Vehicle Mass Reduction and Cost
Analysis - Heavy Duty Pickup Truck
and Light Commercial Vans
Draft
f/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
Vehicle Mass Reduction and Cost
Analysis - Heavy Duty Pickup Truck
and Light Commercial Vans
Draft
Assessment and Standards Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared for EPA by
FEV North America, Inc.
EPA Contract No. EP-C-12-014 WA3-03
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.
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-420-D-15-005
July 2015
-------
List of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 17
1. INTRODUCTION AND PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 25
1.1 OBJECTIVE 25
1.2 BACKGROUND 25
1.3 COSTING METHODOLOGY 25
1.4 SELECT VEHICLES 27
1.4.1 2013 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 4WD LT Extended CAB 27
1.4.2 2007 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 28
1.4.3 2010 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 125 L3H2 29
2. MASS-REDUCTION AND COST ANALYSIS RESULTS, VEHICLE LEVEL 30
2.1 MASS REDUCTION TABLE AND COST CURVE OVERVIEW 30
2.2 SILVERADO 2500 32
2.3 MERCEDES SPRINTER 34
2.4 RENAULT MASTER 36
3. MASS-REDUCTION AND COST ANALYSIS, SYSTEM LEVEL 38
3.1 ENGINE SYSTEM 38
3.1.1 Silverado 1500 38
3.1.1.1 Baseline Technology, Silverado 1500 38
3.1.1.2 Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact, Silverado 1500 38
3.1.1.3 Lightweighting Technology, Silverado 1500 39
3.1.2 Silverado 2500 42
3.1.2.1 Baseline Technology, Silverado 2500 42
3.1.2.2 Mass Savings and Cost Impact, Silverado 2500 43
3.1.2.3 System Scaling Analysis, Silverado 2500 44
3.1.2.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 51
3.1.3 Mercedes Sprinter 52
3.1.3.1 Baseline Technology, Mercedes Sprinter 52
3.1.3.2 Mass Savings and Costa Impact, Mercedes Sprinter 53
3.1.3.3 System Scaling Analysis, Mercedes Sprinter 54
3.1.4 Renault Master 56
3.1.4.1 Baseline Technology, Renault Master 56
3.1.4.2 Mass Savings and Cost Impact, Renault Master 58
3.1.4.3 System Scaling Analysis, Renault Master 60
3.2 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 61
3.2.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 61
3.2.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis 64
3.2.1.2 Silverado 2500 System Scaling Summary 64
3.2.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 66
3.2.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 70
3.2.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 71
3.2.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 72
3.2.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 75
3.2.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 75
3.3 BODY GROUP -A- SYSTEM 80
3.3.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 80
-------
3.3.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis 82
3.3.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 84
3.3.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 85
3.3.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 96
3.3.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 97
3.3.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 98
3.3.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 102
3.3.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 103
3.4 BODY GROUP -B- SYSTEM 107
3.4.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 107
3.4.2 Silverado 2500 Analysis 109
3.4.2.1 2500 System Scaling Summary 110
3.4.2.2 System Scaling Analysis Ill
3.4.2.3 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 116
3.4.3 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 118
3.4.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 119
3.4.4 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 126
3.4.4.1 System Scaling Analysis 727
3.5 BODY GROUP -C- SYSTEM 133
3.5.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 133
3.5.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis 134
3.5.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 136
3.5.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 137
3.5.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 142
3.5.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 143
3.5.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 143
3.5.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 148
3.5.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 148
3.6 BODY GROUP -D- SYSTEM 152
3.6.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 152
3.6.1.1 Silverado 2500Analysis 155
3.6.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 155
3.6.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 156
3.6.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 158
3.6.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 159
3.6.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 160
3.6.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 162
3.6.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 163
3.7 SUSPENSION SYSTEM 165
3.7.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 165
3.7.1.1 Silverado 2500Analysis 167
3.7.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 168
3.7.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 169
3.7.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 176
3.7.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Analysis 176
3.7.2.1 Mercedes Sprinter System Scaling Summary 178
3.7.2.2 System Scaling Analysis, Mercedes Sprinter 179
3.7.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi Analysis 185
3.7.3.1 Renault Master System Scaling Summary 185
3.7.3.2 System Scaling Analysis, Renault Master 186
3.8 DRIVELINE SYSTEM 187
3.8.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 187
3.8.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis 188
3.8.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 190
3.8.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 191
-------
3.8.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 197
3.8.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Analysis 199
3.8.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 200
3.8.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 204
3.8.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 205
3.9 BRAKE SYSTEM 208
3.9.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 208
3.9.2 Silverado 2500 Analysis 211
3.9.2.1 System Architecture 211
3.9.3 System Scaling Summary 213
3.9.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 213
3.9.4 Brake System Comparison, Silverado 2500 220
3.9.5 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Analysis 220
3.9.5.1 System Architecture -Sprinter 220
3.9.5.2 System Scaling Summary 222
3.9.5.3 System Scaling Analysis 222
3.9.6 Renault Master Analysis 229
3.9.6.1 System Architecture-Renault Master 2.3 CDi 22P
3.9.6.2 System Scaling Summary 22P
3.9.6.3 System Scaling Analysis - Renault Master 230
3.10FRAME AND MOUNTING SYSTEM 231
3.10.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 231
3.10.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis 231
3.10.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 233
3.10.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 233
3.10.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 235
3.10.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 235
3.10.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 236
3.10.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 236
3.10.3.1 System Scaling Analysis - Renault Master 2.3 DCi 236
3.11 EXHAUST SYSTEM 237
3.11.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 237
3.11.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis 238
3.11.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 238
3.11.1.3 System Scaling Analysis - Silverado 2500 240
3.11.1.4 System Comparison -Silverado 2500 246
3.11.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 247
3.11.2.1 System Scaling Analysis - Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 247
3.11.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 252
3.11.3.1 System Scaling Analysis - Renault Master 2.3 DCi 253
3.12 FUEL SYSTEM 256
3.12.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 256
3.12.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis 257
3.12.1.2 Silverado 2500 System Scaling Summary 257
3.12.1.3 System Scaling Analysis - Silverado 2500 25P
3.12.1.4 System Comparison -Silverado 2500 264
3.12.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 265
3.12.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 266
3.12.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 268
3.12.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 269
3.13STEERING SYSTEM 270
3.13.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 270
3.13.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis 272
3.13.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 273
3.13.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 274
-------
3.13.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 276
3.13.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 277
3.13.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 278
3.13.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 282
3.13.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 282
3.14CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM 287
3.14.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 287
3.14.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis 288
3.14.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 289
3.14.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 289
3.14.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 291
3.14.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 291
3.14.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 292
3.14.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 295
3.14.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 295
3.15INFORMATION, GAGE AND WARNING DEVICE SYSTEM 297
3.15.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 297
3.15.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis 298
3.15.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 299
3.15.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 301
3.15.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 304
3.15.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 305
3.15.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 305
3.15.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 308
3.15.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 309
3.16 ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY 312
3.16.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 312
3.16.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis 314
3.16.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 315
3.16.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 315
3.16.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 317
3.16.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 317
3.16.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 318
3.16.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 319
3.16.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 320
3.17LIGHTING 322
3.17.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 322
3.17.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis 323
3.17.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 324
3.17.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 324
3.17.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 326
3.17.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 326
3.17.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 327
3.17.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 329
3.17.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 329
3.18 ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION AND ELECTRICAL CONTROLS SYSTEM 331
3.18.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 331
3.18.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis 334
3.18.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 335
3.18.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 336
3.18.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 347
3.18.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 349
3.18.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 349
3.18.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 353
3.18.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 356
-------
4. CONCLUSION 363
-------
List of Images
Image 1.4-1: 2013 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 4WDLTExtended Cab 27
Image 1.4-2: 2007Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 28
Image 1.4-3: 2010 Renault Master 2.3 DCi L3H2 29
Image 3.1-1: Silverado 1500 base engine (5.3 liter LC9) 38
Image 3.1-2: Silverado 2500 base engine (6.0 liter LC8) 42
Image 3.1-3: Connecting rodfor 5.3 liter LC9 (Left) and 6.0 liter LC8 (Right) 45
Image 3.1-4: Connecting rodfor 5.3 liter LC9 (Left) and C-70 rod (Right) 45
Image 3.1-5: Exhaust manifold for 5.3 liter LC9 (Left), 6.0 liter LC8 (Right) 46
Image 3.1-6: Fabricated V8 Exhaust Manifold (LS7 Corvette) 46
Image 3.1-7: Fabricated Exhaust Manifold 47
Image 3.1-8: Crankshaft for 5.3 liter LC9 (Left) and 6.0 liter LC8 (Right) 47
Image 3.1-9: Cored crankshaft for BMW 4.4L V8 47
Image 3.1-10: Oil pan for 5.3 liter LC9 (Left) and 6.0 liter LC8 (Right) 48
Image 3.1-11: Oil pan (magnesium) for Nissan GTR 48
Image 3.1-12: Water pump for 5.3 liter LC9 (Left) and 6.0 liter LC8 (Right) 49
Image 3.1-13: Water pump assembly components, electric water pump (Left) and thermostat (Right) 50
Image 3.1-14: Accessory bracket for 5.3 liter LC9 (Left) and 6.0 liter LC8 (Right) 50
Image 3.1-15: Mercedes sprinter base engine (2.1 CDI) 52
Image 3.1-16: Exhaust manifold for Silverado 1500 5.3L LC9 (Left) and Sprinter 2.1 CDI (Right) 55
Image 3.1-17: Aluminum oil pan for Silverado 1500 5.3LLC9 (Left) and Sprinter 2.1 CDI (Right) 55
Image 3.1-18: Water pump for 5.3 liter Silverado 1500 5.3LLC9 56
Image 3.1-19: Water pump assembly components for Sprinter 2.1 CDI 56
Image 3.1-20: Renault Master base engine (2.3 dCi) 57
Image 3.2-1: Chevrolet Silverado transmission and transfer case 64
Image 3.2-2: Transmission for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 67
Image 3.2-3: Planet gears for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 68
Image 3.2-4: Hubs for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 68
Image 3.2-5: Steel torque converter for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 69
Image 3.2-6: Example of a cast aluminum converter 69
Image 3.2-7: Valve body for Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 70
Image 3.2-8: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi transmission 73
Image 3.2-9: Transmission for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 73
Image 3.2-10: Planet gears for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and drive gears for the Sprinter 311 (Right) 74
Image 3.2-11: Renault Master 2.3 DCi transmission 78
Image 3.2-12: Transmission for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 (Right) 79
Image 3.2-13: Planet Gears for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Drive Gears Master 2.3 (Right) 80
Image 3.3-1: Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Body Group -A- System 83
Image 3.3-2: Cabin for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 86
Image 3.3-3: Radiator structure for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 86
Image 3.3-4: Extra cabin - radiator support Silverado 2500 (Silverado 1500 similar) 87
Image 3.3-5: RH/LH front wheelhouse arch for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 87
Image 3.3-6: Front splash shield for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 88
Image 3.3-7: Engine cover for Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 88
Image 3.3-8: Radiator covers for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 89
Image 3.3-9: Front fenders (RH/LH) Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 90
Image 3.3-10: Hood assembly without hinges, Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 90
Image 3.3-11: Front door assemblies for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 91
Image 3.3-12: Rear door assemblies for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 92
Image 3.3-13: Front bumper for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 92
Image 3.3-14: Rear bumper for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 93
Image 3.3-15: Pickup box assembly for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 94
Image 3.3-16: Pickup box gate for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 95
Image 3.3-17: Front Wheelhouse Arch for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 98
Image 3.3-18: CDi Engine Cover for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 99
Image 3.3-19: RH/LH front fenders for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 99
Image 3.3-20: Hood assembly without hinges for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
700
-------
Image 3.3-21: Front door assemblies for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 100
Image 3.3-22: Front bumper for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom) 101
Image 3.3-23: Front wheelhouse arch for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and the Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 103
Image 3.3-24: Front splash shield for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and the Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 104
Image 3.3-25: Engine covers for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 104
Image 3.3-26: RH/LHfront fenders for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 105
Image 3.3-27: Hood assembly without hinges for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 105
Image 3.3-28: RH front door assemblies for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 106
Image 3.3-29: Front bumper for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom) 106
Image 3.3-30: Rear Bumper for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom) 107
Image 3.4-1: Chevrolet Silverado 2500 109
Image 3.4-2: Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
114
Image 3.4-3: Sealing Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and the Silverado 2500 (Right) 114
Image 3.4-4: Seating Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 115
Image 3.4-5: Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
116
Image 3.4-6: Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 and Silverado 2500 116
Image 3.4-7: Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem for Silverado 1500 (Left) and the Mercedes Sprinter 311
CDi (Right) 122
Image 3.4-8: Sealing Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 122
Image 3.4-9: Seating Subsystems for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 123
Image 3.4-10: Instrument Panel and Console Subsystems for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311
CDi (Bottom) 124
Image 3.4-11: Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311
CDi (Bottom) 125
Image 3.4-12: Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystems for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3
DCi (Right) 130
Image 3.4-13: Sealing Subsystems for Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 130
Image 3.4-14: Seating Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 131
Image 3.4-15: Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi
(Bottom) 132
Image 3.4-16: Occupant Restraining Device Subsystems for Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi
(Right) 132
Image 3.5-1: Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Body Group -C- System 135
Image 3.5-2: Radiator Grill for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 138
Image 3.5-3: Bumper Guard- Front Door for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 138
Image 3.5-4: Bumper Guard -Rear Door for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 139
Image 3.5-5: Tailgate Trim for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 139
Image 3.5-6: Cowl Grill for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 140
Image 3.5-7: Cowl End Cap - RH and LHfor the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 140
Image 3.5-8: Exterior Mirror (Driver and Passenger Side) for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
140
Image 3.5-9: Front Fascia for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 141
Image 3.5-10: Front Fascia -Air Dam for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 141
Image 3.5-11: Rear Bumper Cover (LH/RH) for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 142
Image 3.5-12: Rear Bumper Cover for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 142
Image 3.5-13: Radiator Grill for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom) 145
Image 3.5-14: Bumper Guard (Front Door) for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom)
145
Image 3.5-15: Exterior Mirror (Driver Side shown; Passenger Side similar) for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and
Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 146
Image 3.5-16: Front Fascia for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 146
Image 3.5-17: Rear Bumper Cover (LH/RH) for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
146
Image 3.5-18: Rear Bumper Cover - Center for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom) 147
Image 3.5-19: Radiator Grill for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom) 149
Image 3.5-20: Bumper Guard (Front Door) for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom) 150
Image 3.5-21: Cowl Grill for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom) 150
-------
Image 3.5-22: Exterior Mirror (Driver side shown; passenger side similar) for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and
Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 151
Image 3.5-23: Front Fascia for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 151
Image 3.5-24: Rear Bumper Cover - RH and LH Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 151
Image 3.5-25: Rear Bumper Cover (Center) for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom) 152
Image 3.6-1: Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Body Group -D- System 155
Image 3.6-2: Windshield for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 156
Image 3.6-3: Back Window for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 757
Image 3.6-4: Rear door glass for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and 2500 (Right) 757
Image 3.6-5: Washer Tank Assembly for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 158
Image 3.6-6: Windshield for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 160
Image 3.6-7: Washer Tank for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 161
Image 3.6-8: Windshield for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 163
Image 3.6-9: Washer Tank for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 164
Image 3.7-1: Lower Control Arm for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 770
Image 3.7-2: Aluminum Lower Control Arm 770
Image 3.7-3: Upper Control Arm for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 777
Image 3.7-4: Mass Reduced Upper Control Arm 777
Image 3.7-5: Knuckle for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 772
Image 3.7-6: Aluminum Knuckle 772
Image 3.7-7: Leaf Spring Assembly for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and the Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 1 73
Image 3.7-8: GFRP Leaf Spring Assembly 773
Image 3.7-9: Road Wheel for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and the Silverado 2500 (Right) 1 74
Image 3.7-10: Ultra-Lightweight Forged Aluminum Monoblock Wheel 174
Image 3.7-11: Spare Wheel for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 775
Image 3.7-12: Aluminum Spare Wheel 775
Image 3.7-13: Mercedes Sprinter Front Suspension System 176
Image 3.7-14: Mercedes Sprinter Rear Suspension System 777
Image 3.7-15: Mercedes Sprinter Road Wheel Assembly 777
Image 3.7-16: Mercedes Sprinter Spare Wheel Assembly 77$
Image 3.7-17: Mercedes Sprinter Spare Wheel Support 77$
Image 3.7-18: Lower Control Arm for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter (Right) 7$7
Image 3.7-19: 2009 Chevrolet Silverado Lower Control Arm Billet 7$7
Image 3.7-20: Steering Knuckle for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter (Right) 7 $2
Image 3.7-21: Aluminum Steering Knuckle 7 $2
Image 3.7-22: Leaf Spring Assembly for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Sprinter (Bottom) 183
Image 3.7-23: Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic Leaf Spring Assembly 183
Image 3.7-24: Spare Wheel for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter (Right) 184
Image 3.7-25: Aluminum Spare Wheel 184
Image 3.8-1: Silverado 1500 Driveline System 189
Image 3.8-2: Forward Propeller Shaft for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 7P2
Image 3.8-3: Rear Axle Shaft Silverado 1500 (Top), Rear Axle Shaft Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 7P2
Image 3.8-4: Example of technology used on rear axle shaft of varied wall thicknesses 1 93
Image 3.8-5: Rear Axle Cover Plate for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 193
Image 3.8-6: Rear Carrier Casting for the Silverado 1500 (Right) and Silverado 2500 (Left) 194
Image 3.8-7: Example of new carrier 194
Image 3.8-8: Rear Carrier Ring Gear Silverado 1500 (Right), Rear Carrier Ring Gear Silverado 2500 (Left)....194
Image 3.8-9: Front Differential Output Shaft with Hub for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
7P5
Image 3.8-10: Front Carrier Casting for the Silverado 1500 (Right) and Silverado 2500 (Left) 7P5
Image 3.8-11: New Lightweight Differential Example 196
Image 3.8-12: Front Carrier Ring Gear for the Silverado 1500 (Right) and Silverado 2500 (Left) 196
Image 3.8-13: Front Differential Mounting Bracket RH for the Silverado 1500 (Right) and Silverado 2500 (Left) 196
Image 3.8-14: Front Half Shaft Axle Shaft for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 7P7
Image 3.8-15: Front Half Shaft Hub with locations for drilling lightening holes 7P7
Image 3.8-16: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Driveline rear axle 200
Image 3.8-17: Rear Axle Sleeve for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom) 207
Image 3.8-18: Rear Axle Shaft for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom) 207
Image 3.8-19: Rear Axle Cover Plates for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom) ..202
-------
Image 3.8-20: Rear Carrier Casting for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 202
Image 3.8-21: New Carrier Example 203
Image 3.8-22: Rear Carrier Ring Gear for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) ....203
Image 3.8-23: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Rear Driveline 20<5
Image 3.8-24: Rear Axle Sleeves for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom) 206
Image 3.8-25: Rear Axle Shaft for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom) 207
Image 3.8-26: Rear Axle Cover Plate for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 207
Image 3.8-27: Rear Carrier Casting for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 20$
Image 3.8-28: New Carrier Example 20$
Image 3.8-29: Rear Carrier Ring Gear for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 20$
Image 3.9-1: Front Rotor for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 215
Image 3.9-2: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component Example 215
Image 3.9-3: Front Caliper Housing; 1500 Series (Left), 2500 Series (Right) 216
Image 3.9-4: Front Caliper Housing Mass Reduced Component example 216
Image 3.9-5: Front Caliper Mounting Bracket; 1500 Series (Left), 2500 Series (Right) 277
Image 3.9-6: Front Caliper Mounting Bracket Mass Reduced Component Example 277
Image 3.9-7: Rear Drum for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 218
Image 3.9-8: Rear Drum Mass Reduced Component 218
Image 3.9-9: Brake Pedal Frame; 1500 Series (Left), 2500 Series (Right) 219
Image 3.9-10: Brake Pedal Arm Frame Mass Reduced Assembly Example 219
Image 3.9-11: Mercedes Sprinter Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem 220
Image 3.9-12: Mercedes Sprinter Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem 227
Image 3.9-13: Front Rotor; 1500 Series (Left), Sprinter Series (Right) 224
Image 3.9-14: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component Example 224
Image 3.9-15: Caliper Housing, ISOOSeries (Left), Sprinter Series (Right) 225
Image 3.9-16: Front Caliper Housing Mass Reduced Component example 225
Image 3.9-17: Front Caliper Mounting Bracket for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
(Right) 226
Image 3.9-18: Front Caliper Mounting Bracket Mass Reduced Component Example 22<5
Image 3.9-19: Rear Drum; Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 227
Image 3.9-20: Rear Drum Mass Reduced Component 227
Image 3.9-21: Vacuum Booster for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 22$
Image 3.9-22: Vacuum Booster Mass Reduced Sub-Assembly Example 22$
Image 3.10-1: Chevrolet Silverado Frame System 232
Image 3.10-2: Frame for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 234
Image 3.11-1: Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Exhaust System 23$
Image 3.11-2: Crossover Pipe for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 241
Image 3.11-3: Down Pipe for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 242
Image 3.11-4: Steel hanger brackets 1500 (Left), 2500 (Right) 242
Image 3.11-5: Hollow Stainless Steel Hanger Brackets Example 242
Image 3.11-6: EPDM hangers for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 243
Image 3.11-7: Example of SGF® fiber reinforced hanger 243
Image 3.11-8: Muffler skin for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 244
Image 3.11-9: Muffler end plates for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 245
Image 3.11-10: Muffler pipe for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 245
Image 3.11-11: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Exhaust 248
Image 3.11-12: Muffler skin for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter (Right) 249
Image 3.11-13: Muffler end plates for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter (Right) 249
Image 3.11-14: Muffler pipes for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter (Bottom) 250
Image 3.11-15: EPDM hangers for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter (Right) 251
Image 3.11-16: Example of SGF® fiber reinforced hanger 251
Image 3.11-17: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Exhaust 253
Image 3.11-18: Muffler skin for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 254
Image 3.11-19: Muffler end plates for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 254
Image 3.11-20: Muffler pipes 1500 (Top), Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom) 255
Image 3.12-1: Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Fuel System 257
Image 3.12-2: Fuel Tank Side - Fuel Pump Retaining Ring for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
260
Image 3.12-3: Fuel TankBottom Shield for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 2<50
-------
Image 3.12-4: Fuel Pumping Module Retaining Ring for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right).. 261
Image 3.12-5: Example of Plastic POM Fuel Pumping Module Retaining Ring 261
Image 3.12-6: Fuel Filler Neck for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 262
Image 3.12-7: Fuel Filler Cap Housing for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 262
Image 3.12-8: Fuel Cap for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 263
Image 3.12-9: Hose clamps for both the Silverado 1500 and 2500 263
Image 3.12-10: Example of a lighter hose clamp 263
Image 3.12-11: Vapor Canister for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 264
Image 3.12-12: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Fuel system 266
Image 3.12-13: Fuel Filler Cap Housing for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) .267
Image 3.12-14: Fuel Cap for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 267
Image 3.12-15: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Fuel System 269
Image 3.12-16: Fuel Filler Cap Housing for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 270
Image 3.12-17: Fuel Cap for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 270
Image 3.13-1: Chevrolet Silverado Steering system 272
Image 3.13-2: Steering Column for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 275
Image 3.13-3: Steering Wheel for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 275
Image 3.13-4: Column cowl for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 275
Image 3.13-5: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Steering 27$
Image 3.13-6: Steering Gear for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Sprinter 311 (Right) 27P
Image 3.13-7: Pump for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 (Right) 2SO
Image 3.13-8: Steering Tubes for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Sprinter 311 (Right) 2SO
Image 3.13-9: Steering Column for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Sprinter 311 (Bottom) 281
Image 3.13-10: Steering Wheel for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Sprinter 311 (Right) 281
Image 3.13-11: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Steering Components 283
Image 3.13-12: Steering Gear for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 (Right) 284
Image 3.13-13: Pump for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 (Right) 284
Image 3.13-14: Steering Tubes for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 (Right) 2S5
Image 3.13-15: Heat Exchangers for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 (Right) 2S5
Image 3.13-16: Steering Column for the Silverado 1500 (Left) Renault Master 2.3 (Right) 286
Image 3.13-17: Steering Wheel for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and the Renault Master 2.3 (Right) 286
Image 3.14-1: Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and 2500 Climate Control System 288
Image 3.14-2: Air Distribution Duct Components are the same for Silverado 1500 and 2500 2PO
Image 3.14-3: HVAC Main Units are the same for Silverado 1500 and 2500 2PO
Image 3.14-4: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Climate Control System 2P2
Image 3.14-5: Air Distribution Duct Components for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter
311 CDi (Bottom) 293
Image 3.14-6: HVAC Main Unit for Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom) ..294
Image 3.14-7: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Climate Control System 296
Image 3.14-8: Air Distribution Duct Components for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3
DCi (Bottom) 296
Image 3.14-9: HVAC Main Unit for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom)..297
Image 3.15-1: Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Information, Gage and Warning Device System 299
Image 3.15-2: Cluster Mask Assembly is the same for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 301
Image 3.15-3: Cluster Rear Housing is the same for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 302
Image 3.15-4: Display Housing is the same for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 302
Image 3.15-5: Horn outer plastic cover (LH/RH) is the same for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 303
Image 3.15-6: Horn outside steel cover (LH/RH) is the same for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 303
Image 3.15-7: Horn Mounting bracket (LH/RH) is the same for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 304
Image 3.15-8: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Information, Gage, and Warning Device System 3 06
Image 3.15-9: Cluster Mask Assembly for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
(Right) 306
Image 3.15-10: Cluster Rear Housing for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
(Right) 307
Image 3.15-11: Display Housing for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 307
Image 3.15-12: Horn Outside steel cover for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
(Right) 30S
Image 3.15-13: Horn Mounting bracket for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
(Right) 30S
-------
Image 3.15-14: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Information, Gage and Warning Device System 310
Image 3.15-15: Cluster Mask Assembly for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
311
Image 3.15-16: Cluster Rear Housing for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
311
Image 3.15-17: Horn Outside steel cover for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi
(Right) 312
Image 3.15-18: Horn Mounting bracket for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
312
Image 3.16-1: Chevrolet Silverado electrical power supply system 314
Image 3.16-2: Battery for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 316
Image 3.16-3: Battery Tray for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 316
Image 3.16-4: 2012 Ford F150 Battery Tray Assembly 316
Image 3.16-5: Auxiliary battery tray for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 317
Image 3.16-6: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Battery 319
Image 3.16- 7: Battery for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 319
Image 3.16-8: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Battery 321
Image 3.16-9: Battery for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 322
Image 3.17-1: Headlamps for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 324
Image 3.17-2: Headlamp Housing for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 325
Image 3.17-3: Headlamp inner reflector for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 326
Image 3.17-4: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Headlamp 32$
Image 3.17-5: Headlamp housing for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 32$
Image 3.17-6: Headlamp inner reflector for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right).. 329
Image 3.17-7: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Headlamp 330
Image 3.17-8: Headlamp housing for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 330
Image 3.17-9: Headlamp inner reflector for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 337
Image 3.18-1: Chevrolet Silverado engine wiring 334
Image 3.18-2: Front Bumper Harness (Wiring on front module) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 337
Image 3.18-3: Engine Wire Harness for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 337
Image 3.18-4: Power train mass cable (ground cable) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 33$
Image 3.18-5: Alternator Power Cable for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 33$
Image 3.18-6: IP Harness 1 for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 33P
Image 3.18-7: IP Harness 2 for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 340
Image 3.18-8: Body and Rear End Wiring (Complete) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 340
Image 3.18-9: Body and Rear End Wiring (Complete) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 341
Image 3.18-10: Differential wiring for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 341
Image 3.18-11: Under frame/tow harness (wiring on under structure) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 342
Image 3.18-12: Battery cable - primary positive (starter wiring harness) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 342
Image 3.18-13: Battery Cable - Primary Negative for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 343
Image 3.18-14: Battery Cable-Positivefor the Silverado 1500 and2500 344
Image 3.18-15: Fuse Box (Support) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 344
Image 3.18-16: Fuse box - cover for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 345
Image 3.18-17: Center console wiring for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 345
Image 3.18-18: Headliner wiring for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 346
Image 3.18-19: Front door harness for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 346
Image 3.18-20: Rear door harness for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 347
Image 3.18-21: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System Components350
Image 3.18-22: Front Bumper Harness (Wiring on front module) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and
Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom) 351
Image 3.18-23: Engine Wire Harness for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
(Bottom) 351
Image 3.18-24: Fuse Box (Support) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
352
Image 3.18-25: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System 356
Image 3.18-26: Engine Wire Harness for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom)
357
Image 3.18-27: Body and Rear End Wiring (Complete) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and Renault Master
2.3 DCi (Bottom) 35P
-------
Image 3.18-28: Fuse Box (Support) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)360
Image 3.18-29: Fuse Box Cover for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 360
Image 3.18-30: Headliner wiring for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and the Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
361
Image 3.18-31: Frontdoor harness for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 362
-------
List of Tables
Table 0-1: Vehicle Level Summary, Silverado 2500 22
Table 0-2: Vehicle Level Summary, Mercedes Sprint 23
Table 0-3: Vehicle Level Summary, Renault Master 24
Table 2-1: Vehicle Level Summary, Silverado 2500 32
Table 2-2: Vehicle Cost Curve w/Trendline, Silverado 2500 33
Table 2-3: Vehicle Level Summary, Mercedes Sprinter 34
Table 2-4: Vehicle Cost Curve w/Trendline, Mercedes Sprinter 35
Table 2-5: Vehicle Level Summary, Renault Master 36
Table 2-6: Vehicle Cost Curve w/Trendline, Renault Master 37
Table 3-1: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact, Silverado 1500 39
Table 3-2: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Engine System, Silverado 2500 43
Table 3-3: System Scaling Analysis, Silverado 2500 44
Table 3-4: Engine System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 51
Table 3-5: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Engine System, Mercedes Sprinter 53
Table 3-6: System Scaling Analysis, Mercedes Sprinter 54
Table 3-7: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Engine System, Renault Master 58
Table 3-8: System Scaling Analysis, Renault Master 60
Table 3-9: Transmission System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 61
Table 3-10: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Transmission System, Silverado 2500 64
Table 3-11: System Scaling Analysis for Transmission System, Silverado 2500 66
Table 3-12: Transmission System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 70
Table 3-13: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Transmission System, Mercedes Sprinter 71
Table 3-14: System Scaling Analysis for Transmission System, Mercedes Sprinter 72
Table 3-15: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Transmission System, Renault Master 75
Table 3-16: System Scaling Analysis for Transmission System, Renault Master 77
Table 3-17: Body Group -A- System Mass Reduction Summary Silverado 1500 80
Table 3-18: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -A- System, Silverado 2500 84
Table 3-19: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -A- System, Silverado 2500 85
Table 3-20: Body Group -A- System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 96
Table 3-21: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -A- System, Mercedes Sprinter 9 7
Table 3-22: System Scaling Analysis for Body Group -A- System, Mercedes Sprinter 98
Table 3-23: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -A- System, Renault Master 102
Table 3-24: System Scaling Analysis for Body Group -A- System, Renault Master 103
Table 3-25: Body Group -B- System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 707
Table 3-26: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -B- system, Silverado 2500 110
Table 3-27: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -B- System, Silverado 2500 Ill
Table 3-28: Body Group -B- System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 117
Table 3-29: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -B- System, Mercedes Sprinter 118
Table 3-30: System Scaling Analysis, Body Group -B- System, Mercedes Sprinter 119
Table 3-31: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -B- Subsystem, Renault Master 126
Table 3-32: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -B- Subsystem, Renault Master 727
Table 3-33: Body Group -C- System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 133
Table 3-34: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -C- System, Silverado 2500 136
Table 3-35: System Scaling Analysis Body Group C System, Silverado 2500 137
Table 3-36: Body Group -C- System Comparison, Silverado 2500 142
Table 3-37: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -C- System, Mercedes Sprinter 143
Table 3-38: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -C- System, Mercedes Sprinter 144
Table 3-39: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -C- System, Renault Master 148
Table 3-40: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -C- System, Renault Master 149
Table 3-41: Body Group -D- System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 154
Table 3-42: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -D- System, Silverado 2500 155
Table 3-43: System Scaling Analysis Body Group D System, Silverado 2500 156
Table 3-44: Body Group -D-System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 158
Table 3-45: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -D- System, Mercedes Sprinter 159
Table 3-46: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -D- System, Mercedes Sprinter 160
Table 3-47: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -D- System, Renault Master 162
Table 3-48: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -D- System, Renault Master 163
-------
Table 3-49: Suspension System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 165
Table 3-50: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Suspension System, Silverado 2500 168
Table 3-51: Suspension Components Scaling Analysis Results, Silverado 2500 169
Table 3-52: Suspension System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 176
Table 3-53: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Suspension System, Mercedes Sprinter 178
Table 3-54: Suspension Components Scaling Analysis Results, Mercedes Sprinter 179
Table 3-55: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Suspension System, Renault Master 185
Table 3-56: Suspension Components Scaling Analysis Results, Renault Master 186
Table 3-57: Driveline System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 187
Table 3-58: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Driveline System, Silverado 2500 190
Table 3-59: System Scaling Analysis Driveline System, Silverado 2500 191
Table 3-60: Driveline System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 197
Table 3-61: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Driveline System, Mercedes Sprinter 199
Table 3-62: System Scaling Analysis Driveline System, Mercedes Sprinter 200
Table 3-63: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Driveline System, Renault Master 204
Table 3-64: System Scaling Analysis Driveline System, Renault Master 205
Table 3-65: Brake System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 20P
Table 3-66: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Brake System, Silverado 2500 213
Table 3-67: Brake Components Scaling Analysis Results, Silverado 2500 214
Table 3-68: Brake System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 220
Table 3-69: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Brake System, Mercedes Sprinter 222
Table 3-70: Brake Components Scaling Analysis Results, Mercedes Sprinter 223
Table 3-71: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Brake System, Renault Master 22P
Table 3-72: Components Scaling Analysis Results, Renault Master Brake 230
Table 3-73: Frame and Mounting System Mass Reduction Summary 237
Table 3-74: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Frame and Mounting System, Silverado 2500 233
Table 3-75: System Scaling Analysis Frame and Mounting System, Silverado 2500 233
Table 3-76: Frame & Mounting System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 235
Table 3-77: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Frame System, Mercedes Sprinter 235
Table 3-78: System Scaling Analysis Frame System, Mercedes Sprinter 236
Table 3-79: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Frame System, Renault Master 236
Table 3-80: System Scaling Analysis Frame System, Renault Master 237
Table 3-81: Exhaust System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 237
Table 3-82: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Exhaust System, Silverado 2500 23P
Table 3-83: System Scaling Analysis for Exhaust System, Silverado 2500 240
Table 3-84: System Comparison, Silverado 2500 246
Table 3-85: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Exhaust System, Mercedes Sprinter 24 7
Table 3-86: System Scaling Analysis for Exhaust System, Mercedes Sprinter 248
Table 3-87: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Exhaust System, Renault Master 252
Table 3-88: System Scaling Analysis Exhaust System, Renault Master 253
Table 3-89: Fuel System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 256
Table 3-90: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Fuel System, Silverado 1500 257
Table 3-91: System Scaling Analysis Fuel System, Silverado 2500 25P
Table 3-92: Fuel System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 264
Table 3-93: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Fuel System, Mercedes Sprinter 265
Table 3-94: System Scaling Analysis Fuel System, Mercedes Sprinter 266
Table 3-95: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Fuel System, Renault Master 268
Table 3-96: System Scaling Analysis Fuel System, Renault Master 269
Table 3-97: Steering System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 277
Table 3-98: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Steering System, Silverado 2500 2 73
Table 3-99: System Scaling Analysis Steering System, Silverado 2500 274
Table 3-100: Steering System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 276
Table 3-101: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Steering System, Mercedes Sprinter 277
Table 3-102: System Scaling Analysis Steering System, Mercedes Sprinter 27$
Table 3-103: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Steering System, Renault Master 2S2
Table 3-104: System Scaling Analysis Steering System, Renault Master 2S2
Table 3-105: Climate Control System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 2S7
Table 3-106: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Climate Control System, Silverado 2500 289
Table 3-107: System Scaling Analysis Climate Control System, Silverado 2500 289
-------
Table 3-108: Climate Control System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 291
Table 3-109: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Climate Control System, Mercedes Sprinter 291
Table 3-110: System Scaling Analysis Climate Control System, Mercedes Sprinter 292
Table 3-111: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Climate Control System, Renault Master 295
Table 3-112: System Scaling Analysis Climate Control System, Renault Master 295
Table 3-113: Information, Gage and Warning Device System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 298
Table 3-114: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Information, Gage and Warning Device System, Silverado 2500
299
Table 3-115: System Scaling Analysis for Information, Gage and Warning Device System, Silverado 2500 301
Table 3-116: Information, Gage, and Warning Device System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 304
Table 3-117: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Information, Gage and Warning Device System, Mercedes
Sprinter 305
Table 3-118: System Scaling Analysis Information, Gage and Warning Device System, Mercedes Sprinter 305
Table 3-119: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Information, Gage and Warning Device System, Renault Master
308
Table 3-120: System Scaling Analysis Information, Gage and Warning Device System, Renault Master 309
Table 3-121: Electrical Power Supply System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 312
Table 3-122: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Power Supply System, Silverado 2500 315
Table 3-123: Electrical Power Supply System Scaling Analysis for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 315
Table 3-124: Electrical Power Supply System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 317
Table 3-125: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Power Supply System, Mercedes sprinter 317
Table 3-126: System Scaling Analysis Electrical Power Supply System, Mercedes Sprinter 318
Table 3-127: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Power Supply System, Renault Master 320
Table 3-128: System Scaling Analysis for Electrical Power Supply System, Renault Master 321
Table 3-129: Lighting System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 322
Table 3-130: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Lighting System, Silverado 2500 324
Table 3-131: System Scaling Analysis Lighting System, Silverado 2500 325
Table 3-132: Lighting System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 326
Table 3-133: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Lighting System, Mercedes Sprinter 326
Table 3-134: System Scaling Analysis Lighting System, Mercedes Sprinter 327
Table 3-135: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Lighting System, Renault Master 32P
Table 3-136: System Scaling Analysis Lighting System, Renault Master 330
Table 3-137: Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 331
Table 3-138: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System, Silverado
2500 335
Table 3-139: System Scaling Analysis Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System, Silverado 2500 ...336
Table 3-140: Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 347
Table 3-141: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System, Mercedes
Sprinter 349
Table 3-142: System Scaling Analysis Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System, Mercedes Sprinter 349
Table 3-143: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System, Renault
Master 355
Table 3-144: System Scaling Analysis Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System, Renault Master... 356
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracted with FEV, Inc. to determine
incremental direct manufacturing costs for a set of advanced medium-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).
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incremental costs of mass reduction levels that are
feasible within a given timeframe, without sacrificing utility, performance, or safety.
It has been proven that reducing vehicle mass has a beneficial correlation to fuel economy and
reduction in greenhouse gases so to the extent that cost-effective mass reduction can be achieved,
techniques like those described in this report may be employed by manufacturers to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy.
The scope of this study was to take the original mass reduction ideas from the previous Silverado
1500 Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis[1] and apply them to the three selected vehicles in this
study:
• 2013 Chevy Silverado 2500 4WD LT Ext Cab
• 2007 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
• 2010 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 125 L3H2
The methodology employed was based on a comparison and scaling approach. Results from the
previous 2011 Silverado 1500 analysis were evaluated for applicability to the three light/medium
duty vehicles in this study. In general this analysis did not investigate and implement alternative
mass reduction ideas which were not applied to the Silverado 1500. Any exceptions to this
methodology are identified within the report.
Each study vehicle was evaluated against the Silverado 1500 relative to component content and
similarities (e.g. design, function, material). This was accomplished by assembling BOMs for each
of the three vehicles in the same format as used on the 1500 Silverado. At each product structure
level (i.e., system, subsystem, sub-subsystem and assemblies and components) a comparison
evaluation was made.
Where component matches were made (i.e., between the 1500 Silverado and study vehicle), the
Silverado 1500 mass reduction and cost results were applied to case study vehicle. For example if
the 1500 Silverado achieved a mass reduction of 40.31% on the front lower control arm, converting
from cast iron to forge aluminum, and the 2500 Silverado had a cast iron lower control arm, the
same 40.31% mass reduction was taken. Using the developed incremental cost/kilogram for
lightweighting the Silverado lower control, a cost estimate can be made for the 2500; mass
reduction of the 2500 lower control arm multiplied by the 1500 Silverado cost/kilogram.
When differences existed between components evaluated in the Silverado 1500 and each of the
three case study vehicles, the team made engineering estimates on how much of the Silverado 1500
mass-reduction concept could be applied to the similar component on the case study vehicle. This
1 FEV-P310324-02_R2.0: Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis - Light-Duty Pickup Truck Model Years 2020-2025
-------
generally happened at the assembly level were multiple mass-reduction concepts were applied. If
component differences were significant (i.e., design, function, performance, material) or the
component design was already similar to the mass reduced concept on the 1500 Silverado, no mass
reduction was taken.
To support the development of the vehicle BOMs and acquisition of component and assembly
attribute data (mass, size, material, quantity, etc.) two methods were implemented.
• For the 2500 Silverado, the vehicle was purchased and disassembled using the standard FEV
teardown and BOM development methodology.
• For the Mercedes Sprinter and Renault Master, the A2MAC1 database was used to acquire
the relevant vehicle, component and assembly attribute data.
The foundation of this comparison and scaling work was the Silverado 1500 Mass Reduction and
Cost Analysis1 which was based on a detailed and comprehensive teardown, BOM creation, mass-
reduction technology investigation, engineering assessment of applicable ideas, and comprehensive
model validation. In addition detailed, transparent and production representative cost models
consisting of an extensive set of linked spreadsheets and associated macros were used to determine
the Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing Cost (NIDMC) impact of the mass reduced pickup truck
with respect to the production stock 1500 Silverado. The mass reduction achieved in the final
solution of the 1500 Silverado analysis was 511 kilograms (20.8% vehicle mass reduction). The
NIDMC impact was an increase of $2,224 resulting in an average cost per kilogram of $4.35.
Key boundary conditions for the analysis included mass production volume (i.e., 450K),
manufacturing in the US, mature market conditions, and a high level of product maturity.
The results are provided in the following tables and charts which summarize the study findings.
• Reference Overview
The reference for this study was: FEV-P310324-02_R2.0: Mass Reduction and Cost
Analysis - Light-Duty Pickup Truck Model Years 2020-2025
-------
Vehicle Level Summaries Overview
The Vehicle Level Summaries ^ provide information on Mass Reduction and Cost at a
vehicle system level. At the bottom of each table (row "a"), vehicle system mass and cost
are summed establishing vehicle level results.
This study, like the original 1500 Silverado, did not include a comprehensive, full vehicle,
noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) evaluation. As a result an NVH countermeasure,
proportional to that applied in the 1500 Silverado study, was also applied to each vehicle in
this study. The vehicle NVH countermeasure allowance is captured in row "b" of each
vehicle summary table below. Row "c" of the vehicle summary table provides the vehicle
total with the NVH countermeasure allowance.
The values in each vehicle summary table column were determined based on a standard
assumptions and methodologies.
Mass Reduction Impact by System
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" a)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" d)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" d)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
Column
Mass Reduction New Tech "kg"
Mass Reduction Comp "kg"
Mass Reduction Total "kg"
Cost Impact New Tech "$"
Cost Impact Comp "$"
Cost Impact Total "$"
Cost/Kilogram Total "$/kg"
Explanation
Mass reduction ideas that were originated from
the original Silverado 1500 Lightweighting
study that were applied to the select vehicles
Added weight reduction from
compounding/secondary mass savings
Combined weight reduction from applying the
new tech and the compounding/secondary mass
savings
Cost for applying the new tech mass reduction
ideas from the original Silverado 1500
Lightweighting study to the select vehicles.
Cost for additional compounding/secondary
mass savings.
Combined cost from applying the new tech and
compounding/secondary cost savings.
"Cost Impact Total" divided by the "Mass
Reduction Total" to equal a cost per kilogram.
2 See section 2.1 for a complete explanation of the Vehicle Level Summaries and Cost Curve assumptions and
methodologies.
-------
Column
Explanation
Vehicle Mass Reduction Total "%"
Mass reduction as a percentage of the original
production stock curb weight
Vehicle Cost Curve with Trendlines Overview
Cost curves with and without secondary mass savings were developed for each vehicle
evaluated. In addition piecewise trendlines were developed for cost curves with secondary
mass savings. The trendlines^ formulas are located in a table directly under each chart.
Cost curves and formulas include the NVH countermeasure allowance.
Column
Cost/Kilogram Mass Reduction
Formula
% Vehicle Mass Reduction
Explanation
Average cost of cumulative mass reduction
summed in order of best value (i.e., cost/kg) to
least value
Mass reduction as a percentage of the original
production stock curb weight
Trendline
Linear
general
(VMR):
piecewise
regions
0 to -4%
trendlines
of vehicle
VMR and 4
reprenting two
mass reduction
to 20% VMR
Following are the Vehicle Level Summaries and Cost Curves for the three select vehicles used in
this study. Because the 2500 Silverado was similar in primary design to the 1500 Silverado, many
of the 1500 Silverado mass reduction ideas were transferable. This led to mass reduction and cost
values comparable between the two vehicles. If the mass of the CNG dual fuel components (239
kg) are removed from the curb weight of the 2500 Silverado (3086 kg), the percent vehicle mass
reduction increases to 20.4% versus the 1500 Silverado at 20.8% (the 1500 Silverado evaluated was
not a dual fuel CNG vehicle). The lower cost/kilogram of the 2500 Silverado is largely associated
with more absolute mass reduction coming from vehicle systems where mass reduction is more
affordable (i.e., engine, transmission, brakes, suspension at $2.50-3.50/kg) versus more expensive
systems like body-in-white and enclosures at $5.50-$6.00/kg (Table 0-1). The absolute mass
reduction difference, for systems like Body Group A (body-in-white and enclusures), between the
1500 and 2500 Silverado was minimal due to similarities in production stock designs and
component mass.
In comparion the Sprinter and Master vehicles are unibody vans with less commonality to the 1500
Silverado. Although because some of the larger system contributors to mass reduction were
transferable (i.e., Body Group A, Body Group B, Suspension, Brakes), significant mass reduction
was still achieved. As shown in
3 See section 2.1 for a complete explanation of the Vehicle Level Summaries and Cost Curve assumptions and
methodologies.
-------
and Table 0-2, the largest contributor to vehicle mass reduction was Body Group A contributing
over 50% of the overall vehicle mass reduction. This large contribution also had a negative impact
on costs increasing the average cost/kilogram for mass reduction to near $6/kg for both van
applications.
The impact of having less mass reduction concepts transferable to the van applications,
compounded with the large contribution from Body Group A, is also visible on the cost curves for
both the Sprinter and Master vehicles (Figure 0-2 and Figure 0-3). This is witnessed by the large
gap in datapoints between -7% and -17% vehicle mass reduction.
-------
2013 Chew Silverado 2500 4WD LT Ext Cab
Table 0-1: Vehicle Level Summary, Silverado 2500
to
I
3
no
01
02
IIS
SJ
us
03
fu
05
OF,
07
00
09
0
t
6
' 7
18
'in
a
•j
c
Description
Silverado 2500
Engine System
Transniss:o~ System
Body System (Group -A-)
Buoy System (Group -D-!
Body System (Group -C-)
Body System (Group -D-) Glazing & Body
Brake System
I- -, ••:•'• f..'c • I .; Sv,lt:i
Clutch System
Exhaust System
Fuel System
Steering System
Information Gage and Waning Divice System
Electrical Power Supply System
!n-Vehicte Entertainment System
Vacuum Distrbution Subsystem
Lighting System
Electrical DistnbuTion and Electronic Control
System
Fli;; - ,-.- '. • .- .",:c-i:
Analysis rutnlsw.t' M n NVH Countei ['.'insures —
Vehicle NVH Counter Measures -^
Analysis Totals With NVH Counter Measures —
Mass Reduction Impact by System
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ,i)
63-48
3375
187726
32.10
__jLoL3
380
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"Kg" m
"855
4' 86
lYss
aoo
_____
0.00
113 32 I 12 49
25 1 1
54731
~d.oo
aoo
jfas
_M6__
3.54
1 75
2.08
32780
6-66
6748
8721
0 00
000 I 000
"0.39
8.47
aoo
551.54
_
0 00
000
"0.60
87.32
~ ""—
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" „)
72.03
38.61
205.05
32'10
........^.^........
330
25 1 1
56.39
3280
000
9.16
0.3977]
847
aoo
638.85
' -56.95
581.90
' Duresse;
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"*" I2i
-$224:28
"-$l"l6.67"
-$1,143.26
-$125:41
~^jf&5~_
$1.94
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (21
""$4070"
$20.76
-$76773
$6' 00
__^_
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"*" B!
-$183.58
-$"89791
-$1,219.98
-$12541
-•"-|3|3""
$1 94
i :j /' ^i.i on j .j-le. /'1
-$192.82 $21 .56
$0 00 -$75 31
$0-66 I $6-66
-$171 27
"-$75:31
$6.66
-$15 41
$1 00 I $12 42 I $13 42
-$17081 I $000 I -S17081
""^82.02
$61.54
$ao6
-$2,241.86
$000
$0.00
$bT6o
$40.55
-$2 02
$61.54
$a66
-$2,201.31
-$170.84
-$2,372.16
(IncreaBB)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
'-K-55
-$2_33
""-$5.95
-$3.91
__^_.
$051
^$5.04
-$230
$6:66
-$T68
_ $1_J52_
$1 56
TjSOiLT
$726
-S4.08
(Incrsass)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
"""272%
T25%
6.65%
1-04%
__^__
012%
4768%
"jIMiEZ
1 83%
1 06%
0 00%
"6"3o%
6.29%
6."ii%
6:66%
0.01%
6:41%
6.66%
6:66%"
"'""'api%"I
027%
" "6:66%
20.70%
18.86%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
'(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
2013 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 4WD LT EXT CAB
% Vehicle Mass Reduction
Trendline Description
With Mass Compounding/Secondary Mass Savings
Cost/Kilogram Mass
Reduction Formula
$/kg =163.26'(VMR) -7.8466
$/kg = 34 482'(VMR)-2 5938
% Vehicle Mass
Reduction Zone
0%
-------
2007 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
Table 0-2: Vehicle Level Summary, Mercedes Sprint
'.
07
08
09
111
n
IS
M
14
15
16
17
II!
'til
.t
•>
<•-
Description
Mercedes Sprinter 311 CD,
Engine System
Transmission System
Body System (Group A )
Body System (Group -B >
Body System (Group C )
Body System (Group -DO Glazing & Body
Mechatronics
Suspension System
Dr ivwlme System
Brake System
Frame and Mounting System
Clutch System
Exhaust System
Fuel System
Steering System
Climate Control Syslem
Information. Gage arKl Warning Dwce System
Electrical Power Supply System
In vehicle Entertainment System
Vacuum Distrbution Subsystem
Lighting System
Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control
System
Etectronic Features System
Anarysis folalsWrtnout NVH Counter Measures —
Vehicle NVH Counter Measures —
Analysis Totals With NVH Counter Measures —
Mass Reduction Impact by System
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
Tifl'ro
2849
684
24657
X 0!
1.17
214
4202
745
2775
0.00
000
231
002
ner>
1 16
0 ?:)
1296
0.00
000
0.38
285
000
40622
Mass
Reduction
comp
"TkS" rii
507
2 14
242
000
000
0.00
2.04
000
052
000
000
015
605
000
000
ooo
DUO
ooo
000
ooo
000
000
1838
Mass
Reduction
Total
Wm
3358
899
24899
20 (12
1.17
2 14
44.06
7.45
?B2f.
000
000
246
80S
3 Bfi
1 16
023
1298
000
ooo
039
285
000
42459
' -3785
366 .75
:..- !.-,i,.'
Cost
Impact
New Tech
f W
•$98 12
-$843
-11.597.49
$53 33
$1 «.
$1 10
S1 10 81
$1770
-511053
$000
$000
-$12 JO
$018
-$11088
$799
$1 26
•$184 33
$000
$000
.$202
S2722
$000
-$2.231 06
Cost
Impact
Comp
"fa
$2150
$559
-$583
$000
$000
$000
$13.42
$0,00
$526
$000
$000
$205
$915
$000
$000
$000
$000
SOW)
$000
$0 00
$000
$000
S5i n
COS!
Impact
Total
•*•«
J7f; f.2
-$283
•$1,60332
•$5333
51 lib
$1 10
-$97.39
$1770
-$10527
SO 00
SO 00
-$10 15
S932
-$1 10 88
$799
SI 26
.$18433
SOW
SO 00
S202
$2722
$000
$2 1 79 91
-$11355
-$2.293,46
h .'-.I .^
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
•$rkg-
-S228
-SO 32
-$644
S?Kti
*142
$051
-*221
S? i8
4372
$000
$000
-$4 12
$1 54
-$28 713
5690
S549
•$1422
$000
SO 00
4523
$954
$000
$513
•$5,93
|iwr*aie,i
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
•%•
I ':T\.
042%
1168%
094%
DOS'*
0 10%
2.07%
n >v-
1 33%
0 Ofpo
000%
0 1?°t
02«%
0 16%
005%
001*
061*
000%
a uu><
002%
013%
00000
1992«4
18,16%
*(1) "+" = ma*» decreaie. "-" = mats Increase
r(2( "+~ - co«t decrease. "-" = cost increase
2007 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
10% 2.000% *IOQO% 6.000% 8.000% 10.000% 12.000% 14.000% 16.000% 18.000% 20.000%
Final Vehicle Solution
'
Pieeewise Trendlme
•' w/o Compounding
Aw/ Compounding
% Vehicle Mass Reduction
Trendline Description
With Mass Compounding/Secondary Mass Savings
Cost/Kilogram Mass
Reduction Formula
$/kg=172.86"(VMR) -6.314
J/kg = 34.497"(VMR)-0.5536
% Vehicle Mass
Reduction Zone
0% ' VMR < 4.2%
4.2%
-------
2010 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 125 L3H2
Table 0-3: Vehicle Level Summary, Renault Master
«<
a
00
01
02
03
D3
03
03
04
05
06
07
pe
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
a
h
c
Description
Renault Master DCi
Engine System
Transmission System
P.lniV Sy.!( I! ,'-,,:> i />
Body System (Group .8-)
Body System (Group -C-)
Body System (Group -DO Glazing & Body
Mechatronics
Suspension System
Dnvejme System
Brake System
r'cr"p ,: " v '.'o.nt " >:• bv:t&n
Clutch System
Exhaust System
Fuel System
Steering System
Information, Gage and Wa'ang Divice System
Electrical Power Supply System
In-Vehicte Entertainment System
'VCILJJ'M Dibt :...:i'.j o.itj^'.stem
Lignting System
Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control
System
HP • i -.,-..- "-.vr"
- ' -. • •: •? -i:,v-v.V ' -i - . . '. .. -e ; '-~:^.:~^:, —
Vehicle NVI •_.>:•. Her l.'pasures —
Analysis Totals With NVH Counter Measures —
Mass Reduction Impact by System
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" m
30.51
7.00
258.80
23.67
1.62
2 18
56 87
13.38
31.34
0.00
0.00
2-13
0.01
5.47
059
0.13
18.13
0 00
6.39
381
000
456 06
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg"n>
5.46
243
5.86
000
000
000
286
0.00
060
0.00
0.00
0.18
581
0.00
0.00
000
0.00
0.00
23.20
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" ,i>
35.98
944
26466
23-67
1 62
2 18
31-94
0.00
0.00
2.31
5-82
5.47
0.13
6.39
381
0.00
47925
' -42.72
436.53
IDecrsass)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" .2,
-$132.57
-$1014
-$1,68532
-$91 43
$227
$1 12
-$140.45
$35 93
-$123.41
$0.00
$000
-$1 1 48
$0.14
-$90.37
$2.91
$068
$0 00
-$2.02
$32.99
$0-00
-$2,469.04
Cost
impact
Comp
•$" ,2)
$23.75
$7.78
-$33 77
$000
$000
$000
$18 76
$6 17
$0 00
$2-33
$879
$000
$0.00
$0.00
$000
$3380
Cost
(mpact
Total
"$" (2I
-$108.83
-$236
-$1,719.09
-$91.43
$227
$1 12
$0 00
$0 00
-$9.15
$8.92
-$90 37
$0 00
$000
-$2.02
$3299
$000
-$2435.24
-$128 16
-$2,563.40
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
-$3.03
-$025
-$6.50
-$386
$1 40
$051
$000
$0 00
-$3.97
$1.53
-$16 53
-S14 22
$0.00
$0.00
-$5.23
$8.65
$0.00
-$5.08
45.87
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
1.53%
0-40%
1 1 .25%
1.01%
0.07%
0.09%
2.54%
0 57%
1 36%
0.00%
000%
0-10%
0.25%
0 23%
0.02%
001%
077%
000%
0.00%
0.02%
0.16%
0.00%
20.36%
18.65%
r(1) "•»•" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
Average Cost of Cumulative Mass Reduction ($/kg)
2010 Renault Master 2.3 Dei 125 L3H2
$4.00
$2.00 -
$0.00
0,0
-$2,00
-$4.00
-56.00
-$8.00 -
•S 10.OO
-$12.00
Final Vehicle Solution
^——~J^~^
^_J++r__-—- — ' """"""*"'•"' PiecewiseTrendline
sZ*****
3% 2.00% y**4.00W 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.00% 20.00%
f
g
1
I
^w/o compoundtng 96 Vehicle Mass Reduction
Aw/ Compounding
T- _ Cost/Kilogram Mass % Vehicle Mass
Trendlme Description
Reduction Formula Reduction Zone
S/kg =170.94*(VMR)- 6.1459 0% < VMR < 4.2%
With Mass Compoundmg'Secondary Mass Savings
S/kg = 32.71 8*(VMR)-0.3747 4.2% < VMR < 19%
VMR = Vehicle Mass Reduction (Master)
Figure 0-3: Vehicle Cost Curve w/Trendline, Renault Master
-------
1. INTRODUCTION AND PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
1.1 OBJECTIVE
The primary project objective of this study was to determine the minimum cost per kilogram for
various levels of vehicle mass reduction on selected light/medium duty vehicles. The three select
vehicles are:
• 2013 Chevy Silverado 2500 4WD LT Ext Cab
• 2007 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
• 2010 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 125 L3H2
The approach for determining feasible component mass reduction alternatives, and the associated
cost impact, was based on a comparison and scaling methodology. Results from a previously
completed 2011 1500 Chevrolet Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Project[4] were evaluated for
applicability to the three case study vehicles listed above. If the mass reduction was applicable,
mass and costs factors drived from the 1500 Silverado analysis where applied to the case study
vehicles to establish a comparable mass reduction and incremental manufacturing cost. For many
components and assemblies the mass reduction ideas were not transferable due to differences in the
baseline designs and/or the mass reduction idea was already implemented. For other components
and assemblies, partial applicability was determined resulting in a percentage reduction of the mass
savings taken in the original 1500 Silverado analysis.
1.2 BACKGROUND
Vehicle mass reduction is considered one of many advance vehcile technologies available to help
improve vehicle fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Successful mass
reduction must not degrade vehicle function and performance including occupant safety. To help
assess the feasibility of mass reduction in light- and medium-duty trucks (i.e., pickup trucks and
vans), and determine the associated cost impact, EPA contracted FEV to conduct a comparison and
scaling analysis. The analysisis is founded on the results developed in a prior detailed mass
reduction and cost analysis performed a 2011 Chevrolet Silverdo.
1.3 COSTING METHODOLOGY
The methodology employed was based on a comparison and scaling approach. Results from the
previously completed detailed 1500 Silverado mass reduction and cost analysis were each product
structure level (i.e., system, subsystem, sub-subsystem and assemblies and components) a
comparison evaluation was made and evaluated for applicability to the three selected medium duty
vehicles used in this study.
To support the development of the vehicle BOMs and acquisition of component and assembly
attribute data (mass, size, material, quantity, etc.) two methods were implemented. For the 2500
Silverado, the vehicle was purchase and disassembled using the standard FEV teardown and BOM
development methodology. For the Mercedes Sprinter and Renault Master, the A2MAC1 database
was used to acquire the relevant vehicle and component and assembly attribute data.
