Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis,

   Report on Additional Case Studies


   Revised Final Report
unfed State*
EnvrcnnwrrtHl Protection

-------
                 Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis,
                    Report on Additional Case Studies

                              Revised Final Report
                                Assessment and Standards Division
                                Office of Transportation and Air Quality
                                U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                      Prepared for EPA by
                                          FEV, Inc.
                                   EPA Contract No. EP-C-07-069
                                    Work Assignment No. 2-3
                  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.
SER&
Prntectiofi
EPA-420-R-13-008
April 2013

-------
                                   Report FEV 07-069-203 Rev. D
Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis
 - Report on Additional Case Studies
       Contract No. EP-C-07-069
         Work Assignment 2-3
            Prepared for:

             Brian Nelson
   U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
          2000 Traverwood Dr.
         Ann Arbor, MI 48105
           Submitted by:

            Greg Kolwich
              FEV, Inc.
         4554 Glenmeade Lane
         Auburn Hills, MI 48326
            April 12, 2013

-------
                                                       Analysis Report FEV 07-069-203 Rev D
                                                                             April 22, 2013
Engine Technology
  Updates to "Light-Dutry Vehicle Technology Cost Analysis, Report on Additional Case
                                        Studies"
The  overall  goal of this study was to provide accurate technology assessments through highly
detailed and transparent cost analysis methodologies that compare and contrast differences and
similarities between these transmission systems.  Based on that goal, FEV is hereby issuing an
update to the previously released report dated 3/26/10.  Minor revisions have been made to some
of the electronic hardware and controls to more accurately account for all components as well as
including required communication and feedback loops between these components with both high-
side  and low-side electronic drivers.  These updates are described below and are comprised of
refinements  in cost analysis results obtained as well as  detailing the electronic control system
differentials  between the compared transmissions.  This is done in an added table detailing the
various solenoids, valves, sensors, wiring and various drivers that differentiate each unit.

   •  Revision to List of Figures on page iii due to inclusion of new Figure 2-4 in report body.

Electronic Hardware Comparison

   •  This  is done with the addition of a detailed paragraph on page 2-16 and Figure 2-4 on
       page 2-17 that detail a direct side-by-side comparison of the two transmission variations
       being studied.


Updates to Previous Text Descriptions and Tables in the Report Body

   •  Update Table ES-0-1 on page 2 due to the revision of the 6-Speed DCT vs. AT cost
       differential.
   •  Revision to text at the top of page 2-16 describing the cost differential to the net
       incremental direct manufacturing cost.
   •  Update Figure 2-5 on page 2-18 due to the insertion of electronic controls costs.

-------
                                        CONTENTS
Section                                                                            Page

    Executive Summary	1
    1    Introduction	 1-1
         1.1  Obj ectives	1-1
         1.2  Study Methodology	 1-2
         1.3  Manufacturing Assumptions	 1-5
         1.4  Subsystem Categorization	 1-6
    2    Case Study Results	2-1
         2.1 Case Study #0102 Results	2-2
         2.2 Case Study #0104 Results	2-7
         2.3 Case Study #0802 Results	2-10
         2.4 Case Study #0902 Results	2-15
    3    GLOSSARY OF TERMS	3-1

-------
                             LIST OF APPENDICES






A. Powertrain Package Specification Proformas



B. System Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMATs)



C. Subsystem Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMATs)
                                     n

-------
                                 LIST OF FIGURES
Number                                                                      Page

Figure 1-1: Cost Analysis Process Flow Steps and Document Interaction	1-4

Figure 2-1:  System Cost Model Analysis Template Illustrating the Incremental Subsystem Costs
         Roll Up for V6 to 14, Turbo, GDI Downsizing, Case Study #0102	2-5

Figure 2-2:  System Cost Model Analysis Template Illustrating the Incremental Subsystem Costs
         Roll Up for V8 to V6, Turbo, GDI Downsizing, Case Study #0104	2-8

Figure 2-3:  System Cost Model Analysis Template Illustrating the Incremental Subsystem Costs
         Roll Up for  a 6-Speed Automatic Transmission compared to a 5-Speed Automatic
         Transmission	2-12

Figure 2-4:  System Electronic Hardware & Controls Comparison Matrix for an 8-Speed DCT
         compared to a6-SpeedDCT	2-127

Figure 2-5:  System Cost Model Analysis Template Illustrating the Incremental Subsystem Costs
         Roll Up for a 6-Speed Wet DCT compared to a 6-Speed Automatic Transmission 2-18
                                         111

-------
                                      LIST OF TABLES
Number                                                                      Page

Table ES-0-1: Increment Unit Cost Impact - Five (5) New Technology Configurations	2

Table 1-1: Vehicle Class and  Corresponding Downsized, Turbocharged, Stoichiometric, GDI
          Engine Case Study Evaluated	1-1

Table 1 -2: Engine System, Subsystem and Sub-Subsystem Classification	1-7

Table 1-3: Transmission System, Subsystem and Sub-Subsystem Classification	1-8

Table 2-1: Location of System and Subsystem CMATs within Appendix	2-2

Table 2-2: Cost for Adding Turbocharging and  GDI to a 2.0L, 14, NA, PFI engine and the
          Estimated Credit for Downsizing from a Conventional 3.0L V6 to 2.0L 14	2-6

Table 2-3: Cost for Adding Turbocharging  and  GDI to a 3.5L, V6, NA, PFI engine and the
          Estimated Credit for Downsizing from a Conventional 5.4L V8 to 3.5L V4	2-9
                                         IV

-------
  Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis - Report on Additional Case Studies

Executive Summary

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracted with FEV, Inc. to
determine the  incremental direct manufacturing costs for a  set of advanced, light-duty
vehicle technologies. The technologies selected are on  the leading edge for reducing
emissions of greenhouse gases  in the future, primarily in the form of tailpipe carbon
dioxide (CO2).

This report,  the second in a  series of reports,  addresses  the direct  incremental
manufacturing cost of four (4) new powertrain configurations, relative to four (4) existing
baseline  configurations, with comparable driver  performance  metrics.  The complete
costing methodology used in the analysis of these configurations, as well as the pilot case
study, is  described in "Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Pilot Study (EPA-420-R-
09-020)".

The four  (4) new powertrain technology configurations analyzed are:

   •  2.0L, 14, 4-valve, dual overhead cam (DOHC), dual variable valve timing (d-
      VVT), turbocharged, gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine, compared to an
      equivalent conventional 3.0L, V6, 4-valve, DOHC,  d-VVT, naturally aspirated
      (NA), port fuel injected (PFI) engine.
   •  3.5L, V6, 4-valve, dual overhead cam (DOHC), d-VVT, turbocharged, GDI
      engine, compared to an equivalent conventional 5.4L, V8, 3-valve, single overhead
      cam (SOHC), VVT, NA, PFI engine.
   •  A  6-speed automatic transmission, compared to an equivalent 5-speed automatic
      transmission
   •  A  6-speed wet dual clutch transmission (DCT), compared to an equivalent 6-speed
      automatic transmission

The results for the four (4) case studies are shown in Table ES-0-1 along the results
previously published for case study #0101.

-------
  Table ES-0-1: Increment Unit Cost Impact - Five (5) New Technology Configurations
Case
Study
Reference
0101
0102
0104
0902
0802
Technology
Definition
Downsized
Turbocharged
Gasoline Direct
Injection (Engine)
Downsized
Turbocharged
Gasoline Direct
Injection (Engine)
Downsized
Turbocharged
Gasoline Direct
Injection (Engine)
6-Speed Dual Clutch
Transmission
Replacing a 6-Speed
Automatic
Transmission
6-Speed replacing a
5 -Speed Automatic
Transmission
Vehicle
Class
Compact/
Budget/
Economy Car,
Passenger. 2-4
Mid to Large
Size Car,
Passenger 4-6
Passenger +
Midsize Towing
Capabilities
Truck & SUV
Mid to Large
Size Car,
Passenger 4-6
Mid to Large
Size Car,
Passenger 4-6
Base
Technology
CS#B0101
2.4L, 14, 4-V
DOHC, d-WT
NA, PFI,
CS# B0102
3.0L,V6, 4-V,
DOHC, d-WT,
NA, PFI
CS# B0104
5.4LV8, 3-V,
SOHC, WT,
NA, PFI
CS# B0801
6-Speed
Automatic
Transmission
CS# B0802
5 -Speed
Automatic
Transmission
New
Technology
CS#N0101
1.6L, 14, 4-V
DOHC, d-WT,
Turbo, GDI
CS#N0102
2.0L, 14, 4-V,
DOHC, d-WT
Turbo, GDI
CS#N0104
3.5LV6, 4-V,
DOHC, d-WT
Turbo, GDI
CS#N0801
6-Speed Wet
Dual Clutch
Transmission
CS# N0802
6-Speed
Automatic
Transmission
Incremental
Unit Cost
$531.57
$68.68
$846.26
($97.34)
($105.53)(1)
(1) The 6-speed automatic transmission evaluated incorporated a Ravigneaux  gear set
design, a major factor in the reduction of hardware and complexity in the 6-speed design
over the  5-speed  design.  As such the 6-speed transmission was calculated to be less
costly to manufacture than the 5-speed automatic transmission.

