u-
ana
2.52
»-
ODD
5.96
Total
Manufacturing
Assembly)
25.26
Markup
Esd4m
004
0.29
SG&A
041
2.54
Profit
0.47
2.55
™
0.23
0.97
Total Markup
Assembly)
6.34
Packaging
Assembly)
0
0
Net
Assembly Cost
31.60
System
(X1000)
Tooling
(X1000)
7430
115,0
(X1000)
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
~ m
05
v,
1
-------
Page 812
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1 1
~ m
SuWs,=mD=scnB.n
06 Brake System
3
03 Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
4
04 Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
H
07 Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic)
3
08 N/ A
9 T09 Brake Controls Subsystem (Nfa)
10
10 Auxiliary Brake Subsystem (NfA)
* SYSTEM ROLL-UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
M.nufactunng
M^eria,
USD
49.19
33.71
2.99
157.80
u-
USD
10.39
12.26
1.56
52.09
Burden
USD
49.94
5646
2.06
143.38
Total
Cost
Assembly)
USD
7.42
353.27
Markup
Scrap
USD
0.65
035
0.04
1.77
SG&A
USD
7.16
6.49
0.70
27.10
Profit
USD
754
453
052
21.98
EDSI-R&D
USD
3.39
1.00
0.07
6.23
Total Markup
Assembly)
USD
10.74
1237
140
57.08
Packaging
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
USD
114.79
410.35
System
EDST/RSD
(xlOOO)
USD
Tooling
(xlOOO)
USD
2,005.50
3J167.40
1,049.91
11432.64
(X1000)
USD
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E I
- 1
—
06 Brake System
3
03 Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
'
6
04 Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
I 3 y.
06 Brake Actuation Subsystem
7
07 Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic)
08 N/ A
g
09 Brake Controls Subsystem (Nfa)
10
10 Auxiliary Brake Subsystem (NfA)
* SYSTEM ROLL-UP
NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
Manufacturing
Matena,
30.49
11.19
2.94
104.58
u-
10.16
353
1.05
29.27
»"
29.01
5.29
2.22
73.30
Assembly)
7046
20.00
207.15
Markup
&Scr7
0.40
0.14
0.04
1.06
SGSA
539
208
0.66
15.50
Profit
5.61
1.60
0.40
13.08
ED&T-R&D
241
037
0.00
3.99
Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
33.64
Packaging
(Component/
Assembly)
Net
Assembly Cost
92.35
24.26
240.79
(xlOOO)
Tooling
(X1000)
4,900.16
4,96431
559.70
1,97530
12,050.77
(X1000)
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
~
-------
Page 813
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1 =
- (ft
07
— !
1
to
Sub-Subsystem Description
Frame and Mounting System
01
Frame Subsystem
^ SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
Manufacturing
M,,,,,
73.90
73.90
L,b.
2122
21.22
»"
1743
17.43
Total
Manufacturing
Assembly)
112.55
112.55
Markup
Esdcr
037
0.97
SG&A
1232
12.32
Profit
11.61
11.61
™
4.07
4.07
Total Markup
Assembly)
28.97
Packaging
Assembly)
0
0
Net
Assembly Cost
14152
141.52
System
(xlOOO)
Tooling
(xlOOO)
7,710.61
7,710.61
(X1000)
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E
* *
07
E
1
Sub-Subsystem Description
Frame and Mounting System
SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
M,,.t,c,.,,,,
M,,,,,,,
70.04
L,b.
USD
10.19
=,»„
USD
41.52
Total
Manufacturing
Assembly)
USD
121.75
Markup
Esdc,r
USD
0.82
s^
USD
8.54
P™,
USD
9.40
ED,™
USD
4.30
Total Markup
Assembly)
USD
23.05
Packaging
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
0
Assembly Cost
Intact to OEM
USD
144.80
System
(xlOOO)
USD
Tooling
(X1000)
USD
~
11,11,0
(X1000)
USD
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E
~ if?
07
E
1
(0
Sub- Subsystem Description
Frame and Mounting System
^ SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
M.nufactunng
Matena,
3.86
L,b.
USD
,,..3
=,„„
USD
(24.09)
Total
Manufacturing
Assembly)
USD
[9.20)
M.rkup
lor
0.16
SG&A.