1FEV-P310324-02_R2.0: Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis - Light-Duty Pickup Track Model Years 2020-2025
-------
A model consisting of an extensive set of linked spreadsheets and associated macros has been
developed to perform the calculations, to track the 1500 Silverado input data, assess applicability
to the medium duty trucks, and calculate the final mass reduction and net incremental direct
manufacturing costs. This included independent calculations on the primary mass savings, also
referred to as "Mass Reduction New Technology", and secondary mass savings (SMS) also referred
to as "Mass Reduction Compounding".
Each study vehicle was evaluated against the Silverado 1500 relative to component content and
similarities (e.g. design, function, material). This was accomplished by assembling BOMs for each
of the major systems of the 1500 Silverado. At each product structure level (i.e., system, subsystem,
sub-subsystem and assemblies and components) a comparison evaluation was made to determine if
the component was on the vehicle being evaluated.
All calculations are based off of the Silverado 1500 analysis^. A high level overview of the
calculations performed as follows:
• A Comparison BOM (CBOM) template was constructed using the traditional FEV system,
subsystem, assembly and component hierarchy. Only items that were lightweighted in the
original Silverado 1500 study were included in the CBOM.
• Each case study vehicle had its' own set of CBOM templates for conducting the comparison
and scaling analysis.
• Using BOMs created for the three new case study vehicles, a review and comparison
analysis was conducted to determine if the Silverado mass reduced components existed in
each comparion vehicle.
• If some portion of mass reduction was possible, component details from the case study
vehicle were entered into the CBOM.
• A series of logical and attribute parameters, related to scalability and secondary mass
savings, were entered in by the user supporting the algorithms used to calculate the
component mass reduction and associated manufacturing costs.
• Within the CBOM templates, mass reduction and costs were summed into sub-sub system,
subsystem and system level values. In addition primary and secondary mass savings were
tracked separately for use in the development of the cost curves.
5FEV-P310324-02_R2.0: Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis - Light-Duty Pickup TruckModel Years 2020-2025
-------
1.4 SELECT VEHICLES
1.4.1 2013 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 4WD LT Extended CAB
• Segment: Heavy Duty Pickup Truck
• Engine: 6.0L 16V V8 GAS/CNG bi-fuel (360 hp)
• Transmission: 6 Automatic
• Drivetrain: Rear Wheel Drive
• Body Style: Crew Cab
• Doors: 4
• Seating Capacity: 5
Image 1.4-1: 2013 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 4WD LT Extended Cab
-------
1.4.2 2007 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
• Segment: Light Commercial Vehicle (LCV)
• Engine: 2.1L 16V Turbo Diesel (109 hp)
• Transmission: 6 speed manual
• Drivetrain: rear wheel drive
• Body Style: L2H2
• Doors: 5
• Seating Capacity: 2
Image 1.4-2: 2007Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
-------
1.4.3 2010 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 125 L3H2
• Segment: LCV
• Engine: 2.3L 16V Turbo Diesel (125 hp)
• Transmission: 6 speed manual
• Drivetrain: rear wheel drive
• Body Style: L3H2
• Doors: 5
• Seating Capacity: 3
Image 1.4-3: 2010 Renault Master 2.3 DCi L3H2
-------
2. MASS-REDUCTION AND COST ANALYSIS RESULTS, VEHICLE
LEVEL
2.1 MASS REDUCTION TABLE AND COST CURVE OVERVIEW
Mass Reduction Table
The first 3 columns deal with weight in kg: "Mass Reduction New Tech", "Mass Reduction Comp"
and "Mass Reduction Total".
• Mass Reduction New Tech; are the mass reduction ideas that were originated from the
original Silverado 1500 Lightweighting study that were applied to the select vehicles (e.g.,
change the crankshaft design to a hollow cast design to lightweight the crankshaft).
• Mass Reduction Comp; is the added weight reduction from compounding/secondary mass
savings (e.g., the engine can be downsized in displacement as a result of the lower vehicle
curb weight maintaining the original vehicle performance)
• Mass Reduction Total; is the combined weight reduction from applying the new technology
and the compounding/secondary mass savings.
The next set of 3 columns deal with cost: "Cost Impact New Tech", "Cost Impact Comp" and "Cost
Impact Total".
• Cost Impact New Tech; is the cost for applying the new technology mass reduction ideas
from the original Silverado 1500 Lightweighting study to the select vehicles.
• Cost Impact Comp; is the cost savings as the result of compounding/secondary mass
savings.
• Cost Impact Total; is the combined cost from applying the new technology and
compounding/secondary cost savings.
The last 2 columns are a dollar value per kg and a percentage: "Cost/Kilogram Total" and "Vehicle
Mass Reduction Total".
• Cost/Kilogram Total; is the "Cost Impact Total" divided by the "Mass Reduction Total" to
equal a cost per kilogram.
• Vehicle Mass Reduction %Total; is the percentage vehicle system mass reduction with
respect to the baseline vehicle curb weight
It should be noted that an NVH countermeasure was added to the final solution to protect for
additional material and cost which may need to be added back into the vehicle in selected areas as
a result of lightweight adjustments. This could include additional hood insulation, body-in-white
mastic, weight counterbalances, etc.
Cost Curve Chart
-------
The cost curve consists of a dollar value per kilogram and a percentage: "Average Cost of
Cumulative Mass Reduction" and "% Vehicle Mass Reduction" with a Trendline.
• % Vehicle Mass Reduction (VMR); is the percentage vehicle system mass reduction with
respect to the baseline vehicle curb weight
• Average Cost of Cumulative Mass Reduction ($/kg); is the calculated cost/kg of mass
reduction at a given percent vehicle mass reduction. The cost curves are developed by
cumulatively summing mass reduction and associated cost impact, from "best value" to
most expensive mass reduction component/assembly/subsystem ideas. Additional details
on the development of mass reduction and cost impact cost curves can be found in the
Silverado 1500 report6. Cost curves are developed with and without the addition of
secondary mass savings illustrating the benefit of secondary mass savings. The "Final
Vehicle Solution" point on the graph represents the sum of mass reduction and cost impact
in the final solution also found at the bottom of each Vehicle Level Summary table below
(i.e., Analysis Totals with NVH Countermeasures)
• Piecewise Trendlines were added to the compounding plots for each vehicle solution. From
the Trendline plots the average cost per kilogram, as a function of percent vehicle mass
reduction can be calculated. The Trendline formulas can be found underneath each cost
curve plot.
J FEV-P3'10324-02_R2.0: Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis - Light-Duty Pickup Truck Model Years 2020-2025
-------
2.2 SILVERADO 2500
Shown below is the Vehicle Level Summary chart (Table 2-1) by system new tech and secondary
mass savings.
Table 2-1: Vehicle Level Summary, Silverado 2500
I5
06
0 ?
03
09
To
rn
'12
*13
"74
r15
10
Jl.
18
Tg
a
b
c
Description
Silverado 2500
Engine System
Transnvssion System
Body System (Group -A-)
Body System (Group -B-)
Body System i;Group -C-)
Body System (Group -D-) Glazing & Body
Mechatronics
Suspension System
Dnvelme System
Brake System
Frame and [v'ojntmg System
Clutch System
Exhaust System
Fuel System
Steering System
Climate Control System
Information Gac:e ana Waring D:vce System
Etectrical Powe^ Supply System
In-Vehicle Entertainment System
Vacuum Distrbjtion Sjbsystem
Lighting System
Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control
System
Electronic Features System
Analysis TotaisWithout NVH Counter Measures -*
Vehicle NVH Counter Measures — >
Analysis Totals With NVH Counter Measures — >
Mass Reduction Impact by System
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ,,)
63.48
3175
187~2b
32~.T6
201
3.80
113.32
257l
54.31
O"o6
6766
8"68
6"65
3.54
T"75
0.25
12767
6766
6766
IIEIEII
8.47
6"66
551.54
—
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ID
8.55
4.86
17 "85
6766
6766
0.00
12.49
6766
2768
32786
6766
6748
8721
6766
6766
6766
6766
6766
6766
ZllOipZZ
0.00
6"66
87.32
—
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" ,11
72763
38761
" '£j£o5"
327T6
'2767
3.80
12581
257l1
'56739
32780
6766
sue
OB
3754
lure"
~O25~"
\zsT
6766
6766
IZ°I?ZI
8.47
o7do
638.85
-56. 95
581.90
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2,
""-$224728
4110.67
_____
""-$"l25"4'i
'$'3723
$1.94
-$386.64
$48771
-$192782
$0.00
$0.00
-$2196
$i76o
$5753
$13L40
"'"$6".65
""-$"i"7"678i
$6766
$6766
ZIJEpIZ
$61 54
$6"66
-$2,241 86
—
Cost
Impact
Comp
V a;
$4b'.70
$26.76
-$76"73
$"6766
$"6"o6
$0.00
$90.61
$6"66
$27756
"$"75731
$67o6
$6 "55
$"l2.42
$6766
'$"6766
$6766"
$6766
$6766
$6766
ZZ|?-PJ?ZZ
$0.00
$6766
$40.55
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" 12)
"-$183758"
489""9"l
______
'"-$125741'
'$"3723
$1.94
-$296.03
$48.7 1
-$171727
-$75.31
$6766
-$15741
$13.42
$5753
${3746
$6765
.._.___.
$6766
'$"6766
I;$2"02
$61.54
$6766
-$2,201.31
-$170.84
-$2,372.16
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
"$'2'7'55
-$"2.33
-$5795
-$37'9"i
$7756'
$0.51
-$2.35
$7794
-$3.04
-$2.30
$6766
-$1.68
$7"52
$7756
$"7768
$2762
:$i~3""4"8
$6766
$6766
ZZillIZ
$726
$"6766
-$3.45
—
-$4.08
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
2772"%
?725%
6765%
1764%
6767%
0.12%
4.08%
6781%
T'83"%
i76e%
6766%
6". 30%
6729%"
67ii%"
6766%"
o76i%"
6747%
6766%
6766%
ZipjEfiiZ!
0.27%
6766%
20.70%
18.86%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
"(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Shown below is the vehicle cost curve w/ Trendline and secondary mass savings with description
(Table 2-2).
Table 2-2: Vehicle Cost Curve w/ Trendline, Silverado 2500
I
8
V
$6.00
2013 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 4WD LT EXT CAB
Final Vehicle Solution
20.00%
-$12.00
w/o Compounding
Aw/ Compounding
% Vehicle Mass Reduction
Trendline Description
With Mass Compounding/Secondary Mass Savings
Cost/Kilogram Mass
Reduction Formula
$/kg=163.26*(VMR) -7.8466
$/kg = 34.482*(VMR}-2.5938
% Vehicle Mass
Reduction Zone
0%
-------
2.3 MERCEDES SPRINTER
Shown below is the Vehicle Level Summary chart (Table 2-3) by system new tech and secondary
mass savings.
Table 2-3: Vehicle Level Summary, Mercedes Sprinter
lf>
oT
3
'oo
01
,_
'03'
"OS
'63
03
'04
05
06
07
'OB
09
"10
TT
"12
"13
"14
'l5
'l6
'i7
18
19
a
. .....
c
Description
Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
Engine System
Transmission System
Body System (Group -A-)
Body System (Group -B-)
Body System (Group -C-)
Body System (Group -D-) Glazing & Body
Mechatronics
Suspension System
Driveline System
Brake System
Frame and Mounting System
Cl'jtch System
Exhaust System
Fuel System
Steering System
Climate Control System
Information. Gage and Warning DIVH;H System
Electrical Power Supply System
In-Vehicle Enterta.nment System
Vacuum Distrb,..tio"i Subsystem
Lighting System
Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control
System
Electronic Features System
Analysis TotalsWithout NVH Counter Measures — >
Vehicle NVH Counter Measures — >
Analysis Totals With NVH Counter Measures — *
Mass Reduction Impact by System
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ,1}
28.49
6.84
246757
20.02
i".i7
2.14
4202
7.45
27.75
aoo
0.00
231
6762
3.85
iTe
023
12.96
0.00
6.66
6.39
2.85
0.00
406.22
—
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ,r,
5767
2.14
2.42
6.66
6.66
0.00
2.04
6.00
6752
6.06
6.66
0.15
"els
6.66
6.06
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
"6766
0.00
0.00
18.38
—
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" „)
33.56
8.99
248~99"
20.02
iTi7
2.14
44.06
T.45
28726
b"6o
6'.o6
2746
6766
3."85
i7i6
6.23
12.96
6.66
6.66
6739
2.85
0.00
424.59
-37785
386.75
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" ,21
-$98.12
-$8743
41 .597.49
-$53.33
$1.65
$1.10
-$110.81
$17.70
-$"110.53
$6.06
$6.66
"-$12720
$67is
4lib78
-------
Table 2-4: Vehicle Cost Curve w/ Trendline, Mercedes Sprinter
$8.00
"3 $6.00
^£
VV
| $4.00
•0 $2.00
$0.00
0.000% 2.000%
-$2.00
1
3
| -$4.00
u
w -$6.00
01
< -$10.00
-$12.00
2007 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
Final Vehicle Solution
Piecewise Trendline
!000% 6.000% 8.000% 10.000% 12.000% 14.000% 16.000% 18.000% 20.000%
w/o Compounding
Aw/ Compounding
% Vehicle Mass Reduction
Trendline Description
With Mass Compounding/Secondary Mass Savings
Cost/Kilogram Mass
Reduction Formula
$/kg=172.86*(VMR)-6.314
$/kg = 34.497*(VMR)-0.5536
% Vehicle Mass
Reduction Zone
0% < VMR < 4.2%
4.2%
-------
2.4 RENAULT MASTER
Shown below is the Vehicle Level Summary chart by system new tech and secondary mass savings.
Table 2-5: Vehicle Level Summary, Renault Master
en
1
"66
'67
-Q2
03
03
03
03
04
00
OB
"67
"08
"09
76"
Ti
"12
"l4
"15
,__..
"17
18
19
a
b
c
Description
Renault Master DCi
Engine System
Transmission System
Body System (Group -A-)
Body System ;Group -B-)
Body System (Group -C-)
Body System (Group -D-) Glazing & Body
Mechatronics
Suspension System
Driveline System
Brake System
F'-arne a'c ','0, • :. •.; : rioiv.
Clutch System
Exhaust System
Fuel System
Steer, ng System
Climate Confol System
Information Gage a"d Warning Drvico System
Electrical Power Supply System
In-Vehicle E-xe'tannw't System
Vacuum DiSfbutio- Subsystem
Lighting System
Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control
System
Electronic Features System
Analysis TotalsWithout NVH Counter Measures — >
Vehicle NVH Counter Measures — >
Analysis Totals With NVH Counter Measures — >
Mass Reduction Impact by System
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ,,;
____
7166
258.86
23767
l"l62
2.18
56.87
isTsfi
3ll34
6166
"6166
2ll3
"616"i
5A7
""6759
67i3
islis
6766"
6166
6139
3.81
0.00
456.06
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ,i;
T46
2743
"6166
6166
0.00
2.86
"6166""
"6166
"6166"
6166
"6166"
6166
6166
"5166""
0.00
0.00
23.20
Mass
Reduction
Total
Ww
35.98
9A4
" 264166
23767
ll62 "
2.18
59.73
" isTsai
31794
6166
6166
2L3T
5782
Slilr" "
6159
67l3
mis
6166
6166
3.81
0.00
47925
" -42.72
436.53
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
4132757
-$"l61l4
______
49ll43
$2727
$1.12
4140.45
$35793'
4123141
$6166
$6166
4Tll48
$61J4
_____
$2l91
$6166""
______
$6166""
$6166
$32.99
$0.00
-$2,469.04
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
$23775"
'$7778
433777
$6166
$6166
$0.00
$18.76
$6166
""$6l"l7 ""
$6166 "
""$6166
$2733 "
$8.79
$6166
""$6166
$6166 "
$6166
$6166
$'6166
$6166 "
$0.00
$0.00
$33.80
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" [2)
42736
-$1,719.69
491743
$1.12
4121.70
$35193"
______
"$6166"
______
497l5"
$8792
496737
""'$2".9T"
"$5766
______
"$6166"
______
42762"
$32.99
$0.00
-$2,435.24
-$1 28l 1 6
-$2,563.40
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
43763
46725'
46750
43786'
$l".40
$0.51
-$2.04
$2.68
43767
$6166
$0.00
-$3.97
$T.53
416.53 "
$4".96
$4".91
_____
$6166
$6166
45723
$8.65
$0.00
-$5.08
-$5.87
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
6146%
Tll25%
J16i%
6167%
0.09%
2.54%
6157%
1.36%
6166%
0.00%
6125%
6123%
6162%
616i%
6177%
6166%
6166%
6162%
0.16%
0.00%
20.36%
18.55%
(1) "+" = mass d
'(2) "+" = cost di
-------
Shown below is the vehicle cost curve w/ Trendline and secondary mass savings with description.
Table 2-6: Vehicle Cost Curve w/ Trendline, Renault Master
2010 Renault Master 2.3 Dei 125 L3H2
—
g
T3
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
$2.00
Final Vehicle Solution
5 $0.00
0.00% 2.00% / 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.0056 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.0056 20.00%
S -$2.00
3
E
<3 -$4.00
•s
* -$6.00
-$8.00
-$10.00
-$12.00
Piecewise Trendline
w/o Compounding
^w/ Compounding
% Vehicle Mass Reduction
Trendline Description
With Mass Compounding/Secondary Mass Savings
Cost/Kilogram Mass
Reduction Formula
$/kg =170.94*(VMR}- 6.1459
$/kg = 32.71 8*(VMR}-0.3747
% Vehicle Mass
Reduction Zone
0% < VMR < 4.2%
4.2%
-------
3. MASS-REDUCTION AND COST ANALYSIS, SYSTEM LEVEL
3.1 ENGINE SYSTEM
3.1.1 Silverado 1500
3.1.1.1 Baseline Technology, Silverado 1500
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 came equipped with a 5.3 Liter V8 producing 315 horse power and
335 ft-lbs of torque. Designated by Chevrolet as their LC9 variant, this engine features cylinder
deactivation and flex fuel compatibility. Other features include aluminum deep skirt, closed deck
block with cast-in liners and six bolt mains. The cam-in-block pushrod design has been outfitted
with phaser-enabled variable valve timing. This naturally aspirated, port-injected layout utilizes a
single runner intake manifold. All aluminum construction and plastic intake manifold are
lightweight features already implemented by GM for the Gen IV Small Block in 2006 ^. Currently,
research is being done to make aluminum stronger and cast iron lighter in mass ^.
Image 3.1—1: Silverado 1500 base engine (5.3 liter LC9)
(Source: http://www.gmpowertrain.ca/product.html)
3.1.1.2 Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact, Silverado 1500
The Silverado 1500 analysis identified mass reduction alternatives and cost implications for the
Engine System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements of the baseline
vehicle. Table 3-1 provides a summary of mass reduction and cost impact for select sub-subsystems
7 GM Authority - "GM 5.3 Liter V8 Vortec LC9 Engine", accessed on April 2015,
http://gmauthority.co m/blog/gm/gm-engines/lc9/
8 ENERGY.GOV - "Vehicle Technologies Office: Lightweight Materials for Cars and Trucks", accessed on June
2015, http://energy.gov/eere/vehicles/vehicle-technologies-office-lightweight-materials-cars-and-trucks
-------
evaluated. Only sub-subsystems with significant mass savings were included and account for over
80% of the total mass savings found on the engine. Total system mass was reduced by 23.8 kg
(9.92%). This increased cost by $114.63, or $4.82 per kg. Mass reduction for this system reduced
vehicle curb weight by 0.97%.
Table 3-1: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact, Silverado 1500
C/3
a
=i
01
01
01
If
01
"of
..........
"b'f
"o"i"
QJ
"o"i"
QJ
"o"i"
If
01
QJ
If
01
"pi"
bi
"b"i"
01
"b"i"
If
01
"of
"b"i"
If
bi
11
01
01
"b"i"
If
en
£=
D-
(f)
*<
~
a*
3
go
02
03
03"
03
"03
05"
"bs"
05"
._
be"
"b'f
of
"b'f
08
09
09"
..„.„...
.........
12
_..,
13
13"
"13"
14
"i'i"
_
"i'i"
lie;
"if
60
70
fb"
"70"
c:
cr
CO
£Z
CT-
(!)
iff
CD
3
00
00
bo"
If
03
04"
"bb"
01"
02
00
20
bb"
"be"
of
"bb"
bb"
..........
bb"
"bb"
bb"
..........
bb"
..........
02"
"bb"
b'f
"04
05"
"bb"
bo
00
00
"99"
01"
Description
Engine System
Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets
Subsystem
Crank Drive Subsystem
Crankshaft
Connect Rods (Assemblies: Connecting Rod,
Connecting Rod Cap)
Other Components
Cylinder Block Subsystem
Cylinder Block
Other Components
Cylinder Head Subsystem
Cylinder Head Covers
Valvetrain Subsystem
Camshafts
Other Co-" ;o n ants
timing Drive Subsystem
Accessory Drive Subsystem
Pulley's
Air Intake Subsystem
Fuel Induction Subsystem
Exhaust Subsystem
Exhaust Manifold
Lubrication Subsystem
Oil Pans (Oil Sump)
Other Components
Cooling Sii i
Water Pumps
Heat Exchangers
Other Components
Exhaust Gas Re-circulation Subsystem
Breather Subsystem
Engine Management, Engine Electronic,
Electrical Subsystem
Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor,
Generator, etc.)
Misc.
Other Components
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Mass
"kg"
6.07
Z"3fIcT"
24. 01
5.41
f'59
59786"
i"fl5
1271
24.91
2764
16.26
4".6"b
if'65
i.75
8727
f'27
11L95
i.12
ZJML_
12717
10.55"
778
'2777
2432
4"68
14723
5741'
b"."b'5"b
0.109
5.67
19.89
ZjyifZ
16-2--
239.95
Mass
Reduction
kg (i)
1 10
ZZ-MZ
1.03
1.07
1272
3730
2793
ZJJMZ
1.16
1.16
ai'92
Q.b'85
ZlZ°lZ
0.415
1.73
173
I'gii
bib
Z3IZZ
3.15
3li
2758"
a'429
131
2743
ZZMZ
1.176
bib
bib
0.886
2.23
i'"86"
Zll6?Z
23.80
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
NIDMC
"$" (2,
-$0.01
3$2;95"Z
-$2729
$6.34
-$i.ib
$"b'.8"o
$278
-$i"98
$6706
$"6"l6
$bl5
-$b"b3
$bl8
42.44
$073"
ZlbJ'jZZ
-$1.54
$"bl'b
"-'$2b.bb
-$2b"bb
ZSl-?lI
-$1129
$"bl4
3$9T06"2
-$94.12
$2"."l6"
-$"b."ib
$"blb""
$b"bb
$1.97
-$0.89
ZIlZZI
-??-
-$114.63
(Increase)
Average
Cost'
Kilogram
"$/kg" (2)
-$0.01
iJl-MZ
-$2722
$5.92
44.05
$0.24
$b"95
45.45
$5722
$5.22
$0.26
40.39
$I"78
3S5MI
$0.42
$1742
-$0758
3jb.bb"3
-$6.35
-$"6""35
-$3774
-$4.37'
$"b"."ib
-$"27778
'"-$"3871
$2"b4
'$"b'."58
$b"bb
ZlMLl
$2.23
-$0.40
Z1I1IZ
-^-
-$4.82
(Increase)
Mass
Reduction
%
18.18%
Il-4?%Z
4.30%
19.82%
3758"%
5751%
"T22%Z
2.86%
4'.66'%"
3?J6%3
1.18%
l".85%"
b'"9'2"%
23772%
""2b.94%"
IlM?%I
7.88%
abb%
""25.88%"
25"8'8"%""
2"28.W%2
33-f8%
15.48%
Zl3-63%3
51.91%
f.45%"
3|26%Z
blb%
ZO;bb%Z
15.63%
11.20%
50.47%
ZUMZ
9.92%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.04%
Zojo%Z
0.04%
0.04%
b:pj%
0.13%
b.12%
b.bj%
b.05%
3Ip5%2"
p.bj%
b.bb%
b"bb'%"
b'.b2%
b.07%"
b'b'7%"
b.b4%"
Ij.bj^r"
b.13%
b.i3%
b.12%
b.fr/o
3Ib2%Z
b.14%
b.ib%
IM!%Z
-b.bi%
b.bb%
.___.
0.04%
0.09%
2jJpf%Z
°---
0.97%
(1) "+" = mass decrease,"-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease,"-" = cost increase
3.1.1.3 Lightweighting Technology, Silverado 1500
Mass savings opportunities were identified for the following components: crankshaft, connecting
rod, cylinder block, cylinder head covers, pulleys, exhaust manifolds, oil pans, water pump,
radiator, and accessory drive bracket.
-------
Crankshaft: The crankshaft mass was reduced by changing the cast crankshaft to a hollow cast
design. The main bearing journals were cast with a core to remove excess material. Mass was
reduced by 4.3% from 24.0 kg to 23.0 kg.
Production applications include the BMW 4.4L V8 and the Nissan 4.5L V8.
Connecting Rod: Connecting rod mass reduction was achieved by changing the primary forming
operation from powder forged to billet forged. The connecting rod mass was reduced by 19.8%
from 5.41 kg to 4.34 kg.
FEV validated this change by creating CAD models for both connecting rods and performing
fatigue analysis. Mahle manufactures connecting rods using this technology.
Cylinder Block: Cylinder block mass was reduced by replacing cast iron bore liners with plasma
liner technology. Mass was reduced by 6.2% from 47.1 kg to 44.2 kg.
Production vehicles utilizing this technology include Nissan GT-R, 2011 Shelby Mustang GT500,
and VW Lupo and were used as the base technology mass reduction for the Silverado 1500 original
study.
Cylinder Head Covers: Aluminum valve covers were replaced by plastic. Mass was reduced by
44.0% from 2.64 kg to 1.48 kg.
Production examples include Chrysler's 4.7L V8 and the Ford Duratec® 2.0L.
Pulleys: The idler and AC compressor pulleys were all found to have Lightweighting opportunities.
The steel idler pulley was replaced with a plastic design, which reduced mass by 58.0% from 0.455
kg to 0.191 kg. Plastic idler pulleys are commonplace and have proven durability.
The AC compressor pulley was changed from steel to plastic, which reduced mass by 59.8% from
0.695 kg to 0.279 kg. The VW Polo is a production example containing a plastic AC compressor
pulley and was used as the base technology mass reduction for the Silverado 1500 original study.
Exhaust Manifold: Cast iron exhaust manifolds were eliminated by replacing the components with
a stainless steel fabricated assembly. Mass was reduced by 26.2% from 12.2 kg to 9.02 kg.
Production examples of fabricated manifolds include the Toyota Avensis 2.0-R4 4V and LS7
Corvette and were used as the base technology mass reduction for the Silverado 1500 original study.
Oil Pan: Mass reduction of the oil pan was achieved by replacing aluminum with magnesium. Mass
was reduced by 25% from 5.27 kg to 3.96 kg. The Nissan GT-R oil pan is constructed from
magnesium and was used as the base technology mass reduction for the Silverado 1500 original
study.
Steel baffle plates were used to control oil flow within the oil pan region. These stamped steel plates
were changed to plastic. Mass was reduced by 70.6% from 1.65 kg to 0.49 kg. The Ford Mustang
utilizes plastic for this component.
Water Pump: The conventional mechanical water pump was replaced with an electric water pump.
Mass was reduced by 51.9% from 4.68 kg to 2.43 kg.
Electric water pumps are found on vehicles such as the BMW 328, 528, and X3/5 and were used as
the base technology mass reduction for the Silverado 1500 original study.
Radiator: The radiator found on the Silverado was designed for a range of applications. A radiator
designed specifically for the 5.3L Silverado could be smaller reducing component and fluid mass.
Mass was reduced by 4% from 6.79 kg to 6.52 kg. MuCell® applied to the fan shroud and fan blades,
which yielded an additional mass savings of 0.32 kg.
-------
Accessory Drive Bracket: The accessory drive bracket provides mounting for both the alternator
and power steering pump. This aluminum component was replaced with a magnesium version and
the power steering provision eliminated as this feature is no longer needed with electric power
steering. Mass was reduced by 50.5% from 3.69 kg to 1.83 kg. An example of a magnesium bracket
can be found on the Nissan 350Z and was used as the base technology mass reduction for the
Silverado 1500 original study.
-------
3.1.2 Silverado 2500
3.1.2.1 Baseline Technology, Silverado 2500
The Chevrolet Silverado 2500 came equipped with a 6.0 Liter V8 producing 360 hp and 380 ft-lbs
of torque ^. This GM LC8 engine (Image 1.4-2) is equipped with Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
compatibility. Other standard GM generation IV features include traditional cam in block design
with wedge style cylinder heads and six bolt mains. The LC8 engine variant was not equipped with
cylinder deactivation and utilizes a cast iron cylinder block. Components included in the CNG
adaptation of this engine (i.e., fuel rail, injectors, etc.) are considered a separate system and not
included in this analysis.
\nriii d.llLV.8 VVHLC81
Image 3.1-2: Silverado 2500 base engine (6.0 literLC8)
(Source: http://www.gmpowertrain.com)
9 The Chevrolet Bi-Fuel CNG Silverado 2500 HD Truck. Retrieved from GM Fleet & Commercial:
http://www.gmfleet.com/vehicle-overviews/fuel-efficiency^i-fuel.html
-------
3.1.2.2 Mass Savings and Cost Impact, Silverado 2500
Table 3-2 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 Lightweighting technologies applied
to the Silverado 2500. Total engine mass savings was 33.08 kg at a cost increase of $2.44 per kg.
The total mass savings using an aluminum block in place of a cast iron block for the 2500, for a
greater weight savings was 71.64kg and a cost increase of $2.58 per kg.
Table 3-2: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Engine System, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass Reduction
New Tech
Mass
Reduction
Comp
Mass
Reduction
Total
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"*" (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00 Engine System
00
Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets
Subsystem
) C[ank Drive Subsystern
Cylinder Bloc •: Su-syste " i«lu ••inn ":
Cylinder Block Subsystem (Iron to Aluminum)
Cylinder Head Subsystem
'---'al'.etrain Suysvste -
Timing Drive Subsystem
Accessory Drive Sursystem
Air Intake Subsystern
FueJ Induction Subsystem
Exhaust Subsystem
Lubrication Subsystem
Cooling Subsystem
Induction Air Charging iuosystem
Exhaust Gas R6~cK9uj3t'o.n Subsystem
Breather Sue-system
Engine Management. Engine Electronic. Electrical
Subsystem
Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor. Generator.
etc.)
0.95
Feo
0.37
1.32
S0.12
$0.60
$0.73
$0.55
0.04%
f'17 .....
Fl9
FW
O6
Ear""
'OS
fl5
Z94
433""
pyO
0.00
ML
0.93
2.40
2.00
"¥PJT
TIT
1-Pi
"7.45'"'
TM'"
'
T'pJT
'"152"'
"JW
0.00
0.00
4.37
Fop
7"57 .....
'
$2.88
$0^00
-J2-20"
$3.83
'""jo"og
"$21-29"
'"
$6.7.1.
•-
l!-.§3
"$o"ob""
0.14%
' "'
2'62""
pj
Fw
IF
FifF"
g^oo
3.37""
|'p|
IBS""
g"op
loo""
M°
0.93
2.40
$6"l2
$0^06
'"
M-M
"""
"siq'U"
-•-
$OJ3
-$0"56""
$g"oo
"-$20'00"'
"Wlf"
"$q'oq"'
"'S0'72"
'-$90.22'"
$g.op ......
so'oo .....
.MM.....
$2.07
-$0.80
$0^00
""$2.40""
""$g.op
'""*?"'??""
HO
$0.00
$0.00
l-I
""$o.oF
i5-70""
"il-IT
'lif'II
""ssFpF
'"sq'oq"'"
$2.07
-$0.80
so.oo
-$0.33
"0"25%"
"T.88%"
'"
"q 03%
Fq'o%
"""
Fq"o"%
q"o"q"%
"Foo%T
0.03%
0.08%
Original aluminum block totals
Aluminum cyclinder block totals
21.00
63.48
(Decrease)
12.09
B.16
33.08
71.64
-$115.06
-$224.28
$34.17
$39.71
-$80.89
$184.57
-$2.44
-$2.58
1.07%
2.71%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
21.00
23.80
88.2%
0.9%
0.0% 0.
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
Note: The gray shaded areas in the chart above indicate using an aluminum block in place of a cast
iron block for the 2500, for a greater weight savings. This iron to aluminum weight savings will be
used for all vehicle summary charts.
-------
The Silverado 1500 engine block was aluminum and further light weighted by reducing the mass
of the iron cylinder liners. General Motors selected a cast iron engine block for the Silverado 2500.
Plasma cylinder liner technology does not apply to cast iron engine blocks. The Silverado 1500
mass savings associated with the cylinder liner comprises the portion of the pie titled "% Lost,
technology doesn't apply." The flywheel and accessory bracket were both slightly larger on the
2500 series truck; therefore, saw more benefit from Lightweighting technologies. For this reason
"% Lost, technology reduced impact" is a negative 1.3%. The 2500 series engine mount fastened
directly to the engine block with no additional bracket as was found on the 1500 series. This is an
example of "% Lost, component does not exist."
3.1.2.3 System Scaling Analysis, Silverado 2500
The Silverado 2500 engine components were reviewed for compatibility with Lightweighting
technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3: System Scaling Analysis, Silverado 2500
Silverado 1500
v>
i
3
w
»
3
0
r g
i ?
i
Component/Assembly
01 Engine System
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
05
05
05
06
06
07
07
07
08
09
09
09
10
10
12
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
17
60
60
70
70
02
02
10
01
03
04
04
01
01
99
01
20
06
06
08
06
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
00
04
04
99
03
03
05
99
Engine Mount
Engine Mount Bracket
Engine Lift Bracket & Bolt
Crankshaft Assembly
Connect Rod
Piston
Wrist Pin
Cylinder Block
Rear Main Seal Retainer
Cylinder Deactivation Assembly
Cylinder Head
Valve Covers
Camshaft
Camshaft Retainer Plate
Phaser Wire Harness Bracket
Front Cover
Idler Pulley
Crank Pulley
AC Compressor Pulley
Intake Manifold
Air Filter Box
Exhaust Manifold
Oil Pan
Oil Pan Baffle Plate
Crank Cover Baffle Plate
Oil Pick-Up Tube
Water Pumps, Pulley, Thermostat
Engine Heat Exchanger Assembly
Main Coolant Fan Assembly
Coolant Bleed Line (Cylinder Head)
Coil Bracket (DS)
Coil Bracket (PS)
AC Compressor Bracket
Accessory Bracket
Base
Mass
239.95
4.00
0.98
0.33
24.01
4.66
3.39
1.19
46.05
0.79
1.19
18.64
2.28
4.38
0.19
0.14
1.11
0.46
4.64
0.85
5.76
4.50
12.17
5.47
0.38
1.27
0.67
6.05
6.79
2.55
0.12
0.56
0.56
1.24
3.36
Mass
Savings
New Tech
23.80
0.55
0.22
0.33
1.03
1.07
0.00
0.27
2.64
0.30
0.36
0.00
1.16
0.00
0.09
0.11
0.42
0.26
0.00
0.42
0.28
0.66
3.15
1.41
0.27
0.90
0.43
3.25
0.27
0.79
0.05
0.44
0.44
0.37
1.86
% of Mass
Savings
New Tech
10%
14%
22%
1 00%
4%
23%
0%
23%
6%
38%
31%
0%
51%
0%
45%
75%
37%
58%
0%
49%
5%
15%
26%
26%
70%
71%
64%
54%
4%
31%
45%
79%
79%
30%
55%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Base
Mass
4.48
0.34
24.19
4.62
1.19
0.78
1.00
2.30
4.37
0.19
0.14
1.17
0.42
4.54
0.86
5.67
4.02
12.17
5.17
0.38
1.27
0.68
5.94
7.35
2.56
0.12
0.59
0.59
1.27
3.65
Mass
Savings
New Tech
21.00
0.61
0.33
1.04
1.06
0.27
0.29
0.31
1.17
0.08
0.11
0.44
0.25
0.42
0.27
0.59
3.15
1.34
0.27
0.90
0.44
3.19
0.29
0.80
0.05
0.46
0.46
0.38
2.02
Notes
Tech DOES apply: AHSS applies
Tech does NOT apply: Component does not exist on 2500 series.
Tech DOES apply: Mass reduction by bracket removal after installation
applies.
Tech DOES apply: Cored crankshaft technology applies.
Tech DOES apply: Powder forged connecting rod; billet forged mass
savings applies.
Tech does NOT apply: Secondary mass savings applies
Tech DOES apply: Tapered wrist pin techology applies.
Tech does NOT apply: Cast Iron Block; plasma liner technology does
not apply.
Tech DOES apply: Metal to plastic replacement applies
Tech DOES apply: Aluminum to magnesium savings applies
Tech does NOT apply: Secondary mass savings applies
Tech DOES apply: metal to plastic technology applies
Secondary mass savings applies
Tech DOES apply: Steel to Aluminum technology applies.
Tech DOES apply: Metal to plastic replacement applies
Tech DOES apply: Metal to plastic replacement applies
Tech DOES apply: Metal to plastic replacement applies
Secondary mass savings applies
Tech DOES apply: Metal to plastic replacement applies
Tech DOES apply: 3M glass bubble technology applies.
Tech DOES apply: MuCell technology applies.
Tech DOES apply: Fabricated exhaust manifold technology applies.
Tech DOES apply: Aluminum to magnesium savings applies
Tech DOES apply: Metal to plastic replacement applies
Tech DOES apply: Metal to plastic replacement applies
Tech DOES apply: Metal to plastic replacement applies
Tech DOES apply: Electric water pump technology applies.
Tech DOES apply: Application specific heat exchanger savings applies
Tech DOES apply: MuCell technology applies
Tech DOES apply: Metal to plastic replacement applies
Tech DOES apply: Steel integrated into existing Al component savings
applies
Tech DOES apply: Steel integrated into existing Al component savings
applies
Tech DOES apply: Aluminum to magnesium savings applies
Tech DOES apply: Aluminum to magnesium savings applies
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Silverado 2500 series include the
connecting rod, exhaust manifold, crankshaft, oil pan, and water pump.
Connecting Rod
-------
As shown in Image 3.1-3, the 1500 series with LC9 engine uses the same connecting rod as the
2500 series LC8 engine. Component masses are 4.66 kg for the 1500 versus 4.62 kg for the 2500
respectively. The factory LC8 connecting rod as well as an optimized billet forged version can be
seen in Image 3.1-4. Forged C-70's strength advantage allows for mass reduction and its
compatibility with the crack-break manufacturing process maintains costs. Due to similarities in
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 connecting rod mass
reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-3).
Image 3.1-3: Connecting rod for 5.3 liter LC9 (Left) and 6.0 liter LC8 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 3.1-4: Connecting rod for 5.3 liter LC9 (Left) and C-70 rod (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Exhaust Manifold
The LC9 and LC8 share common exhaust manifolds down to the part number (Image 3.1-5).
Fabricated exhaust manifolds saves significant mass. Image 3.1-6 and Image 3.1-7 are examples
of fabricated exhaust manifolds. Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 exhaust manifold mass reduction can be applied to the 2500.
(Refer to Table 3-3).
Image 3.1-5: Exhaust manifold for 5.3 liter LC9 (Left), 6.0 liter LC8 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 3.1-6: Fabricated V8 Exhaust Manifold (LS7 Corvette)
(Source: http://www.ebay.com)
-------
Image 3.1-7: Fabricated Exhaust Manifold
(Source: http://www.ddperformanceresearch.com)
Crankshaft
As shown below in Image 3.1-8, the LC9 and LC8 crankshafts are very similar with the mass of
the LC8 being 0.19 kg, or 0.7% more. Crankshaft coring (Image 3.1-9) for weight reduction does
apply to the LC8 crankshaft. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage
of the Silverado 1500 crankshaft mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-3).
Image 3.1-8: Crankshaft for 5.3 liter LC9 (Left) and 6.0 liter LC8 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 3.1-9: Cored crankshaft for BMW 4.4L V8
(Source: eurochopshop.com photo)
Oil Pan
-------
As shown in Image 3.1-10, the LC9 and LC8 oil pans are the same. Component masses are 5.47
kg for the 1500 and 5.17 kg for the 2500 respectively. Magnesium in this application offers a weight
reduction (Image 3.1-11). Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of
the Silverado 1500 oil pan mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-3).
Image 3.1-10: Oil pan for 5.3 liter LC9 (Left) and 6.0 liter LC8 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 3.1—11: Oilpan (magnesium) for Nissan GTR
(Source: www.conceptzperformance.com)
-------
Water Pump
As shown in Image 3.1-12, the LC9 and LC8 water pumps are the same. An electric water pump
offers the advantage of a tailored flow rate to match engine cooling requirements. This presents an
energy savings versus directly coupled mechanical pumps, which are sized to cool engines at low
engine speed and over-deliver at high engine speed. Additionally, electric water pumps coupled
with electronically controlled thermostats present a mass savings (Image 3.1-13). An electric water
pump in this application saves an estimated 3.19 kg and improves fuel efficiency. Due to similarities
in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 water pump mass reduction
can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-3).
Image 3.1-12: Water pump for 5.3 liter LC9 (Left) and 6.0 liter LC8 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
\
-------
Image 3.1-13: Water pump assembly components, electric -water pump (Left) and thermostat (Right)
(Source: left - www.daviescraig.com.au; right - www.autopartsway.com)
Accessory Bracket
As shown in Image 3.1-14, the LC9 and LC8 accessory brackets are very similar. Magnesium in
this application saves weight versus aluminum. Component masses are 3.36 kg for the 1500 and
3.65 kg for the 2500 respectively. Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 accessory bracket mass reduction can be applied to the 2500.
(Refer to Table 3-3).
Image 3.1-14: Accessory bracket for 5.3 liter LC9 (Left) and 6.0 liter LC8 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
3.1.2.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500
Table 3-4 summarizes the Silverado 1500 and 2500 Lightweighting results. The LC8 engine weighs
50 kg more than the LC9, primarily because of its cast iron engine block. The LC8 engine did not
feature cylinder deactivation, but did have a cover to replace the solenoid mechanism. Other
changes included a mechanical fan instead of electric and larger pistons. A majority of the
components were visually the same between the two engines. The engine block is responsible for
the decrease in new technology mass savings for 2500.
Table 3-4: Engine System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500
=>
_
01
01
Description
Engine System
Silverado 1500 (LC9)
Silverado 2500 ILCiEi;
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
239.95
---
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg"
21.00
63.48
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg"(D
12.09
8.16
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (•;.
33.08
--•
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
13.79%
••••----
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
4115.06
...:$224:21...
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" {2}
$34.17
^—
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
-$80.89
..J.1M,s.L.
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"Vkg"
-$2.44
:^-
-------
3.1.3 Mercedes Sprinter
3.1.3.1 Baseline Technology, Mercedes Sprinter
Mercedes Sprinter is powered by a 2.1 liter inline four-cylinder diesel engine (Image 3.1-15). The
engine features common rail injection and fixed geometry turbo charging. Maximum power rating
is 81kW with 280N'm of torque.
Image 3.1-15: Mercedes sprinter base engine (2.1 GDI)
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
-------
3.1.3.2 Mass Savings and Costa Impact, Mercedes Sprinter
Table 3-5 summarizes the mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 Lightweighting technologies
applied to the Mercedes Sprinter. Total engine mass savings is 13.75 kg at a cost increase of $2.01
per kg. The total mass savings using an aluminum block in place of a cast iron block for the
Mercedes Sprinter, for a greater weight savings was 33.20 kg and a cost increase of $2.33 per kg.
Table 3-5: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Engine System, Mercedes Sprinter
U)
^:
(^
(D
"pi"
01
"o"i"
"01"
"6"i"
_
"o"i"
__.
01
"bi"
01
01
01
01
01
"01"
01
"01"
01
01
Subsystem
00
02
03
..........
05"
_
OG"
_
03
_
10
11
12
13
14
"is"
16
"17"
60
70
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
_
00
"6b"
bo
'ob'
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
'do
00
ob"
00
00
Description
Engine System
Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets
Subsystem
Crank Drive Subsystem
Counter Balance Subsystem
Cylinder Block Suvsvstem
Cylindei Bloc* SucsyJte n iAIiininun:
Cylinder Head Subsystem
Valvetrain Subsystem
Timing Drive Subsystem
Accessor)' Drive Subsystem
Air Intake Subsystem
Fuel Induction Subsystem
Exhaust Su'csvstem
Lubrication Subsystem
Cooling Subsystem
Induction Air Charging Subsystem
Exhaust Gas Re circulation Su'SYStem
Breather Subsystem
Engine Management, Engine Electronic. Electrical
Subsystem
Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor Generator,
etc.)
Aluminum cyclinder block totals
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" m
1.10
blo
000
b"o7
20.32
i"'5'o
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.31
0.00
0.77
1.37
2.52
blo
0.00
blo
0.00
0.00
7.64
28.49
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" d>
0.44
OB
0.00
'JJ-BB
1.48
b'."85
0.14
0,00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.06
0.15
bib
0.00
'blo'
0.00
0.00
6.11
4.71
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
1.54
i-38
0.00
2-95'
22.40
2 35
0.14
0.00
0.17
0.31
0.00
0.82
1.43
2.67
blo
0.00
bib
0.00
0.00
13.75
33.20
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"S"<2>
-0.76
old
0.00
I"l2
-$54.11
'7.83
0.00
0.00
b.bb
-0.05
0.00
4.89
-8.68
-37.46
bib
0.00
bib
0 00
0.00
44.14
-$98.12
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
0.72
2-68
000
8.79
$13.03
2.60
0.49
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.30
0.68
blo
0.00
blo
0.00
0.00
16.43
$20.66
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Total
•S-R,
40.05
$2-68
$0.00
$8"-6"7
-$41.08
$10.43
$0.49
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.05
$"b.b'b
-$4.72
48.38
436.78
Solo
$0.00
Sbl'b
$0.00
$0-00
-$27.71
-$77.46
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"Vkg"
40.03
$"i".'94"
$0.00
S2"94
41.83
S4 43
$3.57
$0.00
$b.bb
40.15
$0.00
45.79
45.87
413.77
Sblb
$0.00
Sbl'b
$0.00
$0.00
-$2.01
-$2.33
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
0.07%
d.06%
0.00%
b"."i4%
1.05%
0 11%
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.04%
0.07%
0.13%
blb'%
0.00%
blb'%
0.00%
0.00%
0.65%
1.56%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 7.64
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 23.80
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 32.1%
19-49 32.1% •% Saved, technology applies
l^^^^^^g^^ • % Lost, component doesn't exist
WB % Lost, technology doesn't apply
^•1 ••
20.6% • % Lost, technology already impleme ntad
^^^r • % Lost, technology reduced impact
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
Note: The gray shaded areas in the chart above indicate using an aluminum block in place of a cast
iron block for the Mercedes Sprinter, for a greater weight savings. This iron to aluminum weight
savings will be used for all vehicle summary charts.
-------
Mass savings could not be credited for components for which Lightweighting technologies did not
apply. Reasons for this could be that the technology was already implemented such as in the Sprinter
camshaft which was already hollow-cast. For other components the Lightweighting Technology
may not apply because of part design. For example, the Sprinter crankshaft could not be hollow-
cast because forging is required for strength in this diesel application. Some light weighted
components of the Silverado 1500 analysis did not exist in the Sprinter, such as the flexplate, which
did not exist on the manual transmission Sprinter.
3.1.3.3 System Scaling Analysis, Mercedes Sprinter
The Mercedes Sprinter Engine components were reviewed for compatibility with Lightweighting
technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-6.
Table 3-6: System Scaling Analysis, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1500
-------
The Sprinter 2.1 GDI has a traditional cast exhaust manifold (Image 3.1-16). The BMW N54 is an
example of a turbo engine with fabricated manifolds that can save significant mass. The base mass
is 2.97 kg; with fabricated exhaust manifold in this application it saves 0.77 kg. Due to similarities
in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 exhaust manifold mass
reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-6). Image 3.1-16 is the Silverado 1500
and Sprinter exhaust manifold.
Image 3.1-16: Exhaust manifold for Silverado 1500 5.3L LC9 (Left) and Sprinter 2.1 GDI (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. andwww.A2macl.com)
Oil Pan
The Sprinter 2.1 GDI has a deep skirt engine block and a single piece oil pan (Image 3.1-17). The
Nissan GT-R ^ is an example of an upper oil pan made from Magnesium. The base mass is 4.76
kg; with Magnesium in this application it saves 1.23 kg. Due to similarities in component design
and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 oil pan mass reduction can be applied to the
Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-6).
^•**3rt
^^C: I
Ik 'Sf-lUfl
51
•
Image 3.1-17: Aluminum oil pan for Silverado 1500 5.3L LC9 (Left) and Sprinter 2.1 GDI (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Water Pump Assembly
The Sprinter 2.1 GDI water pump assembly consisting of drive pulley, mechanical water pump,
pump housing (integrated into timing cover) and thermostat assembly are shown in Image 3.1-19.
Electric water pumps offer the advantage of tailored flow rate to match engine cooling
requirements. This presents an energy savings verses directly coupled mechanical pumps, which
are sized to cool engines at low engine speed and over deliver at high engine speed. Additionally
electric water pumps coupled with electronically controlled thermostats present a mass savings.
10 Nissan GT-R. Retrieved from Nissan Official Global Site: http://www.gtrnissan.com/
-------
The base mass is 2.52 kg, with an electric water pump in this application it saves and estimated
1.35 kg and has improved fuel efficiency. Due to similarities in component design and material,
full percentage of the Silverado 1500 water pump assembly mass reduction can be applied to the
Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-6).The Silverado 1500 water pump is shown in Image 3.1-18.
Image 3.1-18: Water pump for 5.3 liter Silverado 1500 5.3L LC9
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 3.1-19: Water pump assembly components for Sprinter 2.1 CD1
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
3.1.4 Renault Master
3.1.4.1 Baseline Technology, Renault Master
The Renault Master is powered by a 2.3 liter four-cylinder diesel engine (Image 3.1-20). The engine
features common rail injection and fixed geometry turbo charging. Maximum power rating is 92kW
with 310 N»m of torque.
-------
Image 3.1-20: Renault Master base engine (2.3 dd)
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
\
-------
3.1.4.2 Mass Savings and Cost Impact, Renault Master
Table 3-7 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 Lightweighting technologies
applied to the Renault Master. Total engine mass savings is 14.32 kg at a cost increase of $3.82 per
kg. Cost is higher on this vehicle because plastic valve and timing covers both save cost and did
not apply, plastic had already been implemented on the lubrication system, and the cooling system
mass drives higher cost. The total mass savings using an aluminum block in place of a cast iron
block for the Renault Master, for a greater weight savings is 35.60 kg and a cost increase of $3.08
per kg.
Table 3-7: Mass-Reduction am
CO
»<
'£*
0.28
d.dd
0.00
616
22.94
000
0.00
6".62
0.42
6".2i
000
il'd
2.21
2.69
0.00
0.00
616
0 00
0.14
7.58
30.51
i. Decrease;
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"k9" ;:•;
0.39
1.47
0.00
3.27
1.62
0.90
0.04
616
0.19
616
0.00
ole
0.11
0.30
0.00
0.00
616
0.00
0.00
6.74
5.03
(Decrease;
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
0.67
1.47
0.00
3.27
24.56
090
0.04
6.62"
0.61
6.21
0.00
i"6'7
2.32
2.99
6.00
0.00
616
0.00
0.14
14.32
35.60
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"if a
* (2)
40.26
$0.00
$0.00
$616
-$59.32
$0.00
$0.00
43""6"7
$0.63
$"d''d'9
$000
46.38"
-$15.63
-$47.11
$0.00
$0.00
$616
$0.00
-$0.92
-$73.25
-$132.57
(Increase;
Cost
Impact
Comp
T" (2)
50.63
$2.86
JO.OO
19.99
$14.28
S271
$0.15
$616
so.oo
solo
so.oo
$0.22
$0.57
51.40
JO.OO
$0.00
$616
$0.00
so.oo
$18.54
$22.83
(Decrease;
Cost
Impact
Total
MM
* (2)
$0.38
$2.86
$0.00
$9l9
-$45.04
S271
$0.15
"-$'3"67"
$0.63
$"d"'d'9
$0.00
.._._..
-$15.07
-$45.71
$0.00
$0.00
$616
$0.00
-$0.92
-$54.71
-$109.75
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
$0.57
$1.94
$0.00
$T65
-$1.83
S3 02
$3.57
-$516""
$1.04
$0.41
$0.00
IjSjjT
-$6.49
-$15.28
$0.00
$0.00
$116
$0.00
-$6.53
-$3.82
-$3.08
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
0.03%
0.06%
0.00%
d'"i'4"%"
i.d"4%
d"d4%
616%
d'03%
0.03%
d"li'%"
0.00%
d-d'5%"
0.10%
0.13%
0.00%
0.00%
616%
0.00%
0.01%
0.61%
1.51%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 7.58
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 23.80
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 31.8%
31. g% •% Saved, technology applies
11,3% ^^^ ^
^_ •% Lost, component does nt exist
^^^^^M
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
u % Lost, technology reduced impact
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
-------
Note: The gray shaded areas in the chart above indicate using an aluminum block in place of a cast
iron block for the Renault Master, for a greater weight savings. This iron to aluminum weight
savings will be used for all vehicle summary charts.
Mass savings could not be credited for components for which Lightweighting technologies did not
apply. Reasons for this could be that the technology was already implemented such as in the Renault
oil system which already utilized plastic for the baffle plates and oil pick-up. For other components
the Lightweighting Technology may not apply because of part design. For example the Renault
crankshaft could not be hollow-cast because forging is required for strength in this diesel engine.
Some components that were light weighted as part of the Silverado 1500 analysis did not exist in
the Renault engine, such as the cylinder deactivation assembly.
-------
3.1.4.3 System Scaling Analysis, Renault Master
The Renault Master engine components were reviewed for compatibility with Lightweighting
technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-8.
Table 3-8: System Scaling Analysis, Renault Master
Silverado 1500
(A
I
(n
c
cr
i
n
h
) O
i
Component/ Assembly
01 Engine System
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
05
05
05
06
06
07
01
07
08
09
09
09
10
10
12
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
17
60
60
70
70
02
02
10
01
03
04
04
01
01
99
01
20
06
06
08
06
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
00
04
04
99
03
03
05
99
Engine Mount
Engine Mount Bracket
Engine Lift Bracket & Bolt
Crankshaft Assembly
Connect Rod
Piston
Wrist Pin
Cylinder Block
Rear Main Seal Retainer
Cylinder Deactivation Assembly
Cylinder Head
Valve Covers
Camshaft
Camshaft Retainer Plate
Phaser Wire Harness Bracket
Front Cover
Idler Pulley
Crank Pulley
AC Compressor Pulley
ntake Manifold
Air Filter Box
Exhaust Manifold
Oil Pan
Oil Pan Baffle Plate
Crank Cover Baffle Plate
Oil Pick-Up Tube
Water Pumps, Pulley, Thermostat
Engine Heat Exchanger Assembly
Main Coolant Fan Assembly
Coolant Bleed Line (Cylinder Head)
Coil Bracket (DS)
Coil Bracket (PS)
AC Compressor Bracket
Accessory Bracket
Base
Mass
239.95
4.00
0.98
0.33
24.01
4.66
3.39
1.19
46.05
0.79
2.60
18.64
2.28
4.38
0.19
0.14
1.11
0.46
4.64
0.70
5.76
4.50
12.17
5.47
0.38
1.27
0.67
6.05
6.79
2.55
0.12
0.56
0.56
1.24
3.36
Mass
Savings
New Tech
23.80
0.55
0.22
0.33
1.03
1.07
0.00
0.27
2.64
0.30
0.36
0.00
1.16
0.00
0.09
0.11
0.42
0.26
0.00
0.42
0.28
0.66
3.15
1.41
0.27
0.90
0.43
3.25
0.27
0.79
0.05
0.44
0.44
0.37
1.86
% of Mass
Savings
New Tech
10%
14%
22%
100%
4%
23%
0%
23%
6%
38%
14%
0%
51%
0%
45%
75%
37%
58%
0%
60%
5%
15%
26%
26%
70%
71%
64%
54%
4%
31%
45%
79%
79%
30%
55%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Base
Mass
0.28
1.66
2.82
0.70
1.44
3.88
8.55
3.15
4.87
2.59
0.48
Mass
Savings
New Tech
7.58
0.28
0.62
0.42
0.21
1.00
2.21
1.69
0.19
0.81
0.14
Notes
Tech does NOT apply: Aluminum mounts; AHSS does not apply.
Tech does NOT apply: Single piece engine mount; no bracket.
Tech DOES apply: Lift eye appears accessable for removal; 2nd lift
eye is used as bracket and cannot be removed.
Tech does NOT apply: Forged crank for turbo application; core cast
does not apply.
Tech does NOT apply: Forged diesel conrod; powder metal to forged
steel does not apply.
Tech does NOT apply: Secondary mass savings applies
Tech does NOT apply: Piston pin is already tapered; technology
does not apply.
Tech does NOT apply: Cast iron cylinder block; Plasma cylinder
liners do not apply.
Tech does NOT apply: Retainer is stamped steel, not Aluminum.
Design is already lightweight. Technology does not apply.
Tech does NOT apply: 4 cylinder tubo-diesel; no cylinder
decativation system. Technology does not apply.
Tech does NOT apply: Aluminum cylinder head; secondary mass
savings applies.
Tech does NOT apply: Component does not exist.
Secondary mass savings applies
Tech does NOT apply: Component does not exist.
Tech does NOT apply: No Cam Phaser
Tech DOES apply: Steel cover; possible in plastic. Technology
applies.
Tech does NOT apply: Part is already plastic (PA66-GF25).
Secondary mass savings applies
Tech DOES apply: Pulley may be steel; cannot tell from A2Mac1;
mass estimated to be same as 1500
Tech does NOT apply: Intake Manifold is aluminum; cannot
implement glass bubbles.
Tech DOES apply: MuCell applies
Tech DOES apply: Fabricated exhaust manifold technology applies.
Tech DOES apply: Upper Oil Pan appears to be aluminum; could be
Mg. Technology apples.
Tech does NOT apply: Already Plastic
Tech does NOT apply: Already Plastic
Tech does NOT apply: Already Plastic
Tech DOES apply: Water pump housing is integrated into cylinder
block. Estimated 2kg for block reduction. Design is more compact
= .85 credit.
Tech DOES apply: Assumes Radiator has extra capacity for shared
applications and could be optimized for the Renault. Technology
applies.
Tech DOES apply: Plastic material callouts indicate no MuCell.
Technology applies.
Tech does NOT apply: No bleed line could be identified
Tech does NOT apply: Diesel; no coil bracket.
Tech does NOT apply: Diesel; no coil bracket.
Tech DOES apply: Material callout is Aluminum; Magnesium
technology applies.
Tech does NOT apply: Appears power steering pump bolts to engine
block. Component does not exist.
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Key Components for mass reduction include the exhaust manifold, oil pan, and water pump
assembly.
Exhaust Manifold
The Renault 2.3 dCi has a traditional cast exhaust manifold. The BMW N54 is an example of a
turbo engine with fabricated manifolds that can save significant mass. The base mass is 3.88 kg;
-------
fabricated exhaust manifold in this application it saves 1.00 kg. Due to similarities in component
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 exhaust manifold mass reduction can be
applied to the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-8).
Oil Pan
The Renault 2.3 dCi oil pan is two-piece with upper and lower sections. The upper section is a
structural aluminum component and provides stiffening for the crankcase. The Nissan GT-R is an
example of an upper oil pan made from magnesium. The base mass is 8.55 kg; with Magnesium in
this application it saves 2.21 kg. . Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 oil pan mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to
Table 3-8).
Water Pump Assembly
The Renault 2.3 dCi water pump assembly consists of a drive pulley, mechanical water pump, pump
housing (integrated into cylinder block) and thermostat assembly. Electric water pumps offer the
advantage of tailored flow rate to match engine cooling requirements. This presents an energy
savings verses directly coupled mechanical pumps, which are sized to cool engines at low engine
speed and over deliver at high engine speed. Additionally electric water pumps coupled with
electronically controlled thermostats present a mass savings. The base mass is 3.15 kg, with an
electric water pump in this application it saves and estimated 1.69 kg and has improved fuel
efficiency. . Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado
1500 water pump assembly mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-8).
3.2 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
3.2.1 Silverado 1500 Summary
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 transmission package (6L80e) (and similar 6L90) is a 6-speed
automatic transmission built by General Motors at its Toledo Transmission (also called Toledo
Transmission Operations, TTO, and Power train Toledo).