-------
1   Introduction

1.1  Objectives
The  objective of  this  work  assignment  was  to determine  the  incremental  direct
manufacturing costs  for  four  (4)  new  advanced  light-duty  vehicle  technology
configurations using the costing methodology,  databases, and supporting worksheets
developed in the previously concluded pilot study (Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis
Pilot Study [EPA-420-R-09-020]).

For  the  downsized, turbocharged,  stoichiometric  GDI engine  case studies,  careful
consideration was given to the selection  of vehicle classes analyzed to ensure that the
developed  costing  models, at  any  analysis  level  (component,  sub-subsystem,  or
subsystem) could be interpolated or extrapolated to other classes, configurations and/or
content levels.
Table  1-1 exhibits the five (5) vehicle classes considered in this work assignment and
identifies those vehicles classes with actual teardown-based cost studies.
 Table 1-1: Vehicle Class and Corresponding Downsized, Turbocharged, Stoichiometric,
                          GDI Engine Case Study Evaluated
 Vehicle Class
            Vehicle Class Description
    Completed
      Analysis
   Small Car
subcompact or compact car typically powered by an in-
line 4 cylinder engine
  Case Study #0101
 (2.4LI4» 1.6LI4)
     («175hp)
    (Pilot Study)
  Midsize Car
midsize or large  passenger car typically powered
by a V6 engine
  Case Study #0102
 (3.0V6 »2.0LI4)
     («225 hp)
    Large
 Multipurpose
    Vehicle
minivan or large cross-over vehicle with a large frontal
area, typically powered by a V6 engine, capable of
carrying ~ 6 or more passengers
(Large V6»Small V6)
  Potential to scale
 costs from #0102 &
       #0104
  Small Truck
small or mid-sized sports-utility or cross-over vehicle,
or a small pickup truck, powered by a V6 or V8 engine
  Case Study #0104
 (5.4LV8»3.5L V6)
     («330 hp)
  Large Truck
large sports-utility vehicles and large pickup trucks,
typically powered by a V8 engine
(Large V8»Small V8)
  Potential to scale
  costs from #0104
                                       1-1

-------
1.2  Study Methodology

The first report published, "Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Pilot Study (EPA-420-
R-09-020)", covers in great detail the overall costing methodology used to calculate an
incremental cost  delta between various  technology configurations.   In summary, the
costing methodology is heavily based on teardowns of both new and baseline technology
configurations having similar driver performance metrics.  Only components identified as
being different, within the selected new and baseline technology configurations, as a
result of the new 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.
Information on how additional associated manufacturing fixed and variable  cost elements
(e.g. shipping, tooling,  OEM indirect costs) are accounted for within the cost analysis is
also discussed in the initial report (EPA-420-R-09-020).

Listed below,  with the  aid of Figure  1-1, is a high level summary of the ten (10) major
steps taken during the cost analysis process.   For additional information concerning the
terminology used within the ten (10) steps, please reference the glossary of terms found at
the end of this report.

Step 1;  Using the Powertrain-Vehicle Class Summary Matrix (P-VCSM), a technology
is selected for cost analysis.

Step 2; Existing vehicle models are identified for teardown to provide  the basis for
detailed incremental cost calculations.

Step 3;  Pre-teardown Comparison Bills of Materials (CBOM) are developed, covering
hardware that exists in the new and base technology configurations.  These high level
CBOM's are informed by the team's understanding of the  new and base technologies and
serve to identify the major systems and components targeted for teardown.

Step 4;  Phase 1 (high level) teardown is conducted for all  subsystems identified in Step 3
and the  assemblies that comprise them.  Using Design Profit® software,  all high level
processes  (e.g. assembly process of the high pressure  fuel pump onto the cylinder head
assembly) are mapped during the disassembly.
                                       1-2

-------
Step 5; A cross functional team (CFT) reviews all the data generated from the high level
teardown  and identifies which components and assumptions should be carried forward
into the cost analysis.  The CBOMs are updated to reflect the CFT input.

Step  6;  Phase 2  (component/assembly  level) teardowns are initiated, based on the
updated CBOM's.  Components  and assemblies are disassembled, and processes and
operations are mapped in full detail.   The process mapping generates  key process
information for the  quote worksheets.   Several databases  containing critical costing
information provide support to the mapping process.

Step  7;   Manufacturing Assumption  and  Quote Summary (MAQS) worksheets are
generated for all parts undergoing the cost analysis.  The MAQS details all cost elements
making up the final unit costs: material, labor, burden, end item  scrap, SG&A, profit,
ED&T, and packaging.

Step 8; Parts with high or unexpected cost results are subjected to a marketplace cross-
check, such as comparison with supplier price quotes or wider consultation with company
and industry resources (i.e. subject matter experts) beyond the CFT.

Step 9; All costs calculated in the MAQS worksheets are automatically inputted into the
Subsystem Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMAT).  The Subsystem CMAT is used to
display and roll up all the differential costs associated with a subsystem.  All parts in a
subsystem that are identified for  costing in  the CBOM are entered into the  Subsystem
CMAT. Also both the base and new technology configurations are included in the  same
CMAT to facilitate differential cost analysis.

Step 10;   The final step in the process is creating the System CMAT which rolls up all
the subsystem differential costs to establish a final system unit cost. The System CMAT,
similar in function to the subsystem CMAT,  is the document used to display and roll-up
all the subsystem costs associated within a system as defined by the CBOM.  Within the
scope of this cost analysis, the System CMAT provides the bottom line incremental unit
cost between the base and new technology configurations under evaluation
                                       1-3

-------
   1. Technology
     Selection

  Powertrain Vehicle
 Class Summary Matrix
     (P-VCSM)
   2. Hardware
     Selection

  Powertrain Package
     Proforma
 3A. Generate Bill
   of Materials -
     Phase 1

  Comparison Bill of
  Materials (C-BOM)
Process Flow
Manual & Automated
Document Links
4. System/Subsystem
  Disassembly and
 Process Mapping -
      Phase 1

   (Design Profit®)
 5. Cross Functional
    Team (CFT)
     Reviews
Databases (Material, Labor, Manufacturing
    Overhead, Mark-up, & Packaging)
  6. Component/
    Assembly
  Disassembly &
Process Mapping -
     Phase 2

  (Design Profit®)
   3B. Update Bill of Materials - Phase 2

      Comparison Bill of Materials (C-BOM)
                          7. Generate
                        Manufacturing
                        Assumption and
                        Quote Summary
                           (MAQS)
                          Worksheets
                                                                                        I
                                                     8. Market Place
                                                       Cross-check
                                                                                        I
                                                    9. Subsystem Cost
                                                         Roll Up

                                                    Subsystem Cost Model
                                                      Analysis Template
                                                     (Subsystem CMAT)
                                                           I
                                                                                  10. System Cost
                                                                                     Roll Up

                                                                                  System Cost Model
                                                                                  Analysis Template
                                                                                   (System CMAT)
        Figure  1-1: Cost Analysis Process Flow Steps and Document Interaction
                                                1-4

-------
1.3  Manufacturing Assumptions

When conducting the cost analysis for the various technology configurations, a number of
assumptions are made in order to establish a consistent framework for all costing.  The
manufacturing  assumptions  can be broken into generic  and  specific case  study
assumptions.