USD
3.79
Profit
USD
2.21
™
USD
(0.23)
Cost
Assembly)
USD
5.92
Packaging
Assembly)
USD
0
Component/
USD
(3.28)
System
(xlOOO)
USD
Tooling
1x1000)
USD
£ 1
(3,70039)
(X1000)
USD
Table H.8-11: Exhaust System CMATs
-------
Page 814
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E S
!
s»su«y,«mD=,cn,,.n
09 Exhaust System
1 [ 01 Acoustical Control Components Subsystem
SUBSVSTEMROLL-UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
»,,.f,c,™,
*..,
1755
39.02
L*,
028
0.84
Burden
0.35
1.05
Manufacturing
(Component
Assembly)
18.18
40.90
Markup
ESc,7
0.08
am
0.13
SGSA
OS9
1.75
P-
1.62
EDSI-R&D
038
0.67
Total Markup
(Component/
Assembly)
4.18
Total
Packaging
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
0
0
Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
Intact to OEM
2054
45.08
(xlOOO)
Tooling (xlOOO)
(X1000)
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E I
6
s»su«y,«mD=,cn,,.n
09 Exhaust System
i
01 Acoustical Control Components Subsystem
02 Exhaust Gas Treatment Components Subsystem
SUBSVSTEMROLL-UP
NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
»,,.f,c,™,
*..,
1752
36.97
L*,
032
0.95
Burden
0.32
0.97
Total
Cost
(Component
fcsembly)
1846
3B.SS
Markup
ESc,7
OD7
0.12
SGSA
036
1.57
P-
058
1.45
EDS.T-RSD
037
0.60
(Component/
Aisemljly)
3.74
Total
Packaging
Cost
(Component/
fcsembly)
0
0
Component/
AsseirtlyCost
Impact to OEM
20.74
42.62
EDST/RSD
(X1000)
Tooling (xlOOO)
(X1000)
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
I I
I
—
09 Exhaust System
1 r 01 Acoustical Control Components Subsystem
SUBSYSTEM ROLL -UP
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
,—,„„„„
_
(0.28!
2.«
L.
(0.11)
,«,
..«
Total
Assembly)
2.02
,,«„,
™r
...,
,„
,.„
„.,
..„
ED>T-™
...,
Total Markup
(Component/
Assembly)
....
Packaging
•
Component/
Assembly Cost
2.4,
System
Tooling (xlOOO)
"IT
Table H.8-12: Fuel System CMATs
-------
Page 815
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1 I
10
1
I
Sub- Subsystem Description
Fuel System
31 Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem
32 Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem
* SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
Manufacturing
USD
24.51
28.66
USD
11.35
12.35
USD
31.38
32.53
.,-,li,,
Assembly)
USD
73.54
M.rkup
Scrap
USD
0.46
0.51
USD
5.11
5.83
USD
534
6.01
_D£I RS.D
USD
232
2.55
Total Markup
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
,4.9,
Packaging
Assembly)
USD
0
0
Net
Component/
Impact to OEM
USD
88.45
(xlOOO)
USD
Tooling
(xlOOO)
USD
4,745.00
5,191.00
(X1000)
USD
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1 I
10
1
I
Sub- Subsystem Description
Fuel System
31 Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem
32 Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem
* SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
Manufacturing
USD
42.87
46.98
USD
5.37
0.60
5.97
USD
17.09
17.74
.,-,li,,
Assembly)
USD
70.69
M.rkup
Scrap
USD
0.44
0.48
USD
4.67
5.28
USD
5.04
5.61
_D£I RS.D
USD
228
2.47
Total Markup
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
13.84
Packaging
Assembly)
USD
0
0
Net
Component/
Impact to OEM
USD
84.54
(xlOOO)
USD
Tooling
(xlOOO)
USD
3,252.20
3,565.70
(X1000)
USD
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
fe S
10
2
1
Sub- Subsystem Description
Fuel System
)2 Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem
* SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
Matena,
0.05
(18.32)
Msnufacturmg
u-
USD
0.40
6.38
=„„.„
0.50
14.79
Manufacturing
USD
0.95
2.85
Es'c,»™
0.01
0.03
M,
SSIA
0.11
0.55
kup
P,f,t
0.11
0.40
ED™
0.04
0.08
Total Markup
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
1.06
Packaging
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
0
0
Net
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD
121
3.91
(xlOOO)
USD
USD
13250
1,62530
(X1000)
USD
Table H.8-13: Steering System CMATs
-------
Page 816
E S
I
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
—
05 Steerinfl Column Switches Subsystem
ros
Steerinfl Wheel Subsystem
SUBSYSTEM ROLL -UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
M.nufactunng
M.tena,
„.«,
„.,
6.20
,.,«
Burden
,.«
Total
(Component/
Assembly)
35.1S
M.rkup
Scrap
0.02
0.3,
SG&A
027
2.6S
Profit
025
2.2,
EDSI-R&D
0.10
.»