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 transmission analysis features clutch-to-clutch shifting, which
eliminated the one-way clutches used on older transmission designs. Some weight reduction
concepts were employed when it was designed but durability and reliability were foremost in the
design process. As shown in Table 3-9, we have targeted some key areas in the unit that hold mass
reduction opportunities. The total mass savings found on the transmission system mass was reduced
by 34.2 kg (23.5%). This increased cost by $128.20, or $3.75 per kg. Mass reduction for this system
reduced vehicle curb weight by 1.43%.
Table 3-9: Transmission System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500
-------
o>
*<
en
CD
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02^
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
J°l,
02
-Q2
02
02
02
02
Subsystem
00
01
02
02
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
51
04
04
05
05
06
06
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
12
11,
12
12
12
12
12
20
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
01
02
03
04
05
00
01
02
03
04
05
99
00
-PI,
03
99
00
01
00
01
04
00
00
00
00
00
00
01
j02,
03
04
05
07
08
00
Description
Transmission System
External Components
Case Subsystem
Tranmission Case
Transfer Housing
Covers
Transmission Fluid measurement
Bolts
Gear Train Subsystem
Sun Gears
Planetary Gears "^^^^
Planetary Carriers
™™§£S!inS§™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™m
Misc.
^JnteniaJMSjutclh^
^^Sgragu^/jOne^/y^Ckitches
Clutch & Brake Hubs
Misc.
^J^unchJC^ch^ubs^tem
Torque Converter Asm
Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem
Oil Pump Asm
Oil Cooler
Mechanical Controls Subsystem
Electrical Controls Subsystem
J'^arldngjytechan^
_jyijsc.J3jiJbjsyj5t^
Electric Motor & Controls Subsystem
Carrier
^^Planetaiy^Gears
Drive Gears & Shafts
Clutch & Brake Hubs
Shift Fork Assembly
Bearings & Spacers
Case Pump
^JDrjverJDp^jraJ^
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Mass
"kg"
0.02
30.73
18.78
10.09
0.04
0.36
1.30
12.39
1.11
3.14
2.03
4.64
1.02
0.45
30.47
_JL24_
20.72
0.59
20.29
19.32
7.50
4.71
2.35
7.14
4.30
0.88
0.00
0.00
28.44
1.95
,_JL66_
12.75
3.72
1.75
1.19
0.63
3.13
145.28
Mass
Reduction
"kg" ID
0.00
10.66
6.93
3.41
0.01
0.30
0.00
2.05
0.17
0.47
0.30
0.70
0.04
0.37
4.23
_O34_
3.84
0.06
8.62
8.62
_J2.42_
1.44
0.98
0.87
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
5.27
0.29
__JM§_
2.25
0.14
1.00
0.88
0.21
0.00
34.19
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
NIDMC
II (£11
9 (2)
0.00
-30.60
-21.38
-4.50
-0.13
-1.07
-3.53
24.18
-3.11
-5.75
5.85
4.13
23.06
0.00
-39.94
_±z?_
-34.21
-0.94
-21.73
-21.73
-11.52
-12.27
0.75
-5.03
0.00
5.24
0.00
0.00
-48.81
3.60
_-6v43_
-33.00
-20.38
9.57
-2.63
0.46
0.00
-128.20
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
"$/kg" (2)
0.00
-17.43
-3.08
-1.32
-9.51
-3.52
0.00
512.45
-18.59
-12.21
19.18
5.94
518.13
0.00
-39.76
_H2?_
-8.91
-16.57
-2.52
-2.52
-7.74
-8.51
0.77
-5.76
0.00
87.45
0.00
0.00
-152.39
12.31
—l-Ll7—
-14.68
-145.57
9.53
-2.98
2.16
0.00
-3.75
(Increase)
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.00%
34.69%
36.91%
33.77%
37.84%
83.47%
0.01%
16.56%
15.00%
15.00%
15.00%
14.99%
4.37%
82.00%
13.89%
™15jx)2L,
18.54%
9.66%
42.49%
44.63%
32.27%
30.65%
41.56%
12.22%
0.00%
6.84%
0.00%
6.68%
18.53%
15.00%
_J3^33%_
17.63%
3.76%
57.54%
74.49%
33.97%
0.00%
23.53%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.00%
0.45%
0.29%
0.14%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.09%
0.01%
0.02%
0.01%
0.03%
0.00%
0.02%
0.18%
_O01%_
0.16%
0.00%
0.36%
0.36%
0.10%
0.06%
0.04%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.22%
0.01%
_0.02%_
0.09%
0.01%
0.04%
0.04%
0.01%
0.00%
1.43%
(1) ••+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Mass savings opportunities were identified for the following components: transmission case,
transfer housing, covers, fluid measurement, sun gears, ring gears, planetary gears, planetary
carriers, bearings, other components, Sprague, clutch and brake hubs, other components, torque
converter, oil pump assembly, oil cooler, transfer case carrier, TC planetary gears, TC drive gears
and shafts, TC clutch and brake hubs, TC shift fork assembly, TC bearings and spacers and TC case
pump.
-------
Transmission Case: The transmission case consists of three components bell housing, gear case and
adapter: the mass of the three was reduced by changing the material from aluminum to magnesium.
Mass was reduced by 36.9% from 18.8 kg to 11.9 kg.
Transfer Case Housing: The transfer case consist of two components front half and rear half: the
mass of the two were reduced by changing the material from aluminum to magnesium. Mass was
reduced by 33.8% from 10.1 kg to 6.68 kg.
Covers: The covers mass was reduced by changing the base grade 6061-T6 aluminum to AZ31B
magnesium and go from 1 mm wall to 1.4 mm. Mass was reduced by 37.8% from 0.04 kg to 0.01
kg.
Transmission Fluid Measurement: The steel dip stick and tube mass was reduced by changing the
solid steel assembly to a plastic assembly. Mass was reduced by 83.5% from 0.36 kg to 0.06 kg.
Sun Gears: The sun gears mass was reduced by changing the 8620 material to a 9310 high strength
gear steel and downsizing the gears. Mass was reduced by 15% from 1.11 kg to 0.94 kg.
Ring Gears: The ring gears mass was reduced by changing the 4140 material to a 6265 high strength
gear steel and downsizing the gears. Mass was reduced by 15% from 3.14 kg to 2.67 kg.
Planetary Gears: The planetary gears mass was reduced by changing the 8620 material to a 9310
high strength gear steel and downsizing the gears. Mass was reduced by 15% from 2.03 kg to 1.73
kg.
Planetary Carriers: The planetary carriers mass was reduced by changing the PM carriers with
Schaeffler design 4130 stamped steel assembly. Mass was reduced by 14.9% from 4.64 kg to 3.94
kg.
Bearings: The thrust bearings mass was reduced by changing the 52100 steel to a Vespel® SP-21D
composite material. Mass was reduced by 4.4% from 1.02 kg to 0.98 kg.
Sprag/One-Way Clutch : The sprag mass was reduced by changing the 8620 material to a 9310 high
strength gear steel and downsizing the gears. Mass was reduced by 15% from 2.24 kg to 1.9 kg.
Clutch and Brake Hubs: The hubs mass was reduced by changing the mild steel to high strength
steel with a thinner wall steel. Mass was reduced by 18.54% from 20.7 kg to 16.9 kg.
Torque Converter: The converter mass was reduced by changing the steel assembly to a cast
aluminum assembly. Mass was reduced by 71.7% from 19.3 kg to 10.7 kg.
Oil Pump Assembly: The oil pump housing mass was reduced by changing the cast iron housing to
aluminum housing. Mass was reduced by 30.6% from 4.71 kg to 3.27 kg.
Oil Cooler: The cooler hangers mass was reduced by changing the mild steel to aluminum hangers.
Mass was reduced by 41.6% from 2.35 kg to 1.37 kg.
Transfer Case Carrier: The planetary carriers mass was reduced by changing the PM carriers with
Schaeffler design 4130 stamped steel assembly. Mass was reduced by 15% from 1.95 kg to 1.66
kg.
Transfer Case Planetary Gears: The planetary gears mass was reduced by changing the 8620
material to a 9310 high strength gear steel and downsizing the gears. Mass was reduced by 13.3%
from 3.66 kg to 3.17 kg.
Transfer Case Drive Gears and Shafts: The main shaft mass was reduced by changing the solid steel
shaft to an extruded Mubea shaft. Mass was reduced by 17.6% from 12.8 kg to 10.5 kg.
-------
Transfer Case Clutch and Brake Hubs: The hubs mass was reduced by changing the mild steel to
high strength steel with thinner wall steel. Mass was reduced by 3.8% from 3.72 kg to 3.58 kg.
Transfer Case Shift Fork Assembly: The forks mass was reduced by changing the PM material to
an AL-MMC 2 material. Mass was reduced by 57.5% from 1.75 kg to 0.75 kg.
Transfer Case Bearings: The thrust bearings mass was reduced by changing the 52100 steel to a
Vespel® SP-21D composite material. Mass was reduced by 74.5% from 1.19 kg to 0.31 kg.
Transfer Case Pump: The pump mass was reduced by changing the steel tubes to plastic. Mass was
reduced by 34% from 0.63 kg to 0.42 kg.
3.2.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis
The Chevrolet Silverado 2500 transmission system is very similar to the 1500, but on a larger scale
due to the larger engine size (6.0 liter to 5.3 liter) and increased load requirements on the truck. The
1500 used GM's 6L80 system, while the 2500 used the 6L90 system.
S "
Image 3.2-1: Chevrolet Silverado transmission and transfer case
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
3.2.1.2 Silverado 2500 System Scaling Summary
Table 3-10 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 Lightweighting technologies
applied to the Silverado 2500. Total transmission mass savings is 38.27 kg at a cost increase of
$91.38, or $2.39 per kg.
Table 3-10: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Transmission System, Silverado 2500
-------
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (i)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i>
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg",,,
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$"0
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" m
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
02
00
00
Transmission
02
01
p. op
Tl-zT
2".'2b""'
""Z69
0,00
P-?P
0,00
"""
$0.00
$0.00
"
$0.00
$0.00
~"'
0.00%
"""
. .
Case Subsystem
Gear Train Sucs'vSterr
Internal Clutch Subsystem
Launch Clutch Subsystem
0.60
P-Zl
""bib""
3,84
1-2?
IIP
..._...
434,85
"$Tp"27"
426Jp"
"I?1-!I"
"41174"'
""$2.'l8T
'""
$1.54
——
430-90
"$12~46"
423"8?
———•
I324
••---
-$218
"''
0.32%
02
06
Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem
Mechanical Controls SuDsystem
Eiectricai Controls Suusyste.-"
1.78
411-74
43^49
lolb""
46.60
-W-Sp"
"sold"
02
07
0.13
P-PJ
TJf
TpF
Too"
0.03%
"b"bb%"
02
OS
p. go
"¥'l?"
Tb'o"
""$o."6b
""j'blb""
Misc. Subsystem
Electric Motor & Controls Sufcsystern
transfer Case Subsystem
Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem
p.11
"FPJ"
T-'PJT
sir
"bib""
Til"
..._...
$9.60
I?-P?
"'!¥?¥"
'llFl
$b"db""
$0.57
"$p"op"
"Hz?""
— —
$10.17
fp-pp
Ip-pp
4^39
——•
"fpTpcf
"$plo""
20
— —
...__.
33.75
(Decrease)
4.52
(Decrease)
38.27
(Decrease)
-$110.67
(Increase)
$19.28
(Decrease)
-$91.38
(Increase)
-$2.39
1.24%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
0.0% 0.0%, 6.9%
0.0%
34.493
33.750
97.8%
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
-------
3.2.1.3 System Scaling Analysis
The Silverado 2500 Transmission components were reviewed for compatibility with
Lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-11.
Table 3-11: System Scaling Analysis for Transmission System, Silverado 2500
Silverado 1500
GO
1
•
3
Subsystem
Sub-Subsystem
C om pon e nt'As s e m b ly
02 Transmission
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
05
06
06
07
09
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
04
05
01
99
99
01
01
04
01
03
01
02
o:
04
OE
07
OB
Tranmission Case
Transfer Housing
Covers
Transmission Fluid measurement
Sun Gears
Ring Gears
Planetary Gears
Planetary Carriers
Bearings
Sprague / One-Way Clutches
Clutch & Brake Hubs
Misc.
Torque Converter Asm
Oil Pump Asm
Oil Cooler
Valve Body Asm
Pawls
Carrier
Planetary Gears
Drive Gears & Shafts
Clutch & Brake Hubs
Shift Fork Assembly
Bearings & Spacers
Case Pump
Base
Mass
145.28
18.78
10.09
0.04
0.36
1.11
3.14
2.03
4.64
1.02
2.24
20.72
0.58
19.32
4.71
2.35
8.56
O.SE
1.95
3.66
12.75
3.72
1.75
1.S6
0.63
P.1ass
Savings
New
Tech
34.49
6.93
3.41
0.01
0.30
0.17
0.47
0.31
0.70
0.04
0.34
3.84
0.06
8.62
1.44
0.98
0.87
0.06
0.29
0.49
2.25
0.14
1.00
1.56
C.2I
%of
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
24%
37%
34%
38%
83%
15%
15%
15%
15%
4%
15%
19%
10%
45%
31%
42%
13%
7%
15%
13%
13%
4%
58%
84%
34%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
19.42
10.38
1.95
0.36
1.27
2.48
1.88
8.97
0.22
2.62
11.95
0.84
20.57
4.61
0.88
6.52
1.60
5.07
1.21
13.44
0.91
0.90
1.42
o.52
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
33.75
7.17
3.51
0.74
0.30
0.19
0.37
0.28
1.35
0.01
0.39
2.22
0.08
9.18
1.41
0.37
0.87
0.11
0.76
0.16
2.37
0.03
0.52
1.19
0.18
Notes
Tech DOES apply: Base material was also aluminum
and our savings was going to magnesium with the
unit.
~ech DOES apply: Base material was also aluminum
and our savings was going to magnesium with the
unit.
~ech DOES apply: Steel covers and pan changed to
maqnesium
Tech DOES apply: Steel tub and dip stick went to
carbon fiber
Tech DOES apply: Base grade of gear steel went to
high strength gear alloy and down sized in mass
~ech DOES apply: Base grade of gear steel went to
hiah strength gear alloy and down sized in mass
Tech DOES apply: Base grade of gear steel went to
high strength gear alloy and down sized in mass
Tech DOES apply: Base grade of gear steel went to
high strength gear allov and down sized in mass
Tech DOES apply: Converted steel thrust bearings to
Vesoel P21
Tech DOES apply: Steal base material converted to
liaht weight MMC
Tech DOES apply: converted carbon steel hubs to
light weight high strength alloy and downsized.
Tech DOES apply: Base grade meterials were
replaced with lightweight materials
~ech DOES apply: Base grade carbon steel replaced
with aluminum
"ech DOES apply: Cas iron housing replaced with
aluminum
Tech DOES apply: Base grade AKsteel to 304SS &
304SS and oo from 1 .4mm wall to 1 mm
~ech DOES apply: Converted aluminum to manesium
~ech DOES apply: Base grade 52100 steel to a light
weight MMC
~ech DOES apply: Base grade Powder Metal to
Stamped Steel
"ech DOES apply: Replace Base grade 3150 with
9310
Tech DOES ape:-. Ref. sir I* = T : :2C with 6265
Tech DOES apply: Replaced 4140 & PM with C61 and
MMC
Tech DOES apply: Replace PM steel with AL-MMC 2
Tech DOES apply: Converted steel thrust bearings to
Vespel P21
~ech DOES acplv: Steeltute tc Plastic.
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Silverado 2500 series include the
transmission case and transfer housing, gears, clutch and brake hubs, torque converter, and valve
body.
-------
Transmission Case and Transfer Housing
Shown in Image 3.2-2 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series transmission housings. Component
masses were 28.9 kg for the 1500 versus 29.8 kg for the 2500. The 2500 is a newer, heavy-duty
version of the 1500 transmission. The Lightweighting Technology used on the housings was to
change the aluminum material from A 308 aluminum to AZ 91 magnesium, this material is used in
the 2015 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray transmission housing. Due to similarities in component
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 transmission housing mass reduction can
be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-11).
Image 3.2-2: Transmission for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Gears
Shown in Image 3.2-3 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series gears. Component masses are 6.28
kg for the 1500 versus 5.62 kg for the 2500 respectively. The Lightweighting Technology used on
the gears was to change the 8620 and 4120 steel materials to 6265 and 9310 high strength gear
steel. Some automotive companies are currently using these materials for gears that are in need of
integrity help in their application. Premium material will be used as much as possible within the
parameters of this study. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of
the Silverado 1500 gears mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-11).
-------
Image 3.2-3: Planet gears for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Clutch and Brake Hubs
Shown in Image 3.2-4 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series hubs. Component masses were 20.7
kg for the 1500 versus 11.9 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology used on the steel hubs
was to use a low carbon steel that allowed ease of manufacturing. The material was changed to a
higher strength grade of steel with a thinner wall to achieve weight savings. Due to similarities in
component material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 clutch and brake hub mass reduction can
be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-11).
Image 3.2-4: Hubs for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Torque Converter
Shown in Image 3.2-5 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series torque converters. Component
masses were 19.3 kg for the 1500 versus 20.6 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology
used on the torque converters was low-carbon steel stampings for the components that go into the
assembly. The weight savings for these units was achieved by going to aluminum and Metal Matrix
Composite (MMC) cast converter, an example of which is shown in Image 3.2-6. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 torque
converter mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-11).
Image 3.2-5: Steel torque converter for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
MMC Preform
Monolithic
Aluminum Casting
Image 3.2-6: Example of a cast aluminum converter
(Source: SGF)
Valve Body
Shown in Image 3.2-7 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 valve bodies. Component masses are 6.56
kg for the 1500 versus 6.52kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology used on both bodies
was to die cast the component, then machine the ports and valve holes. The weight saving
technology on these components was to go to magnesium as the material. Due to similarities in
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 valve body mass reduction
can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-11).
-------
Image 3.2-7: Valve body for Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
3.2.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500
Table 3-12 summarizes the Silverado 1500 and 2500 Lightweighting results. The majority of the
components were visually the same between the two transmissions. The 2500 transmission was a
little longer but fit under the same body as the 1500.
Table 3-12: Transmission System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500
VI
*<
3.
40.41
38.27
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
27.81%
24.47%
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2}
-$124.61
-$110.67
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2,
526.73
$19.28
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" J2)
-$97.88
-$91.38
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
-$2.42
-$2.39
-------
3.2.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
Table 3-13 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 Lightweighting technologies
applied to the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. Total transmission mass savings was 8.77 kg at a cost
increase of $3.39, or $.39 per kg.
Table 3-13: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Transmission System, Mercedes Sprinter
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;•;
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" m
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" <2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"I" (2>
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"S/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
02
Transmission
02
01
00
External Components
Case Subsystern
r.I™.n. .?u..J??y.?t?.m.
0.00
111"
T.24"
0.00
P-.P.P
I-lF
2-64
P-PP"
..............
$0.00
-J20L58"
$0.00
"M-Tf
ll'lT"
""$FdF
$0.00
'-$l7p5'
"jiTeG"
$0.00
"-$2.78"
..............
0.00%
'"0|9%"
....................
02
02
0.53
l"40'
................
02
03
02
04
!nt?.m.?l C.'.Y!?.!?
Launch Clutch Subsystem
Oil Pump and Fitter Subsystem
P-PP
P-Op
P-PP
P-OO
P-pp
P-PP
P-Op
TqF
'"o"do""
sq.qo
lolo""
'"$o'p"o"
lP-PP
"WPP."'
lP-PP
——
sq.p q
"$p'op"
"$o'po"
••——
$0.00
"sqlq""
WPP
"sFdo"
sq.qq
Iq'Tq"
...................
0.00%
'qjdq%"
——
02
05
0.00
"¥M"'
"OLOO"
T?¥"
Tqq"
..................
Mechanical Controls Subsystern
Electrical Controls Subsystern
Parkincj Mechanis™1
Misc. Subsystem
P-PP.
P-OO
TqF"
..............
$q.qo
WPP
lP-PP
WPP
——
$0.00
""$F.qq"
"sp'op"
""$F6'F
p.qo%
"Fqo%"
"olo%"
——••
Electric Motor & Controls Subsystern
Transfer Case Subsystem
Dnyef Operated E'-iernal Contiols SLiDsystem
o.qo
P-po
d"od"
$q.qo
"jF.qF"
TOF
$0.00
"$q"dq"
..................
$0.00
""$F.qF
"jFbF
p.qp%
"Fq?%"
"Fdo%"
02
12
02
20
6.84
(Decrease)
1,93
(Decrease)
8.77
[Decrease]
-$8.43
(Increase;
$5.04
[Decrease)
-$3.39
; In crease;
-$0.39
0.41%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
31.701
6.845
21.6%
0.0%
10.8%
1 % Saved, technology applies
I % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
I % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
-------
3.2.2.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Transmission components were reviewed for compatibility with
Lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-14.
Table 3-14: System Scaling Analysis for Transmission System, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1500
y
1
Subsystem
n
* a
t a
f
L'jiii[juiiehl Assembly
02 Transmission
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
05
08
06
07
09
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
04
05
01
99
99
01
01
04
01
03
01
02
03
04
05
07
08
TranmissionCase
Transfer Housing
Covers
Transmission Fluid rneasuremei
Sun Gears
Ring Gears
Planetary Gears
Planetary Carriers
Bearings
Sprague / One-'A'ay Clutches
Clutch 8, Brake Hubs
Misc.
Torque Converter Asm
Oil Pump Asm
Oil Cooler
Valve Bod)' Asm
Pawls
Carrier
Planetarv1 Gears
Drive Gears & Shafts
Clutch & Brake Hubs
Shift FOTK Assembly
Bearings & Spacers
Case Pump
Base
Mass
145.276
18.78
10.09
0.04
0.36
1.11
3.14
2.03
4.64
1.02
2.24
20.72
0.59
19.32
4.71
2.35
6.56
088
1.95
3.66
12.75
3.72
1.75
1.86
063
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
34.493
6.93
3.41
0.01
0.30
0 17
0.47
0.31
0.70
0.04
0.34
3.84
0.06
8.62
1.44
0.98
0.87
0.06
0.29
0.49
2.25
0.14
1.00
1.56
021
%of
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
24%
37%
34%
38%
83%
15%
15%
15%
15%
4%
15%
19%
10%
45%
31%
42%
13%
7%
15%
13%
18%
4%
58%
84%
34c/j
Select Vehicle
Tech Applies
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Base
Mass
13.78
1.36
1 82
1.49
2.13
2.68
0.51
Mass
Savings
5.09
0.52
0.27
0.22
0.32
0.40
0.02
Base
Mass
13.78
1.36
1.82
1.49
2.13
2.68
0.51
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
S.845
£09
0.52
0.27
0.22
0.32
0.40
0.02
Usvtac
noies
Tech DOES apply: Base material was also
aluminum and our savings was going to
magnesium with the unit.
Tech dose Not apply: No transfer case in system.
Tech DOES apply" Steel covers and pan changed
to magnesium
Tech dose Not apply:
Tech DOES apply': Base grade of gear steel went
to high strength gear alloy and down sized in
mass
Tech DOES apply: Base grade of gear steel went
to high strength gear alloy and down sized in
mass
Tech DOES apply: Base grade of gear steel went
to high strength gear alloy and down sized in
mass
Tech DOES apply: Base grade of gear steel went
to high strength gear alloy and down sized in
mass
Tech DOES apply: Converted steel thrust
bearings to Vespel P21
Tech dose Not apply: No sprag
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans, no internal
clutch
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans.
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans,
Tech dose Not appk: manual trans,
Tech dose Not appk manual trans.
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans.
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans,
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans,
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans,
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans,
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans,
Tech dose Not appk: manual trans,
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans,
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans.
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
-------
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Mercedes Sprinter include: the
transmission case and gears. Image 3.2-8 shows the Mercedes Sprinter 311 Transmission
components.
Image 3.2-8: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi transmission
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
Transmission Case
Shown in Image 3.2-9 are the Silverado 1500 and 311 series Transmission Case Housings.
Component masses are 18.8 kg for the 1500 versus 13.8 kg for the 311. The Lightweighting
Technology used on the housings was to change the aluminum material from A 308 aluminum to
AZ 91 magnesium. This material is used in the 2015 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray transmission
housing. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado
1500 transmission housing mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-14).
t
Image 3.2-9: Transmission for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Gears
-------
Shown in Image 3.2-10 are the Silverado 1500 and Sprinter 311 series gears. Component masses
were 6.58 kg for the 1500 versus 5.44 kg for the 311. The Lightweighting Technology used on the
gears was to change the 8620 and 4120 steel materials to 6265 and 9310 high-strength gear steel.
Some automotive companies are currently using these materials for gears that are in need of
integrity help in their application. Premium material will be used as much as possible within the
parameters of this study. Due to similarities in component material, full percentage of the Silverado
1500 gears mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-14).
Image 3.2-10: Planet gears for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and drive gears for the Sprinter 311 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
\
-------
3.2.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi
Table 3-15 summarizes the mass and cost impact of the Silverado 1500 Lightweighting
technologies applied to the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. Total transmission mass savings is 9.20 kg at
a cost increase of $3.11, or $0.34 per kg.
Table 3-15: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Transmission System, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ID
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" {i)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
nffi.
* P)
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
02
Transmission
02
01
00
External Components
Case Subsystem
Gear Train Subsystem
0,00
1-61
"7.39""
p.pp
..._...
p.pp
"6.41""
$0.pp
—...—
$0.00
"'"'
$0.00
$0.00
-li'45"
""""
0.00%
'"CL27%"'
Ti'2%""
02
02
$5.29
$1.73
Told""
-$15.70
$12.59
""$b"'bb""
02
03
02
04
!.nl?.m?! Clutch Subsystem
£? y.n.?ji' Clutch Subsystem
Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem
p.pp
P-PP
Top"
P-9P
Tp"£
Top'
ToF
..._...
p.pp
Too""
p.pp
P-PP
Too"
sp.pp
"jblb""
$0.00
'lp"pT
——
p.pp%
"pjbj3%"
———
02
05
$p.pp
"$p.pp"'
——-
$0.00
IfpT
"$blb"
06
Mechanical Controls Subsystern
Electrical Controls Subsystem
Parking Llechanis n Subsystem
Misc. Subsystem
Electric Motor & Controls Subsystem
Transfer Case Subsystem
Driver Operated External Controls Suosyste'T
p.pp
P-PP
P-PP
P-PP
P-PJ
..._....
p.pp
"Fpj"
p-pp
Tpl"'
P-PP
TpT
""bib""
$0,00
'"$p'pp"
"$app"
ToTqp'"
"sblb""
$ppp
""ipTqT
"$p.pp"
""spTqT
"$p.pp"'
——
$p.pp
"$blo"
"fbTqo"'
"$p"pp"
"fp'pp"
——
$p.pp
"$p'pp"
"$blo"
'Wop
"$blo"
"$pLp"p"
——
0,00%
Tqb"%'"
'pjp"p%'
-%
02
20
——
"b""do%"
7.00
(Decrease)
2.20
(Decrease}
9.20
(Decrease
-$10.14
(Increase)
$7.02
(Decrease'!
-$3.11
(Increase)
-$0.34
0.39%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
31.701
7.005
22.1%
0.0%
10.3%
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
3.2.3.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Renault Master 2.3 DCi transmission components were reviewed for compatibility with
Lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in
-------
Table 3-16.
-------
Table 3-16: System Scaling Analysis for Transmission System, Renault Master
Silverado 1500
v>
1
w
c
cy
•<
Sub-Subsystem
Component/Assembly
02 Transmission
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
'02
03
03
03
03
03
04
04
'04
'05
'06
'06
07
09
'12
12
'12
12
'12
12
'12
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
04
05
01
99
99
01
01
04
01
03
01
02
03
04
05
07
08
Tranmission Case
Transfer Housing
Covers
Transmission Fluid measurement
Sun Gears
Ring Gears
Planetary Gears
Planetary Carriers
Bearings
Sprague / One-Way Clutches
Clutch & Brake Hubs
Misc.
Torque Converter Asm
Oil Pump Asm
Oil Cooler
Valve Body Asm
Pawls
Carrier
Planetary Gears
Drive Gears & Shafts
Clutch & Brake Hubs
Shift Fork Assembly
Bearings & Spacers
Case Pump
Base
Mass
145.276
18.78
10.09
0.04
' 0.36
1.11
3.14
2.03
4.64
1.02
2.24
20.72
' 0.59
' 19.32
' 4.71
' 2.35
' 6.56
0.88
' 1.95
3.66
' 12.75
3.72
' 1.75
1.86
0.63
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
34.493
6.93
3.41
0.01
0.30
0.17
0.47
0.31
0.70
0.04
0.34
3.84
0.06
8.62
1.44
0.98
0.87
0.06
0.29
0.49
2.25
0.14
1.00
1.56
0.21
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
24%
37%
34%
38%
' 83%
15%
15%
15%
15%
4%
15%
19%
' 10%
' 45%
31%
' 42%
' 13%
7%
' 15%
13%
' 18%
4%
' 58%
84%
34%
Select Vehicle
Tech Applies
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Base
Mass
13.65
1.52
1.65
2.48
1.88
3.11
0.52
Mass
Savings
5.04
0.58
0.25
0.37
0.28
0.47
0.02
Base
Mass
13.65
1.52
1.65
2.48
1.88
3.11
0.52
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
7.005
5.04
0.58
0.25
0.37
0.28
0.47
0.02
Notes
Tech DOES apply: Base material was also
aluminum and our savings was going to magnesium
with the unit.
Tech dose Not apply: No transfer case in system.
Tech DOES apply: Steel covers and pan changed to
magnesium
Tech dose Not apply:
Tech DOES apply: Base grade of gear steel went to
high strength gear alloy and down sized in mass
Tech DOES apply: Base grade of gear steel went to
high strength gear alloy and down sized in mass
Tech DOES apply: Base grade of gear steel went to
nigh strength gear alloy and down sized in mass
Tech DOES apply: Base grade of gear steel went to
nigh strength gear alloy and down sized in mass
Tech DOES apply: Converted steel thrust bearings
to Vespel P21
Tech dose Not apply: No sprag
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans, no internal
clutch
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans,
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans,
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans,
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans,
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans,
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans,
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans,
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans,
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans,
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans,
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans,
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans,
Tech dose Not apply: manual trans,
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Renault Master 2.3 DCi include the
transmission case and gears. Image 3.2-11 shows the Renault Master 2.3 DCi transmission.
-------
Image 3.2-11: Renault Master 2.3 DCi transmission
(Source: www. A2macl.com)
Transmission Case
Shown in Image 3.2-12 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 series transmission
housings. Component masses were 18.78 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 13.65 kg for the Renault
Master 2.3. The Lightweighting Technology used on the housings was to change the aluminum
material from A 308 aluminum to AZ 91 magnesium. This material is used in the 2015 Chevrolet
Corvette Stingray transmission housing. Due to similarities in component material, full percentage
of the Silverado 1500 transmission housing mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to
-------
Table 3-16).
,•.. •> •
:* *.
Image 3.2-12: Transmission for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Gears
Shown in Image 3.2-13 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 series gears. Component
masses were 6.58 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 5.1 kg for the Renault Master 2.3. The
Lightweighting Technology used on the gears was to change the 8620 and 4120 steel materials to
6265 and 9310 high-strength gear steel. Some automotive companies are currently using these
materials for gears which are in need of integrity help in their application. Premium material will
be used as much as possible within the parameters of this study. Due to similarities in component
material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 gears mass reduction can be applied to the Renault.
(Refer to
-------
Table 3-16).
Image 3.2-13: Planet Gears for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Drive GearsMaster 2.3 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
J
3.3 BODY GROUP -A- SYSTEM
3.3.1 Silverado 1500 Summary
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Body Group -A- System included the Body Structure Subsystem
(Cabin); Front End Subsystem (radiator structure, extra cabin - radiator support); Front
Wheelhouse Arch Liners [RFt/LH], front rock shield, under hood cover, radiator; Body Closures
Subsystem - front fenders (LFt/RH); Body Closures Subsystem - hood assembly w/o hinges; Body
Closures Subsystem - front door assemblies (RFt/LH); Body Closures Subsystem - rear door
assemblies (RFI/LH); front bumper, rear bumper, pickup box assembly, and pickup box gate. The
Body Group -A- System is made of welded steel stampings to form panels and structures.
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 analysis identifies mass reduction alternatives and cost implications
for the Body Group -A- System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements
of the baseline vehicle. Table 3-17 provides a summary of mass reduction and cost impact for select
sub-subsystems evaluated. The total mass savings found on the Body Group -A- System was
reduced by 207.1 kg (36.04%). This increased cost by $1,194.79, or $5.77 per kg. Mass reduction
for this system reduced vehicle curb weight by 8.68%.
Table 3-17: Body Group -A- System Mass Reduction Summary Silverado 1500
-------
CO
•-^
to_
o>
3
03
03
03
03
"of
"by
03
"py
03
03
03
03
03
03
_
"6"3
03
03
03
03
03
Subsystem
01
01
02
02
_
02
02
_
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
"19
19
19
26
26
26
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
00
01
"02
"04"
"To"
.........
12
13
00
01
02
03
"04
"66"
01
02
00
01
02
Description
Body Structure Subsystem
Body Structure Subsystem - Cabin
Front End Subsystem
Front End Subsystem [Radiator Structure)
Extra Cacin - Radiator Support
Front Wheel Arch Liners
Under Engine Closures or Rock Shields
Under Hood Covers
Tow hooks
Hood Hinges
Body Closure Subsystem
Body Closures Subsystem - Front Fenders (LH & RH)
Body Closures Subsystem - Hood Assembly w/o Hinges
Body Closures Subsystem - Front Door Assemblies [LH & RD)
Body Closures Suisvste-r - Rear Door Assemblies (LH & RD)
Body Closure Subsystem
Front Bumper
Rear Bumper
Body Closure Subsystem
Pickup Box Assembly
Pickup Box Gate
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Mass
"kg"
207.20
207.20
38.32
12.90
12.10
3.70
1.52
2.09
2.25
3.75
153.70
28.90
22.70
57.90
44.20
48.40
28.50
19.90
127.10
108.30
18.80
574.72
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (i>
75.40
75.40
12.30
5.70
5.90
6"3B
b."i3
0.21
0.00
0.00
60.00
14.50
11.00
20.30
14"20
V$M
9.90
6.50
43.00
34.40
8.60
207.10
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
NOMC
"$" 12)
-505.28
-505.28
-62.32
-10.58
-52.59
6"i7
6.09
0.59
0.00
0.00
-289.24
-37.90
-35.18
-117.72
-98""44"
-70.15
-23.88
46.27
-267.80
-241.45
-26.35
-1194.79
(Increase;
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
'W{2>
-6.70
-6.70
-5.07
-186
-8.91
6"47
072
2.83
0.00
0.00
4.82
-2.61
-3.20
-5.80
"-6"93
A28
-2.41
-7.12
-6.23
-7.02
-3.06
-5.77
(Increase)
Mass
Reduction
"%"
36.39%
36.39%
32.11%
44.19%
4876%
9".8l'%
8"67%
9.94%
0.00%
0.00%
39.04%
50.17%
48-46%
35.06%
32:13%""
33"8OTT
34.74%
32.66%
33.83%
31.76%
45.74%
36.04%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
3.16%
3.16%
0.52%
0.24%
0.25%
6"o2%"
6"6i%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
2.51%
0.61%
0.46%
0.85%
b"eb%
6.69%
0.41%
6.27%
1.80%
1.44%
0.36%
8.68%
(1) "*" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "*" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Mass savings opportunities were identified for the following components: Body Structure
Subsystem - Cabin, Front End Subsystem (Radiator Structure), extra cabin - radiator support, front
wheelhouse arch (RH/LH), front splash shield, splash shield (RH/LH corner), engine cover, cover
- radiator; Body Closures Subsystem - front fenders (RH/LH); Body Closures Subsystem - Hood
Assembly w/o Hinges, Body Closures Subsystem - front door assemblies (RH/LH); Body Closures
Subsystem - rear door assemblies (RH/LH), front bumper, rear bumper, pickup box assembly, and
pickup box gate.
Cabin: The cabin mass was reduced by using aluminum stampings that were glued, welded, or
riveted together. Mass was reduced by 36.4%, from 207.2 kg to 131.8 kg.
Radiator Structure: The radiator structure mass was reduced by using aluminum stampings that
were glued, welded, or riveted together. Mass was reduced by 44.2% from 12.9 kg to 7.20 kg.
Extra Cabin - Radiator Support: The extra cabin - radiator support mass was reduced by using
aluminum stampings that were glued, welded, or riveted together. Mass was reduced by 48.8%
from 12.1 kg to 6.20 kg.
Front Wheelhouse Arch - LH: The front wheelhouse arch - LH mass was reduced by using
PolyOne® foaming agent. Mass was reduced by 10% from 1.81 kg to 1.63 kg.
Front Wheelhouse Arch - RH: The front wheelhouse arch - RH mass was reduced by using
PolyOne® foaming agent. Mass was reduced by 10% from 1.81 kg to 1.63 kg.
Front Splash shield: The front splash shield mass was reduced by using PolyOne® foaming agent.
Mass was reduced by 10% from 0.91 kg to 0.82 kg.
-------
Splash Shield - LH Corner: The splash shield - LH corner mass was reduced by using PolyOne®
foaming agent. Mass was reduced by 10% from 0.12 kg to 0.11 kg.
Splash Shield - RH Corner: The splash shield - RH corner mass was reduced by using PolyOne®
foaming agent. Mass was reduced by 10% from .28 kg to .25 kg.
Engine Cover: The engine cover mass was reduced by using PolyOne® foaming agent. Mass was
reduced by 10% from .99 kg to .89 kg.
Cover - Radiator: The cover - radiator mass was reduced by using PolyOne® foaming agent. Mass
was reduced by 10% from 1.07 kg to .96 kg.
Front Fenders LH and RH: The front fenders LH and RH mass was reduced by using aluminum
stampings that were glued, welded, or riveted together. Mass was reduced by 50.2% from 28.9 kg
to 14.4 kg.
Hood Assembly w/o Hinges: The hood assembly w/o hinges mass was reduced by using aluminum
stampings that were glued, welded, or riveted together. Mass was reduced by 48.5% from 22.7kg
to 11.7kg.
Front Door Assemblies LH and RH: The front door assemblies LH and RH mass was reduced by
using aluminum stampings that were glued, welded, or riveted together. Mass was reduced by
35.1% from 57.9 kg to 37.6 kg.
Rear Door Assemblies LH and RH: The rear door assemblies LH and RH mass was reduced by
using aluminum stampings that were glued, welded, or riveted together. Mass was reduced by
32.1% from 44.2 kg to 30.0 kg.
Front Bumper: The front bumper mass was reduced by using aluminum stampings that were glued,
welded, or riveted together. Mass was reduced by 34.7% from 28.50kg to 18.60kg.
Rear Bumper: The rear bumper mass was reduced by using aluminum stampings that were glued,
welded, or riveted together. Mass was reduced by 32.7% from 19.9 kg to 13.4 kg.
Pickup Box Assembly: The pickup box assembly mass was reduced by using aluminum stampings
that were glued, welded, or riveted together. Mass was reduced by 31.8% from 108.3 kg to 73.9 kg.
Pickup Box Gate: The pickup box gate mass was reduced by using aluminum stampings that were
glued, welded, or riveted together. Mass was reduced by 45.7% from 18.8 kg to 10.2 kg.
3.3.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis
The Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Body Group -A- System (Image 3.3-1) is very similar to that of the
1500, even though the 1500 used for analysis was a crew cab and the 2500 an extended cab.
-------
Image 3.3-1: Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Body Group -A-System
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
\
-------
3.3.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary
Table 3-18 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 Lightweighting technologies
applied to the Silverado 2500. Total Body Group -A- System mass savings is 205.05 kg at a cost
increase of $1,219.98, or $5.95 per kg. This system uses compounding mass reductions only.
Table 3-18: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -A- System, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (1)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg"
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg"
(1)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
(2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Body Syste
01
00
Body Structure Subsystem
69.50
0.00
69.50
$0.00
-$465.77
-$465.77
$0.00
2.25%
55.15
0.00
55.15
J>OOCL.
$0.00
-$297.80
__
-$297.80
JR95.
-$5.40
1.79%
19
00
17.85
0.00
17.85
$0.00
-$76.73
-$76.73
-$4.30
0.58%
26
00
Pickup Box
49.75
0.00
49.75
$0.00
-$316.24
-$316.24
$0.00
1.61%
205.05
(Decrease)
0.00
205.05
(Decrease)
0.00
-1219.98
(Increase)
-$1,219.98
(Increase)
-$5.95
(Increase)
6.65%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
' 205.05
' 203.50
r 100.8%
0.0%
0.0%
,0.0%
-0.8%
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
I % Saved, technology applies
I % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
l % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
-------
3.3.1.3 System Scaling Analysis
The Silverado 2500 Body Group -A- System components were reviewed for compatibility with
Lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-19.
Table 3-19: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -A- System, Silverado 2500
Silverado 1500
System
Subsystem
Sub-Subsystem
Component/Assembly
03 Body Group A System
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
01
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
19
19
26
26
01
01
02
04
04
10
10
10
11
11
01
02
03
04
01
02
01
02
Body Structure Subsystem - Cabin
Front End Subsystem (Radiator Structure!
Extra Cabu KJ£^UJ aioport
Front Wheelhouse Arch - LH
Front Wheelhouse Arch - RH
Frt Splash shield
Splash Shield -LH Corner
Splash Shield -RH Corner
Eng Cover
Cover - Radiator
Body Closui;; .lij.i/^t - hciji r^ers (LH & RH|
Body Closures Subsystem - Hood Assembly »'o Hinges
E'j'j, Jlosures jubs^ste - - Front L'-JOI -sit" ;lisi iLH & RQ
Body Closures Subsystem - Rear Door Assemblies (LH & RD)
Front Bumper
Rear Bumper
Pickup Box Assembly
Pickup Box Gate
Base
Mass
574.72
20720
12.90
1210
1.81
1.81
091
013
0.28
1.00
1.08
28.90
22.70
57.90
44.20
28.50
19.90
108.30
18.80
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
203.50
7540
570
5.90
018
0.18
0.09
001
0.03
010
0.11
10.90
11.00
20.30
14.20
9.90
6.50
34.40
8.60
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
35%
36%
44%
49%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
38%
43%
35%
32%
35%
33%
32%
46%
Setecr Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
191.00
1360
1230
190
1.99
071
0.81
2.56
26.80
24.70
55.20
4270
30.80
21.90
130.40
18.20
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
205.05
69.50
601
6.00
019
0.20
007
0.08
0.26
10.11
11.97
19.35
1372
10.70
7.15
41.42
8.33
Notes
Ted; DOES ajipj) Llsj Nun tun
Tech DOES apply: Use Aluminum
Tech DOES a., I. Usj -In rani
Tech DOES apply: Use Polyone foaming agent
";::" JULSa.j Js; Fclvoiiofoa -ing agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech due"; 'I0~ .-...I. Irjt en ,ehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
. Juili .-.. . :- r '.:..• t ••:;- "'5 agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
led] JOES a..i. Js£ -In "iii.n
Tech DOES apply: Use Aluminum
Tech DOES B£pjj Use Wyminum
Tech DOES apply: Use Aluminum
Tech DOES apply Use Aluminum
Tech DOES apply: Use Aluminum
Tech DOES apply: Use Aluminum
Tech DOES apsly Use Alir-inum
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Silverado 2500 included the Body
Structure Subsystem - Cabin, Front End Subsystem (Radiator Structure), extra cabin (radiator
support), front wheelhouse arch (LH/RH), front splash shield, engine cover, cover - radiator, Body
Closures Subsystem - Front Fenders (LH/RH), Body Closures Subsystem - Hood Assembly w/o
Hinges, Body Closures Subsystem - Front Door Assemblies (LH/RH), Body Closures Subsystem
- Rear Door Assemblies (LH/RH), front bumper, rear bumper, pickup box assembly, and pickup
box gate.
Cabin
Shown in Image 3.3-2 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 cabins. Component masses were 207.2 kg
for the 1500 (crew cab configuration) versus 191.0 kg for the 2500 (an extended cab). The
Lightweighting Technology used on the cabin was aluminum stampings that were glued, welded,
or riveted together. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the
Silverado 1500 cabin mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-19).
-------
Image 3.3-2: Cabin for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Radiator Structure
Shown in Image 3.3-3 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 radiator structures. Component masses
were 12.9 kg for the 1500 versus 13.6 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology used on the
cabin is to use aluminum stampings that were glued, welded, or riveted together. Due to similarities
in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 radiator structure mass
reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-19).
Image 3.3-3: Radiator structure for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Extra Cabin - Radiator Support
Shown in Image 3.3-4 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 extra cabin - radiator support. Component
masses were 12.1 kg for the 1500 versus 12.3 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology
used on the cabin is to use aluminum stampings that were glued, welded, or riveted together. Due
to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 extra cabin
- radiator support assembly mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-19).
Image 3.3-4: Extra cabin - radiator support Silverado 2500 (Silverado 1500 similar)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Front Wheelhouse Arch (RH/LH)
Shown in Image 3.3-5 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 RH/LH front wheelhouse arches.
Component masses were 3.63 kg for the 1500 versus 3.90 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting
Technology used was the PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due
to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 front
wheelhouse arch mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-19).
Image 3.3-5: RH/LHfront wheelhouse arch for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Front Splash Shield
Shown in Image 3.3-6 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 front splash shields. Component masses
were 0.91 kg for the 1500 versus 0.71 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology used was
the PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 front splash shield mass
reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-19).
Image 3.3-6: Front splash shield for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Engine Cover
Shown in Image 3.3-7 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 engine covers. Component masses were
1.00 kg for the 1500 versus 0.81kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology used was
PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to reduce mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 engine cover mass reduction can be
applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-19).
Image 3.3-7: Engine cover for Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Cover - Radiator
Shown in Image 3.3-8 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 radiator covers. Component masses were
1.08 kg for the 1500 versus 2.56 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology used was
PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component
material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 radiator cover mass reduction can be applied to the
2500. (Refer to Table 3-19).
Image 3.3-8: Radiator covers for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Front Fenders (RH/LH)
Shown in Image 3.3-9 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 RH/LH front fenders. The component
masses were 28.9 kg for the 1500 versus 26.8 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology
used on the front fenders were aluminum stampings that were glued, welded, or riveted together.
Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 front
fenders RH/LH mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-19).
Image 3.3-9: Front fenders (RH/LH) Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Hood Assembly without Hinges
Shown in Image 3.3-10 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 hood assemblies without hinges.
Component masses were 22.7 kg for the 1500 versus 24.7 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting
Technology used is aluminum stampings that were glued, welded, or riveted together. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 hood assembly
mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-19).
Image 3.3-10: Hood assembly without hinges, Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Front Door Assemblies (RH/LH)
Shown in Image 3.3-11 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 RH/LH front door assemblies. The
component masses were 57.9 kg for the 1500 versus 55.2 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting
-------
Technology used was aluminum stampings that were glued, welded, or riveted together. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 front door
assembly mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-19).
Image 3.3-11: Front door assemblies for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
\
-------
Rear Door Assemblies (RH/LH)
Shown in Image 3.3-12 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 RH/LH rear door assemblies. Component
masses were 44.20 kg for the 1500 versus 42.70 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology
used on the rear door assemblies was aluminum stampings that were glued, welded, or riveted
together. Due to similarities in component material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 rear door
assembly RH/LH mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-19).
Image 3.3-12: Rear door assemblies for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Front Bumper
Shown in Image 3.3-13 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 front bumpers. The component masses
were 28.5 kg for the 1500 versus 30.8 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology used was
aluminum stampings that were glued, welded, or riveted together. Due to similarities in component
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 front bumper mass reduction can be
applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-19).
Image 3.3-13: Front bumper for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Rear Bumper
Shown in Image 3.3-14 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 rear bumpers. Component masses were
19.9 kg for the 1500 versus 21.9 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology used on the rear
bumper was aluminum stampings that were glued, welded, or riveted together. Due to similarities
in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 rear bumper mass
reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-19).
Image 3.3-14: Rear bumper for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
\
-------
Pickup Box Assembly
Shown in Image 3.3-15 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series pickup box assemblies. The
component masses were 108.3 kg for the 1500 versus 130.4 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting
Technology used in the pickup box assembly was aluminum stampings that were glued, welded, or
riveted together. Due to similarities in component material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500
pickup box assembly mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-19).
Image 3.3-15: Pickup box assembly for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Pickup Box Gate
Shown in Image 3.3-16 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series pickup box gates. The component
masses were 18.8 kg for the 1500 versus 18.2 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology
used on the pickup box gate was aluminum stampings that were glued, welded, or riveted together.
Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 pickup
box gate mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-19).
Image 3.3-16: Pickup box gate for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
3.3.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500
Table 3-20 summarizes the Silverado 1500 and 2500 Lightweighting results. The majority of the
components were visually the same among the two Body Group -A- systems.
Table 3-20: Body Group -A- System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500
CO
L-^
w.
CD"
3
03
03
03"
Description
Body Group A
Silverado 1500
Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Base
"kg" r;
574.72
587712"
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (i)
0.00
Ob
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i)
203.50
20515
Mass
Reduction
Total
"k9" :-;
203.50
20515
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
35.41%
34.93%
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" <2)
0.00
0.00
Cost
Impact
Comp
"1- B
-J1.213.18
'-$l',2"l9".9B
Cost
Impact
Total
•«' K>
-S1.213.18
Tui'gls"
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
-$5.96
""-$5."95
-------
3.3.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
Table 3-21 summarizes mass and cost impact of the Silverado 1500 Lightweighting technologies
as applied to the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. Total Body Group -A- mass savings was 248.99 kg
at a cost increase of $1603.32, or $6.44 per kg.
Table 3-21: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -A- System, Mercedes Sprinter
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
-kg",,.
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" r;
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg",,,
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$"<2>
Cost
Impact
Comp
•y R>
Cost
Impact
Total
T'(2>
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Body System "A"
Body Structure Subsystem
Front End Subsystem
217.98
CL46
0. 00
217.98
Q"46
$0.00
"jTb'b""
41.460.73
$"b'"52"
-$ 1.460.73
$"b'."52
$0.00
'"'"""
10.23%
Tb2%''"'
Body Closure Subsystem
Bumpers Subsystem
Pickup Box
28.14
Z42
Ob
"MPT'
"'P-PF
Too"'
28.14
'"242
bib
$0.00
IMP'"
""sbl'b""
4137.29
45J3
$"b'."bb
4137.29
4^83
$"b""bo
44.88
"-$241"
""""'""
1.32%
T"db'%""
248.99
(Decrease;
0.00
248.99
(Decrease;
0.00
-1603.32
-$1,603.32
(Increase)
-$6.44
(Increase)
11.68%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology " 248.99
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology " 203.50
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 122.4%
0.0%
8.9%
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
-------
3.3.2.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Body Group -A- components were reviewed for compatibility with
Lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-22.
Table 3-22: System Scaling Analysis for Body Group -A- System, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1500
Ul
a
3
Subsystem
01
c
a"
CO
c
IT
(fl
»
3
Component/Assembly
03 Body Group A System
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
01
02
02
02
02
D2
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
19
19
26
26
01
01
02
0-1
04
10
10
10
11
11
01
02
03
04
01
02
01
02
Body Structure Subsystem - Cabin
Front End Subsystem Rajiat:r Structure)
Extra Cabin - Radiator Support
Front Wheelhouse Arch - LH
Front Wheelhouse Arch - RH
Fit Splash shield
Splash Shield -LH Corner
Splash Shield - RH Corner
Eng Cover
Cover - Radiator
Body Closures Subsystem - Front Fenders (LH & RHl
Body Closures Subsystem - Hood Assembly »'o Hinges
Body Closures Subsystem - Front Door Assemblies (LH & RD)
Body Closures Subsystem - Rear Door Assemblies (LH & RD)
"ront Bumper
Rear Bumper
Dickup Box Assembly
-:. ... S;uGate
Base
Mass
574.720
20720
12.90
12.10
181
181
091
013
028
100
108
28.90
22.70
57900
44.20
2850
19.90
10830
18.80
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
203.502
75.40
5.70
590
0.18
018
0.09
001
003
0.10
011
10.90
1100
2030
1420
990
650
34 40
8.60
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
35%
36%
44%
49%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
38%
48%
35%
32%
35%
33%
32%
46%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
Base
Mass
599 00
1.72
170
1.20
15.82
1753
3901
696
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
248.991
21798
0.17
017
0.12
5.97
849
1368
2.42
Notes
Tech DOES a"K Us- -.Lriinum
Tei" does NOTa:-d. Fa", on elude ;ut tedineloqv Joes not apply
Tech does HOT apply Part niv,?hide :ut tedincbqv does not apply
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does HOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech does HOT a-d; Part net on vehicle
Tech DOES ascK Use Foivone foaming agent
Tech does HOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Aluminum
Tech DOES apply: Use Aluminum
Tech DOES apply Use Aluminum
Tech does HOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech DOES a::k I1:.- ^.limnum
T;:- ::ces NOT aid: Par on .elude ;.ut tedinduciv does not apply
Tech does HOT applv Fart not on vehicle
Tech does HOT applv Far net en vehicle
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Mercedes Sprinter include the Front
Wheelhouse Arch - LH, Front Wheelhouse Arch - RH, Engine Cover, Front Fenders LH and RH,
Hood Assembly w/o Hinges, Front Door Assemblies LH and RH, and Rear Door Assemblies LH
andRH.
Front Wheelhouse Arch (RH/LH)
Shown in Image 3.3-17 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi RH/LH front
wheelhouse arch. The component masses were 3.62 kg for the 1500 versus 3.42 kg for the Mercedes
Sprinter 311 CDi. The Lightweighting Technology used on the component was applying PolyOne®
foaming agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component design
and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 front wheelhouse arch mass reduction can be
applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-22).
Image 3.3-17: Front Wheelhouse Arch for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Engine Cover
-------
Shown in Image 3.3-18 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi engine covers. The
component masses were 1.00 kg for the 1500 versus 1.20 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi.
The Lightweighting Technology used on the CDi Engine Cover was applying PolyOne® foaming
agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component design and
material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 engine cover mass reduction can be applied to the
Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-22).
Image 3.3-18: CDi Engine Cover for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Front Fenders (RH and LH)
Shown in Image 3.3-19 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi RH/LH front
fenders. Component masses were 28.9 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 15.8 kg for the Mercedes
Sprinter 311 CDi. The Lightweighting Technology used was aluminum stampings that were glued,
welded, or riveted together. Due to similarities in component material, full percentage of the
Silverado 1500 front fender mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-22).
Image 3.3-19: RH/LH front fenders for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
-------
Hood Assembly w/o Hinges
Shown in Image 3.3-20 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi hood assemblies
without hinges. The component masses were 22.7 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 17.5 kg for the
Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. The Lightweighting Technology used was aluminum stampings that
were glued, welded, or riveted together. Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 hood assembly mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter.
(Refer to Table 3-22).
Image 3.3-20: Hood assembly without hinges for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Front Door Assemblies (RH/LH)
Shown in Image 3.3-21 are the RH/LH Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi front door
assemblies. The component masses were 57.9 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 39.0 kg for the
Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. The Lightweighting Technology used on the assemblies was aluminum
stampings that were glued, welded, or riveted together. Due to similarities in component material,
full percentage of the Silverado 1500 front door assembly mass reduction can be applied to the
Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-22).
Image 3.3-21: Front door assemblies for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Front Bumper
-------
Shown in Image 3.3-22 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi front bumpers. The
component masses were 28.5 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 6.96 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter
311 CDi. The Lightweighting Technology used was aluminum stampings that were glued, welded,
or riveted together. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the
Silverado 1500 front bumper mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-22).
Image 3.3-22: Front bumper for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
\
-------
3.3.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi
Table 3-23 summarizes the mass and cost impact of the Silverado 1500 Lightweighting
technologies applied to the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. The total Body Group -A- system mass savings
was 264.44 kg at a cost increase of $1,719.09, or $6.50 per kg.
Table 3-23: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -A- System, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg"
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" :-:
Mass
Reduction
Total
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" ra
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"S/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Body System "A"
Body Structure Subsystem
Front End Subsystem
Body Closure Subsystem
Bumpers Subsystem
Pickup Box
231.30
0.00
Too'"
"'PF
Too'"
..................
231.80
$0.00
-$1.553.39
-$1.553.39
$0.00
9.85%
0.55
"'26~44
5"B6""
b"'od
0.55
$0.00
'"SOLDO"
""$olp""
"""""""
$0,37
'-$132"30'
"43177"
$'b""b'b"
$0,37
'-$132"30'
":$33-77"
$"b""6"o
$0,68
"'"
0,02%
-2%""
5JB6""
b'."bb
"-$577"
••——•••
264.66
(Decrease)
0.00
264.66
(Decrease;
0.00
-1719.09
(Increase)
-$1,719.09
(Increase;
-$6.50
(Increase;
11.25%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 264.66
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg1 203.50
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 130.1%
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
-------
3.3.3.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Renault Master 2.3 DCi Body Group -A- System components were reviewed for compatibility
with Lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-24.
Table 3-24: System Scaling Analysis for Body Group -A-System, Renault Master
Silverado 1600
m
"5
3
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
CO
c
1
B
01
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
U2
03
03
03
03
19
19
26
26
CO
a-
CO
cr
*«
1
>dy
01
01
02
04
04
10
10
10
11
11
01
02
03
04
01
02
01
02
Component/Assembly
Group A System
Body Structure Subsystem - Cabin
pront End Subsystem Radiator Structure!
Extra Cabin - Radiator Support
"rant Wheelhouse Arch - LH
Front Wheelhouse Arch - RH
Frt Splash shield
Splash Shield - LH Corner
Splash Shield - RH Corner
Eng Cover
Cover - Radiator
Body Closures Subsystem - Front Fenders (LH & RH}
3odv Closures Subsystem - Hood Assembly w'o Hinges
Bodv Closures Subsystem - Front Door Assemblies iLH & RD
Body Closures Subsystem - Rear Door Assemblies (LH & RD)
Front Bumper
Rear Bumper
Pickup Be:-: Assembly
Pickup Box Gate
Base
Mass
574.720
20720
1290
12.10
1 31
1 81
091
0 13
02S
1 00
1 OS
28 90
2270
57900
4420
2850
19.90
10830
1880
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
203.502
75.40
570
590
0 18
0 18
0.09
0.01
003
010
0 11
10.90
11 00
2030
14.20
990
650
3440
860
•4 of Mas»
Savings
New
Tech
35%
36%
44%
49%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
38%
48%
35%
32%
35%
33%
32%
46%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
no
no
yes
yss
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
Base
Mass
63700
127
1 24
268
035
1285
1426
41 89
485
1273
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
264.657
231 SO
013
0 12
0.27
004
485
6.91
1469
1 68
4.17
Notes
Tech DOES applv Use Aluminum
Tech does HOT apply Part en vehicle but technology does not apply
Tech does NOT applv Part not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES -:::. :-. Pd Tri.-:- r: ?••:':: Client
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Aluminum
~ech DOES 3'^ i Use Aluminum
Tech DOES apply Use Aluminum
Tech does NOT applv Part not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Aluminum
Tech DOES apply Use Aluminum
^:ii .•;-•:. NO .H .. -art not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Fart not on vehicle
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Renault Master 2.3 DCi include the
front wheelhouse arch (RH/LH), front splash shield, engine cover, front fenders (RH/LH), hood
assembly without hinges, front door assemblies (RH/LH), front bumper, and rear bumper.
Front Wheelhouse Arch (RH/LH)
Shown in Image 3.3-23 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi RH/LH front
wheelhouse arches. The component masses were 3.62 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 2.51 kg for
the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. The Lightweighting Technology used was to apply PolyOne® foaming
agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component design and
material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 front wheelhouse arch mass reduction can be applied
to the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-24).
Image 3.3-23: Front wheelhouse arch for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and the Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Front Splash Shield
-------
Shown in Image 3.3-24 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi front splash shield. The
component masses were 0.91 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 2.68 kg for the Renault Master 2.3
DCi. The Lightweighting Technology used on the front splash shield was to apply PolyOne®
foaming agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component design
and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 front splash shield mass reduction can be applied
to the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-24).
Image 3.3-24: Front splash shield for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and the Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Engine Cover
Shown in Image 3.3-25 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi engine covers. The
component masses were 1.00 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.33kg for the Renault Master 2.3
DCi. The Lightweighting Technology used on the engine cover was to apply PolyOne® foaming
agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 engine cover mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer
to Table 3-24).