The  generic manufacturing assumptions apply to all  technology  configurations under
analysis and  are carry-over from the pilot study.  Listed below  are the  fundamental
assumptions:

    1) Manufacturing  rates  are  considered high volume  (>450K  Units/Year)  and
       maintained throughout the product life. In the four (4) case studies which follow,
       a yearly capacity planning volume (CPV) of 450,000 units was assumed.

    2) All OEM and supplier manufacturing locations are  in North America, unless
       otherwise stated.   This serves to make the resulting costs conservative to the
       extent that OEMs use offshore suppliers to  reduce costs.

    3) OEMs  and suppliers  have  manufacturing  equipment and  facilities capable  of
       handling required manufacturing processes  and capacities unless otherwise stated.

    4) All manufacturing processes  and operations are based  on standard/mainstream
       industrial practices.

    5) Supplier and OEM manufacturing costs (material costs, labor rates, manufacturing
       overhead/burden rates) are based on 2008/2009 economics.

    6) Supplier mark-up rates (end-item scrap, SG&A,  profit, and ED&T) are based on
       mature technology and manufacturing methods (e.g. mature product designs, high
       production volumes,  significant marketplace competition,   and  established
       manufacturing processes) unless otherwise  specified.

    7) All OEM mark-up will be applied using indirect cost (1C) multipliers.  These are
       not within the scope of  this analysis but should be  separately determined and
       applied to the  results  of  this  analysis  to  obtain total  (direct +  indirect)
       manufacturing costs.

The specific case study assumptions are those unique to a given technology and hardware
configuration.  Listed below are some of the case study specific considerations:

    1) Manufacturing site for defined operation or  process; OEM, Tier 1 or Tier 2/3.

    2) Intellectual property  expense.
                                        1-5

-------
    3) Neighboring system costs as a result of new technology adaptation.

    4) A new or modified, maintenance and/or end-of-life expense.

    5) Availability of significant material cost reductions (MCRs).

    6) Performance and/or cost implications  of alternative  new technology advances
       (NT As).



1.4  Subsystem Categorization

As with the first case  study analysis, a design based classification system was used to
group the  various components and assemblies  making up the technology configurations.
In general, every vehicle system (e.g. engine system, transmission system, etc.) is made
up of several subsystems levels (e.g. the engine system includes a crank drive subsystem,
cylinder head subsystem, lubrication subsystem, air induction subsystem, etc.), which in-
turn, is made up  of several sub-subsystem levels (e.g. the air induction subsystem may
include the following  sub-subsystems: turbocharger, heat exchanger, pipes, hoses,  and
ducting).  The sub-subsystem is the smallest classification level in which all components
and assemblies are binned.

Adding new technology to a  system will  also affect the primary  subsystem(s).  Also
impacted are the neighboring subsystems which require additions and/or modification for
successful  integration  of the  new  technology  into the system.  For example, to  add a
turbocharged air induction subsystem to a naturally aspirated engine, as many  as ten (10)
additional  subsystems  may be  affected relative to cost, some in the positive direction
(added cost), others  in the negative direction (cost savings). Table 1-2 and Table 1-3
provide  an overview of the  major subsystems  and sub-subsystems included for each
system (e.g. engine and transmission) evaluated within this analysis.  In Section 2, Case
Study Results, costs are presented for both the  engine and transmission evaluations using
these design subsystem categorizations.
                                        1-6

-------
Table 1-2: Engine System, Subsystem and Sub-Subsystem Classification
Subsystem
Engine Frames, Mountings & Brackets
Crank Drive
Counter Balance
Cylinder Block
Cylinder Head
Valvetrain
Timing Drives
Accessory Drives
Intake
Fuel Induction
Exhaust
Lubrication
Cooling
Induction Air Charging
Breather
Electronic and Electrical
Accessory
Sub-Subsystem
Engine Frames, Engine Mountings, Hanging Hardware
Crankshaft, Flywheels/Flexplates, Connecting Rods, Pistons,
Bearing Elements
Dynamic Parts, Static Parts, Drives
Cylinder Block, Crankshaft Bearing Caps, Bedplate, Piston
Cooling
Cylinder Head, Valve Guides & Seats, Guides for Valvetrain,
Camshaft Bearing Housing, Camshaft Sensors, Camshaft
Carrier, Cylinder Head Covers.
Camshaft, Intake Valves, Exhaust Valves, Valve Springs,
Spring Retainers & Keepers & Seats,
Timing Wheels, Tensioners, Guides, Belts, Chains
Pulleys, Tensioners, Guides, Belts
Intake Manifold, Air Filter Box, Air Filters, Throttle Housing
Assembly & Supplies, Pipes/Hoses/Ducting
Fuel Rails, Fuel Injectors, Pressure Regulators & Sensors, Fuel
Injection Pumps, Pipes/Hoses, Brackets
Exhaust Manifold, Collector Pipes, Catalysts, Silencers
(Mufflers), Oxygen Sensors, Pipes/Hoses, Brackets
Oil Pans, Oil pumps, Pressure Regulators& Sensors, Oil
Filters, Pipes/Hoses, Sealing Elements, Heat Exchangers
Water Pumps, Thermostat Housing, Heat Exchangers, Pressure
Regulators, Pipes/Hoses/Ducting, Brackets
Turbochargers, Heat Exchangers, Pipes/Hoses/Ducting,
Brackets
Oil/Air Separator, Valves, Adapters, Pipes/Hoses/Ducting
Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Engine Electrical
(e.g. Wiring, Ignition, Plugs, Coils, Powertrain Control
Module)
Starter Motors, Alternators, Power Steering Pumps, Air
Conditioning Compressors
                               1-7

-------
Table 1-3: Transmission System, Subsystem and Sub-Subsystem Classification
Subsystem
Externally Mounted Component
Case(s)
Gear Train
Internal Clutch
Launch Clutch
Oil Pump and Filter
Mechanical Control
Electrical Control
Park Mechanism
Sub-Subsystem
Lift Eye, Vent Cap, Bracket, Bolting
Transaxle Case, Transaxle Housing, Covers, Bearing
Race, Plug, Actuator
Input Shaft, Output Shaft, Transfer Shaft, Sun Gear,
Planetary Gear, Ring Gear, Counter Gear, Differential
Gear, Bearing (Roller, Needle)
Sprag Clutch, Clutch & Brake Hub, Disc and Plate,
Piston, Snap Ring, Bearing (Roller, Needle),
Synchronizer
Torque Converter, Clutch Assembly, Flexplate, Flywheel
Oil pump, Cover, Oil Filter, Oil Cooler, Oil Squirter,
Pipes/Tubes
Valve Body Assembly, Mechanical Controls (e.g. Shift
Forks), Sealing Elements, Bearing Elements, Plugs &
Cups
Controller, Solenoid, Sensor, Switches, Wiring Harness
Rod/Shaft/Pin, Spring, Pawl, Bracket, Bolt
                                  1-8

-------
2   Case Study Results

The results for the four (4) case studies analyzed within this work assignment.  For each
case study, a brief description of the technology and its associated hardware is provided.
Additional general specifications for each case study can also be found in the Powetrain
Packaging Specification Proformas in Appendix A. A scaled-down version of the System
Cost Model Analysis Template (CMAT) is provided, summarizing the incremental direct
manufacturing costs for each major subsystem that was affected by adaptation of the new
technology.

The full System CMATs for each case  study can be  found  in  Appendix  B.   The
supporting Subsystem CMATs for each case study, which roll-up all the component and
assembly costs for each subsystem, can be found in Appendix C.  Table 2-1 provides a
cross  reference between  each  case study and  the associated  system and subsystem
CMATs.