Total Markup
(Componenf
Assembly)
,.s«
Total
Packaging
(Componenf
Assembly)
•
Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
ImpacttoOEM
41,1
(X1000)
Tooling (xlOOO)
4,360.10
(X1000)
E
fi-
I
5
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Su,S«mDescrtpBon
ll Steering System
07
=ower Steerinfl Subsystem
OS
Steerinfl Column Switches Subsystem
SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
Msnufacturmg
*..,
357
16.S1
L*,
0.13
2.00
4.64
=-
3.75
5.57
Manufacturing
(Componenf
Assembly)
27.03
Markup
ESdc,apm
0.10
0.20
s»
1.04
1.35
P-
OB8
1.15
ED™
023
0.34
Total Markup
(Componenf
Assembly)
3.04
Packaging
Cost
(Componenf
Assembly)
0
0
Net
Componenf
Assembly Cost
ImpacttoOEM
1245
30.07
System
(X1000)
2,53230
3,01540
(X1000)
I I
I
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
—
11 Steering System
roi
Steerinfl Gear Subsystem
'ower Steerinfl Subsystem
04
Steerinfl Column Subsystem
ros
Steerinfl Wheel Subsystem
SUBSYSTEM ROLL -UP
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
Manufacture
Matena,
1.67
L.
(0.22)
3.19
,«,
3.28
Total
Assembly)
(0.80;
B.15
Markup
E",7
0.1S
,„
1.34
„.,
1.13
E.™
0.25
Total Markup
(Component/
Assembly)
2.90
Packaging
0
Component/
Assembly Cost
11.05
System
Tooling
«„.
"IT
Table H.8-14: Climate Control System CMATs
-------
Page 817
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
* I
E
$ Sub-Subsystem Description
12 Climate Control
3
01 Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem
02 Heating/Defrosting Subsystem
03 RefrigerationfAir Conditioning Subsystem
4 r 04 Controls Subsystem
SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
Manufacture
Matena,
16 £5
18.12
*,
3.66
am
4.37
=„„.„
1057
13.20
Total
(Component/
Assembly)
31.18
35.70
M.rkup
Scrap
000
0.09
s^
1.57
1.81
P-
1.04
1.21
ED™
026
0.30
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
2.95
3.42
Packaging
Assembly)
0
Component/
Imp act to OEM
34.13
39.11
(xlOOO)
Tooling
(xlOOO)
6700
1,070.00
Investment
(X1000)
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
§ S g- Sub-Subsystem Description
~ * S
12 Climate Control
1 [ 01 Air HandlingfBodv Ventilation Subsystem
2 T 02 Heating/ Defrost ing Subsystem
3 T 03 Refrigeration/Air Conditioning Subsystem
4 T04 Controls Subsystem
SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
M.nufactunng
Matena,
16.17
1.43
17.82
„.,
USD
4.74
0.59
0.06
5.39
=«„
USD
3.63
0.29
3.97
Total
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
2.31
27.17
M.rkup
EsdJ7
USD
0.06
0.01
0.07
s^
USD
1.23
0.12
1.38
P-
USD
002
000
0.92
ED™
USD
021
0.02
0.23
Total Markup
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
022
2.61
Total
Packaging
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
0
0
0
Component/
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD
252
29.78
System
EDST/RSD
(xlOOO)
USD
Tooling
(xlOOO)
USD
524.00
1600
604.00
(X1000)
USD
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
~ * I
12 Climate Control
2 T 02 HeatingfDefrosting Subsystem
3 T 03 RefrigerationfAir Conditioning Subsystem
4 r 04 Controls Subsystem
SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
Manufactory
«*„„
10.211
0.30
L*,
USD
(1.01)
=„„.„
USD
2.00
9.24
Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
1.85
8.53
Markup
EsdJ7
USD
0.00
0.02
s»
USD
0.43
P-
USD
0.06
0.29
ED™
USD
0.07
Total Markup
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
0.18
0.81
Packaging
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
0
Net
Component/
In^acttoOEM
USD
2.03
9.34
System
EDST/RSD
(xlOOO)
USD
Tooling
(xlOOO)
USD
240.00
386.00
(X1000)
USD
Table H.8-15: Info, Gage and Warning System CMATs
-------
Page 818
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1 I
13
i
1
$ Sub-Subsystem Description
3
Info, Gage and Warning System
31 Instrument Cluster Subsystem
* SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1 I
13
,
>• Sub-Subsystem Description
-g
Info, Gage and Warning System
01 Instrument Cluster Subsystem
* SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
Manufacturing
1.95
1.95
USD
0.06
0.06
USD
0.22
0.22
.,-,li,,
Assembly)
USD
2.23
M.rkup
Scrap
USD
0.01
0.01
USD
0.13
0.13
USD
0.15
0.15
_D£I RS.D
USD
0.07
0.07
Total Markup
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
0.37
Packaging
Assembly)
USD
0
0
Net
Component/
Impact to OEM
USD
2.60
(xlOOO)
USD
Tooling
(xlOOO)
USD
(X1000)
USD
NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
Manufacturing
*.,.,
USD
1.70
1.70
L,b.