Image 3.3-25: Engine covers for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
-------
Front Fenders (RH/LH)
Shown in Image 3.3-26 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi RH/LH front fenders.
The component masses were 28.9 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 12.9 kg for the Renault Master
2.3 DCi. The Lightweighting Technology used on the front fenders was aluminum stampings that
were glued, welded, or riveted together. Due to similarities in material, full percentage of the
Silverado 1500 front fender mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-24).
Image 3.3-26: RH/LH front fenders for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Hood Assembly without Hinges
Shown in Image 3.3-27 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi hood assemblies
without hinges. The component masses were 22.7 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 14.3 kg for the
Renault Master 2.3 DCi. The Lightweighting Technology used in the assembly was aluminum
stampings that were glued, welded, or riveted together. Due to similarities in component design and
material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 hood assembly mass reduction can be applied to the
Renault. (Refer to Table 3-24).
Image 3.3-27: Hood assembly without hinges for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Front Door Assemblies (RH/LH)
Shown in Image 3.3-28 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi front door assemblies,
RH. Component masses were 57.9 kg for the 1500 versus 41.9 kg for the Renault Master 2.3 DCi.
The Lightweighting Technology used on the assemblies was aluminum stampings that were glued,
welded, or riveted together. Due to similarities in component material, full percentage of the
Silverado 1500 front door assembly mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to Table
3-24).
-------
Image 3.3-28: RHfront door assemblies for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Front Bumper
Shown in Image 3.3-29 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi front bumpers. The
component masses were 28.5 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 4.85 kg for the Renault Master 2.3
DCi. The Lightweighting Technology used in the front bumper was aluminum stampings that were
glued, welded, or riveted together. Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 front bumper mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer
to Table 3-24).
J
Image 3.3-29: Front bumper for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
-------
Rear Bumper
Shown in Image 3.3-30 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi rear bumpers.
Component masses were 19.9 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 12.8 kg for the Renault Master 2.3
DCi. The Lightweighting Technology used on the rear bumper was aluminum stampings that were
glued, welded, or riveted together. Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 rear bumper mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer
to Table 3-24).
Image 3.3-30: Rear Bumper for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
3.4 BODY GROUP -B- SYSTEM
3.4.1 Silverado 1500 Summary
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Body Group -B- System included the vehicle interior (including the
front and rear left and right door trim parts as well as the main compartment trim), all
sealing/weather stripping, all seating frames and trim, the cross car beam and IP trim, and all air
bags. The plastic trim parts mass was reduced by using PolyOne® foaming agent. The
sealing/weather stripping mass was reduced by changing from EPDM (ethylene propylene diene
monomer) rubber to TPV (thermoplastic vulcanizate). The front seating mass was reduced by
changing from welded steel construction to BASF layered plastic seat frames. The rear 60/40 seat
and center console mass was reduced by changing the welded steel construction to cast magnesium.
The cross car beam was also changed from welded steel construction to cast magnesium. Other
changes include the passenger side air bag housing going from steel to Nylon 6 plastic and the
steering wheel air bag changing from a dual stage inflator to a single stage inflator.
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 analysis identifies mass reduction alternatives and cost implications
for the Body Group -B- System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements
of the baseline vehicle. Table 3-25 provides a summary of mass reduction and cost impact for select
sub-subsystems evaluated. The total mass savings found on the Body Group -B- System mass was
reduced by 34.02 kg (13.77%). This increased cost by $127.23, or $3.74 per kg. Mass reduction for
this system reduced vehicle curb weight by 1.43%.
Table 3-25: Body Group -B- System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500
-------
O)
•<:
S-
-------
Sealing Subsystem: The Sealing Subsystem mass was made up of all the sealing/weather stripping
for the doors and windows. Mass was reduced by changing from EPDM to TPV material. Mass was
reduced by 27.6%, from 15.1 kg to 11.0 kg.
Seating Subsystem: The Seating Subsystem mass was reduced by using PolyOne® on all plastic
trim parts. The welded steel construction on the front seats was changed to BASF plastic and glass
fiber laired laminate. The welded steel construction for the 60/40 seat and the center console was
also switched to cast magnesium. Mass was reduced by 40.4%, from 46.2 kg to 27.5 kg.
Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem: The Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem mass were
reduced by using PolyOne® on all plastic trim parts and by changing the welded steel construction
on the cross car beam to cast magnesium. Also, by changing the welded steel construction for the
knee bolster reinforcement bracket to plastic. Mass was reduced by 29.42%, from 23.2 kg to 16.4
kg.
Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem: The Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem mass was
reduced by using PolyOne® on all plastic parts and by changing the welded steel construction on
the passenger air bag housing to DSM Akulon® Nylon 6. By also changing the steering wheel air
bag dual stage inflator to a single stage inflator. Mass was reduced by 44.82%, from 1.85kg to
1.02kg.
3.4.2 Silverado 2500 Analysis
The Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Body Group -B- System is very similar to the 1500, except that the
1500 vehicle used in the original study was a crew cab and the 2500 an extended cab. This made
the 1500 vehicle interior larger and the box size 5.5 feet, whereas the 2500 had a smaller interior
and the box size larger at 6 feet (Image 3.4-1).
Image 3.4—1: Chevrolet Silverado 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
3.4.2.1 2500 System Scaling Summary
Table 3-26 summarizes the mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 Lightweighting technologies
as applied to the Silverado 2500. Total Body Group -B- System mass savings was 32.10 kg at a
cost increase of $125.41, or $3.91 per kg.
Table 3-26: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -B- system, Silverado 2500
(ft
•-*-_
to
CD
^
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
Subsystem
00
05
06
07
10
12
20
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
do"
00
00
00
00
Description
Body System "B"
Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Sound and Heat Control Subsystem iBody;
Sealing Subsystem
Seating Subsystem
Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
Occupant Restraining De.ice Sucsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
1.64
did
4.18
18.62
6.82
0.83
32.10
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ;-:
0.00
did
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" d)
1.64
did
4.18
18.62
6.82
0.83
32.10
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
$5.12
sold
$28.58
4123.50
-$35.30
-0.22
-125.41
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Comp
•T B
$0.00
"sold
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
$5.12
$"dld
$28.58
4123.60
435.30
40.22
-$125.41
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
$3.11
$dld
$6.83
46.64
45.17
$0.00
-$3.91
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
0.05%
dld%"
0.14%
0.60%
0.22%
0.03%
1.04%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 32.10
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 34.02
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 94.4%
0.0% 0.0% 1.7%
4.0%^--^
^A • % Saved, technology applies
.% Lost, component doesn't exist
I % Lost, technology doesn't apply
94,4% ^B •% Lost, technology already implemented
^^^^^^ •*L"M-""'°'°""""J-di''"-''
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
-------
3.4.2.2 System Scaling Analysis
The Silverado 2500 Body Group -B- system components were reviewed for compatibility with
Lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-27.
Table 3-27: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -B- System, Silverado 2500
Silverado 1500
w
§
in
1
Sub-Subsystem
Component/Assembly
03 Body Group B System
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
06
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
06
05
05
05
06
06
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
06
06
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
OS
05
05
06
06
06
06
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
06
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
u i
05
05
05
OE
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
03
;•
08
08
3S
08
]:.
08
08
'.••:.
06
LH drivers doc: n:l:: . i it:h cc.'er
LH drivers Door arm rest attachment cover
LH drivers Door Pull handle attachment cover
LH drivers Door vertical Pull handle
LH drivers Door corner cover
RH passenqer door window switch cover
RH passenqer Door arm rest attachment cover
RH passenger Door Pull handle -'. .-..": - • .o.er
RH passenqe . - . .- ': • : .I -:
RH passenger Door corner cover
rh :asE^nrjer Cc.nr vvr main trim
RH passenqer Hccr • ripm-- • :i : oocKet
RH passenger Door Iwr mam trim close out
RH passenger Door Iwr main trim inner support brkt#6
RH passenq- .'.,. •. . - n turn
LH passenger Door kvr main trim
LH passenger Door Iwr main trim map pocket
LH passenger Door Iwr main trim close out
LH passenger Door Iwr main trim inner support brkt£1
LH passenger Door Iwr main trim inner support brkt#2
LH passenger Door Iwr mam trim inner support brkt#5
LH passenger Door Iwr main trim inner support brkt#6
LH passenger Door upr main trim
Frt dorr harness feed through
RH Rear dec. ivil . a tefe :r::e
RH Rear Door arm rest attachment cover
RH Rear Door Pull handle attachment cover
RH rear door arm rest
LH Rear dec 'v.:. :. ;:h . j •:•
LH Rear Door arm rest attachment cover
LH Rear Door Pull handle attachment cover
LH rear door arm rest
RH rear door Iwr main trim
RH rear door Iwr mam trim map 'OC::PI
RH rear door Iwr mam trim mounting bkt #1
RH rear door Iwr main trim mounting bkt #2
RH rear door upr main trim
LH rear door Iwr main trim
LH rear door Iwr main trim map pocket
LH rear door Iwr main trim mounting bkt #1
LH rear door Iwr mam trim mounting bkt #2
LH rear door upr main trim
Driver Lwr A-Pillar
Passenger Lwr A-Pillar
Front Driver kick plate
Front Driver kick plate mount
Rear Driver kick plate
-•:.:•:• C1:: .:r • : ilare mount
LH B-Pillar Lwr
Front Passenger kick plate
Front Passenger kick plate mount
Rear Passenger kick plate
Rear Passenger kick plate mount
RH B-Pillar Lwr
C-pillar rover RH upr
C-Pillar cover RH Lwr
Small Cover piece
C-Pillar cover LH upr
C-Pillar cover LH Lwr
Small Cover piece
C-Pillar to C-Pillar cross trim
Drivers Upr A-Pillar cover
Drivers upr A-pillar mounting screw cover
Driver LH UrxT af ia : ; ,-
Driver LH Upper B-Pillar Cover slide
Driver restraint ucr B-:'lbr :olt co/er
Diners B -ik> •:.••••:_:•: : : • '
Passenger Upr A-Pil!ar cover
Passenger RH Upper B-Pillar Cover
Passenger LH Upper B-Pillar Cover slide
Passenger restraint upr B-pillar bolt cover
Passenqer 5 1 .':.' • :-.;i~;.
Base
Mass
247.02
0 10
003
001
0 13
006
0 10
0.03
001
0 13
006
2.09
0.50
005
028
003
001
076
2.09
050
005
028
006
003
001
076
023
O.OB
002
001
027
008
002
001
027
1.53
0.23
002
001
0.58
1.53
0.23
002
001
058
023
0.22
0.20
0 18
0 14
0 12
0.63
021
018
0 14
013
063
034
0.53
00020
034
052
000
056
035
000
029
006
001
001
0.33
028
006
0.01
000
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
34.02
0010
0.003
0001
0.013
0.006
0010
0.003
0001
0.013
0.006
0.209
0.050
0005
0028
0003
0001
0076
0209
0050
0005
0.028
0005
0003
0001
0076
0023
0.008
0002
0.001
0027
0008
0002
0001
0027
0153
0023
0 002
0001
0058
0.153
0023
0.002
0001
0058
0023
0022
0020
0.018
0014
0012
0063
0020
0018
0014
0012
0063
0034
0053
0.0002
0034
0.052
0000
0056
0.04
000
0.03
001
0.00
0.00
003
0.03
001
000
000
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
14%
10%
11%
17%
10%
11%
10%
11%
17%
10%
11%
10%
10%
10%
10%
11%
9%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
9%
11%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
0%
10%
11%
7%
17%
10%
10%
11%
7%
0%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
VK
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
Base
Mass
0 10
003
001
0 13
006
010
003
001
0 13
006
209
050
005
028
003
001
0.76
209
050
005
028
006
003
001
076
023
003
002
001
0 15
003
002
001
015
1 69
023
1.69
0.23
023
022
0.16
012
016
012
011
037
000
011
090
0.00
043
0.40
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
32.10
001
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
001
000
000
001
001
021
005
001
003
000
000
008
0.21
005
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.00
000
008
002
000
0.00
0.00
001
000
0.00
0.00
001
017
002
0.17
002
002
0.02
0.02
001
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.00
001
0.09
0.00
004
004
Notes
Te h DOES ardy Use Folyone foaminq agent
Te hDOES:i.:' Jse_Polyone naming agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone naming agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone oaminq agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone oaminq agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone oaminq agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone oaminq agent
Te h DOES ;- I . .:TT P.:1. .:' - •._? n;j a.;eni
Te h DOES a:'T.i.: Uie Foi1. une na-img agent
Te •- DOES .:•=. -i . ;-.- .= :•!•., one oaming agent
Te h DOES a^cl ,• Uie Fciyone Da-ing a:;en1
T.? •- DOES .:. : _ ;: =•: /one Djrnnci a cent
Te h DOES a — I.; U;e Fniiyon-:- ;ammq agent
Te h DOES apply Use PC!', one ;a-mg agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polvone oaming agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone oaminq agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone oaming agent
Te hDOESa:-;! VE T F.:i. one Darning agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone oaminq agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone oaming agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone oaminq agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone oaming agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone oaminq agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone oaminq agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone oaminq agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polvone oaming agent
Te h DOES ay:! .• Use_Po_y_one _- -. .-•;;
Te hDOESe. i _';- F.J •., one oaming agent
Te h DOES a : Jse_Po . e : :- r 3 .:- en:
Te h DOES :. - _ : . -•: :r : -,:rnrig_ a en!
Te h DOES a:-l/ U=,e Fn vone Daiiing a ent
Te h DOES apply Use Po yone oaming a ent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone oaming a ent
Te h DOES apply Use Polvone oaming a ent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone oaming a ent
Te h DOES d. .i . JaaPafyQfHj .d !••.;- fiii
Te h does HOT 3pply Not on ve icle
i e - :v'r; ''JU~ .j : .: . ' ;_' •:. - .e :i-
Te h does HOT apply Not on ',e ide
Te h DOES STD!'., Use Poly on? Dating agent
Te h DOES applv Use Poiyone oarnmg agent
Te h does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Te h does HOT applv Not on vehicle
Te h does HOT applv Not on vehicle
Te h DOES apply Use Polvone foaming aqent
Te h DOES .-..•.--". , - • r -ing agent
Te h DOES e. :l . JIT F .;•!•.. une foaming agem
Te h does NOT a c :•!',• No; on '.elude
Te h DOES a:'!, Jj-e Fciyone foaming agent
Te h does HOT a paly Not on vehicle
Te h does HOT apoty Not on vehicle
Te h DOES apply Use Polvone foaming agent
Te h does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te h does HOT apply Not on '.elud?
Te h does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Te h DOES ,-<._!. JET Fo;, on? toa-^mq agent
Te h DOES assly Use Polyone foaming agent
Te h DOES a •: ,:•!.,• Use Folycne foaming agent
Te h DOES a: :i. . : : '- : :-•- -_ n-inq agent
Te h DOES apply. Use Polyone foaminq agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaminq agent
Te h does HOT apply Not on veh cle
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaminq agent
Te h does MOT acdy riot cm veh cle
Te h does HOT apply Not on \eh cle
Te h does HOT acd1, No; on '.eh cle
Te - —ei. !J
-------
Table 3-27: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -B- System, Silverado 2500
Silverado 1500
3
w
3
OJ
p-
01
1
Component/Assembly
03 Body Group B System
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
07
0.'
07
07
07
0.'
07
07
07
07
07
07
0?
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
04
04
05
05
Oil
Ob
05
05
05
Ltf Driver Door Lower seal
RH Passenqer Door Lower sea
LH Rear Door Lower seal
LH Rear Door hinge side upr seal
RH Rear Door Lower seal
RH Rear Door hinge side upr seal
RH rear door inside window track seal
RH rear door inside window track bottom inner seal
RH rear door inside •,. 'in a: trac : :ttcni outer seal
LH rear door inside window track seal
LH rear door inside window track bottom inner sea
LH rear door inside window track bottom outer seal
LH drivers dm:' nside m:i: trac :.ea!
_! • :ii'.:-i :•'.!::: v:. ::•• n:i: '.:•: -C'ttom inner sea
LH drivers door inside window track bottom outer seal
RH passenger door inside window track seal
RH passenger door inside window track bottom inner seal
RH passenger door inside window track bottom outer seal
Drivers Upr Outside seal
Front driver door seal
Rear driver door seal
Passenger Upr Outside seal
Front passenger door seal
Rear passenger door seal
Driver seat back frame
Driver seat map back inner
Driver Seat map back
Driver Seat safety belt cover
Driver seat bottom frame
Driver Seat frt Nut Cover LH
Driver Seat frt Nut Cover RH
Driver Seat rear Bolt Cover LH
Driver Seat leai Bolt Co'.ei RH
Driver seat •.'.! r •-•-•-.. ^
Driver Seat LH Track cover
Driver Seat LH Track cover end cap rear
Driver Seat LH Tac • : . - -..:•. :rt
Driver Seat LH cover
Driver Seat LH cover close oot
Driver Seat LH cover seat belt insert cover
Driver Seat LH cover um!:ar -.not
I1' e : :at Lh ': : ~ recline handle
Driver Seat RH cover
Passenger seat back frame
Pass seat map back inner
Pass Seat mac cac<
Pass Seat safety belt cover
Passenger seat bottom frame
Frt Passenger Seat frt RH Nut Cover
Frt Passenger Seat frt LH Nut Cover
Passenger Seat rear Bolt Cover LH
Passenger Seat rear Bolt Cover RH
Passenger seat wire harness cover
Pass Seat LH Track cover
Pass Seat LH Track cover end cap rear
Pass Seat LH Track cover end cap frt
Pass Seat LH cover
Passenger Seat LH cover close out
Passenger Seat LH cover seat belt insert cover
Passenger Seat LH cover lumbar knob
Passenger Seat LH cover recline handle
Passenger Seat RH cover
G0% Seat back frame
Arm rest inner tub
Arm rest frame
Arm rest cup holder
60°'o Seat bottom frame
RHrediner cover *1
RH recliner cover ^2
LH recliner cover *1
40% Seat bottom frame
40% Seat back frame
RH Brkt close out #1
RH Brkt close out ?2
LH Brkt close riot ~1
Frt center riser
LH Pivot cover outer
LH Pivot cover inner
RH Pivot cover cuter
RH Pivot cover inner
RH Pivot cover inner top
Bottom tub inner
Base
Mass
247.02
0 14
0 14
0 11
007
011
007
052
0 16
0.30
052
0 16
030
060
0.19
0.35
0.60
0 19
035
082
2.10
1.93
082
205
1.91
220
049
064
0.04
360
002
003
002
007
0.04
0 16
0.02
0.02
031
005
0.01
002
0.03
0 11
2.20
049
064
004
359
002
0.04
006
0.02
004
016
002
002
031
005
0.01
002
003
0 11
678
023
1.11
013
423
0 14
024
0.08
298
3 16
023
0 14
007
297
007
005
006
0.05
005
0.35
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
34.02
0 05
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.04
002
0 17
0.05
0.10
0 17
0 05
0 10
020
0 06
0.11
0.20
0.06
0 11
0.27
068
0.63
027
0.67
062
1 10
0 05
0 06
000
1 80
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 01
0 00
002
0.00
000
0.03
001
0.00
0.00
0.00
001
1 10
0 05
0 06
0.00
1 79
0.00
000
001
000
0.00
002
000
000
003
001
000
000
000
0 01
278
003
0.43
001
224
0 01
002
0 01
1 55
1 76
0.02
001
001
1 04
001
0.00
0 01
0 00
0 00
009
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
14%
33%
33%
32%
33%
32%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
50%
10%
10%
10%
50%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
50%
10%
10%
10%
50%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
48%
10%
39%
10%
52%
10%
10%
10%
52%
56%
10%
10%
10%
35%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
Setecr Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
8S
es
es
es
es
es
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
0 14
0 14
0 11
0.07
011
007
047
019
019
047
0 19
0 19
0 64
0.35
0.34
0.64
0.35
034
0.32
210
1 07
0.82
2.05
1 07
2.20
0.49
064
0.04
360
002
0 03
0 02
0 07
0 04
016
002
0.02
031
0.05
001
0.02
0.03
0 11
220
049
0 64
0 04
359
0 02
004
006
002
004
016
002
002
031
005
001
002
003
011
578
423
024
2 93
3 16
0 14
297
0 07
0.05
006
0 05
0 05
o 5-:
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
32.10
005
0.05
0.03
0.02
003
002
0 15
0.06
0.06
0 15
0.06
0.06
021
0 12
0 11
0.21
0 12
0 11
027
0.68
035
0.27
067
035
1.10
005
006
000
1 80
0.00
000
0 00
0 01
0.00
002
000
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
1 10
005
0.06
000
1 79
0.00
0.00
0.01
000
000
0.02
000
000
003
0.01
000
000
0.00
001
278
224
0 02
1 55
1 76
0.01
1 04
001
000
0 01
000
0 00
0.09
Notes
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPI.1 to TPV
Tech DOES 3: Ihj .,•;•:-- EDF'U !o TPV
Tech DOES apply Change fjo~ EDPI.1 to TPV
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPI.1 to TPV
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPU to TPV
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPI.1 to TPV
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPU to TPV
Tech DOES app.lv Change from EDPU to TPV
Tech DOES apply Change from EDFI.1 to TPV
Tech DOES aoply Change fro- EDFU to TPV
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPU to TPV
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPU to TPV
Tech DOES ;,::• :>:, • ::: fi j- EDPU to TPV
Tech DOES arplv Change fm- EDPU to TPV
Tech DOES apply: Change from EDPM to TPV
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
Tech DOES apply Change from welded steel BASF Plastic
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agen
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agen
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming aqen
Tech DOES apply Change from welded steel BASF Plastic
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agen
T".'r> d. . I.H ' .''•.••:- - : H -'
Tech DOES apply Use Rolyone foa-^inci ager
Tech DOES a: :l LJsePdl .--:..: '...i a.;en
TechDOESa . '. .-.- r . Dne .,- [_a -
Tech DOES a: : . ^ - i ••- ;._H nc^ager
TechDOESa:. _:rr.: _i : r . .-
-: . JU~ .. :• . . :.: : .' .ne tea -- nci a:;en
Tech DOES;... Jse : .' . :ne tea "n:| ajen
TechDOESa: 1 . :c : : - a
Tech DOES a"L Lse F:lyone foaming agen
TechDOESa::! . :.f c :! ::ne fearing a en
Tech DOES a : : : :- :.:-;'.- -ng a en
Tech DOES a: : . :: - :!. : :>- va- ng a *n
Tech DOES ap:l Change fio- .. elded :.t 1 BASF Plastic
Tech DOES ac.:l, Lie Pclyone foaming a en
TechDOESa::! . ::• - :!•. :iiv ;:a "nci a HIT
Tech DOES a-: :i L.-se Pjlvone foaming a en
Tech DOES apply Change from welded st 1 BASF plastic
TechDOESa:. . :; '- :: . :no lea -I'liq a = n
TechDOESa::!. L':-e F :.lv::ne teaming a en
Tech DOES apply Use ^':! .:".:. i:.: ' ng_j =n
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming a en
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming a en
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming a en
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming a en
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming a en
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming a en
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming 3 en
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming a en
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming a en
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming a en
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming a en
Tech DOES apply Change from welded steel mag
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Hot on vehicle
TechDOESa. I " la :.- fiom welded steel to mag
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
TechDOESa.:! Cha ,; : side steehojnag
Tech DOES apply Change f<: •• ri--:1 ;!-.-T! :o ~iag
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES a. : . ;.^ L :l /one foaming agent
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES applv Change fro- welded steel to mag
TechDOESa::! .:..:- :ly.:ne earning agent
Tech DOES applv Lser: ;n.: :a - nrj agent
TechDOESa::!. :. :r - :! . ::!•: :3"'nqaaent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone oaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone oaminq agent
TechDOESa::! .:.:-:! :c: :: . - r.
Table 3.4-3 Continued Next Page
-------
Table 3-27: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -B- System, Silverado 2500
Silverado 1500
Subsystem
System
Sub-Subsystem
Component/Assembly
03 Body Group B System
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 751
03 Wl
03 10
03 To]
03 121
03 J2J
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
o; 12
03 12
03 ^l
03 12
m 20
03 20
j; 20
o; 20
03 20
| o:
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
01
01
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
05
05
05
03
12
12
18
13
18
-rt wrap around close out
Rear wrap around close out
Cup holder
Cup holder top
~rt center box comp
~rt center cover pit
Seat frame cover handle #1
Seat frame cover handle *2
Center tub
Divider
Cup holder
Center tub top ring
Center tub top lid inner
Center tub top lid outer
Center tub top lid handle #1
Center tub top lid handle £2
Cross Car Beam
Cross Car Beam to Floor Brkt Cover
P Mam Sub Molding
P Main Molding
P Mam Molding support ac,<
Elec BregKer box cover
Knee Bolster cover
Knee Bolster Reinforcement brkt
Glove box brkt
Glove box inner tub
Glove box inner tub cover
Decorative glove box trim
Lwr Center IP Cover
_wr Center IP Cover ashtray door
Ashtray
Upr qlove box door
Upr qlove box door inner
Upr qlove box bucket
Top IP Cover
P Driver side cover
P Passenqer side cover
To;; IP Decretive tun'
P Control ',1: A. a ' ,,i:' v.; :i.-;
P Control Module 2 0 : v .:'•• v.: '
P Control Module 4 mounting brkt
Housing Assy. Passenger Side Airbag
1 - -.-:•-' .v .-v--:. - " ? a: '...'• no CKt
-rant Cover. Steering Wheel Airbag Assy
Bracket #1 [in, era side airoag
gnition Cam:'-. :.-.'... - .-•:• ' - :: - j :
Base
Mass
247.02
0.51
0.65
031
012
3.77
1 60
002
004
1 08
006
020
0.28
0.65
034
0.02
002
11 34
010
1 60
3 37
027
0 10
059
0.42
0.35
0.85
0.40
005
0.45
0 11
008
034
026
049
029
0.15
0.15
1 06
0 13
0 15
009
1 09
030
031
014
025
049
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
34.02
005
006
003
001
1 66
081
000
000
0 11
001
002
003
007
0.03
000
000
5.44
001
0 16
034
003
001
006
0.24
004
009
0.04
0.01
005
001
001
003
003
005
0.03
002
002
0 11
001
002
001
062
0.19
0.19
002
011
0 14
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
14%
10%
10%
10%
10%
44%
50%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
48%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
57%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
67%
62%
62%
10%
44%
28%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
yes
es
es
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
es
10
no
es
es
es
Base
Mass
0.51
0.65
031
012
3.77
1.60
0.02
004
1 08
006
020
028
065
034
002
002
11 34
0 10
1.60
337
027
0 10
059
0.42
035
085
0.40
0.05
0.45
0 11
008
034
026
049
029
0 15
0.15
1 06
0 13
0 15
009
1 09
0.14
0.12
049
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
32.10
005
006
003
001
1 66
081
000
000
0 11
001
002
003
007
003
0.00
0.00
5.44
001
0 16
034
003
001
006
024
004
009
004
0.01
005
0.01
001
003
003
005
0.03
002
0.02
0 11
001
002
001
062
002
005
0 14
Notes
Te i DOES apply Use Polvone foaming agent
Te DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te i DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te i DOES apply Change from welded steel to mag.
Te i DOES apply Change from welded steel to mag
Te i DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te DOES a 1. LJseJ^o onejoa '1119 agent
Te i DOES ,4 j. U:.- F:..:. ,':T :;va-iing agent
Te i DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te i DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te DOESa..; U:.aF._ DRgfoanwIj .-.;-.-•(
Te DOES acolv Llavv. . - ,-• ing agent
Te DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te DOESa:: , UFH F: one foaming agent
Te DOES apply Change from welded steel to mag
Te DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te DOES apoly Use Polyone foaming agent
Te DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tec DOES apply: Use Polyone foaming agent
Te DOES apply Change from steel to ABS plastic and use
Po yens foaming agent
Te DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te DOES apply Use Polvone foaming agent
Te DOES apply Use Polyone foaming aqent
Te DOES apply Use Polvone foaming agent
Te DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaming aqent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaming aqent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te h DOES a . :- F::, one foaming aqent
OF':-;. : . . Use Polyone foaminc; agei-t
TT h LIOES a ::l U:.e 1 u ..;:•.- . - '- I.
Ta h DOESa:. 1 Us6_PoK/miT . :- ; . .- ,-.••!.
Te h DOES a . . L :.- Fv . e - "... ,r.:a"t
Teh DOES a::i '>:",,;:'. : --- J 0:-i/ A.kulon Hylon5
~e .: --- NO a : : ';..' : av :•-
F- - : : a - :IF ~ M.:' en vehicle
Te hDOESa:::. L':e Fai, one foaming agent
Te hDOESappIv Change from steel to plastic
Te h OOEO : : " : . . ':.:.. ' : :••:• :.':-:: a
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Due to the large size of the Body Group -B- System it was not broken down by component, but by
subsystem. Mass savings opportunities were identified for the following subsystems: Interior Trim
and Ornamentation, Sealing, Seating, Instrument Panel and Console, and Occupant Restraining
Device.
-------
Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Shown in Image 3.4-2 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 Interior Trim and Ornamentation
Subsystems. Subsystem masses are 20.62 kg for the 1500 versus 16.51 kg for the 2500. The
Lightweighting Technology used on the Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem was to apply
PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 interior trim mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to
Table 3-27).
Image 3.4—2: Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Sealing Subsystem
Shown in Image 3.4-3 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 Sealing Subsystems. Subsystem masses
were 14.5 kg for the 1500 versus 15.1 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology used on the
Sealing Subsystem was to change from EPDM to TPV material. Due to similarities in component
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 sealing subsystem mass reduction can
be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-27).
Image 3.4-3: Sealing Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and the Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Seating Subsystem
Shown in Image 3.4-4 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 Seating Subsystems. Subsystem masses
were 48.2 kg for the 1500 versus 46.1 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology used on the
Seating Subsystem was to change the welded steel construction on the front seats to BASF plastic
and glass fiber laired laminate. Also, by changing the welded steel construction for the 60/40 seat
and the center console to cast magnesium. Due to similarities in component design and material,
full percentage of the Silverado 1500 seating subsystem mass reduction can be applied to the 2500.
(Refer to Table 3-27).
Image 3.4-4: Seating Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
Shown in Image 3.4-5 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series Instrument Panel and Console
Subsystems. Subsystem masses were 23.19 kg for both the 1500 and the 2500. The Lightweighting
Technology used on the Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem was to change the welded steel
construction on the cross car beam to cast magnesium. Also, by changing the welded steel
construction for the knee bolster reinforcement bracket to plastic. Due to similarities in component
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 instrument panel and console subsystem
mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-27).
-------
Image 3.4—5: Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
Shown in Image 3.4-6 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series Occupant Restraining Device
Subsystems (they look the same). Subsystem masses were 2.59 kg for the 1500 versus 1.85 kg for
the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology used on both Occupant Restraining Device Subsystems
was to change the welded steel construction on the passenger air bag housing to DSM Akulon®
Nylon 6. The steering wheel air bag dual stage inflator was changed as well, to a single stage
inflator. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500
occupant restraining device subsystem mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table
3-27).
Image 3.4-6: Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 and Silverado 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
3.4.2.3 System Comparison, Silverado 2500
Table 3-28 summarizes the Silverado 1500 and 2500 Lightweighting results. The majority of the
components were visually the same among the two Body Group -B- Systems.
-------
Table 3-28: Body Group -B- System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
-$127.22
-$125.41
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
-$3.74
-$3.91
-------
3.4.3 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
Table 3-29 summarizes the mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 Lightweighting technologies
as applied to the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. Total Body Group -B- System mass savings were
20.02 kg at a cost increase of $53.33, or $2.66 per kg.
Table 3-29: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -B- System, Mercedes Sprinter
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" in
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (,)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
'T<7»
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
«(pii
» (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"J/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Body System "B"
!n.t?n°r. !nm. ?nd Qm.3.m.?nM'En.'
Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)
Sealing Subsystem
Seating Subsystem
Instrument Panel and Console Sii&system
Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
2.16
0.00
2.16
S6.23
$0.00
S6.23
$2.88
0.10%
""pTp%"
Tp8%'"
"p"33%"
——-
p.pp
"TIT
To'iF
q.po
0-0°
"Too"'
'1"°T
"Too"
p. op
11?'"
TPJ""
111"
'"2'1'b""
$01. Op
'"ii'lll"
'-$37"27
"-$36"26"
lie
10, 00
"
so. op
"$12"3l"
'
JO, Op
'"$6'83"
"-$5'26"
"""
WOO
s'o'oo"
jd'oo
""2'1'b""
'"jo'db""
20.02
(Decrease)
0.00
20.02
('Decrease)
-53.33
0.00
-$53.33
-$2.66
0.94%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, Hew Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
20.02
33.92
59.0%
0,0%
0.0%
-11.7%
I % Saved, technology applies
I % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
I % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
-------
3.4.3.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Body Group -B- System components were reviewed for
compatibility with Lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed below.
Table 3-30: System Scaling Analysis, Body Group -B- System, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1500
1
O3
o-
3
Sub-Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
03 Body Group B System
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
06
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
K
06
05
05
OS
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
07
07
0?
97
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
08
OS
03
03
08
OS
08
08
08
08
OS
LH drivers door window switch cover
LH drivers Door arm rest attachment cover
LH drivers Door Pull handle attachment cc-er
LH drivers Door vertical Pull handle
LH drivers Door corner cover
RH passenger door window switch cover
RH passenger Door arm rest attachment cover
RH passenger Door Pull handle attachment cover
RH passenger Door vertical Pull handle
RH passenger Door corner cover
RH passenger Door Iwr main trim
RH passenger Door Iwr main trim map pocket
RH passenger Door Iwr main trim close out
RH passenger Door Iwr main trim inner support brkt#1
RH passenger Door Iwr main trim inner support brkt#2
RH passenger Door Iwr mam trim inner support brkt#5
RH passenger Door Iwr mam trim inner support brktSG
RH passenger Door upr main trim
LH passenger Door Iwr main trim
LH passenger Door Iwr mam trim map pocket
LH passenger Door Iwr main trim close out
LH passenger Door Iwr mam trim inner support brkWt
LH passenger Door k-r mam trim inner support brkt#2
LH passenger Dooi li.i I ain i:i n.rie: eupc-ort brkt~5
LH passenger Door v'.-r mam trim inner suprjort brktsG
LH passenger Door upr main trim
Frt dorr harness feed through
RH Rear door window switch cover
RH Rear Door arm rest attachment cover
RH Rear Door Pull handle attachment cover
RH rear door arm rest
LH Rear door window switch cover
LH Rear Door arm rest attachment cover
LH Rear Door Pull handle attachment cover
LH rear door arm rest
RH rear door Iwr mam trim
RH rear door I : raintlHf "ap pocket
RH rear doc-- L'.-r —am trim —cuntinq ': 't ^1
RH rear door Iwr mam trim mounting bkt $2
RH rear door upr main trim
LH rear door Iwr main trim
LH rear door Iwr main trim map pocket
LH rear door Iwr main trim mounting bkt #1
LH rear door Uvr mam trim mounting bkt #2
LH rear door upr mam trim
Driver Lwr A-Pillar
Passenger LwrA-Pillar
Front Driver kick plate
Front Driver kick plate mount
Rear Driver kick plate
-:•:.:•-• _ i >: c :;:i;e -oi.mi
LH B-Pillar Lwr
Front Passenger kick piate
Front Passenger kick plate mount
Rear Passenger kick plate
Rear Passenger kick plate mount
RH B-Pillar Lwr
C-Pillar cover RH upr
C-Pillar cover RH Lwr
Small Cover piece
C-Pillar cover LH upr
C-Pillar cover LH Lwr
Small Cover piece
C-Pillar to C-Pillar cross trim
Drivers Upr A-Pillar cover
Drivers upr A-pillar mounting screw cover
Driver LH Upper B-Pillar Cover
Driver LH Upper B-Pillar Cover slide
Driver restraint upr B-pillar bolt cover
Drivers B pillar mounting screw cover
Passenger Upr A-Pillar cover
Passenger RH Upper B-Pillar Cover
Passenger LH Upper B-Pillar Cover slide
Passenger restraint upr B-pillar bolt cover
Passenger B : - ... .-I'::; screw
Base
Mass
247.02
0 10
0.03
0 01
0 13
0 06
0 10
0 03
001
0 13
006
2.09
050
005
028
0.06
003
001
076
209
050
005
028
006
0 03
001
0.76
023
0 08
0 02
001
027
008
0 02
001
027
1 53
023
0 02
001
0.58
1.53
023
002
0 01
0 58
0.23
022
020
0 18
0 14
0 12
0.63
021
0 18
0 14
0 13
0 63
0.34
0.53
00020
034
0 52
0 00
0 56
0.35
0.00
029
0 06
001
001
033
0.28
0 06
001
0 00
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
34.02
0 010
0.003
0001
0013
0 006
0 010
0.003
0001
0 013
0 006
0209
0050
0006
0 028
0 005
0 003
0001
0.076
0209
0 050
0005
0 028
0 005
0003
0001
0076
0 023
0 008
0 002
0001
0 027
0008
0.002
0.001
002?
0 153
0023
0 002
0001
0058
0 153
0.023
0002
0 001
0058
0.023
0.022
0020
0.018
0014
0 012
0063
0 020
0 018
0 014
0.012
0 063
0034
0.053
0.0002
0034
0.052
0 000
0 056
0.04
0.00
003
0.01
000
0.00
003
003
0.01
000
0.00
•/. of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
14%
10%
11%
17%
10%
11%
10%
11%
17%
10%
11%
10%
10%
10%
10%
9%
11%
9%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
9%
11%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
0%
10%
11%
7%
17%
10%
10%
11%
7%
0%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
Base
Mass
0.05
009
0.06
330
067
0.59
254
3.30
067
059
254
0.05
022
2.36
065
0.36
033
122
123
033
0.33
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
20.02
001
0.01
0.01
0.33
007
006
025
0 33
007
0.06
0.25
0.00
002
0.24
0.07
0.04
0.03
0 12
0 12
004
0.04
Notes
Tech does HOT app-ly Net on eh:de
Tech does NOT applv Not on vehicle
Tech DOES applv Use Polvone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polvone foaming agent
Tech does NOT applv Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apdy Noi en : - ii-:-
Tech does NOT apply: Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT applv Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apoly Use Polvone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Pol oj >: ua -'ing agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on 'vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply: Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply: Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polvone foaming agent
Tech DOES s-jd Use Fd onejoa • . - ^m
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on -vehicle
Tech does NOT applv Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT aocly Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply. Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on -vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply. Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Us: L -: ::•-: I::.T "ing agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on .ehide
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES i. I Use_PpJ .r. i.d -ling agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT aorjly Not on .elude
Tech DOES apply Use Pclyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply No: en eh cle
Tech does NOT applv Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Fd oj . k-a -"ing agent
Tech does HOT apc-ly Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on .ehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply: Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply: Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply: Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on .eh*de
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on -vehicle
Tech does NOT applv Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT applv Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT applv Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT ac-dy Not on , elude
Tech does NOT apply: Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT a:d. No; en .eh:de
Table 3.4-6 Continued Next Page
-------
Table 3.4-6 Continued: System Scaling Analysis, Body Group -B- System, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1500
-------
Table 3.4-6 Continued: System Scaling Analysis, Body Group -B- System, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1500
ID
y §•
3 -
CO
c
7
CO
lz
3
Component/Assembly
03 Body Group B System
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 jOj
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 12
03 U1
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 20
03 20
03 20
03 20
03 20
03 20
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
01
01
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
05
05
05
03
12
12
18
18
18
Frt center riser
LH Pivot cover outer
LH Pivot cover inner
RH Pivot cover outer
RH Pivot cover inner
RH Pivot cover inner top
Bottom tub inner
Frt wrap around close out
Rear wrap around close out
Cup holder
Cup holder top
Frt center box comp
Frt center cover pit
Seat frame cover handle #1
Seat frame cover handle #2
Center tub
Divider
Cup holder
Center tub top ring
Center tub top lid inner
Center tub top lid outer
Center tub top lid handle #1
Center tub top lid handle #2
Cross Car Beam
Cross Car Beam to Floor Brkt Cover
P Main Sub P;bldinq
IP Mam Molding
P Main P;1oldinq support box
Elec. Breaker box cover
Knee Bolster cover
Knee Bolstei P-niL' .- '-"i: -:i[rt
Glove box brkt
Glove box inner tub
Glove box inner tub cover
Decorative glove box trim
Lwr Center IP Cover
Lwr Center IP Cover ashtray door
Ashtray
Upr qlove box door
Upr glove box door inner
Upr glove box bucket
Top IP Cover
IP Driver side cover
P Passenger side cover
Top IP Decretive trim
IP Control Module 1 mounting brkt
IP Control Module 2 & 3 mounting brkt
IP Control Module 4 mounting brkt
Housing Assy Passenger Side Airbag
Drivers side curtain airbaq mounting brkt
Front Cover Steerinq Wheel Airbag Assy
Bracket #1 Drivers side airbag
Ignition Canister. Steerinq Wheel Airbaq Assy
Base
Mass
247.02
297
007
0 05
006
005
0 05
035
051
065
031
0 12
377
1 60
002
0.04
1 08
006
0.20
028
065
034
0.02
002
11 34
0 10
1 60
3.37
027
0.10
059
042
035
0.85
040
0 05
045
0.11
008
034
0.26
0.49
029
0 15
0 15
1 06
0.13
0 15
0 09
109
030
0.31
0 14
025
043
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
34.02
1.04
0.01
000
001
000
000
0.09
005
006
003
001
1 66
081
000
0.00
0.11
001
0.02
003
007
003
000
0.00
5.44
001
0 16
0.34
003
0.01
0.06
0.24
004
009
004
001
005
001
001
003
0.03
0.05
003
002
002
0 11
0.01
002
001
062
0 19
0 19
0.02
0 11
0 14
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
14%
35%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
44%
50%
10%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
- 8%
0%
0%
0%
10%
10%
10%
67%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
57%
62%
62%
10%
44%
28%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
y_es
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
ves
Mass
11.60
5.91
0.30
066
1 11
069
0.06
0.06
022
0.32
050
0.12
0 12
050
3.39
126
0.19
1 26
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
20.02
557
0.59
003
007
011
007
001
001
002
0.08
005
001
0.01
005
193
004
0.08
0.25
Notes
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT aoply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
"r.f .'; :;:-; [JO .- . :l , i :•.:; j • .-fhilr
, ^:'-, !--•--, 'ji i i. - -' . I ,;-•; - - -I :-j-
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply [Jot on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply [Jot on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not or- -.-• : : •:
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Change from welded steel to rnag.
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Poiyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply fiot on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Poiyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on '.ehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Poiyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Poiyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply. Use Poiyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Poiyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Poiyone foaming aqent
Tech DOES apply Use Poiyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming aqent
Tech DOES apply Use Polvone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply. Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tec does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tec DOES apply Change from steel to DSM Akulon Nylon6
Tec does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tec does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tec i DOES apply Use F,:.h, cue foaming agent
Tec DOES apply Change from steel to plastic
Tech DOES apply Replace dual stage mflatorwith single stage
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Due to the large size of the Body Group -B- System it was not broken down by component, but by
subsystem. Mass savings opportunities were identified for the following subsystems: Interior Trim
and Ornamentation, Sealing, Seating, Instrument Panel and Console, and Occupant Restraining
Device.
-------
Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Shown in Image 3.4-7 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Interior Trim and
Ornamentation Subsystems. Subsystem masses were 20.6 kg for the 1500 versus 16.5 kg for the
Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. The Lightweighting Technology used in the Interior Trim and
Ornamentation Subsystem was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities in
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 interior trim mass reduction
can be applied to the Sprinter.
Image 3.4—7: Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem for Silverado 1500 (Left) and the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Sealing Subsystem
Shown in Image 3.4-8 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Sealing Subsystems.
Component masses were 14.5 kg for the 1500 versus 5.54 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi.
The Lightweighting Technology used on the Sealing Subsystem was to change to TPV from EPDM
material. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado
1500 sealing subsystem mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter.
Image 3.4-
Seating Subsystem
?: Sealing Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Shown in Image 3.4-9 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Seating Subsystem.
Subsystem masses were 48.2 kg for the 1500 versus 15.4 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi.
-------
The Lightweighting Technology used on the Seating Subsystem was to change the welded steel
construction in the front seats to BASF plastic and glass fiber laired laminate. The welded steel
construction for the 60/40 seat and the center console was changed to cast magnesium. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 seating
subsystem mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter.
Image 3.4—9: Seating Subsystems for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
Shown in Image 3.4-10 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Instrument Panel
and Console Subsystems. The subsystem masses were 23.2 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 22.7
kg for the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. The Lightweighting Technology used for the Instrument
Panel and Console Subsystem was to change the welded steel construction in the cross car beam to
cast magnesium. The welded steel construction for the knee bolster reinforcement bracket was also
changed to plastic. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the
Silverado 1500 instrument panel and console subsystem mass reduction can be applied to the
Sprinter.
-------
Image 3.4—10: Instrument Panel and Console Subsystems for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2mac 1.com)
Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
Shown in Image 3.4-11 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Occupant
Restraining Device Subsystems. The subsystem masses were 2.59 kg for the 1500 versus 6.10 kg
for the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi respectively. The Lightweighting Technology used in both the
Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem was to change the welded steel construction on the
passenger air bag housing to DSM Akulon® Nylon 6. The steering wheel air bag dual stage inflator
was also changed to a single stage inflator. Due to similarities in component design and material,
full percentage of the Silverado 1500 occupant restraining device subsystem mass reduction can be
applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to
Table 3-30).
-------
Image 3.4-11: Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
\
-------
3.4.4 Renault Master 2.3 DCi
Table 3-31 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 Lightweighting technologies
applied to the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. Total Body Group -B- Subsystem mass savings is 23.67 kg
at a cost increase of $91.43, or $3.86 per kg.
Table 3-31: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -B- Subsystem, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg":;-,
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ;•;
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg";-:
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"S/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
Body System "B"
M?.[!.?.[.Tn.m. .?.n.d Ornamentation :
Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)
Sealing Subsystem
Seating Sir-system
instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
1.21
0.00
I'-W"
Too'"
1.21
$3.25
$0.00
$3.25
$2.68
0.05%
0.00
"T'73 .....
7?'-!?""
""" .....
0,00
173
$0,00
11TIT
'-J7517'
"
$0.00
$o"po
$o'op
"s'u""6"6"
._...
$0,00
"siTaT"
-$75^97
$0,00
"M-W"
"-ssla"
"illl"
——
0,00%
"p"07%"
T."59I%"
""
...
...._..
649
0.25
199
....__.
...__
23.67
(Decrease)
0.00
23.67
(Decrease)
-91.43
(Increase)
0.00
-$91.43
(Increase)
-$3.86
(Increase)
1.01%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
23.67
33.92
69.8%
0.0%
0.0%
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
-------
3.4.4.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Renault Master 2.3 DCi Body Group -B- Subsystem was reviewed for compatibility with
Lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-32.
Table 3-32: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -B-Subsystem, Renault Master
Silverado 1500
tfi
i
1
Gl
c
«*l
!
e
7"
CO
o-
1
3
Component/Assembly
03 Body Group B System
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
OS
05
05
OS
OS
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
Ob
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
OS
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
06
06
05
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
07
07
0!
07
07
07
07
0,'
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
03
08
OS
08
03
OS
03
08
03
03
03
LH drivers door window switch cover
LH drivers Door arm rest attachment cover
LH drivers Door Pull handle attachment cover
LH drivers Door vertical Pull handle
LH drivers Door comer cover
RH passenqer door window switch cover
RH passenqer Door arm rest attachment cover
RH passenqer Door Pull handle attachment cover
RH passenqer Door vertical Pull handle
RH passenqer Door corner cover
RH passenqer Door Ivvr mam trim
RH passenge [,.:._• ,. i ; i d; -;oi>'et
RH passenger Door Ivvr main trim close out
RH passenqer Door Iwr mam trim inner support brkt#1
RH passerrje [ .: : .. .- !. . - .-....:•• -L
RH passenae; Doc • , ' - i...... .• •-':
RH passenger Door Iwr main trim inner support brkt#6
RH passenger Door upr main trim
LH passenge DC : • : .= ,'• trr'n
LH passengei Door ' .• - ,':.- : " ••?: -rocket
^h :aS'E.enger Door I'.'ir main trim close out
LH passenger Door Iwr mam trim inner support brkt£1
LH passenger Door kvr t-am trim inner support c-rkt-2
LH passenger Doer L'.r r-ain tri" inner sirjoon br:;i-5
LH passenger Doer Kvr main trim inner support brkt#6
LH passenger Door upr mam trim
Frt dorr harness feed ihrouqh
RH Rear door '.'/mrfo* s>,vitch cover
RH Rear Door Pull handle attachment cover
RH rear door arm rest
LH Rear door window switch cover
LH Rear Door arm rest attachment cover
LH Rear Door Pull handle attachment cover
LH rear door arm rest
RH rear door Iwr main trim
RH rear door kvr main trim map pocket
RH rear door Iwr main trim mounting bkt #1
RH rear door Iwr main trim mounting bkt #2
RH rear door upr main trim
LH rear door Iwr main trim
LH rear door ' - ' ," - '•: et
LH rear door Iwr main trim mounting bkt #1
LH rear door Iwr main trim mounting bkt #2
LH rear door upr main trim
Driver Lwr A-Fillar
Passenger Lwr A-pillar
Front Driver kick plate
Front Driver kick piate mount
Rear Driver kick olgte
Rear Driver kick plate mount
LH B-Pillar Lwr
Front Passenger kick piate
Front Passer.:!'? : llate -cunt
Rear Passenger kick plate
Rear Passenger kick plate mount
RH B-Pillar Lwr
C-Pillar cover RH upr
C-Pillar cover RH L,vr
Small Cover piece
C-Pillar cover LH upr
C-Pillar cover LH Lwr
Small Cover piece
C-Pillar to C-Pillar cross trim
Drivers Upr A-Pillar cover
Drivers upr A-pillar mounting screw cover
Driver LH Upper B-Pillar Cover
Driver LH Upper B-Pillar Cover slide
Driver restraint upr B-pillar bolt cover
Drivers B pillar mounting screw cover
Passenqer Upr A-Pillar cover
Passenqer RH Upper B-Pillar Cover
Passenqer LH Upper B-Pil!ar Cover slide
Passenqer restraint upr B-pillar boit cover
Passenqer B pillar mounting screw
Base
Mass
247.02
0 10
003
001
0.13
006
0 10
003
001
0 13
006
209
050
005
028
0.06
003
001
076
2.09
0.50
005
0.28
006
003
001
076
023
0.08
0.01
0.27
0.08
002
001
0.27
1 53
023
002
001
058
1.53
023
002
0.01
053
023
022
0.20
0 18
0 14
0 12
0.63
0.21
0 18
0 14
0 13
063
034
053
0 0020
034
0.52
000
0.56
035
000
029
006
0.01
0.01
033
023
006
001
000
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
34.02
0010
0003
0001
0013
0006
0010
0003
0001
0013
0.006
0209
0 050
[I 005
0.028
0005
0.003
0001
0.076
0209
0.050
0005
0023
0005
0003
0 001
0076
0023
o.oos
0001
0027
OOOS
0002
0001
0027
0153
0023
0002
0001
0058
0 163
0023
0002
0001
0066
[I 023
0022
0020
0018
0.014
0012
0063
0.020
0018
0014
0012
0.063
0034
0053
0 0002
0034
0.052
0000
0056
004
0.00
0 03
0 01
000
000
0 03
003
001
0.00
0 00
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
14%
10%
11%
17%
10%
11%
10%
11%
17%
10%
11%
10%
10%
10%
10%
9%
11%
9%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
9%
11%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
0%
•o%
0%
•o%
•o%
-o%
•o%
•o%
-o%
•o%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
0%
10%
11%
7%
17%
10%
10%
11%
7%
0%
Se/ecr Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
no
es
es
es
es
no
es
es
es
es
es
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
10
no
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
10
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
Base
Mass
003
005
0 04
021
003
005
0.04
021
246
036
2.46
0.36
070
006
244
0 11
0 14
0.90
0.89
0.25
0.25
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
23.67
000
001
000
002
000
001
000
0.02
025
0 04
0.25
0.04
007
0.01
0.24
0 01
0 01
0.09
0.09
0.02
002
Notes
Tech DOES apply- Use Polyone foaminq agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply. Use Polyone foaminq agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaminq agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaminq agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaminq agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaminq agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaminq agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaminq agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming a^en-
Tech DOES a . . i . :.- r .•_•--".- •..--•
Tech does NOT aid./ Mot on 'Chicle
Tech does NOT a -:•£•!•.,• Mot on vehirle
Tech does NOT a-_d. 'Jet en .chicle
Tech does NOT asdv 'Jot on •••elude
Tech does NOT anpl./ Mot on vehicle
Tech does NOT a^plv Net on vehicle
Tech DOES a"K Lse .Pdv:ne fearing agent
Tech DOES a-; :i Js^PolyoneJoarr ng agent
Tech does NOT aoply Not on 'vehicle
e: •' --'-jeE. ffOT a-d Met on .ehide
Tech does MOT a :d . Met en .elude
Tech does NOT aoplv Mot on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Mot on vehicle
Tech does NOT aoply Mot on vehicle
Tech DOES aocK USE -: . it :: :• -'ing agent
Tech does NOT aoply Mot on vehicle
Tech DOES apply. Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Mot on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply riot on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech DOES d. I Use_P_ojy_orie_foan nq_a ent
TechDOESa. ; Usj: : :i ,>:ne foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does HOT apply Not on ^hic e
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech DOES a: :!. . r.e - :l ;:ne foaming ggeni
Tech does NOT apply: Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Not on ^ehic e
Tech does HOT aoply Not on '.ehic e
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming age.ni
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT a::,d; Met en .chicle
Tech does HOT acply Mot on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaminq agent
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicl
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicl
Tech does HOT apply Net on vehicl
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicl
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicl
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaminq agent
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT a;1;.!. '- •. .-. -i Jo
Table 3.4-8 Continued Next Page
Table 3.4-8 Continued: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -B- Subsystem, Renault Master
-------
Silverado 1500
1
to
B
Sub-Subsyslem
Component/ Assembly
03 Body Group B System
03
03
03
03
0,1
03
01
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
0.1
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
07
07
07
07
07
07
'?
07
0!
0'
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
04
04
LH Dnver Door Lower seal
RH Passenger Door Lower seal
LH Rear Door lower seal
LH Rear Door nrnqe side upr seal
RH R'ar Da i B ,-•!'
RH Rear Door hmqe side upr seal
RH iear door nside y.mdc'.v trac* sea
RH rear dcor nside .Mndc'.v trac.-. 3Ctto~ inner seal
RH rear dcor nside v.mdcw Irar1-. oc.tte- outer sea
LH fear door inside '.vmcic.v trsc-: sea
LH rear door inside window track bottom inner seal
LH rear door inside window track bottom outer seal
LH drrvers door inside window track seal
LH drivers door inside window track bottom inner seal
LH drrvers door inside window track bottom outer seal
RH passenge I j '.., '•• • ; -ackseal
RH passenger door inside window track bottom inner seal
RH oassenger dooi m:, ce .odc'.i'OO ::"-;••- cm-: :,•:•?