Because  each case study consists of a  large  quantity  of component and assembly
Manufacturing and Assumption Quote Summary (MAQS) worksheets, approximately 200
pages per case study, hard copies were not included as part of this report.  However,
electronic copies of the MAQS worksheets, as well as all other supporting case study
documents  (e.g.  CBOMs, Subsystem CMATs,  System CMATs),  can be accessed  at
http;//www.epa.gov/otaq/.
                                     2-1

-------
        Table 2-1: Location of System and Subsystem CMATs within Appendix
  Case
  Study
Numbers
             Case Study Description
 System
 CMAT
Appendix
 Section
Subsystem
  CMAT
Appendix
  Section
NO 102

B0102
2.0L, 14, 4-valve, dual overhead cam (DOHC), dual
variable valve timing (d-VVT), turbocharged,
gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine, compared to
an equivalent conventional 3.0L, V6, 4-valve,
DOHC, d-VVT, naturally aspirated (NA), port fuel
injected (PFI) engine."
   Bl
   Cl
NO 104

B0104
3.5L, V6, 4-valve, dual overhead cam (DOHC), d-
VVT, turbocharged, GDI engine, compared to an
equivalent conventional 5.4L, V8, 3-valve, single
overhead cam (SOHC), VVT, NA, PFI engine.
   B2
   C2
N0802

B0802
A 6-speed automatic transmission, compared to an
equivalent 5-speed automatic transmission
   B3
   C3
N0902

B0902
A 6-speed wet  dual clutch  transmission (DCT),
compared  to  an  equivalent  6-speed  automatic
transmission.
   B4
   C4
a For the purpose of these case studies, "equivalent" means similar performance and/or capability
                                      2-2

-------
2.1 Case Study #0102 Results
(V6 Downsizing to 14)

Case Study #0102 analyzed the direct incremental manufacturing cost for  downsizing
from a conventional 3.0L, V6, 4-V, DOHC, d-VVT, NA, PFI engine to a 2.0L, 14, 4-V,
DOHC, d-VVT, turbocharged, GDI engine.   The performance specifications for both
engine configurations were considered to be equivalent with a maximum power output of
approximately 225 hp and maximum torque of approximately 210 Ib-ft.

Note that in this analysis, neither the new or base engine  actual hardware had d-VVT.
Both sets of hardware only consisted of intake-VVT.  However, as part of the overall
study assumptions, both technologies were assumed to have  d-VVT.

For the conventional/baseline engine configuration, a 2008 Ford Cyclone Duratec 35 (i.e.
3.5L V6) engine was  used in combination with a 2008 Ford Mondeo  Duratec 30 (i.e.,
3.0L V6) engine.  The 3.5L Duratec engine was the principal hardware referenced in this
analysis, with  the 3.0L Duratec engine primarily used to support size and weight scaling
of the 3.5L V6 engine to a 3.0L V6 equivalent.   This approach was  taken for two main
reasons: 1)  the 3.5L  Duratec  is a relative new engine (launched in  2007 timeframe,
winner of 2007 Ward's Top 10 Best Engines) and, as such, is considered to contain some
of the  latest design and  manufacturing advances for conventional V6 engines; and 2)
much of this same base engine cost analysis could be reused in Case Study #0104 (5.4L
V8, NA, PFI downsized to a 3.5L V6, Turbo, GDI engine), reducing analysis time.

For the new technology configuration, the 2007 BMW/PSA Peugeot Citroen Prince 1.6L
14,  Turbo,  GDI engine (used  in the 2008  Mini Cooper,  S) was selected as the lead
hardware, scaled up to a 2.0L 14, Turbo, GDI equivalent. Both the Chrysler GEMA 2.4L,
14, NA, PFI engine and GM Family II, Ecotec, 2.0L, 14, Turbocharged, GDI engine were
used for size and weight scaling (e.g. pistons, connecting  rods, cylinder head), feature
counts (e.g. valve cover  fasteners, oil sump fasteners), as well as for costing selected
items not captured within the  1.6L 14 BOM (e.g. balance  shaft). Because the 1.6L 14,
Prince engine was used in a previous study (i.e. case study  #0101), selected cost models
for this previously completed work  could  be reprocessed with updated  function and
performance specifications, reducing analysis time.

Features of the 2.0L 14,  Turbo,  GDI fuel induction  subsystem include a direct rotary
drive, swash plate, high  pressure fuel pump assembly servicing four (4)  side-mounted
solenoid injectors (7-hole type) with a maximum operating  pressure of  150 bar.  The air
induction subsystem includes a twin-scroll turbocharger assembly, featuring a vacuum-
actuated waste gate actuator, electronically-actuated anti-surge valve,  along with a water-
cooled, pressure-lubricated bearing  housing.  The maximum exhaust gas temperature
permitted  at the  turbine  inlet is 950°C.    Compressed  air leaving the turbocharger
assembly is cooled via an air-to-air heat exchanger prior to reaching the intake manifold.

                                       2-2

-------
In this cost analysis, as well as in the V8 to V6 Turbo, GDI, engine downsizing analysis,
no  additional  intellectual property  expenses  were  identified  beyond the  typical
contribution included  in the  selling, general  and administrative (SG&A) expense.  It is
acknowledged that each supplier currently manufacturing air induction components (e.g.
Honeywell-Garret, BorgWarner, Cummins) and/or high pressure fuel system components
(e.g. Bosch, Continental, Delphi) will have  a large number of patents to protect their
intellectual property.   Because of these  patents, market-leading suppliers can recover
some of their  development costs in the short term.  However the  approach of this cost
analysis assumes that  a competitive supplier base will  develop similar components
(which do  not infringe on the original developer's patents), and  that the value of the
originator's intellectual property will diminish,  resulting in more modest intellectual
property allowances as the  technology matures.   This allowance is captured by the
assigned SG&A rate.

As  with the first pilot case study (#0101), new  technology advances  (NTAs) were
identified as possible performance upgrades to the physical hardware of the turbocharged
engines.  These NTAs included the following: variable geometry turbochargers, water-to-
air charge air coolers,  electric water pump (replacing the conventional mechanical water
pump) paired  with a  smaller auxiliary after-run pump.  At this time, these  alternative
technologies are recorded and identified (and may be evaluated  at  a later  date when
representative hardware is available), but are not included in the cost analysis.

Many material cost reduction (MCR) ideas were identified in case study #0102, and these
MCRs were incorporated at the  beginning of this  analysis.   For  example,  certain
manufacturing processes are sometimes better suited  to lower-volume products due to
lower tooling costs. An example of this would be a part manufactured using a powdered
metal process; at low  production volumes, this may result in the lowest cost, but at high
production volumes, a fine blanking process may make better financial sense.  Generally,
anywhere a component design or manufacturing method was originally adopted based on
low  volume production,  a revised design assumption and/or process suitable for high
volume mass production was selected.  A second example of where MCRs were directly
implemented into the analysis was  in  the  selection of  "best practice" or "upward
trending" manufacturing processes.  An example of this is the replacement of a sandcast
aluminum cylinder block with a diecast cylinder block.  In this particular case study, the
actual block for the 3.0L, V6, Ford Duratec block was sandcast, whereas the 3.5L block
was  diecast.   For this reason, the 3.5L,  V6, Ford Duratec diecast cylinder  block was
evaluated for cost and  scaled down to a 3.0L V6 equivalent.

In all of the turbo, GDI, engine  downsizing studies  (case studies #0101, #0102,  and
#0104), this same approach to NTAs and MCRs was utilized.

Figure 2-1  shows the net incremental direct manufacturing cost of $68.68 for downsizing
from a 3.0L V6, NA, PFI conventional  engine to a 2.0L 14, Turbo, GDI engine.  In
                                       2-3

-------
addition to the  subsystem cost breakdowns showing their net contribution to costs, the
contribution from each cost element is also captured.  Major incremental cost factors for
the new technology were the fuel induction  subsystem ($84.76) and  air induction
subsystem ($280.70).   Major incremental cost savings for the new technology due to
downsizing were the cylinder head subsystem ($158.70) and the valvetrain ($122.71).
                                       2-4

-------

Technology Level: 01-Dcwnsiz*d, Turtoochargsd, Gasdire- Direct Inject (GDI) Engine
Vehicle Class: 02- Mid lo Largs- Siz* Passenger Vehicle. 4-6 Passengers
Study Cas»#: 0102 ( N0 102 N«w Tschndo^ Configuration)
( B0 102 Baseline Technology Co-figuration)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E
3

E
1
g- Subsystem Description

0100 ENGINE SYSTEM

1

2



f.

e

7

0

9

10

1 i

12



]?.

