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
------- |