Drivers Upr Outside seal
Front driver door seal
Rear driver door seal
Passenger Upr Outside seal
Front passenger door seal
Rear passenger door seal
Drp/er seat back frame
Driver seat map back inner
Driver Seat map back
Diher Seat safetv sell cover
Driver seat bottom frame
Dri.'er Seat frt Nut Cover LH
Oliver Seat frt Nut Cover RH
Dnver Seat lear Belt Co'.ei LH
Dir.ei Seat rear Belt Co".ei RH
Dnver seat wire harness cover
Dnver Seat LH Track cover
Dnver Seat LH Track cover end cap rear
Driver Seat LH Track cover end cap frt
Driver Seat LH cover
Driver Seat LH cover close out
Driver Seat LH cover seat belt insert cover
Un ei ,:-es: !.H cc.ef 'n "::-ai no:
Dn/ei Seat LH cc.er recline handle
Driver Seat RH cover
Passenger seat Mck frame
Pass seat map back inner
Pass Seat map back
Pass Seat safetv belt cover
Passenger seat bottom frame
Frt Passenger Seat frt RH Nut Cover
Frt Passenger Seat trt LH nut Cc.er
Passenger Sea: rear Bolt Cover LH
Passenger Seat lear Bolt Cover RH
Passenger sea: -viie harness cover
Pass Seat LH Track cover
Pass Seal LH Track cover end cap rear
Pass Seat LH Track cover end cap frt
Pass Seat LH cover
Passenger Seat LH cover close out
Passenger Seat LH cover seat belt insert cover
Passenger Seat LH cover lumbar knob
Passenger Seat LH cover recline handle
Passenger Seat RH cover
60°-o Seat sack frame
Arm rest inner tub
Arm rest frame
Arm rest cup holder
Arm rest cup holder retainer ring
60% Seat bottom frame
RH reclmer cover #1
RH reclmer cover #2
LH recliner cover #1
40% Seat bottom frame
-V ::-est '..;•. 'is 'e
RH B-- close cut *1
RH Brkt close cut ^2
LH Brkt close out ~1
Base
Mass
247.02
0 14
014
011
007
011
007
052
0 16
030
052
0 16
030
060
019
035
060
019
035
082
210
1 93
082
205
1 31
220
049
064
004
360
002
003
002
007
004
0 16
002
002
0.31
0.05
0 0 i
0 02
003
0 11
220
049
064
004
359
002
0.04
0 06
002
004
0 16
002
002
031
005
001
002
003
0.11
'J^
028
1 11
0 13
009
428
014
024
oos
298
316
0 23
014
007
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
34.02
005
005
004
002
004
002
0 17
0 05
0 10
0 17
005
010
020
006
011
020
006
011
027
063
063
027
067
062
1 10
005
006
000
1 30
0 00
0 00
000
001
000
002
000
000
003
001
000
0 00
0 00
0 01
1 10
005
006
000
179
000
0.00
0 0 1
0 00
000
002
000
000
003
001
000
000
000
001
278
003
043
001
001
224
001
002
001
1 55
1.76
002
001
001
•/, of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
14%
33%
33%
32%
33°;
32%
33%
33%
33"..,
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33',
33°,
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
50%
10%
10%
10%
50°,
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10°,
10%
10%
50%
10%
10%
10%
50%
10%
10%
10°,
10°,
10°,
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
43°,
10%
39%
10%
10%
52%
10%
10%
10%
52%
56%
10°,
10%
10%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
ho
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
ho
yes
yes
no
ho
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
nc
no
no
ho
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
ho
no
no
no
ho
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
ho
no
ho
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
ho
no
no
no
Base
Mass
057
012
050
057
0 12
050
1 47
147
467
4 67
017
004
009
928
923
026
005
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
23.67
019
004
016
019
004
0 16
0 43
048
234
234
002
000
0 01
464
46.1
003
0.00
Notes
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Not oh vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Not oh vehic e
Tech does NOT arvolv Not on ,ehic e
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT a-dy No! on '.ehic e
Tech does NOT arid1; Not on .ehic e
Tech does NOT a?dv Net on ,ehic e
Tech does NOT ar>dy Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT arjdv Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
Tech DOES a-rt, Change fio- ECFI.1 to TPV
Tech DOES 3-D!y Change froj- ECPI.1 to TPV
Tech DOES aMlv Change fro- EDPi.l to TPV
Tech does NOT arjrjlv Not on .ehicle
Tech DOES ass-ly Change from EDPi.l 1C TPV
Tech DOES ar,*, Change from EDPM to TPV
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply 1 ot on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply f ot on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Change from welded steel to BASF Plastic
Tech does NOT apply t ot on vehicle
Tech dees NOT a:;rjv f ot on .ehicle
Tech does NOT asdv 1 ot on , ehicle
Tech DOES s-rjiy Change frc." v,e|ried steel to BA.^F Plastic
Tech does NOT arjdy 1 ot on vehicle
Tech does NOT acolv Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT acr/ly Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT arjdy riot on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply 1 ot on vehicle
Tech DOES scaly Use Pclycne foaming agent
Tech dees HOT acolv I ct on .'ehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES aDDly Use -ciycne tcs-ing sclent
Tech DOES assn; Use PdvCne ica-ing agent
Tech does HOT apply I ot on vehicle
Tech DOES acply Change frorr. welded steel to BASF Plastic
Tech does HOT apply f ot on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply 1 ot oh vehicle
Tech does HOT apply f ot on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Change from welded steel to BASF Plastic
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT as:!1, Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT 3Ddv 1 ol on .elucle
Tech does NOT a-dv Not on .ehicle
Tech does NOT aody Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT ar.dy No! on .elude
Tech does NOT arjdy Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply flot on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES acoly U:,v -' ' en- '>• ~- -;t:g agent
Tech does HOT apoK lot on .ehicle
Tech does HOT apply lot on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply lot on .ehicle
Tech does NOT apdv lot on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply lot on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply lot on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply lot on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply flot on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT jpol Not on .ehicle
Tech does NOT arclv Not on .ehicle
Tech does NOT acoly Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT anc-iy Not or . jhicje
Table 3.4-8 Continued Next Page
-------
Table 3.4-8 Continued: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -B- Subsystem, Renault Master
Silverado 1500
CO
f i'
Sub-Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
03 Body Group B System
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 HI
03 10
03 i;
03 12
03 12
03 i:
o; i;
03 12
03 i:
03 12
03 i;
03 12
o: i:
03 i:
03 i:
03 12
03 12
: 2
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
02 12
03 12
03 !2
03 12
03 12
03 20
o: 20
;
2
03 20
03 20
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
01
01
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
13
03
03
04
04
04
05
05
05
03
2
2
'i
3
'i
Frt center rise
LH Pivot cove outer
LH Pivot cove inner
RH Pivot cove outer
RH Pivot cove inner
RH Pivot cove inner top
Bottom tub inner
Frt wrap around close out
Rear wrap around close out
Cup holder
Cup holder top
Frt center bo:\ going
Frt center cover pit
Seat frame cover handle #1
Seat frame cover handle *2
Cent?!' tub
Divider
Cup holder
Center tub top ring
Center tub top lid inner
-T - ' '. : 2.. ,.'•:•
Center tub top lid handle ~1
Center tub top lid handle #2
Cross Car Beam
Cross Car Beam to Floor FJrkt Cover
IP Main Sub Molding
IF Main Molding
IP Main Mokir':i i.i: ::•: : :•
Elec Breaker box cover
Knee Bolster cover
Knee Bolster Reinforcement brkt
Glove box brkt
Glove box inner tub
Glove box inner tub cover
Decorative glove box trim
Lwr Center IP Cover
Lwr Center IP Cover ashtray door
Ashtray
Upr glove box door
Upr glove box door inner
Upr glove box bucket
Top IP Cover
IP Driver side cover
IP Passenger side cover
Top IP Decretive trim
IP Control Module 1 mounting brkt
IP Control Module 2 & 3 mounting brkt
IP Control Module 4 mounting brkt
Housing Assy Passenger Side Airbag
Drivers side curtain airbag mounting brkt
Passenger side curtain airbag mounting brkt
Front Cover Steerm:; heel ^irbacj -.i.sv
Bracket ~1 Drivers side airbag
Ignition Cams'-: :•'':-•:• ••":: _£0 ••' ::•.:• :.:,•
Base
Mass
247.02
2.97
007
005
006
005
005
085
051
065
0.31
0 12
377
1 60
002
004
1 08
006
0.20
028
065
0.34
002
002
11 34
0 10
1 60
337
027
0 10
0.59
0.42
035
085
040
005
0.45
011
0.08
034
0.26
049
029
0 15
0 15
1 06
0 13
0 15
0.09
1 09
0.30
031
0 14
025
049
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
34.02
1 04
001
000
001
ooo
000
009
i) 05
000
003
001
1 C-G
031
000
0.00
0 11
001
002
003
007
0.03
000
000
544
001
0 16
0.34
003
001
006
024
004
009
004
0.01
005
001
001
0.03
003
005
003
002
002
0 11
001
002
001
062
0 19
0 19
002
0 11
0 14
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
14%
35%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
44%
50%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
1 0%
10%
48%
10%
10%
1 0%
10%
10%
10%
57%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
57%
62%
62%
10%
44%
28%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
ves
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
ves
no
yes
Base
Mass
1068
806
094
1 05
047
039
026
0 65
0.83
0 13
0 13
0 71
0 06
0.33
077
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
23.67
5 12
081
0.09
0 10
005
0.04
0.03
0 07
008
0 01
0 01
0 07
0 01
0 03
022
Notes
Tech does NOT apply Not on veh cle
Tech does NOT apply: Not on veh cle
Tech does HOT apply Not oh veh cle
Tech does NOT apply: Not on veh cle
Tech does NOT apply Not on veh cle
Tech dees HOT apply Not on veh cle
Tech does NOT apply Not oh veh cle
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh cle
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh cle
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh cle
Tech does HOT apply Not oh veh cle
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh cle
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh cle
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh cle
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh cle
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh cle
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh cle
Tech does HOT apply: Not on veh cle
Tech does HOT apply Not oh veh cle
Tech does HOT apply Not on '.eh cle
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh cle
Tech does HOT apply: Not on veh cle
Tech does HOT apply: Not oh veh cle
Tech DOES appl'., Lhs-":: : • e:i:-' :••:: tc. -raq
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh cle
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh cle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does HOT apply Not on '.eh cle
Tech does HOT apply Not on veil cle
Tech DOES apply Us:. PpjyOjTe_foamihg_ao.ent
Tech does HOT apply Not on veil cle
Tech does HOT apply Not on '.ell cle
Tech DOES a: :; L so -::! /one foaminq agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Us;- -.: .MS c""inq agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on '.elude
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foammq agen
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agen
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agen
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agen
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agen
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT appl'.. '.:'.:.;': -'TH:!:
Tech DOES apply: Use Polyone foaminq agenl
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Replace dual stage mflator with single stage
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Due to the large size of the Body Group -B- System it was not broken down per component, but
per subsystem. Mass savings opportunities were identified for the following subsystems: Interior
Trim and Ornamentation, Sealing, Seating, Instrument Panel and Console, and Occupant
Restraining Device.
Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Shown in Image 3.4-12 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi Interior Trim and
Ornamentation Subsystems. The subsystem masses were 20.6 kg for the 1500 versus 12.0 kg for
the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. The Lightweighting Technology used in the Interior Trim and
Ornamentation Subsystem was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities in
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 interior trim mass reduction
can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-32).
-------
Image 3.4—12: Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystems for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Sealing Subsystem
Shown in Image 3.4-13 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi Sealing Subsystems.
The component masses were 14.5 kg for the 1500 versus 5.32 kg for the Renault Master 2.3 DCi.
The Lightweighting Technology used in the Sealing Subsystem was to change to TPV from EPDM
material. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado
1500 sealing subsystem mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-32).
Image 3.4—13: Sealing Subsystems for Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
-------
Seating Subsystem
Shown in Image 3.4-14 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi Seating Subsystem.
Subsystem masses were 48.2 kg for the 1500 versus 28.5 kg for the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. The
Lightweighting Technology used in the Seating Subsystem was to change the welded steel
construction on the front seats to BASF plastic and glass fiber-layered laminate. The welded steel
construction of the 60/40 seat and the center console was also changed to cast magnesium. Due to
similarities in component material, only a portion of the percentage of the Silverado 1500 seating
subsystem mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-32).
Image 3.4-14: Seating Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
Shown in Image 3.4-15 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi Instrument Panel and
Console Subsystems. The subsystem masses were 23.2 kg for the 1500 versus 24.4 kg for the
Renault Master 2.3 DCi. The Lightweighting Technology used in the Instrument Panel and Console
Subsystem was to change the welded steel construction on the cross car beam to cast magnesium.
The welded steel construction for the knee bolster reinforcement bracket was also changed to
plastic. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500
instrument panel and console subsystem mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to
Table 3-32).
-------
Image 3.4-15: Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
Shown in Image 3.4-16 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi Occupant Restraining
Device Subsystems. The sub system masses were 2.5 9 kg for the ISOOversus 1.1 Okg for the Renault
Master 2.3 DCi. The Lightweighting Technology used in both Occupant Restraining Device
Subsystems was to change the welded steel construction on the passenger air bag housing to DSM
Akulon® Nylon 6. Also, the steering wheel air bag dual stage inflator was changed to a single stage
inflator. Due to similarities in component design and material, only a portion of the percentage of
the Silverado 1500 occupant restraining device subsystem mass reduction can be applied to the
Renault. (Refer to Table 3-32).
Image 3.4—16: Occupant Restraining Device Subsystems for Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
-------
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
3.5 BODY GROUP -C- SYSTEM
3.5.1 Silverado 1500 Summary
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Body Group -C- System included the radiator grill, lower exterior
finishers, rear closure finishers, cowl vent grill, exterior mirrors, front bumper and fascia, and rear
bumper and fascia. The Body Group -C- System was made of plastic material, which is typical for
these types of systems.
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 analysis identified mass reduction alternatives and cost implications
for the Body Group -C- System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements
of the baseline vehicle.
Table 3-33 provides a summary of mass reduction and cost impact for select sub-subsystems
evaluated. The total mass savings found on the Body Group -C- System mass was reduced by 2.14
kg (5.28%). This decreased cost by $2.73, or $1.28 per kg. Mass reduction for this system reduced
vehicle curb weight by 0.09%.
Table 3-33: Body Group -C- System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500
ffj
*-=:
yj_
(D
3
03
03
03
'03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
Jf
03
03
03
Subsystem
08
08
08"
.._..
08
08
08
09
09
09
09
..^..
23
24
24
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
_
04"
07
12
15
00
01
02
99
00
02
00
02
Description
Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Radiator Grill
Lower Exterior Finishers
Upper Exterior and Roof Finish
Rear Closure Finishers
Badging
Cowl Vent Grill
Rear View Mirrors Subsystem
Interior Mirror
Exterior Mirrors
Misc.
Front End Modules
Module - Front Bumper and Fascia
Rear End Modules
Module - Rear Bumper and Fascia
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Mass
"kg"
12.82
6,79
Z05
0.68
116
0.31
1.84
4728
0.53
3.73
0.01
2i76s
21.08
2.30
2.30
40.48
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (i)
0.99
0.49
0-20
0.00
0.1 'i
0.00
0.18
'6737
0.00
0.37
0.00
0.57
0.57
0.20
0.20
2.14
("Decrease}
Cost
Impact
NDMC
"$" (2)
1.05
0.44
0.26
0.00
0.12
6.00
0.23
0794
0.00
0.94
0.00
cusb
0.50
0.24
0.24
2.73
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
"$/kg" (2)
1.06
0.90
125
0.00
1.10
0.00
128
2751
0.00
2.51
0.00
OL87
0.87
1.20
120
1.28
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
"%"
7.71%
7.21%
"10:66%
0.00%
9.76%
0.00%
9.90%
8773%
0.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2773%
2.73%
8.72%
8.72%
5.28%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.04%
0.02%
o'."o"i"%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
Oz%
0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
o76'2%
0.02%
0.01%
g.01%
0.09%
(1) "*" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Columns in the "Net Value of Mass Reduction" chart above may contain combined masses of
assembly hardware such as nuts, bolt, washer, etc. that were not mass reduced at the component
level, and may not match base mass and mass reduction totals in text below component reduction
weights.
-------
Mass savings opportunities were identified for the following components: radiator grill; bumper
guard - front door; bumper guard - rear door; tailgate trim; cowl grill; cowl end cap - LH; cowl
end cap - RH; exterior mirror - driver side; exterior mirror - passenger side; front fascia; front
fascia - air dam; rear bumper cover - LH; rear bumper cover - RH; and rear bumper cover - center.
Radiator Grill: The radiator grill mass was reduced by using PolyOne® foaming agent. Mass was
reduced by 10% from 4.89 kg to 4.40 kg.
Bumper Guard (Front Door): The bumper guard (front door) mass was reduced by using PolyOne®
foaming agent. Mass was reduced by 10% from 1.14 kg to 1.03 kg.
Bumper Guard (Rear Door): The bumper guard (rear door) mass was reduced by using PolyOne®
foaming agent. Mass was reduced by 10% from 0.90 kg to 0.81 kg.
Tailgate Trim: The tailgate trim mass was reduced by using PolyOne® foaming agent. Mass was
reduced by 10% from 1.13 kg to 1.01 kg.
Cowl Grill: The cowl grill mass was reduced by using PolyOne® foaming agent. Mass was reduced
by 10% from 1.65 kg to 1.48 kg.
Cowl End Cap (LH): The cowl end cap (LH) mass was reduced by using PolyOne® foaming agent.
Mass was reduced by 10% from 0.087 kg to 0.078 kg.
Cowl End Cap (RH): The cowl end cap (RH) mass was reduced by using PolyOne® foaming agent.
Mass was reduced by 10% from 0.087 kg to 0.078 kg.
Exterior Mirror (Driver Side): The exterior mirror (driver side) mass was reduced by using
PolyOne® foaming agent. Mass was reduced by 10% from 1.86 kg to 1.68 kg.
Exterior Mirror (Passenger Side): The exterior mirror (passenger side) mass was reduced by using
PolyOne® foaming agent. Mass was reduced by 10% from 1.86 kg to 1.68 kg.
Front Fascia: The front fascia mass was reduced by using PolyOne® foaming agent. Mass was
reduced by 10% from 2.67 kg to 2.40 kg.
Front Fascia (Air Dam): The front fascia (air dam) mass was reduced by using PolyOne® foaming
agent. Mass was reduced by 10% from 0.75 kg to 0.67 kg.
Rear Bumper Cover (LH): The rear bumper cover (LH) mass was reduced by using PolyOne®
foaming agent. Mass was reduced by 10% from 0.47 kg to 0.42 kg.
Rear Bumper Cover (RH): The rear bumper cover (RH) mass was reduced by using PolyOne®
foaming agent. Mass was reduced by 10% from 0.48 kg to 0.43 kg.
Rear Bumper Cover (Center): The rear bumper cover (center) mass was reduced by using PolyOne®
foaming agent. Mass was reduced by 10% from 1.05 kg to 0.94 kg.
3.5.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis
The Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Body Group -C- System is very similar to the 1500.
-------
Image 3.5-1: Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Body Group -C-System
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
\
-------
3.5.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary
Table 3-34 summarizes the mass and cost impact of the Silverado 1500 Lightweighting
technologies as applied to the Silverado 2500. Total Body Group -C- System mass savings was
2.07 kg at a cost decrease of $3.23, or $1.56 per kg.
Table 3-34: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -C- System, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (•;
P,1ass
Reduction
Comp
"kg":.-.
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
"S" 12,
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Body System "C"
Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
0.8.8.
0.00
0-88
$0-96
$0-00
$0.96
$1.08
0 03%
Rear View Mirrors Subsystem
Front End Modules
Rear End Modules
TIT
..._...
0.00
'Too'"
..._...
0.65
T2JT
..._...
$1.64
W-M
——
$0-00
"so'og"
"$"616"
$1.64
""$0"30"'
'"$"o"33""
$2.51
"IJ-I?"
——..
0-02%
-pj%"
-——
2.07
(Decrease;
0.00
2.07
(Decrease)
$3.23
(Decrease!'
$0.00
$3.23
(Decrease'
$1.56
(Decrease)
0.07%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
2.07
2.14
96.7%
10.9%
0.0%
0.0% -7.7%
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
-------
3.5.1.3 System Scaling Analysis
The Silverado 2500 Body Group -C- system components were reviewed for compatibility with
Lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-35.
Table 3-35: System Scaling Analysis Body Group C System, Silverado 2500
Silverado 1500
System
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
Subsystem
Sub-Subsystem
Component/Assembly
Body Group C System
OS
03
08
08
08
08
08
09
09
23
23
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
01
02
02
07
15
15
15
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
Radiator Grill
Bumper Guard - Front Door
Bumper Guard - Rear Door
Tailgate Trim
Cowl Grill
Cowl End Cap - LH
Cowl End Cap - RH
Exterior Mirror - Driver Side
Exterior Mirror- Passenger Side
Bumper Corner - LH
Bumper Corner Trim - LH
Bumper Corner - RH
Bumper Corner Trim - RH
Front Fascia
Front Fascia - Air Dam
Rear Bumper Cover - LH
Rear Bumper Cover - RH
Rear Bumper Cover - CTR
Base
Mass
40.48
4.89
1.15
090
1 .13
1 65
009
009
1.87
1.87
1 12
005
1 12
0.046
2.67
075
047
048
1.05
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
2.14
0.49
0.11
0.09
0 11
0 17
001
0.01
0.19
0.19
0 11
0.01
0.11
0.01
0.27
0.08
0 OS
005
0.11
%of
Mass
Savings
Hew
Tech
5%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
11%
10%
11%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
3 35
1.30
1 30
0 90
1 63
0 10
009
326
326
209
0.68
0 73
078
1.00
Mass
Savings
Hew
Tech
2.07
0.38
0.13
0.10
0 09
0 16
001
0.01
0.33
033
0.21
0.07
0 08
0.08
0.10
Notes
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply: Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply: Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES applv Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES applv Use Fclvone foa~mq agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply: Part not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply: Part not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply: Part not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Silverado 2500 series included the
radiator grill; bumper guard (front door); bumper guard (rear door); tailgate trim; cowl grill; cowl
end cap (LH); cowl end cap (RH); exterior mirror (driver side); exterior mirror (passenger side);
front fascia; front fascia (air dam); rear bumper cover (LH); rear bumper cover (RH); and rear
bumper cover (center).
Radiator Grill
Shown in Image 3.5-2 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series radiator grills. The component masses
are 4.89 kg for the 1500 versus 3.85 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology used in the
radiator grill was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 radiator grill
mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-35).
-------
Image 3.5-2: Radiator Grill for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Bumper Guard (Front Door)
Shown in Image 3.5-3 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series bumper guards (front door). The
component masses were 1.15 kg for the 1500 versus 1.30 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting
Technology used was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 bumper guard
(front door) mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-35).
Image 3.5-3: Bumper Guard -Front Doorfor the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Bumper Guard (Rear Door)
Shown in Image 3.5-4 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series bumper guards (rear door). The
component masses were 0.90 kg for the 1500 versus 1.30 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting
Technology used in the bumper guard (rear door) was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to
reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component design and material, only a portion of
the percentage of the Silverado 1500 bumper guard (rear door) mass reduction can be applied to the
2500. (Refer to Table 3-35).
Image 3.5-4: Bumper Guard -Rear Door for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Tailgate Trim
Shown in Image 3.5-5 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series tailgate trim. The component masses
were 1.13 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.90 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology
used in the tailgate trim was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due
to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 tailgate trim
mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-35).
Image 3.5—5: Tailgate Trim for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Cowl Grill
Shown in Image 3.5-6 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series cowl grills. The component masses
were 1.65 kg for the 1500 versus 1.63 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology used in the
cowl grill was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities
in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 cowl grill mass reduction
can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-35).
-------
Image 3.5-6: Cowl Grill for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Cowl End Cap (RH/LH)
Shown in Image 3.5-7 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series cowl end caps (RH/LH). Component
masses were 0.18 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.19 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting
Technology used was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 cowl end cap
mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-35).
Image 3.5-7: Cowl End Cap - RH and LHfor the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
^P r
Exterior Mirror (Driver and Passenger Side)
Shown in Image 3.5-8 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series exterior mirrors (driver and passenger
side). Component masses were 3.74 kg for the 1500 versus 6.52 kg for the 2500. The
Lightweighting Technology used was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by
10%. Due to similarities in component material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 exterior
mirror mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-35).
Image 3.5-8: Exterior Mirror (Driver and Passenger Side) for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Front Fascia
Shown in Image 3.5-9 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series front fascia. Component masses were
2.67 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 2.09 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology used
in the front fascia was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to
-------
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 front fascia
mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-35).
Image 3.5-9: Front Fascia for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Front Fascia (Air Dam)
Shown in Image 3.5-10 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series front fascia's (air dam). Component
masses were 0.75 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.68 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting
Technology used in the front fascia (air dam) is to use PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to
reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of
the Silverado 1500 front fascia (air dam) mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table
3-35).
Image 3.5-10: Front Fascia -Air Dam for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Rear Bumper Cover (RH/LH)
Shown in Image 3.5-11 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series rear bumper covers (RH/LH).
Component masses are 0.95 kg for the 1500 versus 1.56 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting
Technology used in the rear bumper cover was to use PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to
reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of
the Silverado 1500 rear bumper cover (right and LH) mass reduction can be applied to the 2500.
(Refer to Table 3-35).
Image 3.5-11: Rear Bumper Cover (LH/RH) for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Rear Bumper Cover - Center
Shown in Image 3.5-12 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series Rear Bumper Covers (center).
Component masses were 1.05 kg for the 1500 versus 1.00 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting
Technology used in the rear bumper cover (center) was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to
reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of
the Silverado 1500 rear bumper cover (center) mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to
Table 3-3 5).
Image 3.5-12: Rear Bumper Cover for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
3.5.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500
Table 3-36 summarizes the Silverado 1500 and 2500 Lightweighting results. The majority of the
components were visually the same among the two Body Group -C- Systems.
Table 3-36: Body Group -C- System Comparison, Silverado 2500
-------
CO
•-=:
VI
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg"CD
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" .;-;
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"IP»
* (2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
ody System "C"
Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
0.21
0.00
0.21
$0.20
SO 00
$0.20
SO.96
0.01%
"""
Be.a.r Y!ew. Mirrors
Front End Modules
Rear End Modules
0.28
I'-iT
..._...
q.qo
1'IT
.................
0.28
$0.71
'"sols'"
——
$0.00
so'qo
"$"b"."b"o"
$0.71
'"$OL45"
——
$2.51
I'ibT
•——
0.02%
——
.
1.17
[.Decrease}
0.00
1.17
(Decrease)
$1.65
(Decrease;
$0.00
$1.65
(Decrease)
$1.42
(Decrease)
0.05%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
1.17
2.14
54.5%
0.0%
0.0%
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
3.5.2.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Body Group -C- components were reviewed for compatibility with
Lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-38.
-------
Table 3-38: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -C- System, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1500
09
*<
re.
Subsystem
Sub-Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
03 Body Group C System
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
08
03
08
08
08
08
08
09
09
23
23
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
01
02
02
07
15
15
15
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
Radiator Grill
Bumper Guard - Front Door
Bumper Guard - Rear Door
Tailgate Trim
Cowl Grill
Cowl End Cap - LH
Cowl End Cap - RH
Exterior Mirror - Driver Side
Exterior Mirror - Passenger Side
Bumper Corner - LH
Bumper Corner Trim - LH
Bumper Corner- RH
Bumper Corner Trim - RH
Front Fascia
Front Fascia -Air Dam
Rear Bumper Cover - LH
Rear Bumper Cover - RH
Rear Bumper Cover - CTR
Base
Mass
40.48
4.89
1.15
0.90
1 .13
1 65
0.09
0.09
1 87
1.87
1 12
005
1 .12
0.046
267
075
0.47
0.48
1 05
Mass
Savings
Hew
Tech
2.14
0.49
0.11
0.09
0 .11
0 .17
0.01
0.01
0.19
0.19
0.11
0.01
0.11
0.01
027
008
0.05
0.05
0 11
%of
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
5%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
11%
10%
11%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
1.60
0.49
235
2.35
4.43
0.61
060
1.12
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
1.17
0 .16
0.05
0 14
0 14
044
0.06
0.06
011
Notes
Tech DOES apply: Use Polyone foa-ung agent
Tech DOES apply: Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply: Part not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply: Part not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply: Part not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply: Part not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply: Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply: Part not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply: Part not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply: Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply: Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply: Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Mercedes Sprinter include the radiator
grill, bumper guard (front door), exterior mirror (driver side), exterior mirror (passenger side), front
fascia, rear bumper cover (LH), rear bumper cover (RH), and rear bumper cover (center).
Radiator Grill
Shown in Image 3.5-13 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi radiator grill.
Component masses were 4.89 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 1.60 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter
311 CDi. The Lightweighting Technology used in the radiator grill was PolyOne® foaming agent
in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 radiator grill mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer
to Table 3-38).
-------
Image 3.5-13: Radiator Grill for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2mac 1.com)
Bumper Guard (Front Door)
Shown in Image 3.5-14 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi bumper guard (front
door). Component masses were 1.15 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.49 kg for the Mercedes
Sprinter 311 CDi. The Lightweighting Technology used in the bumper guard (front door) was
PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 bumper guard mass reduction can be
applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-38).
Image 3.5-14: Bumper Guard (Front Door) for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Exterior Mirror (Driver and Passenger Side)
Shown in Image 3.5-15 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Exterior Mirror -
Driver and Passenger Side. Component masses were 3.74 kg for the 1500 versus 4.70 kg for the
Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. The Lightweighting Technology used in the Exterior Mirrors was
PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component
design and material, only a portion of the percentage of the Silverado 1500 exterior mirror mass
reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-38).
-------
Image 3.5-15: Exterior Mirror (Driver Side shown; Passenger Side similar) for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter
311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Front Fascia
Shown in Image 3.5-16 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Front Fascia.
Component masses were 2.67 kg for the 1500 versus 4.43 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi.
The Lightweighting Technology used in the Front Fascia was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic
to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage
of the Silverado 1500 front fascia mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table
3-38).
Image 3.5-16: Front Fascia for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. andwww.A2macl.com)
Rear Bumper Cover - RH/LH
Shown in Image 3.5-17 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Rear Bumper Cover
- RH and LH. Component masses were 0.95 kg for the 1500 versus 1.21 kg for the Mercedes
Sprinter 311 CDi. The Lightweighting Technology used in the rear bumper cover was PolyOne®
foaming agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component design
and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 rear bumper cover (RH/LH) mass reduction can
be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-38).
Image 3.5-17: Rear Bumper Cover (LH/RH)for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Rear Bumper Cover - Center
Shown in Image 3.5-18 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Rear Bumper
Covers - Center. Component masses were 1.05 kg for the 1500 versus 1.12 kg for the Mercedes
-------
Sprinter 311 CDi. The Lightweighting Technology used in the Rear Bumper Cover - Center was
PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 rear bumper cover (center) mass
reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-38).
Image 3.5-18: Rear Bumper Cover -Centerfor the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
\
-------
3.5.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi
Table 3-39 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 Lightweighting technologies
applied to the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. Total Body Group -C- System mass savings is 1.62 kg at a
cost decrease of $2.27, or $1.40 per kg.
Table 3-39: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -C- System, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" :-;
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg"(D
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" :•
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
•T<2>
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
,,„,,,
00
00
Body System "C"
....[I.n.m. ?.n.d 9.[n.a.!T!e..nM!P..n.
Rear Vieiv Mirrors Suisystem
Front End Modules
Rear End Modules
0.40
0.00
0.40
SO.38
$0.00
$0.38
$0.95
0 02%
0.39
P-52
"632
0. Op
Too
""Ob""
0.39
P-52
T."32""
$0.97
l?-53
""$O'9"
$0.00
$CLpO
sblb"
$0.97
M-53
Tbl'aT
$2.51
TFpJ"
..._-....
0.02%
Tp2%"
••••-••---
1.62
(Decrease)
0.00
1.62
$2.27
(Decrease)
$0.00
$2.27
(Decrease)
$1.40
(Decrease)
0.07%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, Hew Technology "kg" 1.62
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg" 2.14
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 75.9%
0.0%
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component does n't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
3.5.3.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Renault Master 2.3 DCi Body Group -C- system components were reviewed for compatibility
with Lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed below.
-------
Table 3-40: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -C- System, Renault Master
Silverado 1500
01
*<
SI
Subsystem
Sub-Subsystem
Component/Assembly
03 Body Group C System
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
08
08
03
08
03
03
03
09
09
23
23
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
01
02
02
07
15
15
15
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
Radiator Grill
Bumper Guard - Front Door
Bumper Guard - Rear Door
Tailgate Trim
Cowl Grill
Cowl End Cap - LH
Cowl End Cap - RH
Exterior Mirror - Driver Side
Exterior Mirror - Passenger Side
Bumper Corner- LH
Bumper Corner Trim - LH
Bumper Corner - RH
Bumper Corner Trim - RH
Front Fascia
Front Fascia - Air Dam
Rear Bumper Cover - LH
Rear Bumper Cover - RH
Rear Bumper Cover - CTR
Base
Mass
40.48
4.89
1 15
0.90
1.13
1 65
0.09
0.09
1.87
1.87
1.12
0.05
1.12
0.046
2.67
0.75
0.47
0.48
1.05
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
2.14
0.49
0.11
0.09
0.11
0-17
0.01
0-01
0-19
0-19
0.11
0-01
0.11
0-01
0-27
0-08
0.05
0-05
0.11
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
5%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
11%
10%
11%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
Setecr Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
253
033
1 11
1 93
1 93
523
063
063
1 92
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
1.62
0.25
003
011
0 19
0 19
0.52
O.OG
006
0.19
Notes
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does HOT apply: Part not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply. Part not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does HOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply: Use Poiyone foaming agent
Tech does HOT apply. Part not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply: Part not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply: Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does HOT apply: Part not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply: Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply: Use Polyone foaming agent
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Renault Master 2.3 DCi included the
radiator grill, bumper guard (front door), cowl grill, exterior mirror (driver side), exterior mirror
(passenger side), front fascia, front fascia (air dam), rear bumper cover (LH), rear bumper cover
(RH), and rear bumper cover (center).
Radiator Grill
Shown in Image 3.5-19 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi radiator grills.
Component masses were 4.89 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 2.53 kg for the Renault Master 2.3
DCi. The Lightweighting Technology used in the radiator grill was PolyOne® foaming agent in the
plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 radiator grill mass reduction can be applied to the Renault.
Image 3.5-19: Radiator Grill for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Bumper Guard - Front Door
Shown in Image 3.5-20 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi bumper guards (front
door). Component masses were 1.15 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.33 kg for the Renault
-------
Master 2.3 DCi. The Lightweighting Technology used in the bumper guard (front door) was
PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 bumper guard - front door mass
reduction can be applied to the Renault.
Image 3.5-20: Bumper Guard (Front Door) for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Cowl Grill
Shown in Image 3.5-21 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi cowl grills. Component
masses were 1.13 kg for the 1500 versus 1.11 kg for the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. The
Lightweighting Technology used in the cowl grill was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to
reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of
the Silverado 1500 cowl gill mass reduction can be applied to the Renault.
Image 3.5-21: Cowl Grill for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Exterior Mirror (Driver and Passenger Side)
Shown in Image 3.5-22 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi exterior mirrors (driver
and passenger side). Component masses are 3.73 kg for the 1500 versus 3.85 kg for the Renault
Master 2.3 DCi. The Lightweighting Technology used was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic
to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component material, full percentage of the
Silverado 1500 exterior mirror mass reduction can be applied to the Renault.
-------
Image 3.5-22: Exterior Mirror (Driver side shown; passenger side similar) for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3
DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Front Fascia
Shown in Image 3.5-23 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi front fascia. Component
masses were 2.67 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 5.23 kg for the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. The
Lightweighting Technology used in the front fascia was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to
reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component material, full percentage of the Silverado
1500 front fascia mass reduction can be applied to the Renault..
Image 3.5-23: Front Fascia for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Rear Bumper Cover (RH/LH)
Shown in Image 3.5-24 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi rear bumper covers
(RH/LH). Component masses were 0.95kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 1.26 kg for the Renault
Master 2.3 DCi. The Lightweighting Technology used was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic
to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage
of the Silverado 1500 rear bumper cover (RH/LH) mass reduction can be applied to the Renault.
Image 3.5-24: Rear Bumper Cover -RH and LH Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Rear Bumper Cover - Center
Shown in Image 3.5-25 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi rear bumper covers
(center). Component masses were 1.05 kg for the 1500 versus 1.92 kg for the Renault Master 2.3
DCi. The Lightweighting Technology used in the rear bumper cover (center) was PolyOne®
-------
foaming agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component design
and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 rear bumper cover (center) mass reduction can
be applied to the Renault..
Image 3.5-25: Rear Bumper Cover (Center) for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
3.6 BODY GROUP -D- SYSTEM
'^^^^M
3.6.1 Silverado 1500 Summary
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Body Group -D- System includes the Glass (Glazing), Frame, and
Mechanism Subsystem; Handles, Locks, Latches and Mechanisms Subsystem; and Wipers and
Washers Subsystem.
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 analysis identified mass reduction alternatives and cost implications
for the Body Group -D- System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements
of the baseline vehicle.
\
-------
Table 3-41 provides a summary of mass reduction and cost impact for select sub-subsystems
evaluated. The total mass savings found on the Body Group -D- System mass was reduced by 4.50
kg (8.85%). This decreased cost by $2.30, or $0.51 per kg. Mass reduction for this system reduced
vehicle curb weight by 0.19%.
-------
Table 3-41: Body Group -D- System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500
V)
»«E
0^
OJ
3
03
"03
03
03
03
03
03
of
03
03
03
03"
03
03
Subsystem
00
_
11
11
.........
11
14
"14
14
14
........
16
16
16
Sub-Subsystem
00
"6"b"
01
05
"i'3"
14
00
_
04
05
_
"do"
01
99
Description
Body Group D
Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem
Windshield and Front Quarter Window (Fixed)
Back Window Assy
Front Side Door Glass
Rear Side Door Glass
Handles, Locks, Latches and Mechanisms Subsystem
Hood Latch & Actuation
Side Door Latches
Rear Closure Latches
Outer Handles and Actuation
Wipers and Washers Subsystem
Wiper Assembly Front
Misc.
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Mass
"kg"
3916
15.87
6,59
els"
875
5.66
l"."95
2.19
0.53
0.99
5.61
4.63
0.97
50.86
Mass
Reduction
"kg" ED
4A3
1.59
1.34
old
1.50
0.00
did
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.07
4.50
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
MIDMC
"$" !;2}
2™23"
0.80
0.68
ol'd"
0.76
0.00
old
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.06
2.30
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
'•$/kg"ra
oisb"
0.50
0.50
old
0.51
0.00
did
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.84
0.00
0.84
0.51
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
"%"
iTm
10.02%
20.39%
old'%
17.10%
0.00%
bld'%"
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.32%
0.00%
7.61%
8.85%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0/19%
0.07%
0.06%
old'%
0.06%
0.00%
dlo'%"
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.19%
(1) "-«-" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Mass savings opportunities were identified for the following components: windshield and front
quarter window (fixed), back window assembly, rear side door glass, washer tank assembly.
Windshield: The windshield mass was reduced by replacing 2.27 mm thick glass with 1.6 mm thick
using the Pilkington® laminated glass process. Mass was reduced 10%, from 15.87 kg to 14.28 kg.
Back Window: The back window mass was reduced by replacing 4.00 mm thick glass with 3.15
mm thick using the Pilkington® laminated glass process. Mass was reduced 20.39%, from 6.59 kg
to 5.25 kg.
Rear Side Door Glass: The rear side door glass mass was reduced by replacing 3.85 mm thick glass
with 3.15 mm thick using the Pilkington® laminated glass process. Mass was reduced 17.10%, from
8.75 kg to 7.25 kg.
Washer Tank Assembly: The washer tank assembly mass was reduced by using PolyOne® foaming
agent. Mass was reduced 7.6%, from .97 kg to .90 kg.
-------
3.6.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis
The Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Body Group -D- System was very similar to the 1500; although, the
1500 used for analysis was a crew cab and the 2500 used was an extended cab.
Image 3.6-1: Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Body Group -D-System
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
3.6.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary
Table 3-42 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 Lightweighting technologies
applied to the Silverado 2500. Total Body Group -D- System mass savings is 3.80 kg at a cost
decrease of $1.94, or $0.51 per kg.
Table 3-42: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -D- System, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (.)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" ;•
Cost
Impact
New Tech
•T(2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
•V (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Body System "D"
Glass (Glazing). Frame, and Mechanism
Subsystem
3.73
0.00
3.73
$1.88
$0.00
$1.88
$0.50
0.12%
Handles, Locks, Latches and Mechanisms
Subsystem
Wipers and Washers Subsystem
0.00
0.00
000
SO 00
SO 00
$0.00
$000
0 00%
0.07
0.00
0.07
$0.06
$0.00
$0.06
$0.84
0.00%
3.80
(Decrease)
0.00
3.80
(Decrease)
$1.94
(Decrease)
$0.00
$1.94
(Decrease]
$0.51
(Decrease.';
0.12%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
0.0%
3.80
4.50
84.4%
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component does n't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
-------
3.6.1.3 System Scaling Analysis
The Silverado 2500 Body Group D system components were reviewed for compatibility with
Lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-43.
Table 3-43: System Scaling Analysis Body Group D System, Silverado 2500
Silverado 1500
*<
jj
a
^
M
—
•
*<
M
Cfi
c
a-
Cfl
c
c-
M
*<
Component/Assembly
03 Body Group D System
03
03
03
03
11
11
11
16
01
05
14
99
Windshield and Front Quarter Window (Fixed)
Back Window Assy
Rear Side Door Glass
Washer Tank Assembly
Base
Mass
50.86
15.87
6.59
8.75
0.74
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
4.50
1590
1.343
1.496
0074
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
9%
10%
20%
17%
10%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
15.30
635
5.27
0.73
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
3.80
1.53
1.29
090
0.07
Notes
Tech DOES apply: Thin glass using Pilkington window applications
Tech DOES apply: Thin glass using Pilkington window applications
Tech DOES apply Thin glass using Pilkington window applications
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the 2500 series Silverado included the
windshield and front quarter window (fixed), back window assembly, rear side door glass, washer
tank assembly.
Windshield
Shown in Image 3.6-2 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 windshields. Component masses were 15.9
kgforthe 1500 versus 15.3 kgforthe2500. The Lightweighting Technology used in the windshield
was to replace 2.27 mm thick glass with 1.6 mm thick using the Pilkington® laminated glass process.
Due to similarities in component design and material, only a portion of the percentage of the
Silverado 1500 windshield mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-43).
Image 3.6-2: Windshield for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Back Window
Shown in Image 3.6-3 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series back windows. Component masses
were 6.58 kg for the 1500 versus 6.15 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology used in the
back window was to replace 4.00 mm thick glass with 3.15mm thick using the Pilkington®
laminated glass process. Due to similarities in component design and material, only a portion of the
percentage of the Silverado 1500 back window mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer
to Table 3-43).
-------
Image 3.6-3: Back Window for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Rear Side Door Glass
Shown in Image 3.6-4 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series rear side door glass. Component
masses were 8.75 kg for the 1500 versus 5.27 kg for the 2500. The 1500 and the 2500 series Rear
Side Door Glass the 1500 used for analysis was a crew cab and the 2500 used was an extended cab.
The Lightweighting Technology used in the Rear Side Door Glass was to replace the 3.85 mm thick
glass with 3.15mm thick using the Pilkington® laminated glass process. Due to similarities in
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 rear side door glass mass
reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-43).
Image 3.6-4: Rear door glass for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Washer Tank Assembly
Shown in Image 3.6-5 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series washer tank assembly. Component
masses were 0.74 kg for the 1500 versus 0.72 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology
used in the washer tank assembly was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by
7.6%. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500
washer tank assembly mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-43).
-------
Image 3.6-5: Washer Tank Assembly for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
3.6.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500
Table 3-44 summarizes the Silverado 1500 and 2500 Body Group -D- system Lightweighting
results.
Table 3-44: Body Group -D-System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500
w
*<
w
4.50
3.80
Pv1ass
Reduction
Cornp
"kg" (i>
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg"
4.50
3.80
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
8.85%
6.20%
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"
$2.30
$1.94
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" <2>
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
$2.30
$1.94
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
$0.51
$0.51
-------
3.6.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
Table 3-45 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 Lightweighting technologies
applied to the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. Total Body Group -D- mass savings is 2.14 kg at a cost
decrease of $1.10, or $.51 per kg.
Table 3-45: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -D- System, Mercedes Sprinter
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (1)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (D
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg"(D
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
M<£M
* (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
""(£""
* (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
BodySystem"D"
11
00
Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism
^Subsystem
2.06
0.00
2.06
$1.04
$0.00
$1.04
$0.50
0.10%
14
00
Handles, Locks, Latches and Mechanisms
Subsystem
0.00
0.00
0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00%
16
00
0.07
0.00
0.07
$0.06
$0.00
$0.06
$0.84
0.00%
2.14
(Decrease)
0.00
2.14
(Decrease)
$1.10
(Decrease)
$0.00
$1.10
(Decrease)
$0.51
(Decrease)
0.10%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
2.14
4.50
47.5%
0.0%
-10.5%
0.0%
I % Saved, technology applies
l % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
I % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
-------
3.6.2.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Body Group -D- components were reviewed for compatibility with
Lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-46.
Table 3-46: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -D- System, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1 500
*<
M
a
=
a)
(T
B
*<
0)
3
(ft
c
D"
CO
c
cr
M
*<
3
Component/Assembly
03 Body Group D System
03
03
03
03
11
11
11
16
01
05
14
99
Windshield and Front Quarter Window (Fixed)
Back Window Assy
Rear Side Door Glass
Washer Tank Assembly
Base
Mass
50.86
15.87
6.59
8.75
0.74
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
4.50
1.590
1343
1.49G
0.074
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
9%
10%
20%
17%
10%
Se/ecr Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
no
no
yes
Base
Mass
20.58
0.75
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
2.14
2.06
0.07
Notes
Tech DOES apply Thin glass using Pilkington window applications
Tech does NOT apply. Part not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply: Part not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply: Use Polyone foaming agent
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Mercedes Sprinter include the
Windshield and Washer Tank Assembly.
Windshield
Shown in Image 3.6-6 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi windshields.
Component masses were 15.9 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 20.6 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter
311 CDi. The Lightweighting Technology used in the windshield was to replace the 2.27 mm thick
glass with 1.6 mm thick using the Pilkington® laminated glass process. Due to similarities in
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 windshield mass reduction
can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-46).
Image 3.6-6: Windshield for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
-------
Washer Tank Assembly
Shown in Image 3.6-7 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi washer tank
assemblies. Component masses were 0.74 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.75 kg for the
Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. The Lightweighting Technology used in the washer tank was
PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 washer tank assembly mass reduction
can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-46).
Image 3.6-7: Washer Tank for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
-------
3.6.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi
Table 3-47 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 Lightweighting technologies
applied to the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. Total Body Group -D- system mass savings is 2.18 kg at a
cost decrease of $1.12, or $0.51 per kg.
Table 3-47: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -D- System, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;•
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" :•
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"S/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Body System "D"
Glass (Glazing). Frame, and Mechanism
Subsystem
2.12
0.00
2.12
$1.07
$0.00
$1.07
$0.50
0.09%
Handles, Locks. Latches and Mechanisms
Subsystem
Wipers and Washers Subsystem
0.00
Tbff
0.00
TW"
0.00
Toe""
$0.00
"W.Q5"
$0.00
$blb"
$0.00
Ibis""
$0.00
Tb".84"
0.00%
2.18
(Decrease)
0.00
2.18
(Decrease)
$1.12
(Decrease)
$0.00
$1.12
(Decrease;
$0.51
(Decrease)
0.09%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
2.18
4.50
48.5%
0.0%
0.0%
-11.5%
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
• % Lost, technology reduced impact
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
-------
3.6.3.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Renault Master 2.3 DCi Body Group -D- system components were reviewed for compatibility
with Lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-48.
Table 3-48: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -D- System, Renault Master
Silverado 1500
-<
(0
(D
~
CO
IT
n
**.
H
3
fo
£
IT
CO
c
D"
(H
*<
3
Component/Assembly
03 Body Group D System
03
03
03
03
11
11
11
16
01
05
14
99
Windshield and Front Quarter Window (Fixed)
Back Window Assy
Rear Side Door Glass
Washer Tank Assembly
Base
Mass
50.86
15.87
659
8.75
0.74
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
4.50
1.590
1.343
1496
0.074
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
9%
10%
20%
17%
10%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
no
no
yes
Base
Mass
21.19
0.59
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
2.18
212
0.06
Notes
Tech DOES apply: Thin glass using Pilkington window applications
Tech does NOT apply: Part not on vehicle
~echdcesNO'rs"iv Part'iotcr.ehicle
Tech DOES apply: Use Polyone foaming agent
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Renault Master 2.3 DCi included the
windshield and washer tank assembly.
Windshield
Shown in Image 3.6-8 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi windshields. Component
masses are 15.9 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 21.2 kg for the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. The
Lightweighting Technology used in the windshield was to replace the 2.27 mm thick glass with 1.6
mm thick using the Pilkington® laminated glass process. Due to similarities in component design
and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 windshield mass reduction can be applied to the
Renault. (Refer to Table 3-48).
Image 3.6-8: Windshield for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Washer Tank Assembly
Shown in Image 3.6-9 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi Washer Tank.
Component masses are 0.74 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus .59 kg for the Renault Master 2.3 DCi
-------
respectively. The Lightweighting Technology used in the Washer Tank is to use PolyOne® foaming
agent in the plastic to reduce the mass by 10%. Due to similarities in component design and
material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 washer tank assembly mass reduction can be applied
to the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-48).
Image 3.6-9: Washer Tank for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
-------
3.7 SUSPENSION SYSTEM
3.7.1 Silverado 1500 Summary
This summary details FEV's work and findings relative to the Suspension System to prove the
design concept, cost effectiveness, and manufacturing feasibility that can meet the function and
performance of the baseline vehicle (2011 Chevrolet Silverado). Table 3-49 is a summary of the
calculated mass reduction and cost impact for each sub-subsystem evaluated. This project recorded
a system mass reduction of 30.5% (92 kg system mass reduction) at a cost increase of $2.00 per kg
($183.78 increase). Furthermore, the contribution of the suspension system to the overall vehicle
mass reduction is 3.85%.
Table 3-49: Suspension System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500
GO
•<
2.
-------
Lower Control Arm: The mass reduction idea for the lower control arms was to change the
component material from steel to aluminum. The individual baseline component mass was 9.55 kg
and the redesign mass was 5.70 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 7.70 kg, or 40.31%,
compared to the steel units.
In 2009, General Motors offered two XFE (eXtra Fuel Economy) models for the Chevrolet
Silverado and GMC Sierra that included, among other fuel saving ideas, aluminum lower control
arms. The aluminum control arms were eventually switched back to cast iron due to cost reduction
efforts. GM then announced that the 2014 Silverado would come equipped with aluminum control
arms and aluminum knuckles.
Upper Control Arm: The mass reduction ideas for the upper control arms were to normalize the
control arm based on the 2012 Dodge Durango, and then change the component material from
forged steel to cast magnesium.
The normalizing process compared the Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of the Durango to the GVW
of the Silverado and adjusted the mass of the Silverado control arm, up or down, based on the ratios
of the two vehicles GVW and the component mass of the Durango control arm. As a result of this
normalization process the baseline mass of the Silverado control arm was reduced by 1.72 kg.
The individual baseline component mass was 2.28 kg and the redesign mass 0.759 kg, resulting in
an overall mass savings of 3.04 kg for both arms, or 66.7%, compared to the steel units.
General Motors China Advanced Technical Center (ATC) announced in May 2012 that they had
successfully casted a prototype magnesium alloy control arm and noted that the part is 30% lighter
than a similar part made of aluminum.
It is understood that most OEMs in the United States are reluctant to use magnesium due in part to
price volatility, availability; manufacturing plants were not facilitated for magnesium processing,
and recycling concerns.
Additionally, in 2001, the U.S. Department of Commerce (DoC) imposed anti-dumping duties
(ADD) on magnesium in granular form imported from the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Dumping duties of 24.67% to 305.56% were determined and maintained during the first sunset
review in 2006 and the second sunset review, which concluded on September 12, 2012.
Magnesium is used in the automotive and aeronautic industries. According to Asia Trade Watch,
"ADD on magnesium adversely affects the American auto industry and inflates U.S. magnesium
prices by approximately 50%. Increased costs have made American companies less competitive
and raised industry costs for meeting stricter fuel standards for vehicles."
Even with these concerns, magnesium represents a major opportunity for mass reduction that
European OEMs are embracing.
Steering Knuckle: The mass reduction idea for the steering knuckles was to change the base
component material from steel to aluminum. The individual baseline component mass was 7.67 kg,
and the redesign mass 3.73 kg. This resulted in an overall mass savings of 7.89 kg for both knuckles,
and 51.4% compared to the steel units.
The major component contributing to the mass reduction within the Rear Suspension Subsystem is
the rear leaf spring assembly.
Leaf Spring Assembly: The mass reduction idea for the rear leaf spring assemblies was to change
the base component material from steel to glass fiber reinforced plastic. The individual baseline
-------
component mass was 26.2 kg and the redesign mass 10.5 kg. This resulted in an overall mass
savings of 31.4 kg for either leaf spring assemblies, or 60.0% compared to the steel units.
Liteflex® LLC, a manufacturer of OEM composite leaf springs, has supplied composite leaf springs
since 1998 to support production requirements on the Sprinter commercial vehicles, namely the
NCV3 Sprinter. Other customers using Liteflex® composite leafs springs are the GM Corvette and
Land Rover. Liteflex® also produces composite leaf springs for heavy duty truck applications for
Kenworth, Peterbilt, Freightliner, and International.
Additionally, Liteflex® states "Suspension designers realized a 55% reduction in weight when
replacing two steel leaf springs with Liteflex® lightweight composite springs for a three-quarter ton
4x4 pickup. The original, all-steel design tipped the scales at 69 pounds while the hybrid steel-and-
composite version weighed in at just 31 pounds."
The major component contributing to the mass reduction within the Shock Absorber Subsystem is
the front strut coil spring.
Front Strut Coil Spring: The mass reduction idea for the Front Strut Coil Springs was to change the
base component material from steel to the Mubea High-Strength Low-Alloy Steel (HSLA) steel
coil. The individual baseline component mass was 5.35 kg and the redesign mass 2.73 kg. This
resulted in an overall mass savings of 5.60 kg for both springs, and 50.62% compared to the steel
units.
The major components contributing to the mass reduction within the Wheels and Tires Subsystem
are the road wheels, road tires, spare wheel, and spare tire.
Road Wheels: The mass reduction idea for the road wheels was to change the base component
material from aluminum to ultra-Lightweight forged aluminum. The total baseline component mass
were 48.5 kg and the total redesign mass 38.8 kg. This resulted in an overall mass savings of 9.7 kg
for all four wheels, or 20.0% compared to the steel units.
Road Tires: The mass reduction idea for the road tires was to normalize the base tires to the 2007
Ford F-150 road tires. The total baseline component mass was 69.5 kg and the redesign mass 59.5
kg. This resulted in an overall mass savings of 9.92 kg for all four tires, or 14.28% compared to the
Silverado road tires.
Spare Wheel: The mass reduction idea for the spare wheel was to change the base component
material from stamped steel to cast aluminum. The baseline component mass was 15.5 kg and the
redesign mass 7.12 kg. This resulted in an overall mass savings of 8.40 kg, or 54.1% compared to
the steel unit.
Spare Tire: The mass reduction idea for the spare tire was to normalize the base component to the
2006 Dodge Ram spare tire. The baseline component mass was 17.0 kg and the redesign mass 14.9
kg. This resulted in an overall mass savings of 2.10 kg, or 12.4% compared to the Silverado spare
tire.
3.7.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis
Front Suspension System: The Silverado 1500 front suspension system utilizes a coil-over shock
system with forged steel upper control arms, cast iron lower control arms, and a torsion bar system.
The 2500 front suspension system is independent with forged steel upper control arms and cast iron
lower control arms. A torsion bar is used instead of springs to allow for easy trim height adjustment.
-------
Rear Suspension System: The Silverado 2500 rear suspension system utilizes an asymmetrical
two-stage leaf-spring design that minimizes axle hop and enhances traction control efficiency.
Wheels and Tires: The Silverado 2500 comes standard with 17" machine-finish aluminum wheels
and 17" all-season tires.
3.7.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary
Table 3-50 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 Lightweighting technologies
applied to the Silverado 2500. Total suspension mass savings is 113.32 kg at a cost increase of
$243.15, or $1.83 per kg.
Table 3-50: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Suspension System, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" :•:
Pjlass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" :;•:
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Suspension System
Front Suspension Subsystem
Rear Suspension Subsystem
Shock Absorber Subsystem
38.56
3.53
42.08
442.45
$13.48
428.96
40.69
1.36%
3.00
""Mf"
..__..
63.67
p"qp
...__
4206.74
$ij"qp
413745"
$32.89
'"Woo""
——
4173.86
$p""qp
——-
42.73
"sg'oo"'
——
2.06%
""o"oo%"
——
.o
.. ).!!6..?. sybsy stern
Suspension Load Leveling Control Subsystem
Rear Suspension Modules Su-system
Front Suspension Modules Sucsystem
14.09
p""qp
"T-W"
b""b"o"
q.pq
o'°°
o'oo"
0.00
'"o'oo"
'"o'oo"'
$0.00
'"$o"po"
——
$p.oq
"$p"qp"'
——•
$0.00
"$q'oq"
"$b""b'o"
$0.00
"$q"'po"'
——
0.00%
"o"p"o%"'
——
113.32
(Decrease)
19.79
(Decrease)
133.10
(Decrease)
-$386.64
(Increase)
$143.49
(Decrease)
-$243.15
(Increase)
-$1.83
(Increase)
4.31%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
113.3
83.0
136.5%
0.0%
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
Mass savings could not be credited for components for which Lightweighting technologies did not
apply. One reason for this could be that the technology was already implemented. Some
components light weighted, as part of the 1500 Silverado analysis, do not exist in the 2500
suspension system, such as the front coil springs and rear leaf spring spacer blocks.
-------
3.7.1.3 System Scaling Analysis
The Silverado 2500 Suspension components were reviewed for compatibility with Lightweighting
technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-51.
Table 3-51: Suspension Components Scaling Analysis Results, Silverado 2500
Silverado 1500
09
M S-
! |
c
OJ
1
1
—
04 Suspension System
04 01
04 01
04 01
04 01
04 01
04 01
04 01
•U 01
04 01
04 01
04 Oil
04 01
04 01
04 01
04 01
04 01
04 01
04 01
J4 01
04 02
04 02
04 02
04 02
04 02
01 02
34 02
34 02
04 03
04 03
04 03
04 03
04 04
04 04
04 04
04 04
04 04
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
04
04
05
05
05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
01
Lfiw« Cent ol Arm LH
_: c -.:::: •:! • " LH Lonq Bushinq Asm
Lower Cont ol Arm LH Short Bushing Asm
Lower Cont ol Arm RH
Lower Cont ol Arm. RH Long Bushing Asm
Lower Cont ol Arm RH Short Bushing Asm
Upper Cont ol Arm. LH
. : :e 3:ri : - _- Z-.T B.ifhing Asm
Jpjje :2cntolArm LH Rear Bushing Asm
Upper Ball Joint Asm, LH
Upper Cont ol Arm. RH
Upper Cont ol Arm RH Front Bushinq Asm
Upper Cont ol Arm RH Rear Bushinq Asm
Upper Ball Joint Asm RH
Knuckle. LH
Knuckle RH
-rent Stabilizer Bar - Mounting Bushings
Front Stabilizer Bar - Mounting Brackets
Front Stabilizer Bar - Mountinq Bolts
Leaf Spring Asm. LH
Leaf Spring Asm. RH
Saddle Bracket LH
Saddle Bracket RH
Leaf Spring Spacer Block LH
_T^ -3 i. 3 .-.; Blocn RH
-. - . • : =: T- -.5" LH
Shackle Bracket Asm RH
Lo'/ver Strut Mount A.sm LH
3:i 3 :nng LH
Lower Strut Mount Asm RH
Coil Spring RH
Road Wheel
Road Tire
Lug-Wheel Huts
Spare Wheel
Spare Tire
Base Mass
301.2
9.63
039
030
947
039
0.30
228
029
029
0.58
2.28
029
029
0.58
7.67
767
0.16
046
0 12
26.22
2622
130
130
151
1 51
0.85
0.85
1.16
5.53
1 16
553
4851
6945
1.01
14.54
1696
Mass
Savings
New Tech
83.0
4.53
0 16
0.13
437
016
013
1 53
0 12
0.12
0.05
1.53
0.12
012
0.05
394
394
0.02
022
006
1573
15.73
081
081
094
094
0.40
040
0.42
280
042
2.80
606
5.60
050
5.30
209
•/. of Mass
Savings
New Tech
28%
47%
41%
41%
46%
41%
41%
67%
40%
40%
9%
67%
40%
40%
9%
51%
51%
14%
48%
50%
60%
60%
62%
62%
62%
62%
47%
47%
36%
51%
36%
51%
13%
8%
60%
36%
12%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Ho
Yes
No
No
llo
Mo
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Base
Mass
1345
050
039
1856
050
039
374
0.54
054
000
376
054
054
000
13.35
13.80
025
060
035
4762
4762
1 74
1 74
000
000
145
145
0.00
000
000
000
5443
000
2.01
1724
000
Mass
Savings
863
021
016
856
0.21
0.16
250
022
0.22
000
2.61
022
022
000
7 12
709
004
029
0 17
28.57
28.57
1 08
1 08
000
000
069
069
000
000
0.00
0-00
680
000
1.01
628
0.00
Base
Mass
1345
050
039
1356
050
039
374
0.54
0.54
3.76
054
0.54
13.85
1380
025
0.60
035
762
762
74
74
45
45
54.43
2 01
17.24
Mass
Savings
New Tech
113.3
368
021
016
8.56
0.21
0 16
250
022
022
251
0.22
022
7 12
709
0.04
0.29
0.17
28.57
2857
1 08
1 08
0 69
069
680
1.01
628
Notes
Tec DOESacc-iy Use foiqed aluminum
Tec DOES apply Use plastic spacer & nylon bushing
Tec t DOES apply Use plastic spacer & nvlon bushing
Tec DOES apply Use forged aluminum
Tec I DOES apply Use plastic spacer & nylon bushing
Tec i DOES apply Usj j:". :. - '^i & nylon bushing
Tec i DOES apply Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum space & nylon bushing
Tech DOES apply. Use aluminum space & nylon bushing
Tech does NOT apply Tire 1500 ball join was normalized. No
kno'jvn co;",:ere-:.le c-hi:!e for the 2500
Tech DOES apply. Use cast maqnesium
Tech DOES apply: Use aluminum space & nylon bushing
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum space & nylon bushinq
Tech does NOT apply The 1500 ball join was normalized No
known comparable vehicle for the 2500.
TT.-| DOES : . l.'I.r •' ' IT.' :-' I Him
T~:h DOES - _ ..-.- i.^ed aluminum
Tech DOES -.. . JSG - ::n bushings
Tec DOES 3:-; v Use aiu " nir" -3 E.mqle Colt ciesiqn
Tec DOES. ?.::::•, Uie single Colt design
Tec DOES apply Use glass fiber reinforced plastic
Tec DOES apply: Use glass fiber reinforced plastic
Tec t DOES apply Use cast magnesium
Tec i DOES apply Use cast magnesium
Tec i does NOT apply Hot on yehicle
Tec does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tec DOES 3CO', U-rE'r .- 7 .1 -mum
Tec DOES ac-c'v y^e_st^mj3ed_ajummurr!
Tec does NOT apply Not on '.ehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply: Use lightweight aluminum monoblock wheel
Tech does NOT apply The 1500 tire was normalized No known
comperable vehicle forthe 2500
T--.li DOE 3. - : - ~ 7 - nu '
Tech DOES .- . . . Jse cjed aluminum
Tech does NOT apply The 1500 tire was normalized. No known
comperable vehicle forthe 2500
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the 2500 series Silverado include the Upper
Control Arms, Lower Control Arms, Knuckles, Leaf Spring Assemblies, Road Wheels, and Spare
Wheel.
Lower Control Arm
As shown in Image 3.7-1, the Silverado 1500 series suspension system used a similar lower control
arm design as the 2500 series. Component masses were 9.63 kg versus 18.45 kg, respectively.
Image 3.7-2 is an aluminum billet for the 2009 Chevrolet Silverado lower control arm, which
represents the mass reduction idea associated with this component. Due to similarities in component
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 lower control arm mass reduction can be
applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-51).
-------
Image 3.7-1: Lcrwer Control Arm for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
Image 3.7-2: Aluminum Lower Control Arm
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
-------
Upper Control Arm
As shown in Image 3.7-3, the Silverado 1500 series suspension system used a similar upper control
arm design as the 2500 series. Component masses were 2.3 kg versus 3.7 kg, respectively. The
redesign idea for the upper control arm was to cast it out of magnesium, shown in Image 3.7-4.
Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 lower
control arm mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-51).
Image 3.7-3: Upper Control Arm for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
Image 3.7-4: Mass Reduced Upper Control Arm
(Source: http://i.ebayimg.com/t/02-05-Dodge-Ram-1500-Front-Upper-Control-Arm-Lower-Ball-Joint-Kit-Set-
New/00/s/NDkyWDQ5Mg==/$%28KGrHqVHJBsFCEURKRgpBQj2sl%29HCw~~60_35.JPG)
Knuckle
As shown in Image 3.7-5, the Silverado 1500 series suspension system used a similar forged
knuckle design as the 2500 series. Component masses were 7.70 kg versus 13.8 kg, respectively.