Ifl

17

18

10

2O



|['Lj Eiviin- Fi -mi --- M -imnn>-|^ .:-. E i .-ii ;k^ r-E. -^iili'-i-vil^ m

| 03 C rv< i'ik Pt K- • :Lul:-.v-.1f m

1 y

| OS Cvlm-.-1-i H-rv-i'-l --i ih-= v ->1 ^m

| 07 V^lv-M ,-iin :;i.il>-:-v^-t^in

| 08 Timing Drive Subsystem

| 09 Ac:i;;*-i.-5ory Diivr oub-iy -i1s-m

| 1U lm,U.- -:i.ilv:.v-.i^m

1 1 1 Fu-l '-'.il'-'r y ->C^m

| 12 Ex haunt Sub»v*te-m

I 1 j Lubt i-.-..ilii.-n :--uL";.v :>t^-ni
.
a -y
I , , y
| 1^ Ex hfiu^-t via* R t-Ciroi.i lotion SLili^va-te-nv Not Applicable In Analysis

I 17 Brv-^i1l*ri -ziLilj-ivsf-rin

1 60 Engine MEtiiagentent. Engine Electronic and Electrical Subsystems

1Tr Acoe4sorte<« Subsystem {Starter Motors, Alte-rnatora, Pcwer
Ste*f in-q Pumps, elcl

1

1

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP











































INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE COST INFORMATION
2.0L 14. DOHC, Turbo Dl
BASE TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE COST INFORMATION
3.0L VS. DOHC. NA. PFI
M-anut-32 during
Material



3









•5 .i* 24:

:$ 7. 00



•i 2^ -'f:<

•A 922





3

$ 7.93





*

s

s

$ 26.87
Labor



t











£



6 9 29



t 3 S6.



$

6 1.99







fc

£

3 27.51
Burden



*









:n 5*

i



•i 27.31







3

-. 6.00







i

3

$. J :.1'J.
Total
Cost
•I Comport nt
Assembly!



••-











s- ~ --.i:i



E 6-:. -J







&

t V ' "I







t



Markup
End Item
Scrap



3

3 0,3?









3



3 0.81

$ 3.43





S

3 0.06




3 0.09

3

*

$ 5.&9 I $. 10.77
©G&A



&









.1 :t.

&



£ 7. 62







«

$ 1.14




£ 1.35

&

£

$ 22.33
Profit



3











3



3 7,53







3

3 0.76




5 1 .10

3

S

$ 22.08
EDaT-RSD



£









i :•:• i-j ;

£



£ 2.75

,





«

£ O.19




£ O.30

&

£

$ 7.91
Toral Markup
Coat
% Component
Assembly I



•;









-ji :v4ji

i



5 1 f • 7 1







3

| 215

3 S-5-3

3 2.64




_
t €3.0@
Total
Packaging
Cost
iComponen-i
Assembiyl



£











£



£ 0 10



£ M 0_



£

£ 0.03.

£ 0.01

£ aoe

£

£

5 <0.39}
MM
Component'
A-ssembl^1 Cost
Impact 10 OEM



3







!



3 ~ CO



S :?4. -•>







3

:J if en

3 21-57

3 16.^3

:

:

$ ea.ee
Figure 2-1: System Cost Model Analysis Template Illustrating the Incremental Subsystem Costs Roll Up for V6
                                Turbo, GDI Downsizing, Case Study #0102
                                                  to 14,
2-5

-------
An alternative method of binning component and assembly incremental costs is based on
their contribution to cost relative to downsizing,  GDI, or turbocharging categories.  In
Table 2-2, the incremental subsystems costs are broken out into these three (3) alternative
categories.    The combined subsystems  cost  of adding GDI  to  a 2.0L  14  over a
conventional  PFI subsystem is  $213.   The  combined  subsystems cost for  adding
turbocharging to an 14 engine over a conventional NA subsystem is $403.  Lastly, the
credit for downsizing from a conventional V6 to a conventional 14 is $547.

Table 2-2: Cost for Adding Turbocharging and GDI to a 2.0L, 14, NA, PFI engine and the
       Estimated Credit for Downsizing from a Conventional 3.0L V6 to 2.0L 14.

GDI
Turbo
Downsizing
Net Incremental Cost
Combine
Subsystem
Incremental
Impact
$213
$403
(-$547)
$69
Direct Subsystem
Incremental
Contribution
$85
$281


Indirect
Subsystem
Incremental
Contribution
$128
$122


                                     2-6

-------
2.2 Case Study #0104 Results
(V8 Downsizing to V6)

Case Study  #0104 analyzed the direct incremental manufacturing cost for downsizing
from a conventional 5.4L, V8,  3-V, SOHC, VVT, NA, PFI engine to a 3.5L V6, 4-V,
DOHC, d-VVT, turbocharged, GDI engine.

For the conventional/baseline engine configuration, a 2008 Ford Modular 5.4L V8 engine
was selected.   Standard  features of this  engine include  a cast iron block,  forged
crankshaft, aluminum heads,  variable valve timing and hydraulic, roller finger valve
lifters. The maximum power output rating is 300 hp @ 5000 rpm with a maximum torque
of3651b.-ft. @ 3750 rpm.

For the new technology configuration, a 2008  Ford Cyclone Duratec 35 (i.e. 3.5L V6)
base engine was selected for the foundation of the analysis.  Utilizing the project team's
expertise,  published data on Turbo, GDI, V6 engine architectures, surrogate component
data from  existing benchmarking evaluations, and previously completed cost studies (i.e.,
case study #0101 and #0102), the project team developed a 3.5L V6, Turbo, GDI engine
Bill of Materials  (BOM).  In regards to a target performance specification, the Ford
EcoBoost  engine (3.5L V6, 4-V, DOHC, i-VVT,  Turbo, GDI, engine) specification was
used as a surrogate; maximum 355 hp @ 5000 rpm and 350 Ib.-ft. @ 3500 rpm.

Features of the 3.5L V6, Turbo, GDI fuel  induction  subsystem include a direct rotary
drive,  swash plate  design, high-pressure fuel pump servicing  six  (6) side-mounted
solenoid injectors  (7-hole type), with a maximum operating pressure of 150 bar.  The air
induction  subsystem   features  twin,   single-scroll  turbocharger  assemblies.  Each
turbocharger assembly has a vacuum-actuated waste gate, an  electronically-actuated anti-
surge valve, and a water-cooled,  pressure-lubricated  bearing housing.  The maximum
exhaust gas  inlet temperature permitted  at the  turbine inlet  is 950°C.   Compressed air
leaving the turbocharger assemblies is cooled prior to reaching the  intake manifold via an
air-to-air heat exchanger.

Figure  2-2  shows  the net  incremental  direct  manufacturing  cost  of $846.26  for
downsizing from a 5.4L V8,  NA,  PFI conventional engine  to a  3.5L V6,  Turbo, GDI
engine.  Major incremental cost factors for the new technology were the fuel induction
subsystem ($124.59) and air induction subsystem ($448.79).  The downsizing of many
subsystems (e.g. intake, crank drive, cylinder block) resulted in a cost savings of $155.
                                       2-7

-------

Technology Level: 01-Downsize-iJ, Turfccoh^rt^d, C^eiiJinfr Direct Injeel (GDI) Engine-
Vehicle Class: 04-Small lo Midsize Truck, Pas&sogsr + Midsize Towing Capability
Study Case*: 0104 ( N0 104 New Technology Configu-ationj
( B01&4 0. i.. in Technology Configuration)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
J

E
a
Z- Subsy&lem Description
I

0100 ENGINE SYSTEM

1

2

3


?

e


e

9






19-


17

18

i •:-•

2O



|02 Enqin- Fi:.rn--r. M---i.inri nijj. .< E-I -t,-.\:~t^. '-Ji.ihsy ••.1* ni

| 03 Civmk Driv* Sub-ivst* ni

| 04 Counter Balare* Subsystem


| 06 Cylinder H»ad Subsystem

| 07 Valve-train Subav»t»m

	 1 08 Timing Dnv* SL4b system 	
1 09 Accessory Drive- Subsystem

| 10 Intake- Subsystem

'
I y

I a *r
— I 	 a_3 	 i 	
| 1^ Ex h-TLi^t -:"io^ R~-Oii iTail.nri-nn EiLih^v ^f^ivt- (4 :-t A|:i|:ili-:^ljk In Arinly-iis
.
	 1 	 ! 	 S 	
I 60 Engin* Management. Engine Electronic and Eledrieal Subsysterna

I. Accessories Subsystem ! Starter Motor*, AlTetnatois. Power
Steel ing Pumps, etc:

|

I

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP







































INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE COST INFORMATION
3.SL.V6 DOHC, Turbo Dl
BASE TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE COST INFORMATION
5.4L VS. SOHC. NA. PFI
Manufacturing
Material



5



3




i :•-••?. 9-:


3 11.0O








*

	



$ 411

s

s

$ 268.84
Labor



S



t


£ 2.31

f 12.60


E

i :270i






t



•

t 2-*2

£

S

5 138.76
Bud en



J



S


3 16.07

$ 45.66


S








$

	



$ 6-67

S

3

*24Q.51
Total
Cost
CComporont
Assembly I



S



S


£ 9.71

1 :*.^3!