USD
0.05
0.05
»"
USD
0.31
0.31
(Component/
USD
2.07
2.07
M.rkup
^,7
USD
0.01
0.01
SG&A
USD
0.12
0.12
Profit
USD
0.14
0.14
EDSI-R&D
USD
007
0.07
Total Markup
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
0.34
Packaging
USD
0
0
Net
Component/
Impact to OEM
USD
241
2.41
EDST/RSD
(xlOOO)
USD
Tooling
(xlOOO)
USD
(X1000)
USD
13
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
§
B- Sub- Subsystem Description
Info, Gage and Warning System
01 Instrument Cluster Subsystem
* SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
*.,.,
0.25
»,,.t,c,.,,,,
L,b.
0.01
=,»„
(0.09I
[0.09)
INCREM
T.,,l
"CI7
0.16
ENTAL
Es'c,»™
0.00
:OSTT
M,
ss»
0.01
DUPGR
»,
P™,
0.01
ADETO
ED.T-™
0.01
NEW TEC
Total Markup
(Component/
Assembly)
0.03
HNOLOC
Total
(Component/
Assembly)
0
YPACKA
Net
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
0.19
GE
(xlOOO)
(X1000)
Table H.8-16: In-Vehicle Entertainment System CMATs
-------
Page 819
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E ^
* 1
15 In-Vehicle Entertainment
1 [ 01 Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem
2 02 Antenna Subsystem
3 03 Speaker Subsystem
SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E i
- * i
15 In-Vehicle Entertainment
1 ' 01 Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem
2 02 Antenna Subsystem
3 03 Speaker Subsystem
SUBSYSTEM ROLL -UP
M_,
007
1.46
«,„„„
122
003
1.26
Manufacturing
Lanor
USD
024
1.55
Manufacturing
L».,
USD
0.61
003
0.64
=„«
USD
1.26
0.36
1.62
="'"
0.76
002
0.78
Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly]
USD
0.66
4.62
Totd
(Component
Assembly)
USD
259
008
2.67
BASE
EScl7
USD
000
0.04
NEW!
ESc,aepm
USD
0.01
000
0.01
FECHNC
M.
SSIA
USD
0.07
0.48
ECHNC
M.
SG&A
USD
026
0.01
0.27
)LOGY (
kup
Profl,
0.05
0.32
LOGYC
kup
Profit
USD
0.10
0.01
0.18
SENER;
EO™
USD
0.01
0.04
3ENERI
ED&T-R&D
USD
0.02
0.00
0.02
L PART Ih
Total Markup
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
0.13
0.89
L PART It
(Component
Assembly)
USD
0.40
0.02
0.49
FORMAT
Totd
Cost
(Component
Assembly)
USD
0
0
FORMAT
Total
Assembly)
USD
0
0
0
ON
Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD
0.79
5.52
ON
Net
Assembly Cost
ImpacttoOEM
USD
3.07
009
3.16
EDST/RSD
(XlOOO)
USD
(X1000)
USD
Tooling (XlOOO)
USD
139231
USD
216.70
216.70
(X1000)
USD
(X1000)
USD
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
| |
t
1
—
15 In-Vehicle Entertainment
i
01 Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem
2
02 Antenna Subsystem
03 SpeakerSubsvstem
SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
Manufacturing
,„„
0.16
0.04
0.20
L*,
USD
0.70
0.21
0.91
=„„.„
USD
050
034
0.84
Manufacturing
(Component
Assembly)
USD
137
050
1.95
Markup
ESdc,aT
USD
0.03
0.00
...3
SGSA
USD
0.15
0.06
0.21
Profit
USD
0.10
0.04
0.14
™
USD
0.01
0.01
0.02
Total Markup
(Component
Assembly)
USD
0.29
0.40
Total
Packaging
Cost
(Component
Assembly)
USD
0
0
0
Net
Asseni)lyCost
USD
0.69
«
EDST/RSD
(xlOOO)
USD
Tooling (xlOOO)
USD
1,175.60
1,175.60
(X1000)
USD
Table H.8-17: Lighting System CMATs
-------
Page 820
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E
I
Sub-Subsystem De sen pton
17 Lighting
1
01 Front Liflhtinfl
SUBSYSTEM ROLL -UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
Unuftctunn,
*.„.,
L*.