The redesign idea for the knuckle was to forge it out of aluminum, shown in Image 3.7-6. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 knuckle mass
reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-51).
-------
Image 3.7-5: Knuckle for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
Image 3.7-6: Aluminum Knuckle
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
-------
Leaf Spring Assemblies
As shown in Image 3.7-7, the Silverado 1500 series suspension system used a similar leaf spring
design as the 2500 series. Component masses were 26.2 kg versus 47.6 kg respectively. The
redesign idea for the leaf spring assembly is to change the base leaf spring material from steel to
glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP). Image 3.7-8 is an example of a GFRP leaf spring. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 leaf spring
assembly reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-51).
Image 3.7-7: Leaf Spring Assembly for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and the Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
Image 3.7-8: GFRP Leaf Spring Assembly
(Source: http://www.hypercoils.com/leaf-springs.html)
Road Wheels
As shown in Image 3.7-9, the Silverado 1500 and 2500 share a common road wheel design.
Component masses for all four wheels of the 1500 and 2500 are 48.5 kg versus 54.4 kg,
-------
respectively. The redesign idea for the road wheels was to change the base wheel material from
forged aluminum to an ultra-Lightweight forged aluminum monoblock spoked wheel. Image 3.7-
10 is an example of an ultra-Lightweight forged aluminum monoblock wheel. Due to similarities
in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 road wheel reduction can
be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-51).
Image 3.7-9: Road Wheel for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and the Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
Image 3.7-10: Ultra-Lightweight Forged Aluminum Monoblock Wheel
(Source: http://www.benzinsider.com/zenphoto/brabus-monoblock-f-g-q-
wheels/The+New+BRABUS+Monoblock+F, +G+and+Q+Wheels_05 jpg.php)
Spare Wheel
As shown in Image 3.7-11, the Silverado 1500 and 2500 share a common stamped steel spare wheel
design. Component masses for the 1500 and 2500 are 14.5 kg versus 17.2 kg, respectively. The
redesign idea for the spare wheel is to change the spare wheel material from stamped steel to
aluminum. Image 3.7-12 is an example of an aluminum wheel. Due to similarities in component
-------
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 spare wheel reduction can be applied to
the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-51).
Image 3.7-11: Spare Wheel for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
Image 3.7-12: Aluminum Spare Wheel
(Source: http://www.autopartswarehouse.com/sku/Keystone_Wheels/Wheel/K 16425884.html)
-------
3.7.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500
Table 3-52 summarizes the Silverado 1500 and 2500 Suspension System Lightweighting results.
Table 3-52: Suspension System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500
(/)
'-=:
OJ
-------
Image 3.7-14: Mercedes Sprinter Rear Suspension System
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
Image 3.7-15: Mercedes Sprinter Road Wheel Assembly
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
-------
Image 3.7-16: Mercedes Sprinter Spare Wheel Assembly
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
Image 3.7-17: Mercedes Sprinter Spare Wheel Support
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
3.7.2.1 Mercedes Sprinter System Scaling Summary
Table 3-53 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 Lightweighting technologies
applied to the Mercedes Sprinter. Total suspension system mass savings was 42.02 kg at a cost
increase of $90.20, or $2.00 per kg.
Table 3-53: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Suspension System, Mercedes Sprinter
-------
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" :••
Mass
Reduction
Comp
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" :-
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Suspension System
Front Suspension Subsystem
15.90
1.37
111
Too""
17.27
-$16.03
$5.35
-$10.68
-$0.62
0.81%
Rear Suspension Subsystem
Shock Absorber Subsystem
Wheels And Tires Subsystem
21.24
CLOtf"
4l7~"
22.15
'(TOO"'"
5.73""
-$73-39
$pTq""
——
$9-95
"$0-00"'
——
-$.6.3.4.4
""jpF
——
-$2.86
$o.oq"
——
1.04%
"o."go%"
——..
0.85
'"
Suspension Load Leveling Control Subsystem
Rear Suspension Modules Subsystem
Front Suspension Modules Subsystem
0..0.0.
"PF
Too"
Top'"
~"b"bb""
0.00
'"PF
"o.'bb""
sp.pq
IpF
"Woo"
$p.op
"IPF
Tbl'b""
$q.pq
"fp"po"
"$b"oo"
sp.pq
'spjqp"
"$Ob""
p. po%
"p~pp%"
T"bb"%""
42.02
(Decrease)
3.13
(Decrease}
45.15
(Decrease)
-$110.81
(Increase)
$20.61
(Decrease)
-$90.20
(Increase)
-$2.00
(Increase)
2.12%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 42.0
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg" 83.0
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 50.6%
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already
implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
Mass savings could not be credited for components for which Lightweighting technologies did not
apply. Reasons for this could be that the technology was already implemented. Some components
light weighted, as part of the 1500 Silverado analysis, do not exist in the Sprinter suspension system,
such as the upper control arms and leaf spring spacer blocks.
3.7.2.2 System Scaling Analysis, Mercedes Sprinter
The Mercedes Sprinter Suspension System components were reviewed for compatibility with
Lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-54.
Table 3-54: Suspension Components Scaling Analysis Results, Mercedes Sprinter
-------
Silverado 1500
m
1
en
1
Sub-Subsystem
Component/Assembly
04 SuspensionSystem
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
04
04
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
04
04
05
05
06
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Lower Control Arm LH
Lower Control Arm. LH. Long Bushing Asm
Lower Control Arm LH. Short Bushinq Asm
Lower Control Arm. RH
Lower Control Arm RH Long Bushing Asm
Lower Control Arm. RH Short Bushing Asm
Upper Control Arm LH
Upper Control Arm LH Front Bushing Asm
Upper Control Arm LH. Rear Bushing Asm
Upper Ball Joint Asm, LH
Upper Control Arm RH
Upper Control Arm. RH. Front Bushing Asm
Upper Control Arm RH Rear Bushing Asm
Upper BallJoint Asm. RH
Knuckle LH
Knuckle. RH
Front Stabilizer Bar - Mounting Bushings
Front Stabilizer Bar - Mounting Brackets
Front Stabilizer Bar - Mounting Bolts
Leaf Spring Asm. LH
Leaf Spring Asm RH
Saddle Bracket LH
Saddle Bracket. RH
Leaf Spring Spacer Block. LH
Leaf Spring Spacer Block RH
Shackle Bracket Asm LH
Shackle Bracket Asm RH
Lower Strut Mount Asm LH
Coil Spring. LH
Lower Strut Mount Asm. RH
Coil Spring. RH
Road Wheel
Road Tire
Lug/Wheel Nuts
Spare Wheel
Spare Tire
Base Mass
301.2
963
0.39
0.30
947
039
0.30
2 28
029
0.29
0.58
223
029
0.29
058
767
7.67
0 16
046
0 12
2622
2622
1 30
1.30
1.51
1 51
085
085
1 16
5.53
1.16
553
4851
69.45
1 01
14 54
16.96
Mass
Savings
New Tech
83.0
453
0 16
0 13
437
0 16
0 13
1.53
0 12
0.12
005
1 53
0 12
0 .12
005
394
394
002
022
006
15.73
1573
081
0.81
094
094
040
040
042
280
0.42
280
606
5.60
0.50
530
209
% of Mass
Savings
New Tech
28%
47%
41%
41%
46%
41%
41%
67%
40%
40%
9%
67%
40%
40%
9%
51%
51%
14%
48%
50%
60%
60%
62%
62%
62%
62%
47%
47%
36%
51%
36%
51%
13%
8%
50%
36%
12%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ho
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Base
Mass
702
0.28
0.22
701
0 29
0.22
855
8.55
018
0 16
0 11
16.67
16.67
1 30
1 30
0.69
12.42
Mass
Savings
New Tech
42.0
3.30
0 12
009
323
0 12
009
440
4.40
0.03
003
0 06
10.00
10.00
062
062
0.34
4.53
Notes
Tech DOES apply Use forged aluminum
Tech DOES apply Use plastic spacer & nylon bushing
Tech DOES apply Use plastic spacer & nylon bushing
Tech DOES apply Use forged aluminum
Tech DOES apply Use plastic spacer & nylon bushing
Tech DOES apply Use plastic spacer & nylon bushing
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply. Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply. Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply: Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use forged aluminum
Tech DOES apply Use forged aluminum
Tech DOES apply Use nylon bushinqs
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum & single bolt design
Tech DOES apply Use single bolt design
Tech DOES apply Use glass fiber reinforced plastic
Tech DOES apply Use glass fiber reinforced plastic
Tech does NOT apply Different design
Tech does NOT apply: Different design
Tech does NOT apply. Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use star-noed aluminum
Tech DOES apply Use stamped aluminum
Tech does HOT apply: Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Different design
Tech does HOT apply: Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply: Different design
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply The 1500 tire was normalized No
known comperable vehicle for the 2500.
Tech DOES apply Use forged aluminum
Tech DOES apply Use forged aluminum
Tech does HOT apply. The 1500 tire was normalized. No
known comperable vehicle for the 2500
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Key Components for mass reduction included the lower control arms, knuckles, leaf spring
assemblies, and spare wheel.
Lower Control Arm
Shown in Image 3.7-18, the Silverado 1500 lower control arm used a cast iron design whereas the
Sprinter used stamped steel and welded construction. Component masses were 9.63 kg versus 7.02
kg, respectively. Image 3.7-19 shows an aluminum billet for the 2009 Chevrolet Silverado lower
control arm, which represents the mass reduction idea associated with this component. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 lower control
arm mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-54).
-------
Image 3.7-18: Lower Control Arm for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Image 3.7-19: 2009 Chevrolet Silverado Lower Control Arm Billet
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
Steering Knuckles
As shown in Image 3.7-20, the Silverado 1500 Suspension System used a similar steering knuckle
design as the Sprinter suspension system. Component masses were 7.67 kg versus 8.55 kg,
respectively. The redesign idea for the steering knuckle is to cast it from aluminum (Image 3.7-21).
Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 steering
knuckle arm mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-54).
-------
Image 3.7-20: Steering Knuckle for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Image 3.7-21: Aluminum Steering Knuckle
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
Leaf Spring Assembly
As shown in Image 3.7-22, the Silverado 1500 Suspension System used a multi-leaf spring design
whereas the Sprinter used a mono-leaf design. Component masses were 26.2 kg versus 16.7 kg,
respectively. The redesign idea for the leaf spring assembly is to change the base leaf spring material
from steel to glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP). Image 3.7-23 is an example of a GFRP leaf
spring. Due to similarities in component material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 leaf spring
assembly arm mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-54).
-------
Image 3.7-22: Leaf Spring Assembly for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Sprinter (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and A2macl.com)
Image 3.7-23: Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic Leaf Spring Assembly
(Source: http://www.hypercoils.com/leaf-springs.html)
Spare Wheel
As shown in Image 3.7-24, the Silverado 1500 and Sprinter share a common stamped steel spare
wheel design. Component masses were 14.5 kg versus 12.4 kg, respectively. The redesign idea for
the spare wheel was to change the spare wheel material from stamped steel to aluminum. Image
3.7-25 is an example of an aluminum wheel. Due to similarities in component design and material,
full percentage of the Silverado 1500 spare wheel mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter.
(Refer to Table 3-54).
-------
Image 3.7-24: Spare Wheel for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Image 3.7-25: Aluminum Spare Wheel
(Source: http://www.autopartswarehouse.com/sku/Keystone_Wheels/Wheel/K 16425884.html)
-------
3.7.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi Analysis
3.7.3.1 Renault Master System Scaling Summary
Table 3-55 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 Lightweighting technologies
applied to the Renault Master. Total Suspension System mass savings was 56.87 kg at a cost
increase of $111.59, or$1.82perkg.
Table 3-55: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Suspension System, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg"(„
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg"
-------
3.7.3.2 System Scaling Analysis, Renault Master
The Renault Master suspension components were reviewed for compatibility with Lightweighting
technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-56.
Table 3-56: Suspension Components Scaling Analysis Results, Renault Master
Silverado 1500
CO
i
Subsystem
Sub-Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
04 Suspension System
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
04
04
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
04
04
05
05
05
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Lower Control Arm, LH
Lower Control Arm LH. Long Bushing Asm
Lower Control Arm, LH, Short Bushing Asm
Lovver Control Arm RH
Lower Control Arm. RH. Long Bushing Asm
Lower Control Arm. RH. Short Bushing Asm
Upper Control Arm LH
Upper Control Arm LH Front Bushing Asm
Upper Control Arm LH Rear Bushing Asm
Upper Ball Joint Asm. LH
Upper Control Arm RH
Upper Control Arm. RH, Front Bushinq Asm
Upper Control Ami RH Rear Bushing Asm
Upper Ball Joint Asm. RH
Knuckle. LH
Knuckle. RH
Front Stabilizer Bar - Mounting Bushings
Front Stabilizer Bar - Mounting Brackets
Front Stabilizer Bar - Mounting Bolts
Leaf Spring Asm, LH
Leaf Spring Asm, RH
Saddle Bracket. LH
Saddle Bracket. RH
Leaf Spring Spacer Block LH
Leaf Spring Spacer Block. RH
Shackle Bracket Asm LH
Shac-:le Bracket As-n RH
Lovver Strut Mount Asm LH
Coil Sgnna, LH
Lower Strut Mount Asm RH
Coil Spring. RH
Road Wheel
Road Tire
Lug'VVheel Nuts
Spare Wheel
Spare Tire
Base Mass
301.2
9.63
039
030
947
0.39
030
228
029
029
058
228
029
0.29
0.58
767
767
0 16
046
012
26.22
26.22
1.30
1.30
1.51
1 51
085
0.85
1 16
553
1 16
5,53
4851
69.45
1.01
14.54
16.96
Mass
Savings
New Tech
83.0
4.53
0 16
0.13
4.37
0.16
0 13
1.53
0.12
0.12
0.05
1 53
0.12
0 12
0.05
3.94
3.94
002
0.22
0.06
15.73
15.73
081
0.81
0.94
0.94
0.40
040
042
280
0.42
2.80
606
5.60
0,50
5.30
2.09
% of Mass
Savings
New Tech
28%
47%
41%
41%
46%
41%
41%
67%
40%
40%
9%
67%
40%
40%
9%
51%
51%
14%
48%
50%
60%
60%
62%
62%
62%
62%
47%
47%
36%
51%
36%
51%
13%
8%
50%
36%
12%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Base
Mass
8 69
0 35
0.27
868
036
028
7.86
786
009
027
0.31
23.10
23.10
1.01
1 01
087
087
4.79
4,79
075
1335
Mass
Savings
New Tech
56.9
4.09
0.14
011
400
0 15
0 11
404
4.04
001
0 13
016
13.86
1386
063
0.63
041
041
2.43
243
0.37
487
Notes
Tech DOES apply: Use forged aluminum
Tech DOES apply: Use plastic spacer & nylon
bushing
Tech DOES apply Use plastic spacer & nylon
bushing
Tech DOES apply: Use forged aluminum
Tech DOES apply: Use plastic spacer & nylon
bushing
Tech DOES apply: Use plastic spacer & nylon
bushing
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT applv Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT applv Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT applv Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT appl1, Nut on .ehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT applv Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use forged aluminum
Tech DOES apply: Use forged aluminum
Tech DOES apply: Use nylon bushings
Tech DOES apply: Use aluminum & single boll
design
Tech DOES apoly Use single bolt design
Tech DOES apply: Use glass fiber reinforced
plastic
Tech DOES apply: Use glass fiber reinforced
plastic
Tech does NOT apply Different design
Tech does NOT apply Different design
Tech DOES apply: Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply: Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply Use stamped aluminum
Tech DOES applv Use stamped aluminum
Tech does NOT applv Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply: Use Mubea winding process
Tech does NOT applv Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply: Use Mubea winding process
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply The 1500 tire was
normalized. No known comperable vehicle for the
2500.
Tech DOES apply Use forged aluminum
Tech DOES apply Use forged aluminum
Tech does NOT apply: The 1500 tire was
normalized No known comperable vehicle for the
2500.
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Front Suspension System: The Renault Master's front suspension system is similar to the Silverado
1500 in that they both use a frame system with lower control arms and a stabilizer bar. The major
difference between the two vehicles is the Mercedes Sprinter uses a single mono-leaf composite
leaf spring, whereas the Silverado uses a coil over shock system.
Rear Suspension System: The Renault Master's rear suspension system is similar to the Silverado
1500 in that they both use a steel leaf spring system with similar mounting hardware. The major
difference between the two vehicles is the Mercedes Sprinter uses a single steel blade leaf spring
whereas the Silverado 1500 uses a double steel leaf spring assembly.
-------
3.8 DRIVELINE SYSTEM
3.8.1 Silverado 1500 Summary
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Driveline System included these subsystems: Driveshaft, Rear Drive
Housed Axle, Front Drive Housed Axle, Front Drive Half-Shafts, and 4WD Driveline Control.
The Silverado 1500 analysis identified mass reduction alternatives and cost implications for the
Driveline System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements of the baseline
vehicle. Table 3-57 provides a summary of mass reduction and cost impact for select sub-
subsystems evaluated. The total mass savings found on the Driveline system mass was reduced by
20.4 kg (11.1%). This decreased cost by $38.01, or $1.86 per kg. Mass reduction for this system
reduced vehicle curb weight by 0.86%.
Table 3-57: Driveline System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500
w
*<
trt
3.38
d.66
3.38
25.78
Od
d'."dd
25.78
6.27
6.27
2.58
2.68
0.00
6.66
38.01
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
"S/kg" (2>
1.61
6.66
1.61
2.46
O'd
d"dd
8.85
0.97
0.97
1.90
1.90
0.00
6.66
1.86
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
"%"
14.69%
0.00%
30.92%
11.76%
1135%"
6766%
19.54%
12.35%
12.35%
4.91%
4.91%
0.00%
0.00%
11.11%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.09%
0.00%
0.09%
0.44%
dl'2%"
d'."d"d%
0.12%
0.27%
0.27%
0.06%
0.06%
0.00%
0.00%
0.86%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Columns in the "Net Value of Mass Reduction" chart above may contain combined masses of
assembly hardware such as nuts, bolt, washer, etc. that were not mass reduced at the component
level, and may not match base mass and mass reduction totals in text below component reduction
weights.
Mass savings opportunities were identified for the following components: forward propeller shaft,
rear axle sleeves, rear axle hubs, rear differential cover plate, rear carrier rear ring gear, front
differential output shaft with hubs, front carrier, front ring gear, front differential RH and LH
mounting brackets, front axle shaft, and front wheel hubs.
Forward Propeller Shaft: The forward propeller shaft mass was reduced by changing from a
standard steel shaft to aluminum technology. Mass was reduced by 59% from 3.55 kg to 1.44 kg.
Rear Axle Sleeves: The rear axle sleeves mass was reduced by using extrude steel tube with varied
wall thickness in strategic locations. Mass was reduced by 20% from 10.9 kg to 8.73 kg.
-------
Rear Axle Shaft with Hub: The rear axle shaft with hub mass was reduced by using extrude steel
tube with varied wall thickness in strategic locations and drilling lightening holes in the hub face.
Mass was reduced by 20% from 21.4 kg to 17.1 kg.
Rear Axle Differential Cover Plate: The rear axle differential cover plate mass was reduced by
changing from stamped steel to stamped aluminum. Mass was reduced by 58% from 1.87 kg to
0.77 kg.
Rear Carrier Casting: The rear carrier casting mass was reduced by changing to a welded assembly
with a lighter ring gear and carrier no mechanical fasteners. Mass was reduced by 30% from 5.25
kg to 3.67 kg.
Rear Carrier Ring Gear: The rear ring gear mass was reduced by removal of material for bolts. Mass
was reduced by 27% from 4.48kg to 3.27kg.
Rear Ring Gear mounting bolts: The rear ring gear mounting bolts mass was reduced by reducing
the bolt count from 10 to six. Mass was reduced by 40% from 0.31 kg to 0.18 kg.
Front Differential Output Shaft with Hub: The front differential output shaft with hub mass was
reduced by using extrude steel tube with varied wall thickness in strategic locations and drilling
lightening holes in the hub face. Mass was reduced by 28% from 3.10 kg to 2.22 kg.
Front Carrier Casting: The front carrier casting mass was reduced by changing to a welded assembly
and lighter ring gear. Mass was reduced by 30% from 4.16 kg to 2.91 kg.
Front Ring Gear: The front ring gear mass was reduced by going to a forged ring gear. Mass was
reduced by 32% from 3.33 kg to 2.24 kg.
Front Ring Gear mounting bolts: The front ring gear mounting bolts mass was reduced by reducing
the bolt count from 10 to 6. Mass was reduced by 40% from 0.31 kg to 0.18 kg.
Differential Mounting Bracket - Left: The left side differential mounting bracket mass was reduced
by changing from cast iron to cast aluminum. Mass was reduced by 50% from 3.60 kg to 1.78 kg.
Differential Mounting Bracket - Right: The right side differential mounting bracket mass was
reduced by changing from cast iron to cast aluminum. Mass was reduced by 50% from 2.63 kg to
1.31kg.
Front Half Shaft Axle Shaft: The front axle shaft mass was reduced by using extrude steel tube with
varied wall thickness in strategic locations. Mass was reduced by 25% from 4.49 kg to 3.37 kg.
Front Half Shaft Wheel Hubs: The front half shaft wheel hubs mass was reduced by drilling
lightening holes in the hub face. Mass was reduced by 4% from 5.40 kg to 5.16 kg.
3.8.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis
The Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Driveline System is very similar to the 1500, but on a larger scale to
handle the added required payload.
-------
Image 3.8-1: Silverado 1500 Drive line System
(Source: www.A2macl database)
\
-------
3.8.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary
Table 3-58 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 Lightweighting technologies
applied to the Silverado 2500. Total driveline system mass savings was 25.11 kg at a cost decrease
of$48.71,or$1.94perkg.
Table 3-58: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Driveline System, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem
4WD Driveline Control Subsystem
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 25.11
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 20.42
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 123.0%
0.0%
I % Saved, technology applies
I % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
I % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
-------
3.8.1.3 System Scaling Analysis
The Silverado 2500 driveline components were reviewed for compatibility with Lightweighting
technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-59.
Table 3-59: System Scaling Analysis Driveline System, Silverado 2500
Silverado 1500
co
1
CO
c
1
CO
CO
1
Component/ Assembly
05 Driveline System
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
06
05
05
05
05
05
05
01
02
02
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
04
05
01
01
01
05
05
05
04
04
04
04
04
04
01
01
Forward Propeller Shaft
Rear Axle Sleeves
Rear Axle Shaft w/ Hub
Rear Axle Differential Cover Plate
Rear Carrier Casting
Rear Ring Gear
Rear Ring Gear Mounting Bolts
Front Differential Output Shaft w/ Hub
Front Carrier
Front Ring Gear
Front Ring Gear Mounting Bolts
Front Differential Mounting Bracket - LH
Front Differential Mounting Bracket - RH
Front Axle Shaft
Front Wheel Hub
Base
Mass
183.82
3.55
1092
21 38
1 88
5.25
4.48
0.32
3.10
4.16
334
0.31
3.60
2 64
4.50
5.40
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
20.42
210
2 18
428
1.10
1.58
1.21
013
088
1 25
1.10
0.12
1.81
1 33
1.12
0.23
•/, of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
11%
59%
20%
20%
59%
30%
27%
40%
28%
30%
33%
40%
50%
£0%
25%
4%
Setecr Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
450
1561
1 92
10.25
6.43
4.00
9.23
537
6.97
504
5.42
7.26
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
25.11
266
312
1.13
308
1 74
1 13
277
1 77
3.51
254
1.35
031
Notes
Tech DOES Apply: Change from steel to aluminum
Tech does NOT Apply variation inner wall thickness already done
Tech DOES Apply lightin shaft by making hollow with variation of
inner wall thickness and putting lighting holes in hub
Tech DOES Apply: Change from steel to aluminum
Tech DOES Apply Change from steel casting to sheet steel
welded assy
Tech DOES Apply: Change from stadard gear manufacturing to
cold form with no machining
Tech does NOT Apply Reduce from 10 to 6 bolts
Tech DOES Apply: lightin shaft by making hollow with variation of
inner wall thickness and putting lighting holes in hub
Tech DOES Apply Change from steel casting to sheet steel
welded assy
Tech DOES Apply: Change from stadard gear manufacturing to
cold form with no machining
Tech does NOT Apply: Reduce from 10 to 6 bolts
Tech DOES Apply Change from cast steel to cast aluminum
Tech DOES Apply Change from cast steel to cast aluminum
Tech DOES Apply lightin shaft by making hollow with variation of
inner wall thickness
Tech DOES Apply Putting lighting holes in hub
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Silverado 2500 included the forward
propeller shaft, rear axle sleeves, rear axle hubs, rear differential cover plate, rear carrier rear ring
gear, front differential output shaft with hubs, front carrier, front ring gear, front differential RH
and LH mounting brackets, front axle shaft, and front wheel hubs.
Forward Propeller Shaft
Shown in Image 3.8-2 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 forward propeller shafts. Component
masses were 3.55 kg for the 1500 versus 4.50 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology
used in the forward propeller shaft was to change from steel to aluminum. Due to similarities in
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 forward propeller shaft mass
reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-59).
-------
Image 3.8-2: Forward Propeller Shaft for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Rear Axle Shaft w/ Hub:
Shown in Image 3.8-3 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 rear axle shafts. Component masses were
21.4 kg for the 1500 versus 15.6 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology used in the
forward propeller shaft was to extrude steel tube with varied wall thickness in strategic locations.
Image 3.8-4 is an example of an extruded tube with varied wall thicknesses. Due to similarities in
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 rea axle shaft mass reduction
can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-59).
Image 3.8-3: Rear Axle Shaft Silverado 1500 (Top), Rear Axle Shaft Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Image 3.8-4: Example of technology used on rear axle shaft of varied wall thicknesses
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Rear Axle Differential Cover Plate
Shown in Image 3.8-5 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 rear axle shaft cover plates. Component
masses were 1.87 kg for the 1500 versus 1.91 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology
used in the rear axle shaft cover plates was to change from stamped steel to stamped aluminum.
Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 rea axle
differential cover plate mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-59).
Image 3.8-5: Rear Axle Cover Plate for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Rear Carrier Casting
Shown in Image 3.8-6 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 rear carrier castings. Component masses
were 5.25 kg for the 1500 versus 10.3 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology used in the
rear carrier casting was the differential casting redesigned as a stamped housing and two identical
halves are riveted together. The ring gear was then bolted onto the mounting flanges featured on
the stamped housing. This change also allowed for mass reduction of the ring gear due to different
design. Image 3.8-7 shows an example of the new stamped design. Due to similarities in component
-------
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 rear carrier casting mass reduction can
be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-59).
Image 3.8-6: Rear Carrier Casting for the Silverado 1500 (Right) and Silverado 2500 (Left)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 3.8-7: Example of new carrier
(Source: Schaeffler Group)
Rear Carrier Ring Gear
Shown in Image 3.8-8 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series rear carrier ring gears. Component
masses were 4.48 kg for the 1500 versus 6.42 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology
used in the rear carrier ring gear was the differential casting redesigned as a stamped housing and
two identical halves are riveted together. The ring gear was then bolted onto the mounting flanges
featured on the stamped housing. This change also allowed for mass reduction of the ring gear
because of the different design. Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 rear carrier ring gear mass reduction can be applied to the 2500.
(Refer to Table 3-59).
Image 3.8-8: Rear Carrier Ring Gear Silverado 1500 (Right), Rear Carrier Ring Gear Silverado 2500 (Left)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Front Differential Output Shaft with Hub
Shown in Image 3.8-9 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series front differential output shafts with
hub. Component masses were3.10 kgforthe 1500 versus 3.99 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting
Technology used was to extrude steel tube with varied wall thickness in strategic locations and drill
lightening holes in the hub face. Image 3.8-4 is an example of an extruded tube with varied wall
-------
thicknesses. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado
1500 front differential output shaft mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-59).
Image 3.8-9: Front Differential Output Shaft with Hub for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Front Carrier Casting
Shown in Image 3.8-10 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 front carrier castings. Component masses
were 4.16 kg for the 1500 versus 9.23 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology used in the
front carrier casting was the differential casting redesigned as a stamped housing and two identical
halves are riveted together. The ring gear was then bolted onto the mounting flanges featured on
the stamped housing. This change also allowed for mass reduction of the front carrier casting due
to different design. Image 3.8-11 shows an example of the new stamped design. Due to similarities
in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 front carrier casting mass
reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-59).
Image 3.8-10: Front Carrier Casting for the Silverado 1500 (Right) and Silverado 2500 (Left)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
light weight differential
-------
Image 3.8-11: New Lightweight Differential Example
(Source: Schaeffler Group)
Front Carrier Ring Gear
Shown in Image 3.8-12 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 front carrier ring gears. Component masses
were 3.33 kg for the 1500 versus 5.34 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology used in the
front ring gear was the differential casting redesigned as a stamped housing and two identical halves
are riveted together. The ring gear was then bolted onto the mounting flanges featured on the
stamped housing. This change also allowed for mass reduction of the front carrier ring gear because
of the different design. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the
Silverado 1500 front ring gear casting mass reduction can be applied to the 2500.
Image 3.8-12: Front Carrier Ring Gear for the Silverado 1500 (Right) and Silverado 2500 (Left)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Front Differential Mounting Bracket (Right and Left)
Shown in Image 3.8-13 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 RH/LH front differential mounting
brackets. Component masses were 6.23 kg for the 1500 versus 12.0 kg for the 2500. The
Lightweighting Technology used in the front differential mounting brackets changed from forged
steel to forged aluminum. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of
the Silverado 1500 rear differential mounting bracket mass reduction can be applied to the 2500.
(Refer to Table 3-59).
Image 3.8-13: Front Differential Mounting Bracket RH for the Silverado 1500 (Right) and Silverado 2500 (Left)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Front Half Shaft Axle Shaft
Shown in Image 3.8-14 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 front half shaft axle shafts. Component
masses were 4.49 kg for the 1500 versus 5.42 kg for the 2500. The Lightweighting Technology
used in the front half shaft axle shaft was to extrude steel tube with varied wall thickness in strategic
locations and drill lightening holes in the hub face. Image 3.8-15 shows were lightening holes
-------
would be. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado
1500 front half shaft axle shaft mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-59).
Image 3.8-14: Front Half Shaft Axle Shaft for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 3.8-15: Front Half Shaft Hub with locations for drilling lightening holes
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
3.8.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500
Table 3-60 summarizes the Silverado 1500 and 2500 Lightweighting results. A majority of the
components were visually the same between the driveline systems.
Table 3-60: Driveline System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500
-------
C/3
«<
J2.
CD
05
05
05
Description
DnyeMn^^stem^^^^^^^
Silverado 1500
Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Base
"kg" d)
Tsa82
288.89
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (D
™__.
25.11
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (D
..__™
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (D
'~"~2Q~42~~"
25.11
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
___
8.69%
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
"™$3798~~
$48.71
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
"ioocT
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
$saoT
$48.71
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
"TiTsF"
$1.94
-------
3.8.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Analysis
Table 3-61 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 Lightweighting technologies
applied to the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. Total Driveline System mass savings was 7.45 kg at a
cost decrease of $17.70, or $2.38 per kg.
Table 3-61: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Driveline System, Mercedes Sprinter
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" r
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ;-.
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" ;•:
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" m
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" :2)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
Driveline System
Driyeshaft Subsystem
Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystern
Front Drive Housed A.xle Subsystem
Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem
4WB Dnveline Control Subsystem
0.00
0.00
0.00
$0.00
SO.OO
$0.00
SO.OO
0.00%
"745"
TW"
TOO""
Too""
o.oo
"PI"
Tip""
Too"
$17.70
""IPI"
TPP'""'
•——
$0.00
IP'p"
so'cio
solo
$17.70
"IP!"'
""IPI"
——
$2.38
"$q"go"'
""
g.35%
"g'og%"
Tpo%'"
'"610%"
'"PI"
..._...
7.45
(Decrease';
0.00
(Decrease)
7.45
(Decrease;
$17.70
(Decrease;
$0.00
$17.70
'Decrease!
$2.38
(Decrease)
0.35%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
7.45
20.42
36.5%
0.6%
0.0%
I % Saved, technology applies
1% Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
I % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
-------
3.8.2.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Driveline components were reviewed for compatibility with
Lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-62.
Table 3-62: System Scaling Analysis Driveline System, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1500
GO
H.
*
05
OS
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
Subsystem
Sub-Subsystem
Component/Assembly
Driveline System
01
02
02
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
04
05
01
01
01
05
05
OS
04
04
04
04
04
04
01
01
Forward Propeller Shaft
Rear Axle Sleeves
Rear Axle Shaft w/ Hub
Rear Axle Differential Cover Plate
Rear Carrier Casting
Rear Ring Gear
Rear Ring Gear Mounting Bolts
Front Differential Output Shaft w Hub
Front Carrier
Front Ring Gear
Front Ring Gear Mounting Bolts
Front Differential Mounting Bracket - LH
Front Differential Mounting Bracket - RH
Front Axle Shaft
Front Wheel Hub
Base
Mass
183.82
3.55
10.92
21.38
1 83
525
4.48
032
310
4.16
334
031
360
264
4.50
540
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
20.42
2.10
2.18
428
1 10
1 58
121
0 13
038
1.25
1.10
0 12
1 81
1.33
1.12
023
'/. of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
11%
59%
20%
20%
59%
30%
27%
40%
28%
30%
33%
40%
50%
50%
25%
4%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Base
Mass
14.15
406
1 17
800
267
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
7.45
283
081
069
2.40
072
Notes
Tech does NOT Apply: No front shaft
Tech DOES Apply lightin shaft by making hollow with variation of
inner wall thickness and putting lighting holes in hub
Tech DOES Apply: lightin shaft by making hollow with variation of
inner wall thickness and putting lighting holes in hub
Tech DOES Apply Change from steel to aluminum
Tech DOES Apply: Change from steel casting to sheet steel
welded assy
Tech DOES Apply Change from stadard gear manufacturing to
cold form with no machining
Tech does NOT Apply
Tech does NOT Apply No front drive system
Tech does NOT Apply. No front drive system
Tech does NOT Apply. No front drive system
Tech does NOT Apply No front drive system
Tech does NOT Apply: No front drive system
Tech does NOT Apply: No front drive system
Tech does NOT Apply: No front drive system
Tech does NOT Apply No front drive system
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Mercedes Sprinter included the rear
axle hubs, rear differential cover plate, and rear carrier rear ring gear. Image 3.8-16 shows the
Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi driveline components.
Image 3.8-16: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Driveline rear axle
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
Rear Axle Sleeves
Shown in Image 3.8-17 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi rear axle sleeves.
Component masses were 10.9 kg for the 1500 versus 14.2 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi.
-------
The Lightweighting Technology used in the rear axle sleeves was to extrude steel tube with varied
wall thickness in strategic locations. Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 rear axle sleeve mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter.
(Refer to Table 3-62).
Image 3.8-17: Rear Axle Sleeve for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl database)
Rear Axle Shaft with Hub
Shown in Image 3.8-18 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi rear axle shafts
with hubs. Component masses were 21.4 kg for the 1500 versus 4.06 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter
311 CDi. The Lightweighting Technology used was to extrude steel tube with varied wall thickness
in strategic locations. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the
Silverado 1500 rear axle shaft mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-62).
Image 3.8-18: Rear Axle Shaft for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl database)
-------
Rear Axle Differential Cover Plate
Shown in Image 3.8-19 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi rear axle shaft cover
plates. Component masses were 1.87 kg for the 1500 versus 1.17 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter 311
CDi. The Lightweighting Technology used in the rear axle shaft cover plates was to change from
stamped steel to stamped aluminum. Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 rear axle differential cover plate mass reduction can be applied to
the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-62).
Image 3.8-19: Rear Axle Cover Plates for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl database)
Rear Carrier Casting
Shown in Image 3.8-20 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi rear carrier castings.
Component masses were 5.25 kg for the 1500 versus 8.00 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi.
The Lightweighting Technology used in the rear carrier casting was the differential casting
redesigned as a stamped housing and two identical halves are riveted together. The ring gear was
then bolted onto the mounting flanges featured on the stamped housing. This change also allowed
for mass reduction of the ring gear due to different design. Image 3.8-21 shows an example of the
new stamped design. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the
Silverado 1500 rear carrier casting mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table
3-62).
Image 3.8-20: Rear Carrier Casting for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl database)
-------
Image 3.8-21: New Carrier Example
(Source: Schaeffler Group)
Rear Carrier Ring Gear
Shown in Image 3.8-22 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi rear carrier ring
gears. Component masses were 4.48 kg for the 1500 versus 2.67 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter 311
CDi. The Lightweighting Technology used in the rear carrier ring gear was the differential casting
redesigned as a stamped housing and two identical halves riveted together. The ring gear was then
bolted onto the mounting flanges featured on the stamped housing. This change also allowed for
mass reduction of the ring gear because of the different design. Due to similarities in component
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 rear carrier ring gear mass reduction can
be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-62).
Image 3.8-22: Rear Carrier Ring Gear for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl database)
\
-------
3.8.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi
The following table summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 Lightweighting
technologies applied to the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. Total driveline system mass savings
was 13.38 kg at a cost decrease of $35.93, or $2.68 per kg.
Table 3-63: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Driveline System, Renault Master
to
3
00
00
00
00
00
00
Description
Driveline System
Driveshaft Subsystem
Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Front Drive Half-Shafts Suesystem
4WD Driveline Control Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" {t>
0.00
13.38
0.00
b.od
0.00
13.38
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" a)
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.do
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
0.00
13.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.38
(Decrease;
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
$0.00
$35.93
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$35.93
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
$0.00
$35.93
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$35.93
(Decrease)
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
$0.00
$2.68
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.68
(Decrease)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
0.00%
0.57%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.57%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 13.38
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg" 20.42
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 65.6%
-14.9%
, 0.0%
0.6% -^^
^^^h. 1
«. 7 '
B^B^I
B % Saved, technology applies
65,6% B%Lost, component doesn't exist
A %Lost, technology doesn't apply
^^^^^^_^ ^f B% Lost, technology already implemented
jfff • % Lost, technology reduced impact
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
-------
3.8.3.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Renault Master 2.3 DCi driveline components were reviewed for compatibility with
Lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-64.
Table 3-64: System Scaling Analysis Driveline System, Renault Master
Silverado 1500
(A
«
1
Subsystem
Sub-Subsystem
Component/Assembly
05 Driveline System
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
01
02
02
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
04
05
01
01
01
05
05
05
04
04
04
04
04
04
01
01
Forward Propeller Shaft
Rear Axle Sleeves
Rear Axle Shaft w/ Hub
Rear Axle Differential Cover Plate
Rear Carrier Casting
Rear Ring Gear
Rear Ring Gear Mounting Bolts
Front Differential Output Shaft w/ Hub
Front Carrier
Front Ring Gear
Front Ring Gear Mounting Bolts
Front Differential Mounting Bracket - LH
Front Differential Mounting Bracket - RH
Front Axle Shaft
Front Wheel Hub
Base
Mass
183.82
3.55
10.92
21 38
183
5.25
448
032
3.10
4.16
3.34
0.31
360
2.64
450
5.40
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
20.42
2.10
2.18
428
1 10
158
121
0.13
0.88
1.25
1.10
0.12
1 81
1.33
1 12
023
'/. of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
11%
59%
20%
20%
59%
30%
27%
40%
28%
30%
33%
40%
50%
50%
25%
4%
Setecr Vehicle
Tech
Applies
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Base
Mass
12.91
25.83
1 92
8.50
724
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
13.38
258
5 17
1.13
2.55
1 96
Notes
Tech does NOT Apply No front shaft
Tech DOES Apply lightin shaft by making hollow with variation of
inner wall thickness and putting lighting holes in hub
Tech DOES Apply: lightin shaft by making hollow with variation of
inner wall thickness and putting lighting holes in hub
Tech DOES Apply Change from steel to aluminum
Tech DOES Apply Change from steel casting to sheet steel
welded assy
Tech DOES Apply: Change from stadard gear manufacturing to
cold form with no machining
Tech does NOT Apply
Tech does NOT Apply No front drive system
Tech does NOT Apply No front drive system
Tech does NOT Apply No front drive system
Tech does NOT Apply No front drive system
Tech does NOT Apply No front drive system
Tech does NOT Apply. No front drive system
Tech does NOT Apply No front drive system
Tech does NOT Apply No front drive system
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Renault Master 2.3 DCi included the
rear axle hubs, rear differential cover plate, and rear carrier rear ring gear. Image 3.8-23 shows the
Renault Master 2.3 DCi driveline components.
-------
*)
Xi™
Image 3.8-23: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Rear Driveline
(Source: A2macl.com)
Rear Axle Sleeves
Shown in Image 3.8-24 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi rear axle shafts.
Component masses were 10.9 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 12.9 kg for the Renault Master 2.3
DCi. The Lightweighting Technology used in the forward propeller shaft was to extrude steel tube
with varied wall thickness in strategic locations. Due to similarities in component design and
material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 rear axle sleeves mass reduction can be applied to
the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-64).
Vk
Image 3.8-24: Rear Axle Sleeves for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl database)
-------
Rear Axle Shaft with Hub
Shown in Image 3.8-25 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi rear axle shafts with
hubs. Component masses were 21.4 kg for the 1500 versus 25.8 kg for the Renault Master 2.3 DCi.
The Lightweighting Technology used was to extrude steel tube with varied wall thickness in
strategic locations. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the
Silverado 1500 rear axle shaft mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-64).
Image 3.8-25: Rear Axle Shaft for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl database)
Rear Axle Differential Cover Plate
Shown in Image 3.8-26 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi rear axle shaft cover
plates. Component masses were 1.87 kg for the 1500 versus 1.92 kg for the Renault Master 2.3
DCi. The lightweighting technology used in the rear axle shaft cover plates was to change from
stamped steel to stamped aluminum. Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 rear axle differential cover plate mass reduction can be applied to
the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-64).
Image 3.8-26: Rear Axle Cover Plate for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl database)
Rear Carrier Casting
Shown in Image 3.8-27 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi rear carrier castings.
Component masses were 5.25 kg for the 1500 versus 8.50 kg for the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. The
lightweighting technology used in the rear carrier casting was the differential casting redesigned as
a stamped housing and two identical halves riveted together. The ring gear was then bolted onto the
mounting flanges featured on the stamped housing. This change also allowed for mass reduction of
the ring gear because of the different design. Image 3.8-28 shows an example of the new stamped
design. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500
rear carrier casting mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-64).
-------
Image 3.8-27: Rear Carrier Casting for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl database)
Image 3.8-28: New Carrier Example
(Source: Schaeffler Group)
Rear Carrier Ring Gear
Shown in Image 3.8-29 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi rear carrier ring gears.
Component masses were 4.48 kg for the 1500 versus 7.24 kg for the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. The
lightweighting technology used in the rear carrier ring gear was redesigning the differential casting
as a stamped housing and two identical halves are riveted together. The ring gear was then bolted
onto the mounting flanges featured on the stamped housing. This change also allowed for mass
reduction of the ring gear because of the different design. Due to similarities in component design
and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 rear carrier ring gear mass reduction can be
applied to the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-64).
Image 3.8-29: Rear Carrier Ring Gear for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl database)
3.9 BRAKE SYSTEM
3.9.1 Silverado 1500 Summary
This report details FEV's work and findings relative to the Brake System to prove the design
concept, cost effectiveness, and manufacturing feasibility that can meet the function and
performance of the baseline vehicle (2011 Chevrolet Silverado). In Table 3-65 is a summary of the
calculated mass reduction and cost impact for each sub-subsystem evaluated. This project recorded
-------
a system mass reduction of 46.65 kg system at a cost increase of $160.04 or $3.43 per kg. The
contribution of the Brake System to the overall vehicle mass reduction was 1.96%.
Table 3-65: Brake System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500
CO
•-=:
£2.
fD
3
06
06
06
06
06
_.
06
06
06
of
06
06"
06
'be"
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
Subsystem
00
03
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
04
04
05
05
05"
06
06
06
06
06
07
07
07
09
09
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
01
02
02
"do
00
"07
08
"08
00
"do
01
"do
00
02
02
02
00
00
01
00
00
01
Description
Brake System
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Front Rotor
Caliper Housing
Caliper Mounting Bracket
Other Components.-.
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rear Drum
Backing Plate
Wheel Cylinder Housing
Other Components...
Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
Parking Brake Lever & Frame
Other Components...
Brake Actuation Subsystem
Brake Pedal Arm
Brake Pedal Frame
Brake Pedal Bracket Assy
Other Components...
Power Brake Subsystem
Vacuum Booster Assembly
Other Components...
Brake Controls Subsystem
Brake Controls
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Mass
"kg"
42.98
23.32
9.61
4.36
5.69
34.26
22.09"
5J9
0"92
5.46
4.70
1.61
3.09
10.66
1.30
1.70
0.97
S.69
4.24
4.24
0.00
4.17
4.17
101.01
Mass
Reduction
"kg" CD
22.82
12.43
6.41
2.98
1.01
18.26
14.'l5
278
046
0.86
1.45
0.93
0.52
2.53
0.56
0.99
0.56
0.43
1.58
1.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
46.65
('Decrease;
Cost
Impact
NIDMC
"$" p>
-57.95
-68.42
6.72
i.96
1.79
-60.03
-67"42
1.59
6""11
-0.31
-19.85
-3.88
-15.97
-1.32
-1.11
1.14
-1.78
0.43
-20.89
-20.89
0.00
b.do
0.00
-160.04
(Increase;
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
"$/kg"(2,
-2.54
-5.51
1.05
0.66
1.77
-3.29
4J6
0.57
13".23
-0.36
Jies
4.16
-30.79
-0.52
o.od
1.16
-3.17
1.02
-13.21
-13.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
-3.43
(Increase}
Mass
Reduction
'•%"
53.11%
53.28%
66.75%
68.27%
17.72%
53.31%
64"b'8%"
48.12%
5044%'"
15.73%
30.87%
57.84%
16.79%
23.72%
42.56%
57.84%
57.88%
6.40%
37.33%
37.33%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
46.18%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.96%
0.52%
0.27%
0.12%
0.04%
0.77%
0".59%
0.12%
0"02%
0.04%
0.06%'
0.04%
0.02%
0.11%
0.02%
0.04%
0.02%
0.02%
0.07%
0.07%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.96%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Columns in the "Net Value of Mass Reduction" chart above may contain combined masses of
assembly hardware such as nuts, bolt, washer, etc. that were not mass reduced at the component
level, and may not match base mass and mass reduction totals in text below component reduction
weights.
The major components contributing to the mass reduction within the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield
Subsystem were the front rotor, caliper housing, and caliper mounting bracket.
Front Rotor: The mass reduction idea for the front rotor involved making eight different changes to
the baseline design. The changes included normalizing to the 2006 Dodge Ram, two-piece rotor
design, drilling clearance holes in the rotor hat top and sides, changing disc material from steel to
an aluminum metal matrix, changing cooling vanes from a straight to directional configuration,
adding venting slots to the disc face, and adding cross-drilled holes to the rotor disc. The individual
baseline component mass was 11.7 kg and the redesign mass was 5.45 kg, resulting in an overall
mass savings of 12.4 kg, or 53.3% compared to the steel units.
-------
Each of these individual rotor ideas is not unique; however, it is unique to see all of them
incorporated in a single design. This redesigned rotor incorporates all the latest rotor lightweighting
ideas into a single unit that captures all the potential weight-saving opportunities.
Caliper Housing: The mass reduction ideas for the caliper housing were to normalize to the 2002
Chevrolet Avalanche 1500 and then change the component material from cast iron to cast
magnesium. The individual baseline component mass was 4.80 kg with the redesign mass 1.60 kg,
resulting in an overall mass savings of 6.41 kg, or 66.7%, compared to the steel units.
For the caliper housing, as well as several other brake components, magnesium was the redesign
material of choice. While this is not popular within the automotive industry in the United States, it
is becoming much more common with the European OEMs.
Magnesium has long been used in commercial and specialty automotive vehicles. Racing cars have
used magnesium parts since the 1920s. Volkswagen used, in 1936, approximately 20.0 kg of
magnesium in the power train system for its Beetle.
Over the past 10 years there has been significant growth in the high-pressure die-casting sector as
OEMs search for light-weighting opportunities. With advances in the creation of magnesium alloys,
there are many applications for the automotive industry - particularly within brake and suspension
systems.
In Europe, Volkswagen, Chrysler, BMW, Ford, and Jaguar are using magnesium as a structural
lightweight material. Presently, around 14 kg of magnesium are used in the VW Passat and Audi
A4 and A6 for transmission castings. Other applications include instrument panels, intake
manifolds, cylinder head covers, inner boot lid sections, and steering components. In North
America, the full-size GM Savana and Express vans use up to 26.0 kg of magnesium alloy.
Caliper Mounting Bracket: The mass reduction ideas for the caliper mounting bracket were to first
normalize to the 2002 Chevrolet Avalanche 1500 and then change the component material from
cast iron to cast magnesium. The individual baseline component mass was 2.18 kg and the redesign
mass was 0.69 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 2.98 kg or 68.3% for both brackets
compared to the steel units.
The major components contributing to the mass reduction within the Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield
Subsystem were the rear drum, backing plate, and the wheel cylinder housing.
Rear Drum: The mass reduction idea for the rear drum was a combination of six different changes
to the baseline design. These changes included changing the baseline material from cast iron to
aluminum metal matrix composite, adding cooling fins on the external surface, cross-drilling holes
in the mounting surface, cross-drilling holes in the side surface, and adding cooling slots to the side
surfaces. The individual baseline component mass was 11.1 kg and the redesign mass 3.97 kg,
resulting in an overall mass savings of 14.2 kg or 64.1% compared to the baseline units.
Backing Plate: The mass reduction idea for the backing plate involved changing the baseline
material from steel to aluminum and then to add cooling slots to the back surface. The individual
baseline component mass was 2.9 kg while the redesign mass was 1.5 kg, resulting in an overall
mass savings of 4.4 kg for both backing plates or 48.3% compared to the steel units.
Wheel Cylinder Housing: The mass reduction idea for the wheel cylinder housing was to change
the baseline material from cast iron to cast aluminum. The individual baseline component mass was
0.46 kg while the redesign mass is 0.23 kg resulting in an overall mass savings of 0.5 kg for both
backing plates or 50.0% compared to the cast iron units.
-------
The major component contributing to the mass reduction within the Parking Brake and Actuation
Subsystem was the park brake lever and frame.
Park Brake Lever and Frame: The mass reduction idea for the park brake lever and frame was to
change the parking brake mounting frame, cover plate, and lever from stamped steel to cast
magnesium. The baseline mass for all three components was 1.61 kg and the redesign mass 0.68
kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 0.93 kg or 57.8% compared to the stamped steel units.
The major components contributing to the mass reduction within the Brake Actuation Subsystem
were the brake pedal arm, brake pedal frame, and brake pedal bracket.
Brake Pedal Arm: The mass reduction idea for the brake pedal arm was to change the baseline
component material from stamped steel to glass-filled nylon. The total baseline mass was 1.5 kg
and the redesign mass 0.75 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 0.75 kg, or 50.0%, compared
to the steel unit.
Brake Pedal Frame: The mass reduction idea for the brake pedal frame was to change it from a
multi-piece stamped steel welded construction to a cast magnesium design. The baseline mass was
1.7 kg and the redesign mass was 0.72 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 0.98 kg or 57.6%.
Brake Pedal Bracket Assembly: The mass reduction idea for the brake pedal bracket assembly was
to change the side plates from stamped steel to cast magnesium. The baseline assembly mass of
1.54 kg versus the redesigned assembly mass of 0.98 kg resulted in an overall mass savings of 0.60
kg, or 36.4%.
The major component contributing to the mass reduction within the Power Brake Subsystem was
the vacuum booster assembly.
Vacuum Booster Assembly: The mass reduction ideas for the vacuum booster assembly affected
each internal plate as well as the outer housings. These ideas included changing the front housing,
rear housing, front backing plate, and the spacer ring from stamped steel to cast magnesium. The
rear backing plate idea changed the baseline material from stamped steel to stamped aluminum.
The actuator shaft changes from steel to titanium and the mounting studs change from steel to
aluminum. The baseline booster unit had a mass of 4.2 kg and the redesign mass was 2.7 kg,
resulting in an overall mass savings of 1.5 kg, or 35.7%, compared to the steel unit.
3.9.2 Silverado 2500 Analysis
3.9.2.1 System Architecture
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem: The Chevrolet Silverado 2500 front rotor/drum and shield
subsystem used a similar architecture as the 1500. Both utilized a floating cast iron brake caliper
with double pistons, brake pads, a cast iron caliper mounting bracket, a cast iron rotor, and a
stamped steel splash shield.
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem: The Chevrolet Silverado 2500 rear rotor/drum and shield
subsystem architecture was unique compared to the 1500. The 2500 utilized a cast iron drum-in-
hat brake drum and rotor which allowed it to use brake shoes for the parking brake function and
brake pads for stopping the vehicle, brake shoes with associated mounting hardware, brake pads, a
cast iron brake caliper with double pistons, a cast iron caliper mounting bracket, and a stamped steel
dust shield.
Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem: As mentioned, the Silverado 2500 used a drum-in-hat
park brake design that separated the parking brake function from the vehicle stopping function. The
-------
parking brake was engaged by a cable system directly connected to the brake shoes at one end and
the actuator at the other end. The 2500 used the same park brake actuation design as the 1500,
which includes a stamped steel frame and foot actuated lever.
Brake Actuation Subsystem: Both the Silverado 2500 and the 1500 used the same brake pedal and
accelerator pedal design. The brake pedal and frame were of a stamped steel construction, while
the accelerator pedal consisted of a set of plastic injection molded components that were assembled
together.
Power Brake Subsystem: The Silverado 2500 came standard with four-wheel disc brakes with
hydro-boost, whereas the 1500 used a traditional vacuum booster. Both vehicles have an ABS
module and a common brake actuation design.
-------
3.9.3 System Scaling Summary
Table 3-66 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies
applied to the Silverado 2500. Total brake mass savings was 54.31 kg at a cost increase of 172.80
or $3.07 per kg.
Table 3-66: Mass-Reduction ar
in
•-=:
Hi
(D
3
06"
"QG"
"OG"
'be"
"OG"
06
06
06
Subsystem
00
03
04
05"
06
07
09
10
Sub-Subsystem
"b'b"
'no"
"o"u"
Ob"
"b'o
00
00
00
Description
Brake System
Front RotonDrur and Shield Subsystem
Rear Roton;Drum and Shield Subsystem
Parking Brake and Actuation Sir-system
Brake Actuation Subsystem
Power BraKe Subsystem ifor Hydraulic)
Brake Controls Subsystem
Auxiliary Brake Subsystem
d Cost Impact for Brake System, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" 0)
30.42
2o"'io
1.57
2.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
54.31
('Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i)
1.28
0-65
000
0 00
000
0.00
0.00
1.93
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
31.70
2075'
1.57
2.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
56.24
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"(TH«
* P)
-$82.61
"-$88.23"
-$22.53
jo's's
$0.00
JO.OO
$0.00
-$192.82
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (?)
$12.66
$"7"37
$0.00
$"b"bb
$0.00
$0.00
$b.bb
$20.03
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
-$69.95
"'-"$"80.86"'
-$22.53
$"b".55'
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$172.80
(Increase;
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
-$2.21
-$3"'9b"
-$14.39
$0.24
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$3.07
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
1.03%
b'67'%"
0.05%
b"'b'7%"
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.82%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 54.3
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 43.2
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 125.7%
"^X^ •% Saved, technology applies
g TO/ _^^^^^^^_ • % Lost, component doesn't exist
125 7% * " Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
IP^' • % Lost, technology reduced impact
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
Mass savings could not be credited for components for which lightweighting technologies did not
apply. One reason for this could be that the technology was already implemented. For other
components the lightweighting technology may not apply because of design. For example, the
Silverado 2500 used a hydraulic brake booster whereas the 1500 used a vacuum operated brake
booster. Some components lightweighted as part of the Silverado 1500 analysis did not exist in the
2500 brake system, such as the rear backing plates, rear wheel cylinders, and the side plates
associated with the adjustable brake pedal height mechanism.
3.9.3.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Silverado 2500 brake components were reviewed for compatibility with lightweighting
technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-67.
-------
Table 3-67: Brake Components Scaling Analysis Results, Silverado 2500
Silverado 1500
(a
3
CO
o
3
CO
ty
CO
1
Component/ Assembly
06 Brake System
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
04
05
05
05
05
06
06
OG
06
07
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
07
08
08
08
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
02
01
Front Rotor LH & RH
Brake Shield LH
Brake Shield. RH
Caliper Housing. LH
Caliper Mounting Bracket, LH
Caliper Housing. RH
Caliper Mounting Bracket. RH
Rear Drum. LH & RH
Rear Backing Plate LH & RH
Wheel Cylinder Housing LH & RH
Actuation Lever LH & RH
Mounting Plate
Cover Plate
Park Brake Lever
Parking Brake Cable Asm
Accelerator Pedal Asm
Brake Pedal Frame
Pedal Arm Asm
Side Plate Asm
Vacuum Booster
Base Mass
101.0
2332
043
0.48
4.80
2 18
4.80
2.18
22.09
579
092
0.61
0.77
041
044
1.73
2.14
1.70
1.50
1.54
4.24
Mass
Savings
Hew Tech
43.2
12 11
0.25
0.25
3.21
1.49
3.21
1.49
13.69
1 41
046
0.27
0.44
0.23
0.26
0.52
0.04
0.99
0.75
0.56
1.58
% of Mass
Savings
Hew Tech
43%
52%
52%
52%
67%
68%
67%
68%
62%
24%
60%
44%
58%
58%
58%
30%
2%
58%
50%
37%
37%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Base
Mass
3356
0 67
0.68
6.59
255
659
2.55
32.43
0.76
0.40
048
207
0.37
2.49
1.57
Mass
Savings
Hew Tech
54.3
17.43
035
0.35
440
1 74
440
1 74
20.10
0.44
0.23
028
062
0.01
1 44
0 78
Notes
Tech DOES apply: Use two-piece
aluminum/aluminum matrix metal
Tech DOES apply Use plastic w/slots
Tech DOES apply: Use plastic w/slots
Tech DOES apply: Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply: Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply Use alumiiur™ ~atrix metal
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply: Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply: Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply: Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply. Use synthetic cable
Tech DOES apply: Use MuCell®
Tech DOES apply Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply Use plastic
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Silverado 2500 included the front rotor,
front caliper, front caliper mounting bracket, rear drum-in-hat, and the brake pedal frame.
Front Rotor
As shown in Image 3.9-1, the Silverado 1500 series brake system uses the same basic cast-iron
rotor design as the 2500 series brake system. Component masses, for both front rotors, were 23.3
kg versus 33.5 kg, respectively. Image 3.9-2 is an approximate example of a two-piece rotor which
represents the mass reduction idea associated with this component. This redesign idea comprises of
an aluminum hat with side and top cross-drilling, and an aluminum Metal-Matrix Composite
(MMC) disc with directional cooling fins, disc surface slotting, and disc surface cross-drilling. Due
to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 front rotor
mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-67).
-------
Image 3.9-1: Front Rotor for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
Image 3.9-2: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://www.girodisc.com/Girodisc-Front-2-piece-rotors-for-Mazda-RX8_p_6346.html)
Front Caliper Housing
As shown in Image 3.9-3, the Silverado 1500 and the 2500 share a common front caliper housing
design in which both vehicles utilize cast-iron housing with dual pistons. Component masses were
4.8 kg versus 6.59 kg, respectively. Shown in Image 3.9-4, the new technology idea was to cast the
caliper housings out of magnesium. Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 front caliper housing mass reduction can be applied to the 2500.
(Refer to Table 3-67).
-------
Image 3.9-3: Front Caliper Housing; 1500 Series (Left), 2500 Series (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
Image 3.9-4: Front Caliper Housing Mass Reduced Component example
(Source:http://www.peterverdone.com/wiki/index.php?title=PVD_Land_Speed_Record_Bike#Caliper)
Front Caliper Mounting Bracket
As shown in Image 3.9-5, the Silverado 1500 and 2500 share a similar cast-iron front caliper
mounting bracket design. Component masses were 2.2 kg versus 2.6 kg, respectively. Casting the
bracket from magnesium saves significant mass. Image 3.9-6 is an approximate example of a cast-
magnesium caliper mounting bracket. Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 front caliper mounting bracket mass reduction can be applied to
the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-67).