£ 11.OO

t :27.-j:






4

	



£ 1S-69

i

j

$ 643.28
Markup
End Item
Scrap



3

•S 0 ^"~

9




3 0.35


*








3

	



3 0.11

J

3

$ 23.16
SG8A



S



S


:i iei

£ 4.20


t








t





£ 1.62

&

£

$ 69.00
Profit



3



S




3 4.12


S








3


3 4.48

3 1-32

3

3

$ 7O.27
EDaT-RSD



S



£


s .-:• ;^.:

£ 1-61


S








S


£ 2.35

£ 0.57

t

£

$ 28.54
Total Matkup
• "-•:
•; Component
Assembly)



3



3


S . > 43!

3 1 0.49


3







	
|


3 12.46

3 ^.41




_
$ 1-90.&7
Total
Packaging
Cost
IComponent
Assernbry!



i



¥


£ .0 0 1 :

£ 0,26


£








$.


£ .0 04:

t 0.11

t

£

5 7.02
N*r
Component
Assembly Cost
Impact 10 OEM



•s



3


3 6-21

3 6-11

	
d 1 1.00








3


3 70.15

3 19.22

,

|

3 646,27
Figure 2-2: System Cost Model Analysis Template Illustrating the Incremental Subsystem Costs Roll Up for V8 to V6,
                                 Turbo, GDI Downsizing, Case Study #0104
                                                 2-8

-------
Similar to the V6 to 14 downsizing analysis, Table 2-3 breaks down the incremental
component and subsystems costs into downsizing, GDI, and turbocharging categories. As
shown in the table, the combined subsystem cost for adding GDI to a V6 (over  a
conventional  PFI subsystem) is $321.   The combined  subsystem costs  for  adding
turbocharging to a V6 engine over a conventional NA subsystem is $681.  Lastly, the
credit for downsizing from a conventional V8 to a conventional V6 is  $155.

 Table 2-3: Cost for Adding Turbocharging and GDI to a 3.5L, V6, NA, PFI engine and
     the Estimated Credit for Downsizing from a Conventional 5.4L V8 to 3.5L V4.

GDI
Turbo
Downsizing
Net Incremental Cost
Combine
Subsystem
Incremental
Impact
$321
$681
(-$155)
$846
Direct Subsystem
Incremental
Contribution
$125
$449


Indirect
Subsystem
Incremental
Contribution
$196
$232


                                    2-9

-------
2.3 Case Study #0802 Results
(6-Speed versus 5-Speed Automatic Transmission)

Case Study #0802 analyzed the direct incremental manufacturing cost for updating from a
conventional  5-speed automatic  transmission to a next generation 6-speed automatic
transmission.

The 5-speed  automatic transmission selected for the  analysis was the Toyota U151E
FWD transmission.    This transmission was used in various applications including the
Toyota  Camry through the  2005-2006  timeframe.    The main construction  of the
transmission includes three (3) full planetary gear sets.  The front and rear planetary gear
sets are positioned in series along a common intermediate  shaft assembly.  Adjacent to
the front and rear planetary sets, and mounted in series to the counter shaft assembly, is a
third underdrive planetary  set.  The transmission contains  a total  of nine (9)  shift
elements, four (4) disc clutches, three (3) disc brakes, and two (2) one-way-clutches. The
hydraulic valve body assembly, containing a total of seven (7) shift solenoid valves is
controlled  directly  by the  engine  control  module  (ECM).  The total  weight  of the
transmission,  including Automatic Transmission Fluid  (ATF),  is approximately 221  Ibs.
The maximum output torque rating for the U15 IE is 258 Ib-ft.

The 6-speed  automatic transmission  selected  for the analysis  was  the  replacement
transmission to the  Toyota 5-speed.  The Toyota 6-speed FWD  transmission (U660E)
was a complete redesign of the existing U151E transmission, which launched in the 2007
timeframe.  Employing a Ravigneaux and underdrive planetary gear set, positioned along
a  common intermediate  shaft assembly, the U660E  gear driveline is  much simpler
compared to its predecessor.  Only six (6) shift elements are required for operation of the
transmission;  two (2) disc clutches, three (3) disc brakes,  and one (1) one-way-clutch.
The U660E valve body assembly also contains a total  of seven (7) shift solenoid valves
interfacing  with an  exterior-mount transmission control module (TCM), which  in-turn
communicates with  the  engine  control  module (ECM).   The  total weight  of the
transmission,  including ATF, is  208 Ibs.  The maximum output torque rating for the
U660E is 295 Ib.-ft.

As discussed in the initial report (EPA-420-R-09-020),  the costing methodology employs
an  exclusion approach  to  costing.  Following  completion of the  comparison  bill of
materials (CBOMs),  the cross  functional   team began  the  process  of rationalizing
similarities  and differences  between hardware on the  five (5)  and  six  (6) speed
transmissions.  A combination of component function and content exclusion analysis was
conducted,  eliminating the majority of components which required costing.  Since the 5-
speed transmission contained more hardware (i.e., approximately 150  more parts),  and
was generally more  complex,  the 6-speed established a zero cost baseline from which an
incremental cost for the 5-speed was established.   The majority of incremental cost
                                      2-10

-------
increase of the five 5-speed over the 6-speed was associated with the two (2) additional
clutch packs, the need for a counter shaft assembly, and some additional gearing.

According  to the  SAE  Technical Paper 2006-01-0847 ("Toyota's  New  6-Speed
Automatic Transaxle  U660E  for FWD Vehicles"), the U660E's transmission geartrain
structure, consisting of a Ravigneaux gear  set and simpler planetary set, was Toyota's
original invention.  As such, there was no patent royalty fee penalization assessed against
the 6-speed design.   The patent rights for similar 6-speed transmission designs (e.g.
Lepelletier) are due to expire in 2010.  Therefore we do not expect royalty  fees to be a
significant part of the cost for  6-speed transmissions.

For the 6-speed  automatic transmission, there were no NTA or MCR ideas identified as
part of the cost analysis.  It was obvious from the transmission teardown assessment that
in addition to  Toyota's goal for  improving overall performance with their new 6-speed
automatic transmission relative to the 5-speed predecessor,  keeping costs at or below the
existing manufacturing cost  was a key metric.  In regard  to the 5-speed automatic
transmission, many of innovative ideas implemented into the 6-speed  automatic could
have  been incorporated into  a new 5-speed if it were to be redesigned).   The most
obvious NTA would  be  adopting  a  similar Ravigneaux geartrain  design, which could
conceivably have the  same financial benefit recognized by the  6-speed automatic.  As
part of this analysis, no additional  work was conducted to determine what the financial
impact would be on the 5-speed automatic by employing some of these NTA and MCRs
concepts.  As such, the net incremental direct manufacturing cost shown below is solely
based on the physical hardware evaluated.

Figure 2-3 shows the  net incremental direct manufacturing cost  between the six (6) and
five (5) speed automatic transmissions.  In evaluating the physical hardware, the 6-speed
automatic was analyzed  to be less expensive to manufacture by  approximately $105.
Note  that when  the 6-speed transmission was redesigned, several  other functional and
performance updates  not driven by the added 6th-gear  ratio were  incorporated (e.g.
modified hydraulic control strategy, spool valve material, and  friction discs,  as well as a
newly-developed torque converter).  These modifications were not costed in  the analysis
since  they are independent of the gear ratio addition and modifications.
                                       2-11

-------

Technology Level: 08-6 Spe«d Automatic versus 5 Spe^d Automatic Trarenisston
Vehicte Class: 02- Mid to Large Size Passsrigsr V«Mcte, 4-6 Passengers
Study Caswt: 0802 ( N0802 New Tectndcxy Configuration;!
( B0602 Ba.seline Technology Corfiguratiorn

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
£

E
a
f
3
Subsystem Desertion

0200 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

8

10

11

12




EXTERNAL COMPONENTS: Consists of installation at .:i! :•:>•:•!: I •.
lift eyes, vent caps.