USD
2.26
=„»„
USD
4.55
Manufacturing
USD
Markup
Scrap
USD
*„
USD
P-
USD
0.49
ED™
USD
0.12
0.12
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
1.39
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
0
In^acttoOEM
USD
16.11
(xlOOO)
USD
Tooling
(xlOOO)
USD
™
(X1000)
USD
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E I
- £
1
fi
—
17
Lig
Ming
1 r 01 Front Liahtina
SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
NEW TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION
M,,.f,c,™,
*.,.,
10.87
L*,,
USD
1.23
=„«.„
USD
3.3,
Total
Cost
(Component
Assembly)
USD
15.41
M.rkup
Scrap
USD
0.04
S3«
USD
0.77
P-
USD
0.52
ED™
USD
0.13
Total Markup
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
1.46
Total
Packaging
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
0
Net
Component/
AssemblyCost
ImpacttoOEM
USD
16.87
EDST/RSD
(xlOOO)
USD
Tooling
(xlOOO)
USD
(X1000)
USD
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E I |
- & 1
s^^^
17 Lighting
1 T 01 Front Lid ht in a
SUBSYSTEM ROLL -UP
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
»»,.f,c,™,
M_,
(2.951
L*,,
1D3
1.03
=„-
1.24
1.24
Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
(0.69)
M.rkup
Esdc,r
(0.00)
s^
(0.03)
P-
(0.02)
ED™
[0.01)
Total Markup
(Component/
Assembly)
[0.07)
Packaging
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
0
0
Net
Component/
AssemblyCost
ImpacttoOEM
[0.76)
EDST/RSD
(xlOOO)
Tooling
(xlOOO)
400.00
400.00
(X1000)
Table H.8-18: Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System CMATs
-------
Page 821
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E S
m
—
18 Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System
SUBSYSTEM ROLL -UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E S
I
m
—
18 Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System
SUBSYSTEM ROLL -UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
MAC,*.,
.,„„
8.92
„.,
0.59
Burden
0.63
Total
(Component/
Assembly)
M.rkup
Scrap
SG&A
Profit
EDSI-R&D
0.03
Total Markup
(Component/
Assembly)
0.90
Total
Packaging
(Component/
Assembly)
Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
ImpacttoOEM
11.04
(X10TJO)
Tooling (X1000)
31350
(X1000)
NEW
M.nufactunng
r^tena,
7.61
„.,
0.62
0.62
Burden
058
0.5S
Total
(Component/
Assembly)
02
S.S2
M.rkup
End Kern
003
0.03
SG&A
045
0.45
Profit
034
0.34
EDSI-R&D
0.05
0.05
Total Markup
(Component/
Assembly)
O.S7
Total
Packaging
(Component/
Assembly)
3N:
Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
ImpacttoOEM
9.69
(X1000)
Tooling (X1000)
2100
210.00
(X1000)
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
- &
I
m
SU^-D™^
18 Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System
01 Electrical Wirina and Circuit Protection Subsystem
SUBSYSTEM ROLL -UP
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
,—,„„„„
—
1.31
,.3,
L.
(0.03)
,«,
0.04
....
«»-.
,.32
„«„,
End Bern
(0.00)
..«
..»
(0.03)
ic=r
...3
Total
Packaging
Assembly)
Assembly Cost
,.3=
System
(X1UOO)
Tooling (X1000)
103.50
,,.5.