-------
PT ' ' '• • '• \
Lmffi
Image 3.9-5: Front Caliper Mounting Bracket; 1500 Series (Left), 2500 Series (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
Image 3.9-6: Front Caliper Mounting Bracket Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://www.gforcebuggies.com/Parts)
Rear Drum-in-Hat
As shown in Image 3.9-7, the Silverado 1500 uses a standard drum design for the rear brakes
whereas the 2500 uses a drum-in-hat design. Component masses, for both drums, were 22.0 kg
versus 32.4 kg, respectively. Although the two vehicles used a different cast-iron design, the
lightweighting idea still applies and saves significant mass. Image 3.9-8 is an approximate example
of an aluminum metal-matrix drum. Due to similarities in component material, full percentage of
the Silverado 1500 rear drum mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-67).
-------
Image 3.9-7: Rear Drum for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
Image 3.9-8: Rear Drum Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http://www.compositesworld.corn/articles/metal-matrix-composites-used-to-lighten-rnilitary-brake-drums)
Brake Pedal Frame
As shown in Image 3.9-9, the Silverado 1500 and 2500 share a similar brake pedal frame design.
Component masses were 1.7 kg versus 2.5 kg, respectively. Changing the base material from
stamped steel to cast-magnesium, as is being used in the 2013 Dodge RAM 1500 Laramie Crew
Cab 4x4 (Image 3.9-10), simplified the design by reducing the number of components and easing
assembly. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado
1500 brake pedal frame mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-67).
-------
Image 3.9-9: Brake Pedal Frame; 1500 Series (Left), 2500 Series (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
Image 3.9-10: Brake Pedal Arm Frame Mass Reduced Assembly Example
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
-------
3.9.4 Brake System Comparison, Silverado 2500
Table 3-68 summarizes the 1500 and 2500 lightweighting results for the Brake System.
Table 3-68: Brake System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500
GO
•-*:
VI
-------
Image 3.9-12: Mercedes Sprinter Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem: As mentioned, the Mercedes Sprinter uses a drum-in-hat
park brake design that separates the parking brake function from the vehicle's stopping function.
The parking brake is engaged by a cable system directly connected to the brake shoes at one end
and the actuator at the other end. Unlike the 1500, the Sprinter uses a hand operated lever instead
of a foot operated pedal which includes a stamped steel frame and actuation lever.
Brake Actuation Subsystem: Both the Sprinter and the Silverado 1500 used similar brake and
accelerator pedal designs. The brake pedal and frame were of a stamped steel construction while
the accelerator pedal consisted of a set of plastic injection-molded components that are assembled
together.
Power Brake Subsystem: As with the Silverado 1500, the Mercedes Sprinter used a traditional
vacuum booster. Both vehicles have an ABS module and a common brake actuation design.
-------
3.9.5.2 System Scaling Summary
The following table summarizes the mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 lightweighting
technologies as applied to the Mercedes Sprinter. Total brake system mass savings was 28.21 kg at
a cost increase of $105.79 or $3.75 per kg.
Table 3-69: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Brake System, Mercedes Sprinter
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (i)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
T'<2»
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"I/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Brake System
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rear Rolor.'Drum and Shield Subsystem
Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
18.60
5,39
T?!"'
¥§I
I-??
..._....
0,38
~'~M§~
Too""
13.97
443.07
$3.74
-$39.33
42.07
0.89%
5,47
1-23
..._...
423.64
ilZ-?^
..__...
$1.00
"'$[[00"
——
-$22.64
107-26"
——
-$4.14
414'06
——•
0.26%
"p'06%"
——
Brake Actuation Subsystem
Power Bra <:e Subsystem [for Hydraulic)
Brake Controls Subsystem
Auxijiary Bia:(e Sipsj.-
Q.Q
Too'"
1.99
Too"'
..._...
426.21
"Woo""
——
$0.00
"$p"oo"'
——
-$26.21
"sp'op"
——
-S1320
""splp""'
——
p. 09%
"p^pp%"
"o:'do%"
27.75
(Decrease)
0.47
(Decrease)
28.21
(Decrease)
-$110.53
(Increase)
$4.74
(Decrease)
-$105.79
(Increase)
-$3.75
(Increase)
1.32%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
27.75
43.39
63.9%
0.0%_
I % Saved, technology applies
I % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
I % Lost, technology already impleme nted
% Lost, technology reduced impact
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
Mass savings could not be credited for components for which lightweighting technologies did not
apply. Reasons for this could be that the technology was already implemented. Some components
lightweighted as part of the 1500 Silverado analysis did not exist in the Sprinter brake system, such
as the front brake shields.
3.9.5.3 System Scaling Analysis
The Mercedes Sprinter Brake system components were reviewed for compatibility with
lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-70.
-------
Table 3-70: Brake Components Scaling Analysis Results, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1500
in
'-=:
3
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
Subsystem
Sub-Subsystem
Com pone nt/Assem bly
Brake System
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
04
05
05
05
05
06
06
06
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
07
08
08
08
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
Front Rotor. LH & RH
Brake Shield, LH
Brake Shield RH
Caliper Housing, LH
Caliper Mounting Bracket. LH
Caliper Housing. RH
Caliper Mounting Bracket, RH
Rear Drum LH & RH
Rear Backing Plate LH & RH
Wheel Cylinder Housing. LH & RH
Actuation Lever LH & RH
Mounting Plate
Cover Plate
Park Brake Lever
Parking Brake Cable Asm
Accelerator Pedal Asm
Brake Pedal Asm
Vacuum Booster
Base Mass
101.0
23.32
043
048
4.80
2 18
4.80
2 18
2209
579
092
061
0.77
0.41
0.44
1 73
2.14
545
424
Mass
Savings
Mew Tech
43.4
12.11
025
025
321
149
321
149
1369
1 41
046
0.27
0.44
0.23
0.26
0.52
004
249
1 58
14 of Mass
Savings
Hew Tech
43%
52%
52%
52%
67%
68%
67%
68%
62%
24%
50%
44%
58%
58%
58%
30%
2%
46%
37%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
Yes
No
Ho
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ho
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Base
Mass
18.16
469
2.13
4.69
213
8.69
0.63
0.33
0.36
1.55
0 30
1 20
5.32
Mass
Savings
Hew Tech
27.7
9.43
3 13
145
3 13
145
539
0.36
0.19
0.21
047
001
055
1 99
Hotes
Tech DOES apply. Use two-piece
aluminum/aluminum matrix metal
Tech does NOT apply: Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply: Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply: Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply: Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum matrix metal
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply: Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply: Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply: Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply. Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply: Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply Use synthetic cable
Tech DOES apply Use MuCell®
Tech DOES apply- Use plastic
Tech DOES apply: Use cast magnesium shells.
titanium actuator, aluminum studs & backing plate
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Key Components for mass reduction include the Front Rotor, Front Caliper Housing, Front Caliper
Mounting Bracket, Rear Drum-in-Hat, and the Vacuum Booster.
Front Rotor
As shown in Image 3.9-13, the Silverado 1500 Brake System uses the same basic cast-iron rotor
design as the Mercedes Sprinter series Brake System. Component masses for both front rotors were
23.3 kg versus 18.2 kg, respectively. Image 3.9-14 is an approximate example of a two-piece rotor
which represents the mass reduction idea associated with this component. This redesign idea
comprises of an aluminum hat with side and top cross-drilling, an aluminum metal-matrix
composite disc with directional cooling fins, disc surface slotting, and disc surface cross-drilling.
Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 front
rotor mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-70).
-------
Image 3.9-13: Front Rotor; 1500 Series (Left), Sprinter Series (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Image 3.9-14: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://www.girodisc.com/Girodisc-Front-2-piece-rotors-for-Mazda-RX8_p_6346.html)
Front Caliper Housing
Shown in Image 3.9-15, the Silverado 1500 and the Mercedes Sprinter share a common front
caliper housing design in-which both vehicles utilize cast-iron housing with dual pistons.
Component masses are 4.8 kg versus 4.7 kg respectively. Shown in Image 3.9-16, the new
technology idea is to cast the caliper housings out of magnesium. Due to similarities in component
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 front caliper housing mass reduction can
be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-70).
-------
Image 3.9-15: Caliper Housing, 1500 Series (Left), Sprinter Series (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Image 3.9-16: Front Caliper Housing Mass Reduced Component example
(Source: http://www.peterverdone.com/wiki/index.php?title=PVD_Land_Speed_Record_Bike#Caliper)
Front Caliper Mounting Bracket
As shown in Image 3.9-17, the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter share a similar cast-iron front
caliper mounting bracket design. Component masses were 2.2 kg versus 2.1 kg, respectively.
Casting the bracket out of magnesium saves significant mass. Image 3.9-18 is an approximate
example of a cast-magnesium caliper mounting bracket. Due to similarities in component design
and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 front caliper mounting bracket mass reduction
can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-70).
-------
Image 3.9-17: Front Caliper Mounting Bracket for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Image 3.9-18: Front Caliper Mounting Bracket Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://www.gforcebuggies.com/Parts)
Rear Drum-in-Hat
As shown in Image 3.9-19, the Silverado 1500 uses a standard drum design for the rear brakes
whereas the Mercedes Sprinter uses a drum-in-hat design. Component masses, for both drums, were
22.0 kg versus 8.7 kg, respectively. Although the two vehicles use a different cast-iron design, the
lightweighting idea still applied and saved significant mass. Image 3.9-20 is an approximate
example of an aluminum metal-matrix drum. Due to similarities in component material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 rear drum mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer
to Table 3-70).
-------
Image 3.9-19: Rear Drum; Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Image 3.9-20: Rear Drum Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/metal-matrix-composites-used-to-lighten-military-brake-drums)
Vacuum Booster
As shown in Image 3.9-21, the Silverado 1500 and the Mercedes Sprinter use a standard vacuum
booster design. The vacuum booster assembly was made largely out of steel stampings and rubber
bladders. The mass reduction ideas for the vacuum booster assembly affected each internal plate as
well as the outer housings. These ideas included changing the front housing, rear housing, front
backing plate, and the spacer ring from stamped steel to cast magnesium. The rear backing plate
idea changes the baseline material from stamped steel to stamped aluminum. The actuator shaft
changes from steel to titanium and the mounting studs change from steel to aluminum. Component
masses for both vacuum boosters are 4.2 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 5.3 kg for the Mercedes
Sprinter. Image 3.9-22 is an approximate example of a mass-reduced vacuum booster. Due to
-------
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 vacuum
booster mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-70).
Image 3.9-21: Vacuum Booster for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Image 3.9-22: Vacuum Booster Mass Reduced Sub-Assembly Example
(Source: http://brakematerialsandparts.webs.conVboosterrebuilding.htm)
-------
3.9.6 Renault Master Analysis
3.9.6.1 System Architecture - Renault Master 2.3 CD!
• Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
• Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
• Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
• Brake Actuation Subsystem
• Power Brake Subsystem
3.9.6.2 System Scaling Summary
Table 3-71 summarizes the mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies as
applied to the Renault Master. Total brake system mass savings was 31.89 kg at a cost increase of
$ 117.84 or $3.70 per kg.
Table 3-71: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Brake System, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg":-:
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" ID
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
T'(2)
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"S/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
Brake System
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
19.12
0.4.0
19.52
-S44.23
$3.99
-540.24
-$2.06
0.83%
8.25
TIT
..._...
""b'1'6""
8.39
11?""
P-1F
.._....
-$36,23
"-$18"65"
.__....
$1.58
"II-IT
——
-$34.6.5
"-sills'
..__.
-$4.13
'-$9|5
—-—
0,36%
Tl¥"
——
Brake Actuation Subsystem
Power Bra;
-------
3.9.6.3 System Scaling Analysis - Renault Master
The Renault Master brake system components were reviewed for compatibility with lightweighting
technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-72.
Table 3-72: Components Scaling Analysis Results, Renault Master Brake
Silverado 1500
CO
a
•
Subsystem
Sub-Subsystem
Component/Assembly
06 Brake System
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
04
05
05
05
05
06
06
06
06
07
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
07
08
08
08
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
02
01
Front Rotor. LH & RH
Brake Shield. LH
Brake Shield RH
Caliper Housing. LH
Caliper Mounting Bracket. LH
Cah::er Housing RH
Caliper Mounting Bracket RH
Rear Drum. LH & RH
Rear Backing Plate. LH & RH
Wheel Cylinder Housing. LH & RH
Actuation Lever. LH & RH
Mounting Plate
Cover Plate
Park Brake Lever
Parking Brake Cable Asm
Accelerator Pedal Asm
Brake Pedal Frame
Pedal Arm Asm
Side Plate Asm
Vacuum Booster
Base Mass
101.0
2332
048
048
4.80
2.18
480
2 18
2209
5.79
0.92
061
077
0.41
0.44
1 73
214
1 70
1.50
1.54
424
Mass
Savings
New Tech
43.1
1211
025
025
321
149
321
149
1369
1.41
0.46
027
044
023
0.26
052
004
0 99
075
0.56
1 51
% of Mass
Savings
Hew Tech
43%
52%
52%
52%
67%
68%
67%
68%
62%
24%
50%
44%
58%
58%
58%
30%
2%
58%
50%
37%
36%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Base
Mass
18.65
483
2.19
4.83
2 19
1332
1.22
0.64
0.70
1.37
022
0.70
483
Mass
Savings
New Tech
31.3
969
322
1.50
322
1.50
825
070
0.37
0.41
0.41
000
0.35
1 73
Notes
Tech DOES apply: Use two-piece
aluminum/aluminum matrix metal
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply. Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum matrix metal
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply: Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply: Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply. Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply Use synthetic cable
Tech DOES apply Use MuCell®
Tech does NOT apply: Already plastic
Tech DOES apply. Use plastic
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply: Use cast magnesium shells.
titanium actuator, aluminum studs & backing plate
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem: The Renault Master Front Rotor/Drum and Shield
Subsystem used a similar architecture as the Chevrolet Silverado 1500. Both vehicles utilized a
floating cast-iron brake caliper with double pistons, brake pads, a cast-iron caliper mounting
bracket, and a cast-iron rotor. One minor difference was the Master did not use a splash shield.
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem: The Renault Master rear rotor/drum and shield subsystem
architecture is unique compared to the Chevrolet Silverado 1500 architecture. The Renault Master
utilizes a cast iron drum-in-hat brake drum and rotor which allows it to use brake shoes for the
parking brake function and brake pads for stopping the vehicle. This subsystem also included brake
shoes with associated mounting hardware, brake pads, a cast iron brake caliper and mounting
bracket, and a stamped steel backing plate.
Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem: As mentioned, the Renault Master used a drum-in-hat
park brake design that separated the parking brake function from the vehicle's stopping function.
The parking brake was engaged by a cable system directly connected to the brake shoes at one end
and the actuator at the other. Unlike the Silverado 1500, the Renault Master used a hand-operated
lever instead of a foot-operated pedal, which included a stamped steel frame and actuation lever.
Brake Actuation Subsystem: Unique to the Renault Master, the brake and accelerator pedals mount
to a plastic injection molded base. The brake pedal was a stamped steel and welded construction
while the accelerator pedal consists of a set of plastic injection molded components that are
assembled together.
-------
Power Brake Subsystem: As with the Silverado 1500, the Renault Master used a traditional vacuum
booster. Both vehicles had an ABS module and a common brake actuation design.
3.10 FRAME AND MOUNTING SYSTEM
3.10.1 Silverado 1500 Summary
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Frame and Mounting system includes the complete Frame Assembly.
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 analysis identifies mass reduction alternatives and cost implications
for the Frame and Mounting System with the intent to meet the function and performance
requirements of the baseline vehicle. Table 3-73 provides a summary of mass reduction and cost
impact for select sub-subsystems evaluated. The total mass savings found on the Frame and
Mounting system mass was reduced by 23.70 kg (8.9%). This increased cost by $54.42, or $2.30
per kg. Mass reduction for this system reduced vehicle curb weight by .99%.
Table 3-73: Frame and Mounting System Mass Reduction Summary
0)
•-=:
(D
3
00
00
01
03
00
02
00
01
Description
Frame & Mounting
Frame Sub System
Full Frame
Body Isolators
Engine Transmission Mounting Subsystem
Transmission Mount
Towing and Coupling Attachments Subsystem
Towing Provisions
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Pi/lass
k9
252.27
242.00
10.27
2.14
2.14
13.23
13.23
267.63
Mass
Reduction
kg .-
23.70
23.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
23.70
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
NIDMC
"$" (2)
-54.42
-54.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-54.42
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
"Vkg" p)
-2.30
-2.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-2.30
(Increase)
Pulass
Reduction
fy
9.39%
9.79%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
8.86%
Vehicle
Pi/lass
Reduction
%
0.99%
0.99%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0-00%
0.99%
(1( "-«-" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2( "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Mass savings opportunities were identified for the following components: the full frame.
Full Frame: The frame assembly mass was reduced by changing the frame to a combination of
aluminum and high strength steel. Mass was reduced by 9.79% from 242 kg to 218.30 kg.
3.10.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis
The Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Frame system is very similar to the 1500, but on a larger scale due
to the larger engine 6.0L to 5.3L size and ability to carry a larger pay load Image 3.10-1.
-------
Image 3.10-1: Chevrolet Silverado Frame System
(Source: FEV, Inc. Photo)
\
-------
3.10.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary
Table 3-74 summarizes the mass and cost impact of the Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies
as applied to the Silverado 2500. Total frame and mounting system mass savings was 32.8 kg at a
cost increase of $75.31, or $2.30 per kg.
Table 3-74: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Frame and Mounting System, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (.}
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Frame and Mounting System
... .?yb System
Engine Transmission Mounting Subsystem
Towing and Coupling Attach- Subsystem
0.00
32.80
32.80
-$75.31
$0.00
-$75.31
-$2.30
1.06%
0.00
..._....
q.pp
..._....
0,00
Too'"
$0,00
——•
$000
$'d""b"o"
$0.00
——
$0,00
••——
o,og%
..——
0.00
32.80
(Decrease/
32.80
(Decrease)
-$75.31
(Increase)
$0.00
-$75.31
-$2.30
1.06%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, Hew Technology "kg" 32.80
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 23.70
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 138.4%
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
• % Lost, technology reduced impact
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
3.10.1.3 System Scaling Analysis
The Silverado 2500 Frame and mounting components were reviewed for compatibility with
lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-75.
Table 3-75: System Scaling Analysis Frame and Mounting System, Silverado 2500
Silverado 1500
-------
Full Frame
Shown in Image 3.10-2 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 frames. Masses were 242.0 kg for the
1500 versus 334.9 kg for the 2500. Both frames were similar in configuration, although the 2500
was more robust to allow for handling a larger payload. Due to similarities in component design
and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 full frame mass reduction can be applied to the
2500. (Refer to Table 3-75).
Image 3.10-2: Frame for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and Car and Driver)
-------
3.10.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500
Table 3-76 summarizes the Silverado 1500 and 2500 lightweighting results. The majority of the
components were visually the same between the two frames. The 2500 frame is more robust to
allow for handling a larger payload.
Table 3-76: Frame & Mounting System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500
en
^<
'£*
ST
3
07
07
07
Description
Frame & Mounting
Silverado 1500
Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Base
"kg" (i)
267.63'
396.88
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg"(i>
23.70
32.80
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" <•;.
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" ;-
23.70
32.80
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
8"86%
8.26%
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2J
""$479l2
-$75.31
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2}
-$533'.44
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
454.42
-$75.31
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
"-$Z30""
-$2.30
3.10.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CD!
Table 3-77 summarizes the mass and cost impact of the Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies
as applied to the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. Total frame mass savings were 0 kg at a cost increase
of $0, or $0 per kg. There is no frame assembly on the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi.
Table 3-77: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Frame System, Mercedes Sprinter
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Frame and Mounting System
Frame Sub; System
Engine Transmission Mounting Subsystem
towing and Couclinq Attach Subsystem
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg"
g.op
TM
Too""
o.oo
Cost
Impact
New Tech
'T(2)
$0.00
sFpo'"
""solo"'
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Comp
$0,00
sooo
.._...._...
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
SO 00
SOOO
._...._...
$0.00
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"I/kg"
SO 00
""EO'OO"
——
$0.00
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
0,00%
'"o'oo%"'
———
0.00%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, Hew Technology "kg" 0.00
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 23.70
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 0.0%
0.0%
I % Saved, technology applies
I % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
1% Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
-------
3.10.2.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi frame components were reviewed for compatibility with
lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-78.
Table 3-78: System Scaling Analysis Frame System, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1500
System
E'
0
a
3
Sub- Subsystem
Component/Assembly
07 Frame & Mounting System
07|Ol|Ol|FullFrame
Base
Mass
267.63
242.00
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
23.70
2370
% of Mass
Savings
Hew
Tech
9%
10%
Se/ecr Vehicle
Tech
Applies
no
Base
Mass
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.00
Notes
Tech does NOT apply: No full frame assembly
3.10.3 Renault Master 2.3 DC!
Table 3-79 summarizes the mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies as
applied to the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. Total frame mass savings were 0 kg at a cost increase of $0,
or $0 per kg.
Table 3-79: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Frame System, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
Mass
Reduction
Comp
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg";--
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"J/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Frame and Mounting System
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100
000%
r.a..n.sm.ission !..
towing and Coupling Attach Subsystem
0,000
——
0,000
——
0.000
••——
$0,00
——
JO .00
__..
JO, 00
._._.
jo.pq
——
0.00%
——
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 0.00
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 23.70
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 0.0%
0.0%
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
I % Saved, technology applies
I % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
I % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
3.10.3.1 System Scaling Analysis - Renault Master 2.3 DCi
The Renault Master 2.3 DCi Frame components were reviewed for compatibility with
lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-80.
-------
Table 3-80: System Scaling Analysis Frame System, Renault Master
Silverado 1500
to
I
3
=
01
c
a
d
Component/ Assembly
07 Frame & Mounting System
07 | 01 | 01
Full Frame
Base
Mass
267.63
242.00
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
23.70
23.70
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
9%
10%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
no
Base
Mass
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.00
Notes
Tech does NOT apply: No full frame assembly
3.11 EXHAUST SYSTEM
3.11.1 Silverado 1500 Summary
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Exhaust system included the front crossover pipe assembly section,
which includes three catalytic converters. The crossover pipe and the down pipe were made of 409
grade stainless steel. The muffler with tail pipe was made from aluminized steel. Other technologies
included EPDM hangers and welded steel hanger brackets.
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 analysis identifies mass reduction alternatives and cost implications
for the Exhaust System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements of the
baseline vehicle. Table 3-81 provides a summary of mass reduction and cost impact for select sub-
subsystems evaluated. The total mass savings found on the exhaust system mass were reduced by
6.34 kg (16.52%). This increased cost by $19.54, or $3.08 per kg. Mass reduction for this system
reduced vehicle curb weight by 0.27%.
Table 3-81: Exhaust System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500
Cfl
^<
tfl
CD
09
09
09
09
09
CO
c
cr
w
•-<
w
3
00
01
01
01
01
C/3
cr
-3.08
0.54
-1.53
-4.61
-3.08
(Increase)
Mass
Reduction
16.52%
9.40%
18.68%
21.91%
16.52%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.27%
0.06%
0.03%
0.17%
0.27%
(1} "*•" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "•«-" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Columns in the "Net Value of Mass Reduction" chart above may contain combined masses of
assembly hardware such as nuts, bolt, washer, etc. that were not mass reduced at the component
level, and may not match base mass and mass reduction totals in text below component reduction
weights.
Mass savings opportunities were identified for the following components: crossover pipe, down
pipe, muffler, steel hanger brackets, and EPDM hangers.
-------
Crossover pipe: The crossover pipe mass was reduced by changing the wall thickness from 1.9 mm
409 Stainless Steel (SS) wall to 1.2 mm 304SS (cannot reduce pipe wall without going to 304SS).
Mass was reduced by 34.5%, from 4.2 kg to 2.7 kg.
Down pipe: The down pipe mass was reduced by changing the wall thickness from 1.9 mm 409SS
wall to 1.2 mm 304SS (cannot reduce pipe wall without going to 304SS). Mass was reduced by
22.2%, from 2.1 kg to 1.6 kg.
Muffler skin and end plates: The muffler skin and end plates mass was reduced by changing the
base grade aluminum/steel to 304SS and changing wall thickness from 1.4mm to 1mm. Mass was
reduced by 30.8%, from 7.1 kg to 4.9 kg.
Steel hanger brackets: The steel hanger brackets mass was reduced by changing the solid steel
hanger brackets to a hollow 304SS. Mass was reduced by 30.9%, from 1.5 kg to 1.0 kg.
EPDM Hangers: The EPDM hangers mass was reduced by changing the EPDM to a fiber-
reinforced SGF® Hanger. Mass was reduced by 71.7%, from 0.63 kg to 0.18 kg.
3.11.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis
The Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Exhaust System (Image 3.11-1) was very similar to the 1500, but on
a larger scale due to the larger engine size (6.0L versus 5.3L) and more exhaust being pushed
through the system. The pipes used in the system had a larger diameter and a thicker wall.
Image 3.11-1: Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Exhaust System
(Source: www.A2macl Database)
3.11.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary
Table 3-82 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies as
applied to the Silverado 2500. Total exhaust mass savings was 9.12 kg at a cost increase of $15.87,
or $1.74 per kg.
-------
Table 3-82: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Exhaust System, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" [•;
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" ,;•
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$"(2)
Cost
Impact
Total
"*" (?)
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Exhaust System
Acoustical Control Co.mppnents
01
00
i6S
0.44
9.12
-S21.96
$6.08
-$15.87
-$1.74
0.30%
8.68
(Decrease)
0.44
(Decreasey
9.12
(Decrease)
-$21.96
$6.08
(Decrease)
-$15.87
(Increase;
-$1.74
0.30%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 8.68
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 6.34
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 136.9%
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecenl contributions
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
• % Lost, technology reduced impact
\
-------
3.11.1.3 System Scaling Analysis - Silverado 2500
The Silverado 2500 exhaust components were reviewed for compatibility with lightweighting
technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-83.
Table 3-83: System Scaling Analysis for Exhaust System, Silverado 2500
Silverado 1500
•-=:
a
a
3
CO
cr
«
*<
U^
3
CO
T
CO
£=
O"
01
*<
J?
=1
Component/Assembly
09 Exhaust System
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
Cross Over Pipe Assembly
Down pipe to muffler
Steel hanger brkt
Rubber hanger
Muffler skin
Muffler skin end pits
Muffler pipe
Steel hanger brkt Ig
Steel hanger brkt small
Rubber hanger
Base
Mass
38.37
4.23
2.14
0.40
0 .16
5.48
1.67
4.13
0.83
031
0.48
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
6.34
146
0.48
0.12
0 11
1 69
0.52
127
0.26
0 .10
0.34
% of Mass
Savings
Hew
Tech
17%
34%
22%
31%
72%
31%
31%
31%
31%
31%
72%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
832
274
0.75
0.32
5.35
1.40
676
0.79
0.47
0.32
Mass
Savings
Mew
Tech
8.68
287
058
0.23
023
1 65
0.43
2.08
0.24
0 15
0.23
Notes
Tech DOES apply: Base cross pipe reduce wall
thickness from 1.9mm 409ss wall to 1.2mm 304ss
((Can't reduce pipe wall without going to 304ss))
Tech DOES apply: Base cross pipe reduce wall
thickness from 1 .9mm 409ss wall to 1 .2mm 304ss
((Can't reduce pipe wall without going to 304ss)l
Tech DOES apply Hollow exhaust hangers 304SS
(pipe side(
Tech DOES apply. SGF for rubber Hanger Isolators
Tech DOES apply Base grade Al/steel to 304SS &
304SS and go from 1 4mm wall to 1mm
Tech DOES apply: Base grade Al/steel to 304SS &
304SS and go from 1.4mm wall to 1mm
Tech DOES apply: Base grade Al/steel to 304SS &
304SS and go from 1 4mm wall to 1mm
Tech DOES apply: Hollow exhaust hangers 304SS
(pipe side)
Tech DOES apply- Hollow exhaust hangers 304SS
(pipe side)
Tech DOES apply: SGF for rubber Hanger Isolators
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Silverado 2500 included the crossover
pipe, down pipe, muffler, muffler end plates, muffler pipe, steel hanger brackets, and EPDM
hangers.
Crossover pipe
Shown in Image 3.11-2 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 crossover pipes. Component masses were
4.23 kg for the 1500 versus 8.32 kg for the 2500. The Silverado 1500 and the 2500 series crossover
pipes were similar in configuration, although the 2500 pipe diameters were larger, with a slightly
thicker wall. The 2500 had a bolt on flange to the muffler, and the 1500 had the stainless steel mess
coupler. Both systems also had three catalytic converters and three oxygen sensors. The
lightweighting technology used in the crossover pipe was to change the stainless steel material from
a 409 stainless steel to a 304 stainless steel. This allowed for a reduction in the pipe wall thickness.
Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500
crossover pipe reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-83).
-------
Image 3.11-2: Crossover Pipe for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Down pipe
Shown in Image 3.11-3 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 down pipes. Component masses were 2.14
kg for the 1500 versus 2.74 kg for the 2500. The 1500 down pipe had a mesh stainless steel coupler
to connect to the crossover pipe, whereas the 2500 did not. The 2500 pipe diameter was larger, with
a slightly thicker wall. The lightweighting technology used in the crossover pipe was to change the
stainless steel material from a 409 stainless steel to a 304 stainless steel. This allowed for a reduction
in the pipe wall thickness. Due to similarities in component material, full percentage of the
Silverado 1500 down pipe mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-83).
-------
Image 3.11-3: Down Pipe for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Steel hanger brackets
Shown in Image 3.11-4 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 steel hanger brackets. Component masses
were 1.54 kg for the 1500 versus 2.01 kg for the 2500. There are slight differences as to where they
were placed and the contortion of the bracket, but both serve the same purpose. The lightweighting
technology used in the steel hanger brackets was to use a 304 stainless steel that allowed for a
smaller diameter hanger and to hollow out the center of the bracket (Image 3.11-5). Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 steel hanger
bracket mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-83).
Image 3.11-4: Steel hanger brackets 1500 (Left), 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 3.11-5: Hollow Stainless Steel Hanger Brackets Example
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
EPDM hangers
-------
Shown in Image 3.11-6 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 EPDM hangers. Component masses were
0.64 kg for the 1500 versus 0.64 kg for the 2500. There were slight differences as to the location
on each respective vehicle, but both served the same purpose. The lightweighting technology used
in the EPDM hanger brackets was to use an SGF® fiber reinforced hanger. This allowed for smaller,
lighter weight hangers. An example is shown in Image 3.11-7. Due to similarities in component
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 EPDM hanger mass reduction can be
applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-83).
Image 3.11-6: EPDM hangers for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Each of the 4 segments acts as a bending beam
The cord inlay (reinforcement) is the neutral fiber
ord inlay
Cord inlay
Image 3.11-7: Example of SGF* fiber reinforced hanger
(Source: SGF)
Muffler skin
Shown in Image 3.11-8 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 muffler skins. Component masses were
5.4 kg for the 1500 versus 5.3 kg for the 2500. Both muffler skins were made of aluminized steel.
The lightweighting technology used in both muffler skins was changing the aluminized steel to a
304 stainless steel that will allow for a reduced wall thickness. Due to similarities in component
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 muffler skin mass reduction can be
applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-83).
-------
Image 3.11-8: Muffler skin for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
\
-------
Muffler end plates
Shown in Image 3.11-9 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series muffler end plates. Component
masses are 1.6 kg for the 1500 versus 1.4 kg for the 2500 respectively. Both the mufflers are made
of aluminized steel. The lightweighting technology used in both the muffler end plates is to change
the aluminized steel to a 304 stainless steel that will allow of a wall thickness reduction. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 muffler end
plates mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-83).
Image 3.11-9: Muffler end plates for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Muffler pipe
Shown in Image 3.11-10 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 muffler pipes. Component masses were
4.1 kg for the 1500 versus 6.6 kg for the 2500. Both muffler pipes were made of aluminized steel.
The 2500 muffler was much larger than the 1500. The lightweighting technology used in both
muffler pipes was to change the aluminized steel to a 304 stainless steel which will allow a wall
thickness reduction. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the
Silverado 1500 muffler pipe mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-83).
V
Image 3.11-10: Muffler pipe for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
3.11.1.4 System Comparison - Silverado 2500
Table 3-84 summarizes the Silverado 1500 and 2500 lightweighting results. The majority of the
components were visually the same between the two exhausts. The 2500 exhaust had larger
diameter pipes with slightly thicker walls.
Table 3-84: System Comparison, Silverado 2500
w
•-£
a
1
09
09
09
Description
Exhaust
Silverado 1500
Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Base
"kg" :;-}
38.37
45.52
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" r:
6.34
8.68
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg"
1.67
0.44
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i>
8.01
9.12
System
Pi/lass
Reduction
"%"
20.87%
20.04%
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" <2>
-$19.54
-$21.96
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
$12.13
$6.08
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
-$7.41
-$15.87
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
-$0.93
-$1.74
-------
3.11.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
Table 3-85 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies as
applied to the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. Total exhaust mass savings was 2.45 kg at a cost increase
of $10.36, or $4.23 per kg.
Table 3-85: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Exhaust System, Mercedes Sprinter
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg"
-------
Table 3-86: System Scaling Analysis for Exhaust System, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1500
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
CO
o-
3
CO
to
a
3
Component/Assembly
Exhaust System
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
Cross Over Pipe Assembly
Down pipe to muffler
Steel hanger brkt
Rubber hanger
Muffler skin
Muffler skin end pits
Muffler pipe
Steel hanger brkt Ig
Steel hanger brkt small
Rubber hanger
Base
Mass
38.37
4.23
2.14
040
0.16
5.48
1.67
4.13
0.83
0.31
0.48
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
6.34
1.46
048
0 .12
0.11
1 69
052
1.27
026
0.10
0.34
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
17%
34%
22%
31%
72%
31%
31%
31%
31%
31%
72%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
Base
Mass
3.63
089
281
0.07
Mass
Savings
Mew
Tech
2.31
1 12
027
0.87
0.05
Notes
Tech does NOT Apply Single exhaust does not have a cross
Tech does NOT apply No down pipe assy From header to
Tech does NOT apply: With no cross over or down pipe, no
steel hanger required
Tech does NOT apply: With no cross over pipe, no down pipe
and no steel hanger - no rubber hanger is required
Tech DOES apply Base grade Al/steel to 304SS & 304SS
and go from 1.4mm wall to 1mm
Tech DOES apply. Base grade Al/steel to 304SS & 304SS
and go from 1 4mm wall to 1mm
Tech DOES apply Base grade Al/steel to 304SS & 304SS
and go from 1 4mm wall to 1mm
Tech does NOT acoly Steel hanger already hollow
Tech does NOT apply Steel hanger already hollow
Tech DOES apply SGF for rubber Hanger Isolators
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Mercedes Sprinter included the
muffler, muffler pipe, and EPDM hangers. Image 3.11-11 shows the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
Exhaust components.
Image 3.11-11: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Exhaust
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
-------
Muffler Skin
As shown in Image 3.11-12, the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi and the Silverado 1500 muffler skins
are different. Component masses were 5.4 kg for the 1500 versus 3.6 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter.
Both mufflers were made of aluminized steel. The Silverado 1500 muffler was much larger than
the Mercedes Sprinter. The lightweighting technology used in both muffler skins was to change the
aluminized steel to a 304 stainless steel, which would allow for a wall thickness reduction. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 muffler skin
mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter.
Image 3.11-12: Muffler skin for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Muffler End Plates
As shown in Image 3.11-13, the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi and the Silverado 1500 muffler end
plates are different. Component masses are 1.6 kg for the 1500 versus 0.89 kg for the Mercedes
Sprinter. Both muffler end plates are made of aluminized steel. The Silverado 1500 muffler end
plates were much larger than the Mercedes Sprinter. The lightweighting technology used for both
muffler end plates was to change the aluminized steel to a 304 stainless steel that would allow a
wall thickness reduction. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of
the Silverado 1500 muffler end plate mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter.
Image 3.11-13: Muffler end plates for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Muffler Pipe
-------
The Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter muffler pipes are shown in
Image 3.11-14. Component masses are 4.1 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 2.81 kg for the
Mercedes Sprinter respectively. Both the muffler pipes were made of aluminized steel. The
Silverado 1500 muffler was much larger than the Mercedes Sprinter. The lightweighting technology
used in both muffler pipes was to change the aluminized steel to a 304 stainless steel that would
allow wall thickness reduction. Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 muffler pipe mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter.
Image 3.11-14: Muffler pipes for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
\
EPDM Hangers
Shown in Image 3.11-15 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter EPDM hangers. Component
masses are 0.48 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.07 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter. The EPDM
hanger for both the 1500 and the Sprinter were manufactured the same. There were slight
differences to the location of the hangers on their respective vehicles, but both serve the same
purpose. The lightweighting technology used in the EPDM hanger brackets was to use a SGF® fiber
reinforced hanger (Image 3.11-16). This allows for smaller, lighter weight hangers. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 EPDM hanger
mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter.
-------
Image 3.11-15: EPDM hangers for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
.Each of the 4 segments acts as a bending beam
-The cord inlay (reinforcement) is the neutral fiber
ord inlay
Cord inlay
Image 3.11-16: Example of SGF® fiber reinforced hanger
(Source: SGF)
-------
3.11.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi
Table 3-87 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies as
applied to the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. Total exhaust mass savings was 2.29 kg at a cost increase
of $9.38, or $4.09 per kg.
Table 3-87: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Exhaust System, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;•;
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" m
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" :.-.
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" 12}
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"J/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Exhaust System
Acoustical Contiol Components
2 13
0.16
229
411.48
$2.11
-$9.38
-$4.09
0.10%
2.13
(Decrease)
0.16
(Decrease)
2.29
(Decrease)
-$11.48
(Increase)
$2.11
(Decrease)
-$9.38
(Increase)
-$4.09
(Increase)
0.10%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 2.13
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 6.34
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 33.6%
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecenl contributions
s % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
-------
3.11.3.1 System Scaling Analysis - Renault Master 2.3 DC!
The Renault Master 2.3 DCi Exhaust components were reviewed for compatibility with
lightweighting technologies.
Table 3-88: System Scaling Analysis Exhaust System, Renault Master
Silverado 1500
m
en
o-
3
GO
GO
a.
a
Component/Assembly
09 Exhaust System
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
n?
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
Cross Over Pipe Assembly
Down pipe to muffler
Steel hanger brkt
Rubber hanger
Muffler skin
Muffler skin end pits
Muffler pipe
Steel hanger brkt Ig
Steel hanger brkt small
Rubber hanger
Base
Mass
38.37
4.23
2 14
0.40
0 16
548
1.67
4.13
033
0.31
0.48
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
6.34
1.46
0.48
012
0.11
1 69
0.52
1.27
026
0.10
034
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
17%
34%
22%
31%
72%
31%
31%
31%
31%
31%
72%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
Base
Mass
3.39
090
2.63
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
2.13
1.04
0.23
0.81
Notes
Tech does NOT Apply: Single exhaust does not have a cross
Tech does NOT apply: No down pipe assy From header to
SS felx assy
Tech does NOT apply: With no cross over or down pipe, no
steel hanger required
Tech does NOT apply With no cross over pipe, no down pipe
and no steel hanger - no rubber hanger is required
Tech DOES apply. Base grade Al/steel to 304SS & 304SS
and go from 1 4mm wall to 1mm
Tech DOES apply Base grade Al/steel to 304SS & 304SS
and go from 1 4mm wall to 1mm
Tech DOES apply: Base grade Al/steel to 304SS & 304SS
and go from 1 4mm wall to 1mm
Tech does NOT apply: Steel hanger already holloa
Tech does NOT apply: Steel hanger already hollow
Tech DOES apply SGF for rucber Hanger Isolators
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Renault Master 2.3 DCi included the
muffler, muffler pipe, and EPDM hangers. Image 3.11-17 shows the Renault Master 2.3 DCi
Exhaust components.
Image 3.11-17: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Exhaust
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
-------
Muffler Skin
As shown in Image 3.11-18, the Renault Master 2.3 DCi and the Silverado 1500 mufflers are
different. Component masses were 5.4 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 3.3 kg for the Renault
Master 2.3 DCi. Both mufflers were made of aluminized steel. The 1500 muffler was much larger
than the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. The lightweighting technology used in both muffler skins was to
change the aluminized steel to a 304 stainless steel that will allow a reduction in wall thickness.
Due to similarities in component material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 muffler skin mass
reduction can be applied to the Renault.
Image 3.11-18: Muffler skin for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Muffler End Plates
As shown in Image 3.11-19, the Renault Master 2.3 DCi and the Silverado 1500 muffler end plates
are different. Component masses are 1.6 kg for the 1500 versus .83 kg for the Renault Master 2.3
DCi respectively. Both the muffler end plates are made of aluminized steel. The 1500 muffler end
plates are much larger than the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. The lightweighting technology used in both
the muffler end plates is to change the aluminized steel to a 304 stainless steel that will allow of a
wall thickness reduction. Due to similarities in component material, full percentage of the Silverado
1500 muffler end plate mass reduction can be applied to the Renault.
Image 3.11-19: Muffler end plates for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
-------
Muffler Pipe
Shown in Image 3.11-20 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi muffler pipes.
Component masses were 4.1 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 2.6 kg for the Renault Master 2.3
DCi. Both muffler pipes were made of aluminized steel. The 1500 muffler is much larger than the
Renault Master 2.3 DCi. The lightweighting technology used in both muffler pipes was to change
aluminized steel to a 304 stainless steel that will allow for wall thickness reduction. Due to
similarities in component material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 muffler pipe mass
reduction can be applied to the Renault.
Image 3.11-20: Muffler pipes 1500 (Top), Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
\
-------
3.12 FUEL SYSTEM
3.12.1 Silverado 1500 Summary
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Fuel System included the fuel tank assembly, fuel tank shields, Fuel
Subsystem, Fuel Filler Subsystem, and Fuel Vapor Subsystem. The fuel tank is made of plastic,
Polyoxymethylene (POM) material with a molded in metal top ring for attaching the fuel pumping
module. The rest of the Fuel System is typical for fuel systems.
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 analysis identifies mass reduction alternatives and cost implications
for the Fuel System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements of the
baseline vehicle. Table 3-89 provides a summary of mass reduction and cost impact for select sub-
subsystems evaluated. The total mass savings found on the Fuel System mass was reduced by 1.61
kg (6.1%). This decreased cost by $3.25, or $2.02 per kg. Mass reduction for this system reduced
vehicle curb weight by 0.07%.
Table 3-89: Fuel System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500
CO
in
ST
3
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
CO
cr
tf>
-------
Fuel Pumping Module Retaining Ring: The fuel pumping module retaining ring mass was reduced
by removing the steel ring and combining with a POM fuel tank ring assembly. Mass was reduced
by 48.6%, from 0.247 kg to 0.127 kg.
Fuel Filler Neck: The fuel filler neck mass was reduced by changing steel for a combination plastic
and PolyOne® assembly. Mass was reduced by 69.3%, from .212 kg to 0.065 kg.
Fuel Filler Cap Housing: The fuel filler cap housing mass was reduced by using PolyOne® foaming
agent. Mass was reduced by 9.8%, from 0.102 kg to 0.092 kg.
Fuel Cap: The fuel cap mass was reduced by using PolyOne® foaming agent. Mass was reduced by
10.1%, from 0.079 kg to 0.071 kg.
Hose Clamp (Large): The hose clamp (large) mass was reduced by using a smaller width. Mass was
reduced by 10%, from 0.02 kg to 0.018 kg.
Hose Clamp (Small): The hose clamp (small) mass was reduced by using a smaller width. Mass
was reduced by 10%, from 0.004 kg to 0.0036 kg.
Vapor Canister: The vapor canister mass was reduced by normalize it to the 2013 Chevy Malibu
Eco 2.4. Mass was reduced by 3%, from 1.96 kg to 1.90 kg.
3.12.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis
The Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Fuel System was very similar to the Silverado 1500.
Image 3.12-1: Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Fuel System
(Source: GM)
3.12.1.2 Silverado 2500 System Scaling Summary
Table 3-90 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies
applied to the Silverado 2500. Total fuel mass savings was 8.28 kg, at a cost decrease of $12.54, or
$1.52 per kg.
Table 3-90: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Fuel System, Silverado 1500
-------
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (,}
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg":-.
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
Fuej System
Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem
Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem
0.59
"o'."b7"
7.62
'"bib""
8.21
"b'b7
$0.05
"$u"96
$11.54
$b"b"b""
$11.58
$"b'96""
$1,41
"$14'6l"
0.27%
""O.ob'%""
0.65
(Decrease)
7.62
(Decrease)
8.28
(Decrease)
$1.00
(Decrease)
$11.54
Decrease)
$12.54
Decrease)
$1.52
Decrease)
0.27%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
0.65
1.61
40.6%
0.0%
0.0%_, -7.3%
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
I % Saved, technology applies
I % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
I % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
\
-------
3.12.1.3 System Scaling Analysis - Silverado 2500
The Silverado 2500 Fuel System components were reviewed for compatibility with lightweighting
technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-91.
Table 3-91: System Scaling Analysis Fuel System, Silverado 2500
Silverado 1500
09
(D
Subsystem
Sub-Subsystem
Component/Assembly
10 Fuel System
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
01
01
02
02
Fuel Tank
Fuel Tank side - fuel pump ret. Ring
Fuel Tank Shield-Bottom
Fuel Line Bracket
Fuel Line holder on brkt
Fuel Pumping Module
Fuel Pumping Module Retaining Ring
Fuel filer neck
Fuel filler Cao housing
Fuel cap
Hose clamp-Large
Hose clamp-Medium
Hose cla^o-Small
Vapor canister
Vapor Canister Support on frame
Purge Valve Dust filter Support
Purge Line - Bracket
Base
Mass
26.34
10.75
0.14
2.33
0.21
0.01
1.74
0.25
0.21
0.10
0.08
002
0.02
0.004
1.96
071
004
023
Mass
Savings
Hew
Tech
1.61
0.00
-0.04
0.23
0.16
0.00
0.09
012
0.15
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.64
0.00
0.17
•A of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
6%
0%
-32%
10%
75%
11%
5%
49%
69%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
3%
90%
9%
75%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
no
yes
ves
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
Base
Mass
0 14
252
024
036
009
0.02
0.04
0.01
2.17
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.65
-0.04
0.25
012
0.25
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
Notes
Tech does NOT Apply: componding only
Tech DOES apply Remove ring and add POM to tank to
make plastic ring for new POM (fuel pumping module
retaining ring made out of POM to screw onto]
Tech DOES apply: Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply. No part on truck
Tech does NOT apply: No part on truck
Tech does NOT apply: POM already
Tech DOES apply. Remove, and combine with POM style fuel
tank ring assy
Tech DOES apply: Combo, plastic and PolyOne
Tech DOES apply Use Pol. one foaming agent
Tech DOES apply. Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply S -aller .;idth
Tech does NOT apply: No part on truck
Tech DOES apply Smaller width
Tech DOES apply: Normalize to 2013 Chevy Malibu Eco 24
Tech does NOT apply. Does not apply
Tech does NOT apply: Does not apply
Tech does NOT apply: Does not apply
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Silverado 2500 included the fuel
pumping module retaining ring, fuel filler neck, fuel tank shield (bottom).
Fuel Tank side - Fuel Pump Retaining Ring
Shown in Image 3.12-2 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 fuel tank side - fuel pump retaining rings.
Component masses were 0.14 kg for the 1500 versus 0.14 kg for the 2500. The mass was increased
by adding material to the fuel tank side in order to allow for a threaded lip to add a POM screw on
top style fuel pump retaining system used in other vehicles. A reduction will be taken in the fuel
pumping module retaining ring Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 fuel tank side-fuel pump retaining ring mass reduction can be
applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-91).
-------
Image 3.12-2: Fuel Tank Side - Fuel Pump Retaining Ring for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Fuel Tank Bottom Shield
Shown in Image 3.12-3 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 fuel tank bottom shields. Component
masses were 2.33 kg for the 1500 versus 2.52 kg for the 2500. The lightweighting technology used
in the fuel tank bottom shield was to use PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities
in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 fuel tank bottom shield
mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-91).
Image 3.12-3: Fuel Tank Bottom Shield for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Fuel Pumping Module Retaining Ring
Shown in Image 3.12-4 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series fuel pumping module retaining
rings. Component masses were 0.25 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.24 kg for the 2500. The
lightweighting technology used in the fuel pumping module retaining ring was to change from a
steel ring system to a plastic POM screw-down system. Image 3.12-5 shows the plastic POM
system. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500
-------
fuel pumping module retaining ring mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table
3-91).
3.12-4: Fuel Pumping Module Retaining Ring for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 3.12-5: Example of Plastic POM Fuel Pumping Module Retaining Ring
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
Fuel Filler Neck
Shown in Image 3.12-6 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 fuel filler necks. Component masses were
0.21 kg for the 1500 versus 0.36 kg for the 2500. The lightweighting technology used in the fuel
filler neck was a combination of changing some steel components to plastic and then using
PolyOne® foaming agent on the plastic to take another 10% from the mass of the plastic parts. Due
to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 fuel filler
neck mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-91).
-------
Image 3.12-6: Fuel Filler Neck for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Fuel Filler Cap Housing
Shown in Image 3.12-7 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 fuel filler cap housings. Component
masses were 0.10 kg for the 1500 versus 0.09 kg for the 2500. The lightweighting technology used
in both was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic Due to similarities in component design and
material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 fuel filler cap housing mass reduction can be applied
to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-91).
Image 3.12-7: Fuel Filler Cap Housing for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Fuel Cap
Shown in Image 3.12-8 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series fuel caps. Component masses were
0.08 kg for the 1500 versus 0.02 kg for the 2500. The lightweighting technology used in both the
fuel caps was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities in component design and
material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 fuel cap mass reduction can be applied to the 2500.
(Refer to Table 3-91).
-------
Image 3.12-8: Fuel Cap for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Hose Clamps Large and Small
Shown in Image 3.12-9 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series hose clamps. Component masses
were 0.024 kg for the 1500 versus 0.05 kg for the 2500. The lightweighting technology used in both
large and small hose clamps was to exchange a clamp for a smaller one while maintaining the clamp
force needed for the application. The standard hose clamp is approximately 9/16" band width. The
new lighter version has a 5/16" band width. Image 3.12-10 shows an example of a lighter hose
clamp. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500
hose clamp mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-91).
Image 3.12-9: Hose clamps for both the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 3.12-10: Example of a lighter hose clamp
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Vapor Canister
-------
Shown in Image 3.12-11 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series vapor canisters. Component
masses were 1.96 kg for the 1500 versus 2.17 kg for the 2500. The lightweighting technology used
for both vapor canisters was to normalize the 2012 Chevrolet Malibu. Due to similarities in
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 vapor canister mass reduction
can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-91).
Image 3.12-11: Vapor Canister for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
3.12.1.4 System Comparison - Silverado 2500
Table 3-92 summarizes the Silverado 1500 and 2500 lightweighting results. The majority of the
components were visually the same between the two fuel systems.
Table 3-92: Fuel System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500
U)
v=;
O>
26.34
32.15
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;•••;
1.61
0.65
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i)
12.19
7.62
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg"
1379
8.28
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
52.37%
25.74%....
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2>
$3.20
$1.00
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2}
$30.95
$11.54
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (z.
$34.15
$12.54
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
$2.48
$1.52
-------
3.12.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
Table 3-93 summarizes the mass and cost impact of the Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies
as applied to the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. Total fuel mass savings were 5.47 kg, at a cost
decrease of $8.42, or $1.54 per kg.
Table 3-93: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Fuel System, Mercedes Sprinter
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;•:
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" :•,
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" ;•:
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
T',2>
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Fuel System
Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem
Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem
0.02
..................
5.45
""dTd"
5.47
Too""
$0.18
""$T'dd""
$8.24
"sd-dd
$8.42
"j'dTd""
SI .54
"""""
0.26%
0.02
(Decrease)
5.45
(Decrease;
5.47
(Decrease)
$0.18
(Decrease)
$8.24
(Decrease)
$8.42
(Decrease)
$1.54
(Decrease)
0.26%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
0.02
1.61
1.2%
0.0%
-0.1%
1.2%
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecenl contributions
I % Saved, technology applies
I % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
I % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
-------
3.12.2.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Fuel components were reviewed for compatibility with
lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-94.
Table 3-94: System Scaling Analysis Fuel System, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1500
CO
3
CO
G-
~
3
Sub-Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
10 Fuel System
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
01
01
02
02
Fuel Tank
Fuel Tank side -fuel pump ret. Ring
Fuel Tank Shield-Bottom
Fuel Line Bracket
Fuel Line holder on brkt
Fuel Pumping Module
Fuel Pumping Module Retaining Ring
Fuel filler neck
Fuel filler Cae housing
Fuel cap
Hose clamp-Large
Hose clamp-Medium
Hose clamp-Small
Vapor canister
Vapor Canister Support on frame
Purge Valve Dust filter Support
Purge Line - Bracket
Base
Mass
26.34
1075
0 14
233
021
001
1 74
025
021
0 10
0 03
002
002
0 00
1 96
0.71
0 04
023
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
1.61
0 00
-004
023
0 16
0.00
0.09
0 12
0 15
001
0 01
000
0.00
0 00
006
0.64
0 00
0 17
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
6%
0%
-32%
10%
75%
11%
5%
49%
69%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
3%
90%
9%
75%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Base
Mass
0 13
006
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.02
001
0 01
Notes
Tech does NOT Apply omponding only
Tech does NOT Apply: omponenet does not exsist
Tech does NOT Apply omponenet does not exsist
Tech rices NOT Apply nmpcnenet does not exsist
Tech does NOT Apply: omponenet does not exsist
Tech does NOT apply: POM already
Tech does NOT Apply componenet does not exsist
Tech does NOT Apply: Mass reduction already done
Tech DOES apply Use Pclyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT Apply omponenet does not exsist
Tech does NOT Apply: omponenet does not exsist
Tech does NOT Apply: omponenet does not exsist
Tech does NOT Apply: omponenet does not exsist
Tech does NOT Apply: omponenet does not exsist
Tech does NOT Apply omponenet does not exsist
Tech does NOT Apply omponenet does not exsist
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Mercedes Sprinter include the fuel filler
cap housing, and fuel cap. Image 3.12-12 shows the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi fuel components.
Image 3.12-12: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Fuel system
(Source: ww.A2macl.com)
-------
Fuel Filler Cap Housing
Shown in Image 3.12-13 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi fuel filler cap
housings. Component masses were 0.10 kg for the 1500 versus 0.13 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter
311 CDi. The lightweighting technology used in both the fuel filler cap housings was PolyOne®
foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities in component material, full percentage of the
Silverado 1500 fuel filler cap housing mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table
3-94).
Image 3.12-13: Fuel Filler Cap Housing for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Fuel Cap
Shown in Image 3.12-14 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi fuel caps.
Component masses were 0.08 kg for the 1500 versus 0.06 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi.
The lightweighting technology used in both fuel caps was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic.
Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 fuel
cap housing mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-94).
"
Image 3.12-14: Fuel Cap for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
-------
3.12.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi
Table 3-95 summarizes the mass and cost impact of the Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies
as applied to the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. Total Fuel System mass savings was 5.24 kg at a cost
decrease of $8.07, or $1.53 per kg.
Table 3-95: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Fuel System, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ;-;
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg":-
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
"S" P)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"S/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Fuej System
Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem
0.01
5.24
5.26
SO.14
$7.93
3.07
$1.53
0.22%
02
00
EMS! V.a.p.9.[ M.aria.9e..m..?n! subsystem
o.oo
0.00
0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00%
0.01
(.Decrease)
5.24
(Decrease)
5.26
(Decrease}
$0.14
(Decrease)
$7.93
(Decrease)
$8.07
[Decrease)
$1.53
[Decrease;
0.22%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 0.01
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 1.61
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 0.9%
:SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecenl contributions
I % Saved, technology applies
I % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
I % Lost, technology already implemented
) % Lost, technology reduced impact
-------
3.12.3.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Renault Master 2.3 DCi fuel system components were reviewed for compatibility with
lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-96.
Table 3-96: System Scaling Analysis Fuel System, Renault Master
Silverado 1500
co
•<
a
a
Subsystem
Sub-Subsystem
Component/Assembly
10 Fuel System
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
01
01
02
02
Fuel Tank
Fuel Tank side - fuel pump ret. Ring
Fuel Tank Shield-Bottom
Fuel Line Bracket
Fuel Line holder on brkt
Fuel Pumping Module
Fuel Pumping Module Retaining Ring
Fuel filler neck
Fuel filler Cap housing
Fuel cap
Hose clamp-Large
Hose clamp-Medium
Hose clamp-Small
Vapor canister
Vapor Canister Support on frame
Purge Valve Dust filter Support
Purge Line - Bracket
Base
Mass
26.34
1075
014
233
021
0.01
1.74
0.25
0.21
010
0.08
0.02
0.02
0.00
1 96
071
0.04
0.23
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
1.61
000
-004
0.23
0.16
0.00
009
0.12
0.15
0.01
001
0.00
0.00
000
006
064
000
0.17
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
6%
0%
-32%
10%
75%
11%
5%
49%
69%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
3%
90%
9%
75%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
Base
Mass
0.09
004
0.02
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
Notes
Tech does NOT Apply: componding only
Tech does NOT Apply: componenet does not exsist
Tech does NOT Apply: componenet does not exsist
Tech does NOT Apply: componenet does not exsist
Tech does NOT Apply: componenet does not exsist
Tech does NOT apply POM already
Tech does NOT Apply: componenet does not exsist
Tech does NOT Apply: Mass reduction already done
Tech DOES apply: Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply: Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES appjy. Smaller width
Tech does NOT Apply: componenet does not exsist
Tech does NOT Apply: componenet does not exsist
Tech does NOT Apply: componenet does not exsist
Tech does NOT apply Does not apply
Tech does NOT apply Does not apply
Tech does NOT apply Does not aoply
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Renault Master 2.3 DCi included the
fuel filler cap housing, fuel cap, and large hose clamp. Image 3.12-15 shows the Renault Master
2.3 DCi Fuel System components.
.v^_
Image 3.12-15: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Fuel System
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
Fuel Filler Cap Housing
Shown in Image 3.12-16 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi fuel filler cap
housings. Component masses were 0.10 kg for the 1500 versus 0.09 kg for the Renault Master 2.3
-------
DCi. The lightweighting technology used in both was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic. Due
to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 fuel filler
cap housing mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-96).
Image 3.12-16: Fuel Filler Cap Housing for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and'RenaultMaster'2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. andwww.A2macl.com)
Fuel Cap
Shown in Image 3.12-17 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi fuel caps. Component
masses were 0.08 kg for the 1500 versus 0.04 kg for the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. The lightweighting
technology used in both was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities in
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 fuel cap mass reduction can
be applied to the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-96).
Image 3.12-17: Fuel Cap for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
3.13 STEERING SYSTEM
3.13.1 Silverado 1500 Summary
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Steering System includes the steering gear, steering pump, steering
equipment, and steering column assembly sections. All these assemblies have weight save
opportunities that will be identified.
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 analysis identified mass reduction alternatives and cost implications
for the Steering System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements of the
baseline vehicle. Table 3-97 provides a summary of mass reduction and cost impact for select sub-
subsystems evaluated. The total mass savings found in the Steering System mass was reduced by
-------
11.4 kg (35.16%). This increased cost by $57.21, or $5.00 per kg. Mass reduction for this system
reduced vehicle curb weight by 0.48%.
Table 3-97: Steering System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500
C/)
U).
IB
3
11
11
11
11
11
11
"fi"
11
jj
11
if
11
cr
-------
3.13.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis
The Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Steering system is similar to the 1500. Because of the load and
durability concerns the electric steering option was not seen to be applicable for this vehicle.
Image 3.13-1: Chevrolet Silverado Steering system
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
\
-------
3.13.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary
Table 3-98 summarizes the mass and cost impact of the Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies
as applied to the Silverado 2500. Total Steering System mass savings is 3.54 kg at a cost decrease
of $5.53, or $1.56 per kg.
Table 3-98: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Steering System, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" {i)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" :-:
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i>
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$'• <2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"S/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Stealing System
Steering Gear
0.000
0.000
0.000
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00%
"'"
02
00
.0.0.0.0
'""
0.000.
"""
0.000
'"
$0.00
$.0.0.0
"'
$0.00
""
$000
"
ooo%
"
03
00
. ..
Power Steering Equipment
.
""Oo"
'"
..