CASBS): Includes pressed in components < i.e., bearing races),
plugs, and associated hardware.


03 GEAR TRAIN: Includes Input Shafts, Output Shafts. Differential and
aii associated gears and bearings on the shaft.


INTERNAL CLUTCHES: Internal for Gears, Synchronizers. Bands,
etc.


OS LAUNCH CLUTCHES: Torque Converter




OIL PUMP & FILTER: Includes Pump. Pump Shaft/Drhfe Mechanism,
Oil Filters ; Internal or Externall. Pick-up Tube, and Oil Baffles.

07 MECHANICAL CONTROLS


03 ELECTRICAL CONTROLS


in PARK MECHANISM: Includes Park 8, Lock Pawl Mechanism and
Actuating Levers


10 MISCELLANEOUS:

i

I

SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP































INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE COST INFORMATION
6 Speed Automatic Transmission: 2OO7-2009 Toyota Camry
BASE TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE COST INFORMATION
5 Speed Automatic Transmission: 20O4-2006 Toyota Camry
Manulaoturing
Material



3

i [O 83!

j :i 93:

> .19 !•:.

t

3

$ iO 17!

s

s

*





f. <22.29>
Labor



$



t .4-^:

£ ;8.871

f

«



£

(,

s





$ • -I4.H:
Buden



S

> .4 t-.e.i

i :13 67!

; : :*4 i- :

*

3

3 i 0 50!

a

*

a





t ( 53.32 >
Total
Cosr
•ICompoiwm
- •.•--rn I •!-, .



S

•

s :2o. is:

s .<,_ -'U.

*

£

K 1 191

S

S

$





* 190.22;
HHfup
End Hem
Scrap



3

1

•3 !0 14!

i .04')

s

»

3 :o o-:-!

a

s

a





t i'O.S1|.
SCiaA



c

t

i. :t 45:

i :4.27!

t

s

t .-"' '.- J :

£

t

f





S {5.76!.
Profit



$

S

'5 ;i 64!

•i .4 2*:

%

s

•E ;o o:-!

s

I

*





t {5.9E!
EDaT-RsD



(.

t

^. >.' *l i

V 1 -0 .

S

$

•y EflLBl

t

C

I





3 (2.7-0
Total Markup
Cost
•'. Component
Assembly!



4

3

5 1405!

3 :tO.911

a

3

3 ;C>07!

3

9

3





( ! 15.04}
Total
Packaging
Cost
•IComporwnt
Assembly!



s

1

1

i ..) 2t :

(

I

S .0 Oi:

I

£

*





$ (0.281
NM
'-:oi-ii|.-:-iH-iTh
Assem bty Cost
Impact to OEM



3

3 [B.O9Q

3 :24 L4:

3 ',71 c-31

J

3

3 '. 1 .28.1

3

3

3





3 (-105.531
Figure 2-3: System Cost Model Analysis Template Illustrating the Incremental Subsystem Costs Roll Up for a 6-Speed
                    Automatic Transmission compared to a 5-Speed Automatic Transmission
                                                2-12

-------
2.4 Case Study #0902 Results
(6-Speed Wet Dual Clutch Transmission versus 6-Speed Automatic Transmission)

Case Study #0902 analyzed the direct incremental manufacturing cost for updating from a
conventional 6-speed automatic transmission to a 6-speed, wet, dual clutch transmission.

The baseline technology configuration selected for the analysis was the Toyota 6-speed
automatic transmission (U660E) of case  study #0802.  General design parameters of the
U660E transmission can be found in section 2.3 of this report.

The new technology configuration selected for the analysis was the Volkswagen (VW)
six 6-speed, wet, dual clutch transmission (DCT); model number DQ250. Other industry
naming conventions for this technology configuration include twin-clutch gearbox or dual
shift gearbox (DSG).    The basic components  of the DCT include a twin clutch pack
assembly driving two (2) coaxial input shafts. Power from the engine is transmitted  to
the input shafts through a dual-mass flywheel which is connected in series to the  twin-
clutch pack.  Each input shaft, dependent on the selected gear, is designed to mesh with
one (1) of two (2)  output shafts.    Upon reverse gear selection, there is an intermediate
shaft which engages with both input shaft one (1) and output shaft two (2). There are
four (4) shift forks, two (2) on each output shaft, hydraulically activated into one of two
positions from their neutral home position. The controls for the DCT, which include the
hydraulic controls, electronic controls, and various sensors and actuators, are integrated
into a single module VW refers to as  a Mechatronic unit.   The total weight of the
transmission module,  including the  dual-mass flywheel, is approximately 207 Ibs.  The
maximum output torque rating for the DQ250 transmission is 258 Ib.-ft.

Relative to intellectual property costs, no additional allowances were provided, outside
the general allowance covered as part of the  selling, general and administrative (SG&A)
expense,  for protecting intellectual property.   It is acknowledged that each supplier
currently making a version of a DCT (e.g. BorgWarner, Getrag, ZF, LuK) will have a
large number of patents on  their own technology. Because of these patents, suppliers
who are considered to be market leaders in DCT technology will certainly recover some
of their development costs in the short term.  However, it is assumed that as the supplier
base and associated technologies mature, the value (i.e. function/cost) each supplier
provides  will begin  to equalize,  resulting in a diminishing  intellectual property cost
allowance for each design.

As part of the hardware review and evaluation, no NTA or MCR ideas were considered  in
the final cost analysis. The evaluation team felt that in general, both transmissions were
robustly designed, with each consisting of a high level of component and function
integration, which resulted in two financially competitive solutions.
                                     2-15

-------
In this analysis, approximately seventy-five (75) percent of the components on both the 6-
speed automatic transmission and 6-speed wet DCT were evaluated for cost.   This level
of analysis was required due to the inherent  differences between the automatic versus
DCT  components.  The only  subsystems identified  as  common in function and cost
between  the  two (2) transmissions were the oil pump, filter, park mechanism, and
external components.

Figure 2-5 shows the net, incremental, direct manufacturing cost between the 6-speed wet
DCT  and 6-speed automatic transmissions.  In evaluating the physical hardware, the 6-
speed wet DCT was analyzed to be less expensive to manufacture by approximately $97.
The major cost increment of the 6-speed wet DCT was the launch clutch system ($64.79),
which included a  dual-mass flywheel and twin clutch assembly.  The major incremental
cost savings for the new technology were the internal clutches ($132.35) and the geartrain
($38.04).

Also  shown  in Figure 2-5, a differential exist between the electronic  hardware and
controls in the two transmission systems. Differences including Gear Selecting Solenoids
and Sensors  and  well  as wiring harnesses and communication drivers can be  clearly
identified in Figure 2-4 below.  These components and controls account for an additional
cost differential of $46.99 contributing to the net incremental  direct manufacturing cost of
$-97.34.
                                      2-16

-------
6-Speed DSG
Device Description
Gearbox Input Speed Sensor (G1 82)
Multi Plate Clutch Oil Temperature Sender (G509)
Drive Shaft 1 Speed Sensor (G501)
Drive Shaft 2 Speed Sensor (G502)
Gearbox Output Speed Sensor (G1 95)
Gearbox Output Direction Sensor (G1 96)
Automatic Gearbox Hydraulic Pressure Sender -1 -
(G193)
Automatic Gearbox Hydraulic Pressure Sender -2-
(G194)


Solenoid Valve 1 (N88)
Solenoid Valve 2 (N89)
Solenoid Valve 3 (N90)
Solenoid Valve4(N91)
Solenoid Valve 5 (N92)


Electrical Pressure Control Valve 1 (N215)
Electrical Pressure Control Valve 2 (N216)
Electrical Pressure Control Valve 3 (N217)
Electrical Pressure Control Valve 4 (N218)
Electrical Pressure Control Valve 5 (N233)
Electrical Pressure Control Valve 6 (N371 )