"IT
-------
Page 822
H.9 Suppliers who Contributed in the Analysis
en
(*l
CD
3
01
02
03
03
03
03
09
12
15
17
Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Sub-Subsystem
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
Exhaust System
Fuel System
Climate Control System
Info, Gage and Warning System
In-Vehicle Entertainment System
Lighting System
_
Major Supplier Contributed in Ideas
Mubea, Mahle, DSM
DuPont
PolyOne
Trexel, Polyone, SABIC
PolyOne
Pikington, Exatec, Intermac
Mubea, Delphi
Mubea, SGF
Zotefoams, DSM
Trexel
Parker
SABIC, Trexel
Logos
Mubea (TinHLE C DSM
,nu;pii) «LE™.
fhfyOnc
TREXEL_ RJrOnc "V "•
MOCta
RJyOnc
nuSra, ® BINTERMAC
DSLPHI
1 ,< 1 l -1 (l
/Mubea ??|7f*
DSLPHI
^, ZOIEFOAMS QDSM
Tfejc..
^^ffl
^1 it III mm
TREXEL.
-------
Page 823
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
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
-------
Page 824
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.
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.
-------
Page 825
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.
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
-------
Page 826
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.
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.
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.
-------
Page 827
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).
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.
-------
Page 828
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.
-------
Page 829
J. References
1. Toyota Venza Body Panel Replacement Service Manual
2. EDAG CAE Crash and Safety Modeling Guidelines Revision 2.0 Nov 2010
3. EDAG CAE NVH Modeling Guidelines Revision 2.0 Nov 2010
4. Lotus Engineering Report Reference for Lotus Errata -EPA docket: EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0799-0710
5. MSC-NASTRAN Users Manual 2007
6. LS-DYNA v971 Users Manual 2010
7. HEEDS Users Manual 2010
8. "Ultra Light Steel Auto Body report by Porsche Engineering Service, Inc. for Phase
I and Phase II Findings," March 1998 published by ULSAB Consortium.
9. Hannes Fuchs-Multimatic Engineering Services Group-paper published in "Design
and Structural Performance Assessment of A Composite Intensive Passenger
Vehicle."
10. Future Steel Vehicle (FSV)- Report Referenced With WorldAutoSteel Council and
EDAG Inc. link available at
http://www.autosteel.org/Programs/Future%20Steel%20Vehicle.aspx
11. Advance, Lightweight Materials Development and Technology for Increasing
Vehicle Efficiency by KVA Inc. -Dec, 2008
12. A. Bandivadekar, K. Bodek, L. Cheah, C. Evans, T. Groode, J. Heywood, E.
Kasseris, M. Kromer, M. Weiss, "On the Road in 2035: Reducing Transportation's
Petroleum Consumption and GHG Emissions Laboratory for Energy and the
Environment", Report No. LFEE 2008-05 RP, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, July, 2008
13. ThyssenKrupp Stahl Report on NewSteelBody dated 2003.
14. Dr. Marc Stehlin, SuperLight-Car, Volkswagen Group Research, under Sustainable
Production Technologies of Emission Reduced Light Weight Car Concepts, April
2008.
15. Aluminum Transportation Group Reports In SAE International.
16. Tailor Rolled Blank Technology (TRB's) By Mubea GmBH.
-------
Page 830
17. U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: Office of
Vehicle Technologies, FY2006 Progress Report for Automotive Lightweighting
Materials, October 2007, available at
http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/resources/vt_alm_fy06.html.
18. Pavel Brabec, Miroslav Maly, and Robert Vozenilek, "Experimental Determination
of a Powertrain's Inertia Ellipsoid."
19. NHTSA Test No. C95111, for 2009 Toyota Venza 35MPH flat frontal crash.
20. NHTSA Test No. MBS 128 for 2009 Toyota Venza 38.5MPH MDB side impact.
21. Jurgen Leohold, Pathways for a sustainable automotive future, Volkswagen
Conference Proceedings, May 2009.
22. Gundolf Kopp, Strategies and methods for multi-material structure and concept
developments, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Volkswagen Conference
Proceedings, May 2009.
23. Lars Fredrik Berg, Polymer technologies for innovative light weight vehicle
structures, Volkswagen Conference Proceedings, May 2009.
24. Future Steel Vehicle Report—Phase 2, WorldAutoSteel Proceedings, April 2011
25. ANSA Users Manual 2010
26. WorldAutoSteel, the automotive group of the World Steel Association;
http: //worldauto steel. org/
27. EDAG GmbH http://www.edag.de/en/company.html
28. Red Cedar Tech http://www.redcedartech.com/products/heeds mdo
------- |