Gear Selector Travel Sensor -1 - (G487)
Gear Selector Travel Sensor -2- (G488)
Gear Selector Travel Sensor -3- (G489)
Gear Selector Travel Sensor -4- (G490)
Mechatronic Control Unit
Mechatronic Control Unit- Wiring Harness
Device
Captured In
MAQS
Cost Neutral
Cost Neutral
Cost Neutral
Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost Neutral
Cost Neutral


Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost


Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost

Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost
6-Speed AT
Device Description
Counter Gear Speed Sensor
AFT Temperature Sensor
Input Turbine Speed Sensor



AFT Pressure Switch 1
AFT Pressure Switch 2
AFT Pressure Switch 3

Shift Solenoid Valve SL1
Shift Solenoid Valve SL2
Shift Solenoid Valve SL3
Shift Solenoid Valve SL4
Shift Solenoid Valve SLU
Shift Solenoid Valve SLT
Shift Solenoid Valve SL











Mechatronic Control Unit
Mechatronic Control Unit- Wiring Harness
Device
Captured In
MAQS
Cost Neutral
Cost Neutral
Cost Neutral



Cost Neutral
Cost Neutral
Cost

Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost











Cost
Cost
Figure 2-4: System Electronic Hardware & Controls Comparison Matrix for a 6-Speed
              DSG compared to a 6-Speed Automatic Transmission
                                   2-17

-------

Technology Level: 09- 6 Speed Automatic versus 6 Speed Direct Shift Transmission
Vehice Class: 02- Mid to Large Size Passenger Vehicle, 4-6 Passengers
Study Case#: 0902 ( N0902 New Technology Configuration)
( B0902 Baseline Technology Configuration)

SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
i
021
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Subsystem
10





Subsystem Description
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

EXTERNAL COMPONENTS: Consists of installation of oil coolers, lift
eyes, vent caps.

CASE(S): Includes pressed in components (i.e., bearing races),
plugs, and associated hardware.

GEAR TRAIN: Includes Input Shafts, Output Shafts, Differential and
all associated gears and bearings on the shaft.

INTERNAL CLUTCHES: Internal for Gears, Synchronizers, Bands,
etc.

05 LAUNCH CLUTCHES: Torque Converter

OILPUMP & FILTER: Includes Pump, Pump Shaft/Drive
06 Mechanism, Oil Filters (Internal or External), Pick-up Tube, and Oil
Baffles.

07 MECHANICAL CONTROLS

08 ELECTRICAL CONTROLS

Qg PARK MECHANISM: Includes Park & Lock Pawl Mechanism and
Actuating Levers

10 MISCELLANEOUS:






SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE COST INFORMATION
6 Speed Direct Shift Gearbox (dual clutch): 2007-2009 VW Jetta SportWagen
BASE TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE COST INFORMATION
6 Speed Automatic Transmission: 2007-2009 Toyota Camry
Manufacturing
Material


$

$ 5.82

$ 9.38

$ (44.06)

$ (42.83)




$ 841

$ 30.89

i (0.20)








$ (32.59)
Labor


$

$ (3.19)

$ (17.50)

$ (22.63)

$ 28.06




$ (7.79)

$ 2.79

$ (0.16)








$ (20.42)
Burden


$

$ (32.86)

$ (16.25)

$ (37.74)

$ 60.71




$ 1.21

$ 5.88

$ 0.04








$ (19.01)
Total
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)


$

$ (30.24)

$ (24.37)

$ (104.43)

$ 45.94




$ 1.83

$ 39.56

$ (0.32)








$ (72.03)
Markup
End Item
Scrap


$

$ 349

$ (1.99)

$ (1.32)

$ 0.99




$ 0.37

$ 0.21

$ (0.00)








$ 1.75
SG&A


$

$ (1.88)

$ (7.08)

$ (12.82)

$ 7.94




$ (1.98)

$ 2.68

i (0.01)








$ (13.14)
Profit


$

$ (1.73)

$ (4.20)

$ (13.06)

$ 7.48




$ (1.95)

$ 2.48

$ (0.01)








$ (11.00)
ED&T-
R&D


$

$ (1.94)

$ 0.31

$ (4.30)

$ 1.31




$ (0.34)

$ 1.06

$ (0.01)








$ (3.91)
Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)


$

$ (2.06)

$ (12.96)

$ (31.49)

$ 17.71




$ (3.89)

$ 6.43

$ (0.03)








$ (26.29)
Total
Packaging
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)


$

$ 0.39

$ 1.76

$ (2.26)

$ 0.72

$

$ 0.37

$ 0.00

$

$





$ 0.98
Net
Component/
Assembly
Cost Impact to
OEM


$

$ (31.91)

$ (35.57)

$ (138.19)

$ 64.37

$

$ (1.69)

$ 45.99

$ (0.34)

$





$ (97.34)
Figure 2-5: System Cost Model Analysis Template Illustrating the Incremental Subsystem Costs Roll Up for a 6-Speed Wet
                              DCT compared to a 6-Speed Automatic Transmission
                                                 2-18

-------
3   GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Assembly: generally refers to 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).

Buy: is the terminology used to identify those components or assemblies as ones in which
a manufacturer would purchase versus manufacture. All parts designated as a "buy" part,
within the analysis, only have a net component cost presented. Typically these types of
parts are considered commodity purchase parts having industry established pricing.

CBOM (Comparison Bill of Materials): is 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 implications 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:  is 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  act
independently performing a function within a sub-subsystem or subsystem (e.g. exhaust
manifold within the exhaust subsystem).

Cost  Estimating Models:  are cost estimating tools,  external  to the  Design Profit®
software, used to calculate  operation and process parameters for primary manufacturing
processes (e.g. injection molding, die casting, metal stamping, forging).  Key information
calculated  from the costing estimating  tools (e.g. cycle times, raw  material  usage,
equipment size) is  inputted into the Lean Design® process  maps supporting the  cost
analysis.   The Excel base cost estimating models are developed and validated by Munro
& Associates.

Costing Databases: refer to the  five (5) core databases which contain all the  cost rates
for the analysis.  The material database lists all the materials used throughout the analysis
along with the estimated  price/pound for each.  The labor database captures  various
automotive, direct  labor,  manufacturing  jobs  (supplier and OEM),  along  with  the
associated mean hourly labor rates. The manufacturing overhead rate database contains
the cost/hour for the various pieces of manufacturing equipment assumed in the analysis.
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.  The fifth database, the packaging database,
contains packaging options and costs for each case.
                                      3-1

-------
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,
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.

Make: is the terminology used to identify those components or assemblies as ones in
which 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:  is the
standardized template used in the analysis to calculate the mass production manufacturing
cost, including supplier mark-up, for each system, subsystem and assembly quoted in the
analysis.   Every  component and assembly costed  in the  analysis will have a MAQS
worksheet.    The worksheet   is  based  on a  standard  OEM  (original equipment
manufacturer) quote sheet modified for improved costing transparency  and flexibility in
sensitivity studies.  The main  feeder  documents to  the  MAQS worksheets are process
maps and the costing databases.

MCRs (Material Cost Reductions): is 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.

Net Component/Assembly Cost Impact to OEM: is defined as 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): is 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
                                       3-2

-------
performance, and/or  cost reductions,  could help increase the overall  value of the
technology configuration.

Powertrain Package Proforma: is a summary worksheet comparing the key physical and
performance attributes of the technology under study with those of the corresponding
base configuration.

Process Maps:  are 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, 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:  refers to the  analytical  process of establishing a cost for a component or
assembly.

Sub-subsystem: refers to a group  of interdependent assemblies  and/or  components,
required to create a functioning sub-subsystem. For example, the air induction subsystem
contains several sub-subsystems including the following: turbocharging, heat exchangers,
and pipes, hoses and ducting.

Subsystem: refers to  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 the  following: crank drive  subsystem,  cylinder
block subsystem, cylinder head subsystem, fuel induction subsystem, and air induction
subsystem.

Subsystem CMAT (Cost Model Analysis Templates): is the document used to display
and roll up all the sub-subsystem, 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: refers to a part similar in fit, form and function as the part required for
the cost analysis. Surrogate parts are sometimes used in the cost analysis when actual
parts are unavailable.  The cost of a surrogate part is considered equivalent to the cost of
the actual  part.

System: refers to 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).
                                       3-3

-------
System CMAT (Cost Model Analysis Template): is 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.
                                      3-4

-------