"so'oo
'
"Woo"
— —
Too%"
04
00
Steering Column Assembly
__...
— —
__...
— —
jol'o
— —
— —
0.11%
3.54
(Decrease)
0.00
3.54
(Decrease)
$5.53
(Decrease)
$0.00
$5.53
(Decrease)
$1.56
(Decrease)
0.1114
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, Hew Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
3.5
8.5
41.9%
0.0%
-0.8%
0.0%
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecenl contributions
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already impleme nted
% Lost, technology reduced impact
-------
3.13.1.3 System Scaling Analysis
The Silverado 2500 Steering System components were reviewed for compatibility with
lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-99.
Table 3-99: System Scaling Analysis Steering System, Silverado 2500
Silverado 1500
&
=f
O"
(0
*:
3
P
7
V)
c
CT
•<
1
Component/Assembly
11 Steering
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
01
02
03
03
04
04
04
01
01
01
02
01
02
03
Steering Gear
Pump
Power Steering Tube Assembly
Heat Exchange Assy
Steering column assy
Steering wheel assy
Column Cowl
Base
Mass
' 32.514
13.89
5.44
065
036
10.18
1.78
021
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
' 8.456
-1.47
5.44
0.65
0.36
3.25
0.20
002
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
' 26%
-11%
100%
100%
100%
32%
11%
10%
Select Vehicle
Tech Applies
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
1039
1.78
0.21
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
' 3.541
332
0.20
0.02
Notes
Tech dose Not apply: Vehicle is not a candidate for
electric steering conversion because of application
Tech dose Not apply: Vehicle is not a candidate for
electric steering conversion because of application
Tech dose Not apply: Vehicle is not a candidate for
electric steering conversion because of application
Tech dose Not apply: Vehicle is not a candidate for
electric steering conversion because of application
Tech DOES apply: The 2500 used the same sheet
metal steering colum system as the Silverado 1500 is
a candidate to use cast magnesium column
Tech DOES apply: Very simularto Sih/erado 1500
rubber coated aluminum framed wheel, is agood
candidate for plastic wheel
Tech DOES apply: Same as Silverado 1500 used
Polyone as a solutin maintain integrity and reduce
weight on cowls
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the 2500 series Silverado include the,
steering column, steering wheel and column cowl. Because of the load and functionality concerns
the steering gear, pump, pump steering tube assembly, and heat exchanger do not apply.
Steering Column
Shown in Image 3.13-2 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 steering columns. Component masses
were 10.2 kg for the 1500 versus 10.4 kg for the 2500. Both steering columns were made of steel
tubes and stampings welded into an assembly. The technology to lighten these units was the same.
A cast aluminum assembly is being used in other segments of the automotive industry successfully
and is a good application for these trucks. Due to similarities in component design and material,
full percentage of the Silverado 1500 steering column mass reduction can be applied to the 2500.
(Refer to Table 3-99).
-------
Image 3.13-2: Steering Column for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Steering Wheel
Shown in Image 3.13-3 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 steering wheels. Component masses were
1.78 kg for the 1500 versus 1.78 kg for the 2500. Both steering wheels were steel frames with plastic
wrapping. The lightweighting technology used in both the steering wheels was the same. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 steering wheel
mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-99).
Image 3.13-3: Steering Wheel for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Column Cowl
Shown in Image 3.13-4 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 column cowls. Component masses were
0.21 kg for both the 1500 and the 2500. The lightweighting technology used in the column cowl
was to use PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities in component design and
material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 column cowl mass reduction can be applied to the
2500. (Refer to Table 3-99).
Image 3.13-4: Column cowl for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
3.13.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500
Table 3-100 summarizes the Silverado 1500 and 2500 lightweighting results. The majority of the
components were visually the same between the steering. The 2500 steering was much more robust
than the 1500 that it prevented consideration of the electric steering option.
Table 3-100: Steering System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500
32.51
49.86
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" [-:•
8.46
3.54
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i)
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" .-;
8.46
3.54
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
26.01%
7.10%
Cost
Impact
New Tech
ifir«'
* y.
-$146.70
$5.53
Cost
Impact
Comp
1 C1
* (2>
SO. 01
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
i'(T"
$ <2)
-$146.70
$5.53
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
-$17.35
$1.56
-------
3.13.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
The following table summarizes the mass and cost impact of the Silverado 1500 lightweighting
technologies as applied to the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. Total steering mass savings was 3.85 kg
at a cost increase of $110.88, or $28.76 per kg.
Table 3-101: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Steering System, Mercedes Sprinter
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" :-;
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" :";
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Stearing System
Steering Gear
-1.189
0.000
Tob
-------
3.13.2.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Steering components were reviewed for compatibility with
lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-102.
Table 3-102: System Scaling Analysis Steering System, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1500
d
fn
o-
M
3
fn
c
CT
CO
w
s.
3
Component/Assembly
11 Steering
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
01
02
03
03
04
04
04
01
01
01
02
01
02
03
Steering Gear
Pump
Power Steering Tube Assembly
Heat Exchange Assy
Steering column assy
Steering wheel assy
Column Cowl
Base
Mass
32.514
13.89
5-44
0.65
0-36
10.18
1.78
021
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
8.456
-1.47
544
0.65
036
3.25
0.20
0.02
% of Mas:
Savings
New
Tech
26%
-11%
100%
100%
100%
32%
11%
10%
Se/ecr Vehicle
Tech Applies
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
1126
201
1.36
4.75
1 33
009
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
3.855
-1 19
201
1.36
1.52
0 15
0.01
Notes
Tech DOES apply The Sprinter used the same
steering gear system as the Silverado 1500 and
electric steering is a good option
Tech DOES apply: The Sprinter used the same
pump as the Silverado 1500 and will not need with
the electric application
Tech DOES apply: The Sprinter used the same
power steering tube as the Silverado 1500 and
tubes will not be required
Tech dose Not apply The Sprinter did not use a
heat exchanger
Tech DOES appiy. The Sprinter used the same
sheet metal steering colum system as the Silverado
1500 is a candidate to use cast magnesium column
Tech DOES apply: Very simularto Silverado 1500
rubber coated aluminum framed wheel, is a good
candidate for plastic wheel.
Tech DOES apply: Same as Silverado 1500 used
Polyone as a solutin maintain integrity and reduce
weight on cowls
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Mercedes Sprinter 311 include: the
steering gear, pump, pump steering tube assembly, steering column, steering wheel, and column
cowl.
*•
Image 3.13-5: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Steering
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
-------
Steering Gear
Shown in Image 3.13-6 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 steering gear.
Component masses were 13.9 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 11.3 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter
311. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500
steering gear mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-102).
Image 3.13-6: Steering Gear for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Sprinter 311 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Shown in Image 3.13-7 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 hydraulic pumps.
Component masses were 5.44 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 2.00 kg for the Sprinter 311. Due
to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 pump mass
reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-102).
-------
Image 3.13-7: Pump for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Power Steering Tubes
Shown in Image 3.13-8 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 series power steering
tubes. Component masses were 0.65 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 1.36 kg for the Sprinter 311.
Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 power
steering tube mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-102).
Image 3.13-8: Steering Tubes for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Sprinter 311 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Steering Column
Shown in Image 3.13-9 are the Silverado 1500 and 311 steering columns. Component masses are
10.178 kg for the 1500 versus 4.75 kg for the 311 respectively. Both the Steering columns are made
of steel tubes and stampings that are welded into an assembly. The technology to lighten these units
is the same. A cast aluminum assembly is being used in other segments of the automotive industry
successfully and is a good application for these trucks. Due to similarities in component design and
material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 steering column mass reduction can be applied to
the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-102).
Image 3.13-9: Steering Column for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Sprinter 311 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Steering Wheel
Shown in Image 3.13-10 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 steering wheels.
Component masses were 1.78 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 1.37 kg for the Sprinter 311. Both
steering wheels were steel frames with plastic wrapping. The lightweighting technology used in
both steering wheels was the same. Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 steering wheel mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter.
(Refer to Table 3-102).
Image 3.13-10: Steering Wheel for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Sprinter 311 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
3.13.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi
Table 3-103 summarizes the mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies
as applied to the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. Total Steering mass savings was 5.47 kg at a cost increase
of $90.37, or $16.53 per kg.
Table 3-103: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Steering System, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (1|
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg"CD
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg"
-------
Silverado 1500
S
d
GO
*<
3
01
¥
O)
c
o-
H.
3
Component/Assembly
11 Steering
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
01
02
03
03
04
04
04
01
01
01
02
01
02
03
Steering Gear
Pump
Power Steering Tube Assembly
Heat Exchange Assy
Steering column assy
Steering wheel assy
Column Cowl
Base
Mass
32.514
1389
5.44
065
0.36
10.18
1.78
021
Mass
Savings
Hew
Tech
8.456
-1.47
5.44
065
0.36
3.25
0.20
0.02
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
26%
-11%
100%
100%
100%
32%
11%
10%
Select Vehicle
Tech Applies
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
13 14
2.17
1 39
0.91
7.05
1.12
0 08
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
5.467
-1 39
2 17
1 39
0.91
2.25
0.13
0.01
Notes
Tech DOES apply: The Renault used the same
steering gear system as the Silverado 1500 and
electric steering is a good option
Tech DOES apply. The Renault used the same
pump as the Silverado 1500 and will not need with
the electric application
Tech DOES apply: The Renault used the same
power steering tube as the Silverado 1500 and
tubes will not be required.
Tech DOES apply- The Renault used the same heat
exchange system as the Silverado 1500 and the
heat exchange will not be needed
Tech DOES apply: The Renault used the same
sheet metal steering colum system as the Silverado
1500 is a candidate to use cast magnesium column
Tech DOES apply. Very simularto Silverado 1500
rubber coated aluminum framed wheeL is a good
candidate for plastic wheel-
Tech DOES apply. Same as Silverado 1500 used
Polyone as a solutin maintain integrity and reduce
weight on cowls
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Renault Master 2.3 DCi include: the
steering gear, pump, pump steering tube assembly, heat exchanger, steering column, steering wheel,
and column cowl. Image 3.13-11 shows the Renault Master 2.3 DCi steering components.
• r-i
Image 3.13-11: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Steering Components
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
Steering Gear
Shown in Image 3.13-12 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 steering gear. Component
masses were 13.9 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 13.1 kg for the Renault Master 2.3. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 steering gear
mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-104).
-------
Image 3.13-12: Steering Gear for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Pump
Shown in Image 3.13-13 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 hydraulic pumps.
Component masses were 5.44 kg for the 1500 versus 2.17 kg for the 2.3. Due to similarities in
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 pump mass reduction can be
applied to the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-104).
Image 3.13-13: Pump for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Power Steering Tubes
Shown in Image 3.13-14 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 power steering tubes.
Component masses were 0.65 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 1.39 kg for the Renault Master 2.3.
Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 power
steering tube mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-104).
-------
Image 3.13-14: Steering Tubes for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Heat Exchanger
Shown in Image 3.13-15 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 heat exchangers.
Component masses were 0.36 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.91 kg for the Renault Master 2.3.
Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 heat
exchanger mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-104).
Image 3.13-15: Heat Exchangers for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Steering Column
Shown in Image 3.13-16 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 steering columns.
Component masses were 10.2 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 7.05 kg for the Renault Master 2.3.
Both steering columns were made of steel tubes and stampings welded onto an assembly. The
-------
technology to lighten these units is the same. A cast aluminum assembly is being used in other
segments of the automotive industry successfully and is a good application for these trucks. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 steering
column mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-104).
Image 3.13-16: Steering Column for the Silverado 1500 (Left) Renault Master 2.3 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Steering Wheel
Shown in Image 3.13-17 the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 steering wheels. Component
masses are 1.78 kg for the 1500 versus 1.12 kg for the Renault Master 2.3 respectively. Both the
steering wheels are steel frames with plastic wrapping. The respectively technology used on both
the steering wheels is the same. Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 steering wheel mass reduction can be applied to the Renault.
(Refer to Table 3-104).
Image 3.13-17: Steering Wheel for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and the Renault Master 2.3 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
3.14 CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM
3.14.1 Silverado 1500 Summary
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Climate Control System included the air distribution duct
components and HVAC main unit.
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 analysis identified mass reduction alternatives and cost implications
for the Climate Control System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements
of the baseline vehicle. Table 3-105 provides a summary of mass reduction and cost impact for
select sub-subsystems evaluated. The total mass savings found on the Climate Control System mass
was reduced by 1.94kg (9.5%). This decreased cost by $14.71, or $7.59 per kg. Mass reduction for
this system reduced vehicle curb weight by 0.08%.
Table 3-105: Climate Control System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500
w
S
d
12
12
12
12
12
12
__
12
12
12
M
c
CT
VI
*<
CO
(0
00
01
01
01
02
02
03
03
04
04
m
c
CT
CO
c
a-
0)
en
01
3
00
00
02
04
00
01
66
05
00
03
Description
Climate Control System
_jOJrJHandJBijghL!^dy Ventilation Subsystem
Air Distributor C^.c* Ccmpcnents
HVAC Main Unit
Heating/Defrosting Subsystem ;
Supplementary Heat Source
Refrigeration / Air Conditioning Subsystem
AC Lines, Receiver Drier and Accumulator
Controls Subsystem
Electronic Climate Control Unit
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Mass
"kg"
1488
2.89
12.00
0.29
— ^
4.74
4.74
0.39
0.39
20.31
Mass
Reduction
kg d)
1.94
1.43
0.51
0.00
0.00
obo
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.94
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
NIDMC
"$" (21
14.71
14.02
0.69
0.00
0.00
CUM)
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.71
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
"$/kg"(2)
Y^
9.82
1.35
-
-
„
-
—
—
7.59
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
%
13.63%
49.49%
4.26%
-
_ _~
„
..
—
—
9.55%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
6.013% ~
0.06%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
™°*-
0;0o%"
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.08%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Columns in the "Net Value of Mass Reduction" chart above may contain combined masses of
assembly hardware such as nuts, bolt, washer, etc. that were not mass reduced at the component
level, and may not match base mass and mass reduction totals in text below component reduction
weights.
Mass savings opportunities were identified for the following components: air distribution duct and
HVAC main unit.
Air Distribution Duct Components: The air distribution duct components mass was decreased by
using Azote, from Zotefoams, Inc.® Mass was reduced by 49%, from 2.64 kg to 1.34 kg.
HVAC Main Unit: The HVAC main unit mass was reduced by using PolyOne® foaming agent.
Mass was reduced by 4% from 10.4 kg to 9.92 kg.
-------
3.14.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis
The Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Climate Control System is very similar to that of the Silverado 1500.
Image 3.14-1: Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and 2500 Climate Control System
(Source: GM)
\
-------
3.14.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary
Table 3-106 summarizes mass and cost impact of the Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies
as applied to the Silverado 2500. Total Climate Control System mass savings was 1.75 kg at a cost
decrease of $13.40, or $7.68 per kg.
Table 3-106: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Climate Control System, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;-;
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i>
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" „}
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"S/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Climate Control
Air Handling / Body Ventilation Subsystem
1.75
0.00
1.75
$13.40
JO.00
$13.40
$7.68
0 06%
1.75
(Decrease/
0.00
1.75
(Decrease)
$13.40
(Decrease)
$0.00
$13.40
(Decrease)
$7.68
(Decrease)
0.06%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
0.0%_, 10,0%
0.0%
0.0%_
1.75
1.94
90.0%
I % Saved, technology applies
I % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
I % Lost, technology already implemented
I % Lost, technology reduced impact
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
3.14.1.3 System Scaling Analysis
The Silverado 2500 Climate Control System components were reviewed for compatibility with
lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-107.
Table 3-107: System Scaling Analysis Climate Control System, Silverado 2500
Silverado 1500
(D
g
CO
tr
tn
2-
3
tn
c.
tr
U)
la
Component/Assembly
12 Climate Control System
12
1?
01
01
02
04
Air Distribution Duct Components
HVAC Main Unit
Base
Mass
20.31
2.89
12.00
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
1.94
1.43
0.51
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
10%
49%
4%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
Base
Mass
2.64
10 3fi
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
1.75
1.30
0.44
Notes
Tech DOES apply: Change plastic material to Zotefoams
Azote
Tech DOES apply: Use MuCell Foam injection molding
technology
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Silverado 2500 include the air
distribution duct and HVAC main unit.
-------
Air Distribution Duct Components
Shown in Image 3.14-2 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series air distribution duct components.
Component masses were 2.89 kg for the 1500 versus 2.64 kg for the 2500. The lightweighting
technology used in the air distribution duct components was Azote, from Zotefoams, Inc.®. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 air distribution
duct mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-107).
Image 3.14-2: Air Distribution Duct Components are the same for Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
HVAC Main Unit
Shown in Image 3.14-3 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series HVAC main units. Component
masses were 12.0 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 10.4 kg for the 2500. The respective technology
used on the HVAC main unit was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities in
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 HVAC main unit duct mass
reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-107).
Image 3.14-3: HVAC Main Units are the same for Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
3.14.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500
The following table summarizes the Silverado 1500 and 2500 lightweighting results. The majority
of the components were visually the same between the two Climate Control Systems.
Table 3-108: Climate Control System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500
VI
•-<
'£.
oT
3
12
12
12
Description
Climate Control
Silverado 1500
Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Base
"kg" (i)
20.31
J2-5L
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (i)
1.94
IJLZLl.
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i)
0.00
IlMLl
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" ;;-;;,
194
IIJjLl...
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
9-55%
jy7§T'
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
$14.71
""$13.40
Cost
Impact
Comp
"5" G;
$0-00
""$"b"."o"o""
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2>
$14.71
"$"l"3""40"
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
$7.59
$7""68
3.14.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CD!
Table 3-109 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies as
applied to the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. Total Climate Control System mass savings was 1.16 kg
at a cost decrease of $7.99, or $6.90 per kg.
Table 3-109: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Climate Control System, Mercedes Sprinter
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (I,
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"k9"(D
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"I" <2>
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2}
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"I/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Climate Control
01
00
Air Handling / Body.Ventilation Subsystem
1.16
0.00
1.16
S7.99
$0.00
$7.99
$6.90
0.05%
1.16
(Decrease)
0.00
1.16
[Decrease)
$7.99
(Decrease)
$0.00
$7.99
(Decrease)
$6.90
(Decrease;
0.05%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, Hew Technology "kg" 1.16
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 1.94
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 59.7%
I % Saved, technology applies
I % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
I % Lost, technology already implemented
I % Lost, technology reduced impact
0.0%
:SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
-------
3.14.2.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Climate Control System components were reviewed for
compatibility with lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-110.
Table 3-110: System Scaling Analysis Climate Control System, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1500
•-=:
t£
a
=
en
cr
u
HI
3
&
«)
c=
a
d
Component/Assembly
12 Climate Control System
12
1?
01
m
02
(M
Air Distribution Duct Components
HVAC Main Unit
Base
Mass
20.31
289
12.00
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
1.94
1.43
0.51
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
10%
49%
4%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
Base
Mass
1.53
q?7
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
1.16
0.76
0.40
Notes
Tech DOES apply: Change plastic material to Zotefoams
Azote
Tech DOES apply: Use MuCell Foam injection molding
technology
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Mercedes Sprinter included the air
distribution duct components and HVAC Main Unit. Image 3.14-4 shows the Mercedes Sprinter
311 CDi Climate Control System components.
Image 3.14-4: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Climate Control System
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
Air Distribution Duct Components
Shown in Image 3.14-5 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi air distribution duct
components. Component masses were 2.89 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 1.53 kg for the
Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. The lightweighting technology used on the air distribution duct
components was Azote, from Zotefoams, Inc.® Due to similarities in component design and
material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 air distribution duct mass reduction can be applied
to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-1 lOTable 3-107).
-------
Image 3.14-5: Air Distribution Duct Components for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
(Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
HVAC Main Unit
Shown in Image 3.14-6 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi HVAC main units.
Component masses were 12.0 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 9.37 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter
311 CDi. Both HVAC main units were made of plastic. The lightweighting technology used on
both the HVAC main units was PolyOne® foaming agent on the plastic. Due to similarities in
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 HVAC main unit mass
reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-1 lOTable 3-107).
-------
Image 3.14-6: HVACMain Unit for Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
\
-------
3.14.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi
Table 3-111 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies
applied to the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. Climate Control System mass savings was 0.59 kg at a cost
decrease of $2.91, or $4.96 per kg.
Table 3-111: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Climate Control System, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" PI
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i>
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" :•;
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" p>
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Climate Control
01
00
Air Handling / Body Ventilation Subsystem
0.59
0.00
0.59
$2.91
$0.00
$2.91
$4.96
002%
0.59
(Decrease/
0.00
0.59
(Decrease)
$2.91
(Decrease)
$0.00
$2.91
Decrease)
$4.96
;Decrease)
0.02%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 0.59
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg" 1.94
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 30.3%
I % Saved, technology applies
I % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
I % Lost, technology already implemented
i % Lost, technology reduced impact
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
3.14.3.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Renault Master 2.3 DCi Climate Control System components were reviewed for compatibility
with lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-112.
Table 3-112: System Scaling Analysis Climate Control System, Renault Master
Silverado 1500
^<
s
3
co
o-
01
*<
3
CO
O"
CO
c
D-
d
Component/Assembly
12 Climate Control System
12
1?
01
(11
02
04
Air Distribution Duct Components
HVAC Main Unit
Base
Mass
20.31
289
12.00
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
1.94
143
0.51
% of Mass
Savings
Mew
Tech
10%
49%
4%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
Base
Mass
0.51
7V\
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.59
025
0.34
Notes
Tech DOES apply: Change plastic material to Zotefoams
Azote
Tech DOES appiy: Use MuCell Foam injection molding
technology
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Renault Master 2.3 DCi include the Air
Distribution Duct Components and HVAC Main Unit. Image 3.14-7 shows the Renault Master 2.3
DCi Climate Control System components
-------
Image 3.14-7: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Climate Control System
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
Air Distribution Duct Components
Shown in Image 3.14-8 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi Air Distribution Duct
Components. Component masses were 2.89 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 1.53 kg for the Renault
Master 2.3 DCi. The lightweighting technology used on the Air Distribution Duct Components was
Azote, from Zotefoams, Inc.® Due to similarities in component material, full percentage of the
Silverado 1500 air distribution duct mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to Table
3-112Table 3-107).
Image 3.14-8: Air Distribution Duct Components for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. andwww.A2macl.com)
HVAC Main Unit
Shown in Image 3.14-9 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi HVAC main unit.
Component masses were 12.0 kg for the 1500 versus 9.37 kg for the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. Both
HVAC main units were made of plastic. The lightweighting technology used on both the HVAC
main units was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities in component design and
-------
material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 HVAC main unit mass reduction can be applied to
the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-112Table 3-107).
Image 3.14-9: HVAC Main Unit for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and A2macl.com)
3.15 INFORMATION, GAGE AND WARNING DEVICE SYSTEM
3.15.1 Silverado 1500 Summary
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Information, Gage and Warning Device System included the driver
information center and traffic horn assembly. The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 analysis identified
mass reduction alternatives and cost implications for the Information, Gage, and Warning Device
System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements of the baseline vehicle.
Table 3-113 provides a summary of mass reduction and cost impact for select sub-subsystems
evaluated. The total mass savings found on the Information, Gage, and Warning Device System
mass was reduced by 0.25 kg (15.72%). This decreased cost by $0.66, or $2.66 per kg. Mass
reduction for this system reduced vehicle curb weight by 0.01%.
-------
Table 3-113: Information, Gage and Warning Device System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500
£2.
CD
3
13
13
13
13
13
en
E
cr
tfi
d
01
01
02
02
02
CO
cr
c.
cr
re
00
01
00
01
02
Description
Instrument Cluster Subsystem
Driver Information Center
Traffic Horns [Electric)
Traffic Horn Assembly - LH
Traffic Horn Assembly - RH
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Mass
kg
1.06
1.06
0.52
0.26
0.26
1.58
Mass
Reduction
kg (•;
0.06
0.06
0.18
0.09
0.09
0.25
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
NIDMC
$ (2)
0.49
0.49
0.17
0.09
0.09
0.66
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
I/kg (2j
7.67
7.67
0.93
0.93
0.93
2.66
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
%
5.99%
5.99%
35.64%
35.64%
35.64%
15.72%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
iii-i/ ii
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
(1} "*" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2| "*" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Columns in the "Net Value of Mass Reduction" chart above may contain combined masses of
assembly hardware such as nuts, bolt, washer, etc. that were not mass reduced at the component
level, and may not match base mass and mass reduction totals in text below component reduction
weights.
Mass savings opportunities were identified for the following components: cluster mask assembly,
cluster rear housing, display housing, LH/RH horn outer plastic cover, LH/RH horn outside steel
cover, and LH/RH horn mounting bracket.
Cluster Mask Assembly: The cluster mask assembly mass was decreased by using PolyOne®
foaming agent. Mass was reduced by 10%, from 0.18 kg to 0.16 kg.
Cluster Rear Housing: The cluster rear housing mass was reduced by using PolyOne® foaming
agent. Mass was reduced by 10% from 0.20 kg to 0.18 kg.
Display Housing: The display housing mass was reduced by using PolyOne® foaming agent. Mass
was reduced by 10%, from 0.25 kg to 0.22 kg.
Horn Outer Plastic Cover (LH/RH): The horn outer plastic cover LH/RH mass was reduced by
using PolyOne® foaming agent. Mass was reduced by 10%, from 0.04 kg to 0.03 kg.
Horn Outside Steel Cover (LH/RH): The horn outside steel cover LH/RH mass was reduced by
changing from steel to plastic and then using PolyOne® foaming agent. Mass was reduced by 78%,
from 0.04 kg to 0.01 kg.
Horn Mounting bracket (LH/RH): The horn mounting bracket LH/RH mass was reduced by
changing from steel to plastic and then using PolyOne® foaming agent. Mass was reduced by 78%,
from 0.03 kg to 0.008 kg.
3.15.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis
The Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Information, Gage and Warning Device System is very similar to
the 1500.
-------
Image 3.15-1: Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Information, Gage and Warning Device System
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
3.15.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary
Table 3-114: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Information, Gage and Warning Device System
summarizes the mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies as applied to
the Silverado 2500. Total Information, Gage, and Warning Device System mass savings is 0.25 kg
at a cost decrease of $.65, or $2.62 per kg.
Table 3-114: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Information, Gage and Warning Device System, Silverado 2500
-------
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (i>
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (1>
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg";-;
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
13
00
00
Information, Gage and W.?rn.i.n.9. Djyice System
Instrument Cluster Subsystem
Traffic Horns [Electric)
0.06
"oTis""
0.00
""""'""
0.06
"oTis""
$0.49
TbTi'e"
$0,00
"$"b"."b"b"
$0.49
""""""
$773
-------
0,00%
"'
0.25
(Decrease)
0.00
0.25
(Decrease)
$0.65
(Decrease;
$0.00
$0.65
(Decrease)
$2.62
(Decrease)
0.01%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, Hew Technology "kg" 0.25
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg" 0.25
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 100.0%
0.0%
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
I % Saved, technology applies
I % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
I % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
\
-------
3.15.1.3 System Scaling Analysis
The Silverado 2500 Information, Gage and Warning Device System components were reviewed for
compatibility with lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-115.
Table 3-115: System Scaling Analysis for Information, Gage and Warning Device System, Silverado 2500
Silverado 1500
CO
I
g
(f!
T
UJ
m
S-
3
Component/Assembly
13 Information, Gage and Warning Device System
13
13
13
13
11
13
13
n
13
01
01
01
02
n?
02
02
n?
02
01
01
01
01
m
01
01
m
01
Cluster Mask Assy
Cluster Rear Housing
Display Housing
Outer plastic cover
Mounting brkt
Outer plastic cover
Mounting brkt
Base
Mass
1.58
0 19
020
0.25
0 04
007
0.04
004
007
004
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.25
0018
0020
0 025
0004
0.05S
0.030
0004
0058
0030
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
16%
10%
10%
10%
9%
78%
79%
9%
7S%
79%
Seteer Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
0.19
020
0.26
004
007
0.04
004
007
004
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.25
002
002
0 03
000
006
003
000
006
0.03
Notes
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES applv Use Polyline foaming agent
Tech DOES aoplv Use Pol';cine foa-ing agent
Tech DOES apply Change from steel to plastic and
use Polyone foaminq agent
Tech DOES apply: Change from steel to plastic and
use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply: Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Change from steel to plastic and
use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Change from steel to plastic and
use Polyone foaming agent
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Silverado 2500 include the cluster mask
assembly, cluster rear housing, display housing, and horn outer plastic cover (LH/RH), horn outside
steel cover (LH/RH), and horn mounting bracket (LH/RH).
Cluster Mask Assembly
Shown in Image 3.15-2 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series cluster mask assembly. Component
masses were 0.19 kg for both the Silverado 1500 and for the 2500. The lightweighting technology
used in the cluster mask assembly was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities
in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 cluster mask assembly
mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-1 ISTable 3-107).
Image 3.15-2: Cluster Mask Assembly is the same for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Cluster Rear Housing
Shown in Image 3.15-3 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series cluster rear housing. Component
masses were 0.20 kg for both the Silverado 1500 and the 2500. The lightweighting technology used
on the cluster rear housing was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities in
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 cluster rear housing mass
reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-1 ISTable 3-107).
-------
Image 3.15-3: Cluster Rear Housing is the same for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Display Housing
Shown in Image 3.15-4 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 Display Housing. Component masses were
0.25 kg for both the Silverado 1500 and for the 2500. The lightweighting technology used in the
Display Housing is to use PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities in component
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 display housing mass reduction can be
applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-1 ISTable 3-107).
Image 3.15-4: Display Housing is the same for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Horn Outer plastic covers (LH/RH)
Shown in Image 3.15-5 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 horn outer plastic cover (LH/RH).
Component masses were 0.04 kg for both the 1500 and for the 2500. The lightweighting technology
used in the horn outer plastic covers was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities
in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 horn outer plastic cover
mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-1 ISTable 3-107).
-------
Image 3.15-5: Horn outer plastic cover (LH/RH) is the same for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Horn Outside steel covers RH and LH
Shown in Image 3.15-6 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series horn outside steel cover (LH/RH).
Component masses were 0.07 kg for both the 1500 for the 2500. The lightweighting technology
used was to change from steel to plastic and use PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 horn outside
steel cover mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-115).
Image 3.15-6: Horn outside steel cover (LH/RH) is the same for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Horn Mounting bracket RH and LH
Shown in Image 3.15-7 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series Horn Mounting bracket RH and LH.
Component masses are .04 kg for both the 1500 and 2500. The lightweighting technology used on
the Horn Mounting bracket RH and LH is to change from steel to plastic and use PolyOne® foaming
agent in the plastic. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the
Silverado 1500 horn mounting bracket mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table
3-1 ISTable 3-107).
-------
Image 3.15-7: Horn Mounting bracket (LH/RH) is the same for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
3.15.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500
Table 3-116 summarizes the Silverado 1500 and 2500 lightweighting results. The majority of the
components were visually the same between the Information, Gage, and Warning Device Systems.
Table 3-116: Information, Gage, and Warning Device System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500
C/3
,__-
¥1
(D
3
13
13
13
Description
Info & Gage
Silverado 1500
Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Base
"kg" R
158""
1.58
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ,:-;
0"25
0.25
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg"
$0"65
SO. 65
Cost
Impact
Comp
"«"(2)
TO'iT
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$"(2)
"$b"65
SO. 65
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
$2.62
$2.62
\
-------
3.15.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
Table 3-117 summarizes the mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies
as applied to the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. Total Information, Gage and Warning Device System
mass savings was 0.23 kg, at a cost decrease of $1.26, or $5.49 per kg.
Table 3-117: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Information, Gage and Warning Device System, Mercedes Sprinter
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg"
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg"
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" :•
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$"(2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$"(2)
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Information, Gage and W?.!!ning Diyice System
01
00
0.16
0.00
0.16
$1.28
$0.00
$1.28
$8 19
0.01%
02
00
Traffic Horns (Electric)
0.07
0.00
0.07
-$0.01
$0.00
-$0.01
-$0.19
0.00%
0.23
(Decrease;
0.00
0.23
(Decrease}
$1.26
(Decrease)
$0.00
$1.26
(Decrease)
$5.49
(Decrease)
0.01%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 0.23
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Mew Technology "kg" 0.25
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 93.0%
B % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecenl contributions
3.15.2.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Information, Gage and Warning Device System components were
reviewed for compatibility with lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed
in Table 3-118.
Table 3-118: System Scaling Analysis Information, Gage and Warning Device System, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1500
en
a
3
(n
tr
£0
c
n-
Hi
3
Component/Assembly
13 Information, Gage and Warning Divice System
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
01
01
01
02
n?
02
02
02
02
01
01
01
01
ni
01
01
01
01
Cluster Mask Assy
Cluster Rear Housing
Display Housing
Outer plastic cover
Mounting brkt
Outer plastic cover
Outside stl cover
Mounting brkt
Base
Mass
1.58
0 19
020
025
004
007
004
004
007
004
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.25
0 018
0020
0.025
0004
0058
0030
0004
0.058
0030
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
16%
10%
10%
10%
9%
78%
79%
9%
78%
79%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
Base
Mass
0.79
039
0.39
007
002
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.23
0.08
004
004
006
002
Motes
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaminq agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Outer cover is steel
Tech DOES apply: Change from steel to plastic and use
Polyone foaminq agent
Tech DOES apply Change from steel to plastic and use
Polyone foaminq agent
Tech does NOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Part not on vehicle
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
-------
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Mercedes Sprinter included the cluster
mask assembly, cluster rear housing, display housing, and horn outside steel cover, horn mounting
bracket. Image 3.15-8 shows the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Information, Gage, and Warning
Device System components.
Image 3.15-8: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Information, Gage, and Warning Device System
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
Cluster Mask Assembly
Shown in Image 3.15-9 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi cluster mask
assembly. Component masses were 0.19 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.79 kg for the Mercedes
Sprinter 311 CDi. The lightweighting technology used on the cluster mask assembly is to use
PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities in component material, full percentage
of the Silverado 1500 cluster mask assembly mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer
toTable3-118Table3-107).
Image 3.15-9: Cluster Mask Assembly for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Cluster Rear Housing
Shown in Image 3.15-10 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi cluster rear
housings. Component masses were 0.20 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.39 kg for the Mercedes
Sprinter 311 CDi. Both cluster rear housings were made of plastic. The lightweighting technology
used on both was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities in component design
and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 cluster rear housing mass reduction can be
applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-1 ISTable 3-107).
Image 3.15-10: Cluster Rear Housing for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Display Housing
Shown in Image 3.15-11 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi display housings.
Component masses were 0.25 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.39 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter
311 CDi. Both display housings were made of plastic. The lightweighting technology used on both
was to use PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities in component design and
material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 display housing mass reduction can be applied to
the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-1 ISTable 3-107).
Image 3.15-11: Display Housing for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Horn Outside steel cover
Shown in Image 3.15-12 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Horn Outside steel
covers. Component masses were 0.07 kg for both the 1500 and for the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi.
The lightweighting technology used on the Horn Outside steel cover is to change from steel to
plastic and use PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities in component design and
material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 horn outside steel cover mass reduction can be
applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-1 ISTable 3-107).
-------
Image 3.15-12: Horn Outside steel cover for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Horn Mounting bracket
Shown in Image 3.15-13 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Horn Mounting
brackets. Component masses were 0.04 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.02 kg for the Mercedes
Sprinter 311 CDi. The lightweighting technology used on the horn mounting bracket was to change
from steel to plastic, and use PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities in
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 horn mounting bracket mass
reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-1 ISTable 3-107).
Image 3.15-13: Horn Mounting bracket for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
3.15.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi
Table 3-119 summarizes the mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies
as applied to the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. Information, Gage and Warning Device System mass
savings was 0.13 kg at a cost decrease of $0.66, or $4.91 per kg.
Table 3-119: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Information, Gage and Warning Device System, Renault Master
-------
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg";-.
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ;.;
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" ;•:
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"S" :;;:
Cost
impact
Comp
"$" {2}
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"J/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
'nation. Gage and Warning Diyice System
Instrument Cluster Subsystem
Traffic Horns (Electric)
0.08
T06""
0.00
Too'"
0.08
..._...
$0.67
$0.00
"it'Ob"
$0.67
.__..
$8.75
——
0.00%
•——
0.13
rDecrease
0.00
0.13
(Decrease)
$0.66
(Decrease)
$0.00
$0.66
(Decrease)
$4.91
(Decrease)
0.01%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 0.13
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 0.25
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 54.2%
1.6%
I % Saved, technology applies
I % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
I % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
3.15.3.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Renault Master 2.3 DCi Information, Gage and Warning Device System components were
reviewed for compatibility with lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed
in Table 3-120.
Table 3-120: System Scaling Analysis Information, Gage and Warning Device System, Renault Master
Silverado 1500
(n
o-
3
Cfl
5-
W
c
D-
nf
3
Component/ Assembly
13 Information, Gage and Warning Divice System
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
01
01
01
02
n?
02
02
02
02
01
01
01
01
(11
01
01
01
01
Cluster Mask Assy
Cluster Rear Housing
Dis )laj Housing
Outer plastic cover
Mounting brkt
Outer plastic cover
Outside stl cover
Mounting brkt
Base
Mass
1.58
019
020
025
0.04
007
0.04
004
0 07
004
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.25
0018
0020
0025
0.004
0058
0030
0004
0.058
0030
f, of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
16%
10%
10%
10%
9%
78%
79%
3%
78%
79%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
no
Base
Mass
0.44
034
005
002
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.13
004
003
004
0.02
Notes
Tech DOES acoly Use Fclycne foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming aqent
Tech DOES apply No part on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Outer cover is stee
Tech DOES apply Change from steel to plastic and use
Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Change from steel to plastic and use
Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT a.-:.:l. On!/ one horn on vehicle
Tech does NOT aoplv Only one horn on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Only one horn on vehicle
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Renault Master 2.3 DCi include the
Cluster Mask Assembly, Cluster Rear Housing, and Horn Outside steel cover, Horn Mounting
bracket. Image 3.15-14 shows the Renault Master 2.3 DCi Information, Gage and Warning Device
System.
-------
Image 3.15-14: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Information, Gage and Warning Device System
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
\
-------
Cluster Mask Assembly
Shown in Image 3.15-15 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi cluster mask assembly
components. Component masses were 0.19 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.44 kg for the Renault
Master 2.3 DCi. The lightweighting technology used on the cluster mask assembly was PolyOne®
foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage
of the Silverado 1500 cluster mask assembly mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer
to Table 3-120 Table 3-107).
Image 3.15-15: Cluster Mask Assembly for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Cluster Rear Housing
Shown in Image 3.15-16 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi cluster rear housing.
Component masses were 0.20 kg for the 1500 versus 0.34 kg for the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. The
cluster rear housing was made of plastic. The lightweighting technology used in the cluster rear
housing was PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities in component design and
material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 cluster rear housing mass reduction can be applied
to the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-120Table 3-107).
Image 3.15-16: Cluster Rear Housing for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Horn Outside steel cover
Shown in Image 3.15-17 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi horn outside steel
cover. Component masses were 0.07 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.05 kg for the Renault
Master 2.3 DCi. The lightweighting technology used in the horn outside steel cover was to change
from steel to plastic and use PolyOne® foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities in
-------
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 horn outside steel cover mass
reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-120Table 3-107).
Image 3.15-17: Horn Outside steel cover for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Horn mounting bracket
Shown in Image 3.15-18 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi Horn Mounting
brackets. Component masses are .04 kg for the 1500 versus .02 kg for the Renault Master 2.3 DCi
respectively. The lightweighting technology used on the Horn Mounting bracket was to change
from steel to plastic and use PolyOne foaming agent in the plastic. Due to similarities in component
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 horn mounting bracket mass reduction
can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to Table 3-120Table 3-107).
Image 3.15-18: Horn Mounting bracket for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
3.16 ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY
3.16.1 Silverado 1500 Summary
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Electrical Power Supply System included the battery, battery tray,
battery hold down, and auxiliary battery tray. The battery was a lead acid battery with a steel battery
tray. The hold down was made of plastic and the auxiliary battery tray of steel.
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 analysis identified mass reduction alternatives and cost implications
for the Electrical Power Supply System with the intent to meet the function and performance
requirements of the baseline vehicle. Table 3-121 provides a summary of mass reduction and cost
impact for select sub-subsystems evaluated. The total mass savings found on the Electrical Power
Supply System mass was reduced by 12.8 kg (60.6%). This increased cost by $172.73, or $13.49
per kg. Mass reduction for this system reduced vehicle curb weight by 0.54%.
Table 3-121: Electrical Power Supply System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500
-------
W
^<
S2-
o
3
14
14
CO
n
cr
«
^<
en
3
01
01
09
£=
O"
OT
c
cr
tn
01
(D
3
00
01
Description
Service Battery Subsystem
Battery Heat Shield & Battery Management
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Mass
k9
21.12
21.12
21.12
Mass
Reduction
kg (i)
12.81
12.81
12.81
(Decrease;
Cost
Impact
NIDMC
II(TII
* El
-172.73
-172.73
-172.73
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
"S'kg" f:
-13.49
-13.49
-13.49
(Increase)
Mass
Reduction
%
60.64%
50.64%
60.64%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.54%
0.54%
0.54%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Columns in the "Net Value of Mass Reduction" chart above may contain combined masses of
assembly hardware such as nuts, bolt, washer, etc. that were not mass reduced at the component
level, and may not match base mass and mass reduction totals in text below component reduction
weights.
Mass savings opportunities were identified for the following components: battery, battery tray, and
auxiliary battery tray.
Battery: The battery mass was reduced by changing the lead acid battery to a lithium-ion battery.
Mass was reduced by 66.7%, from 17.7 kg to 5.9 kg.
Battery tray: The battery tray mass was reduced by changing the tray from steel to plastic. Mass
was reduced by 34.2%, from 1.9 kg to 1.2 kg.
Auxiliary battery tray: The battery tray mass was reduced by changing the tray from steel to plastic.
Mass was reduced by 34.2%, from 0.98 kg to 0.65 kg.
-------
3.16.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis
The Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Electrical Power Supply System was very similar to the 1500 system.
Image 3.16-1: Chevrolet Silverado electrical power supply system
(Source: www.A2macl database)
\
-------
3.16.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary
The following table summarizes mass and cost impact of the Silverado 1500 lightweighting
technologies as applied to the Silverado 2500. Total Electrical Power Supply System mass savings
was 12.67 kg at a cost increase of $170.81, or $13.48 per kg.
Table 3-122: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Power Supply System, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" :-;
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (.}
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (1)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"S/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Ejectrical Power Supply System
Service Battery Subsystem
12.67
0.00
12.67
4170.81
$0.00
-170.81
-1348
0.41%
12.67
(Decrease)
0.00
12.67
(Decrease)
-$170.81
(Increase)
$0.00
-170.81
(Increase)
-13.48
(Increase)
0.41%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, Hew Technology "kg" 12.672
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg" 12.807
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 98.9%
0.0% 1.1%
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
• % Lost, technology reduced impact
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
3.16.1.3 System Scaling Analysis
The Silverado 2500 Electrical Power Supply components were reviewed for compatibility with
lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-123.
Table 3-123: Electrical Power Supply System Scaling Analysis for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
Silverado 1500
^
a
CO
D-
•^
Q
a
rn
E
IT
U)
cr
a
3
Component/Assembly
14 Electrical Power Supply System
14
14
14
01
01
01
01
01
01
Battery
Battery Tray
Aux Battery Tray
Base
Mass
21.12
1771
1 95
0.98
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
12.81
11 81
067
0.34
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
61%
67%
34%
34%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
1751
1 94
0.98
Mass
Savings
Mew
Tech
12.67
11.67
066
0.34
Notes
Tech DOES Apply: Change to Lithium-Ion Battery
Tech DOES Apply Change from steel to plastic
Tech DOES Apply Change from steel to plastic
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Silverado 2500 included the battery,
battery tray, and auxiliary battery tray.
-------
Shown in Image 3.16-2 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 batteries. Component masses were 17.7
kg for the 1500 versus 17.5 kg for the 2500. The lightweighting technology used on the batteries
was to change from a lead acid battery to a lithium-ion battery. Due to similarities in component
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 battery mass reduction can be applied to
the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-123Table 3-107).
Image 3.16-2: Battery for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Battery Tray
Shown in Image 3.16-3 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series battery trays. Component masses
were 1.95 kg for the 1500 versus 1.94 kg for the 2500. The lightweighting technology used on the
battery tray was to change from a steel tray to plastic. Image 3.16-4 shows the Ford F150 plastic
battery tray for example. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of
the Silverado 1500 battery tray mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table
3-123Table 3-107).
Image 3.16-3: Battery Tray for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 3.16-4: 2012 Ford F150 Battery Tray Assembly
(Source: www.A2macl database)
-------
Auxiliary battery tray
Shown in Image 3.16-5 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series auxiliary battery trays. Component
masses were 0.98 kg for both the 1500 and 2500. The lightweighting technology used on the
auxiliary battery tray was to change from a steel tray to plastic. Due to similarities in component
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 auxiliary battery mass reduction can be
applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-123Table 3-107).
Image 3.16-5: Auxiliary battery tray for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
3.16.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500
Table 3-124 summarizes the Silverado 1500 and 2500 lightweighting results. A majority of the
components were visually the same between the electrical power supplies.
Table 3-124: Electrical Power Supply System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500
CO
•-=:
2.
(D
3
14
14
14
Description
Electrical Power Supply
Silverado 1500
Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Base
"kg" (i)
21.12
20.95
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;•:
12.81
12.67
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ;•;
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" ;;-;,
12.81
12.67
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
60.64%
60.49%
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" ,2,
4172.73
-$170.81
Cost
Impact
Comp
<'
-------
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (•;
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ;•
Mass
Reduction
Total
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"J/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Electrical Power Supply System
01
00
Service Battery Subsystem
12.96
0.00
12.96
-$184.33
$0.00
-184.33
-14.22
0.61%
12.96
(Decrease)
0.00
12.96
(Decrease)
-$184.33
$0.00
-18433
-14.22
(Increase)
0.61%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
12.960
12.807
101.2%
2.6%
5.2%
0.0% ^-
I % Saved, technology applies
I % Lost, component does n't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
I % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
3.16.2.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Electrical Power Supply components were reviewed for
compatibility with lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-126.
Table 3-126: System Scaling Analysis Electrical Power Supply System, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1500
en
I
3
en
-------
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Mercedes Sprinter included the battery.
Image 3.16-6 shows the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Electrical Power Supply components.
Image 3.16-6: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Battery
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
Shown in Image 3.16-7 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi batteries.
Component masses were 17.7 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 19.4 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter
311 CDi. The lightweighting technology used on the batteries was to change from a lead acid battery
to a lithium-ion battery. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of
the Silverado 1500 battery mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table
3-126Table 3-107).
Image 3.16-7: Battery for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
3.16.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi
Table 3-127 summarizes mass and cost impact of the Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies
as applied to the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. Total electrical power supply system mass savings was
18.13 kg at a cost increase of $257.84, or $14.22 per kg.
-------
Table 3-127: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Power Supply System, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" („
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg"
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (,)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Electrical Power Supply System
Service Battery Subsystem
13.13
0.00
18.13
-$257.84
$0.00
-257.842
-$14.22
0.77%
18.13
(Decrease/
0,00
18.13
(Decrease)
-$257.84
(Increase)
$0.00
-$257.84
(Increase)
-114.22
(Increase)
0.77%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
18.128
12.807
141.5%
-49.4%
5.2%
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component does n't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
• % Lost, technology reduced impact
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
3.16.3.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Renault Master 2.3 DCi electrical power supply components were reviewed for compatibility
with lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-127.
-------
Table 3-128: System Scaling Analysis for Electrical Pcrwer Supply System, Renault Master
Silverado 1500
CO
I
3
CO
-------
Table 3-128Table 3-107).
Image 3.16-9: Battery for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
3.17 LIGHTING
3.17.1 Silverado 1500 Summary
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Lighting system included all interior and exterior lighting. Only the
front headlamps were used as a mass savings in the Silverado 1500.
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 analysis identified mass reduction alternatives and cost implications
for the Lighting System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements of the
baseline vehicle.
Table 3-129 provides a summary of mass reduction and cost impact for select sub-subsystems
evaluated. The total mass savings found on the Lighting System mass was reduced by 0.39 kg
(4.04%). This increased cost by $2.00, or $5.18 per kg. Mass reduction for this system reduced
vehicle curb weight by .02%.
Table 3-129: Lighting System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500
-------
CO
•-=;
w.
o
3
17
17
17
17
17
_
17
17
17
17
]7
3.7
17
17
17
17
"j7
Subsystem
01
01
01
02
02
••jJ2"
02
03
03
03
03"
"03"
04
04
04
05
_
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
04
00
02
07
08
00
01
04
"OB"
09
00
07
08
00
_
Description
Front Lighting Subsystem
Headlamp Cluster
Supplemental Front Lamps
Interior Lighting Subsystem
Interior Lighting
Lighting - Instrument Panel (IP: & Consoles
Lighting -Ambient Inst. Panel (IP) & Consoles
Rear Lighting Subsystem
Rear Combination Lamp
Supplemental Rear Lamps
License Plate Lamp
CHMSL (Center High Mount '"stoplight)
Lighting - Special Mechanisms Subsystem
Rain Sensor/Daylight Sensor
Headlamp Control Module
Lighting Switches Subsystem
Master Lighting S.vitchpack
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Mass
"kg"
6.70
6.18
0.52
0.00
0.00
Ob
0.00
2.74
2.39
b.ob
0.03
oil
6.66
0.00
6.66
6.13
Ijjlll
9.56
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (i)
0.39
0.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ob
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
b'."d"b
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
IJJLl
0.39
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
NIDMC
"IT"
(2)
-2.00
-2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ob
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
b"."b"b
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
UJPJL!
-2.00
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
"$/kg" (2}
-5.18
-5.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
b"bb
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
b'bb
0.00
bob
0.00
0.00
IlMLl
-5.18
(Increase)
Mass
Reduction
"%"
5.76%
6.25%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
b"bb%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6.bb%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
jO6%^
4.04%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.02%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
b.bb%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
IM°%Z
0.02%
(1) "-I-" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Columns in the "Net Value of Mass Reduction" chart above may contain combined masses of
assembly hardware such as nuts, bolt, washer, etc. that were not mass reduced at the component
level, and may not match base mass and mass reduction totals in text below component reduction
weights.
Mass savings opportunities were identified for the following components: headlamp housings,
headlamp inner reflectors.
Headlamp housings: The headlamp housings mass was reduced by using the MuCell® microcellular
gas injection molding technology. Mass was reduced by 2%, from 0.73 kg to 0.71 kg per headlamp.
Headlamp housing inner reflector: The headlamp housings inner reflectors mass was reduced by
replacing the reflector coating from UP-(MD60+GF20) to SABIC ULTEM™. Mass was reduced
by 40%, from 0.44 kg to 0.26 kg per headlamp reflector.
3.17.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis
The Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Lighting system was very similar to the 1500 system.
-------
Image 3.17-1: Headlamps for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
3.17.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary
Table 3-130 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies
applied to the Silverado 2500. Total lighting system mass savings is .39 kg at a cost increase of
$2.02, or $5.23 per kg.
Table 3-130: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Lighting System, Silverado 2500
•-e:
a
3
17
17
17
17
17
17
CO
09
t/j
3
"bo"
01
02
03
04
05
to
O"
c
cr
in
•-=;
3
66
00
00
00
00
00
Description
Lighting System
Front Lighting Suosvstem
Interior Lighting Subsystem
Rear Lighting Subsystem
Lighting - Special Mechanises Suosvste-r
Lighting Switches 3u:;svstem
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" d>
0.39
6.00
6.66
0.00
6.66
0.39
(Decrease;
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"Wm
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" ;•:
0.39
6.66
6.66
0.00
6.66
0.39
i Decrease.
Cost
Impact
New Tech
V (2)
-$2.02
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$2.02
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2>
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
T',2)
-$2.02
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$2.02
i In crease;
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
-$5.23
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$5.23
(Increase:
Reduction
Total
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 0.386
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg" 0.386
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 100.0%
0.0%
^^^^•|^. . % Saved, technology applies
m% Lost, component does n't exist
I % Lost, technology doesn't apply
Viia^ ==r
3.17.1.3 System Scaling Analysis
The Silverado 2500 Lighting components were reviewed for compatibility with lightweighting
technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-131.
-------
Table 3-131: System Scaling Analysis Lighting System, Silverado 2500
Silverado 1500
CO
S
3
CO
T
CO
o-
Si
3
Component/ Assembly
17 Lighting System
17
17
17
17
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
LH Head lamp housing
LH Head lamp housing inner reflector
RH Head lamp housing
RH Head lamp housing inner reflector
Base
Mass
9.56
0.73
0.45
073
045
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.39
0.02
0 18
0.02
018
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
4%
2%
40%
2%
40%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
073
045
0.73
045
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.39
0.02
0 18
0.02
0 18
Notes
Tech DOES Apply MuCell® applied to Housings
Tech DOES Apply Change Inner Reflectors Replace UP-
(MD60+GF20) with SABIC ULTEM
Tech DOES Apply MuCelKE applied to Housings
Tech DOES Apply: Change Inner Reflectors Replace UP-
(MD60+GF20)with SABIC ULTEM
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Silverado 2500 included the headlamp
housings and headlamp inner reflectors.
Headlamp Housing
Shown in Image 3.17-2 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series headlamps. Component masses
were 0.73 kg for both the 1500 and 2500. The lightweighting technology used on the headlamp
housings was MuCell® microcellular gas injection molding technology. Due to similarities in
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 headlamp housing mass
reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-13 ITable 3-107).
Image 3.17-2: Headlamp Housing for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Headlamp Inner Reflector
Shown in Image 3.17-3 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series headlamp inner reflectors.
Component masses were 0.45 kg for both the 1500 and for the 2500. The lightweighting technology
used on the headlamp inner reflectors was to change from UP-(MD60+GF20) to SABIC ULTEM™.
Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500
headlamp inner reflector mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-13 ITable
3-107).
-------
Image 3.17-3: Headlamp inner reflector for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
3.17.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500
Table 3-132 summarizes the Silverado 1500 and 2500 lightweighting results. A majority of the
components were visually the same between the two lighting systems.
Table 3-132: Lighting System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500
CO
•^<
tn
-------
««!
J2.
»
17
17
17
17
17
17
Subsystem
Mi
01
02
03"
04
05
Sub-Subsystem
66
00
00
oo"
00
00
Description
Lighting System
Front Lighting Subsystem
Interior Lighting Subsystem
Rear Lighting Sussvstern
Lighting - Special Mechams-s Suosystem
Lighting So/ itches 8u::svste-
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;.,
0.39
did
bio
0.00
0.00
0.39
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" [ij
0.00
0.00
old
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (1)
0.39
0.00
bib
0.00
0.00
0.39
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
-$2.02
$0.00
jblb
$0.00
$0.00
-$2.02
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Comp
i>(pi>
* P>
$0.00
$0.00
••••-•—•
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" {2}
-$2.02
$0.00
sblb
$0.00
$0.00
-$2.02
(Increase;
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
-$5.23
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$5.23
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
0.02%
0.00%
o.'bb%
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, Hew Technology "kg" 0.386
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 0.386
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 100.0%
0.0% 0.0%0.0%
0.0%
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
3.17.2.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Lighting components were reviewed for compatibility with
lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-134.
Table 3-134: System Scaling Analysis Lighting System, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1500
CO
I
W
c
3
17 Li
17
17
17
17
01
01
01
01
c
if)
E
O"
Component/ Assembly
ghting System
01
01
01
01
LH Head lamp housing
LH Head lamp housing inner reflector
RH Head lamp housing
RH Head lamp housing inner reflector
Base
Mass
9.56
073
0.45
073
0.45
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.39
002
0 18
002
0 18
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
4%
2%
40%
2%
40%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
073
0.44
073
0.44
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.39
0.02
0 18
002
0 18
Notes
Tech DOES Apply MuCell® applied to Housings
Tech DOES Apply: Change Inner Reflectors Replace UP-
(MD60+GF20) with SABIC ULTEM
Tech DOES Apply MuCell® applied to Housings
Tech DOES Apply Change Inner Reflectors Replace UP-
(MDGO+GF20) with SABIC ULTEM
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Mercedes Sprinter included the
headlamp housing and the headlamp inner reflector. Image 3.17-4 shows the Mercedes Sprinter
311 CDi lighting components.
-------
Image 3.17-4: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Headlamp
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
Headlamp Housing
Shown in Image 3.17-5 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi headlamps.
Component masses were .73 kg for both the 1500 and the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. The
lightweighting technology used on the headlamp housings is to use MuCell® microcellular gas
injection molding technology. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage
of the Silverado 1500 headlamp housing mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to
Table 3-134Table 3-107).
Image 3.17-5: Headlamp housing for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. andwww.A2macl.com)
Headlamp Inner Reflector
Shown in Image 3.17-6 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi headlamp inner
reflectors. Component masses were 0.45 kg for both the Silverado 1500 and the Mercedes Sprinter
311 CDi. The lightweighting technology used on the headlamp inner reflectors was to change from
UP-(MD60+GF20) to SABIC ULTEM™. Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 headlamp inner reflector mass reduction can be applied to the
Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-134Table 3-107).
-------
Image 3.17-6: Headlamp inner reflector for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. www.and A2macl.com)
3.17.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi
Table 3-135 summarizes the mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies
applied to the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. Total lighting system mass savings is .39 kg at a cost increase
of $2.02, or $5.23 per kg.
Table 3-135: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Lighting System, Renault Master
M
^=:
c/>
(D
3
17
"i'F
17
17
17
17
Subsystem
00
oT
•02"
03
04
._
Sub-Subsystem
00
"66"
._
00
00
"66
Description
Lighting System
Front Lighting Subsystem
Interior Lighting Suisvstem
Rear Lighting Subsystem
Lighting - Special Mechanisms Subsystem
Lighting Switches Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;-.
0.39
616
0.00
0.00
616
0.39
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" :•
0.00
616
0.00
0.00
616
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" !-j
0.39
616
0.00
0.00
616
0.39
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
••$" B
42.02
$616
$0.00
$0.00
$616
-$2.02
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Comp
T'(2)
$0.00
""$616"
$0.00
$0.00
"$616"
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$"(2)
-$2.02
$616
JO. 00
$0.00
$616
-$2.02
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
45.23
$616
$0.00
$0.00
$616
-$5.23
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
0.02%
616%
0.00%
0.00%
616%
0.02%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 0.386
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 0.386
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 100.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
'if. IS' not induced has no Gkinifoaiil i_2££| on iviecyni contn ,'j':ons
3.17.3.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Renault Master 2.3 DCi lighting components were reviewed for compatibility with
lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-136.
-------
Table 3-136: System Scaling Analysis Lighting System, Renault Master
Silverado 1500
0)
*<
3
17
17
17
17
17
G9
1
to
c
w
c
o-
3
Component/Assembly
Lighting System
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
LH Head lamp housing
LH Head lamp housing inner reflector
RH Head lamp housing
RH Head lamp housing inner reflector
Base
Mass
9.56
073
0.45
0.73
0.45
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.39
0.02
0 18
0 02
0.18
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
4%
2%
40%
2%
40%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
073
044
0.73
044
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.39
002
0 18
0 02
0.18
Notes
Tech DOES Apply MuCell® applied to Housings
Tech DOES Apply: Change inner Reflectors Replace UP-
(MD60+GF20) with SABIC ULTEM
Tech DOES Apply MuCell® applied to Housings
Tech DOES Apply: Change Inner Reflectors Replace UP-
(MDGO+GF20) with SABIC ULTEM
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Renault Master 2.3 DCi included the
headlamp housing and headlamp inner reflector. Image 3.17-7 shows the Renault Master 2.3 DCi
lighting components.
Image 3.17-7: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Headlamp
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
Headlamp Housing
Shown in Image 3.17-8 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi headlamps. Component
masses were 0.73 kg for both the Silverado 1500 and the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. The
lightweighting technology used on the headlamp housings was MuCell® microcellular gas injection
molding technology. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the
Silverado 1500 headlamp housing mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to Table
3-136Table 3-107).
Image 3.17-8: Headlamp housing for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
-------
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Headlamp Inner Reflector
Shown in Image 3.17-9 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi headlamp inner
reflectors. Component masses were 0.45 kg for both the Silverado 1500 and the Renault Master 2.3
DCi. The lightweighting technology used on the headlamp inner reflectors was to change from UP-
(MD60+GF20) to SABIC ULTEM™. Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 headlamp inner reflector mass reduction can be applied to the
Renault. (Refer to Table 3-136Table 3-107).
Image 3.17-9: Headlamp inner reflector for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
3.18 ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION AND ELECTRICAL CONTROLS SYSTEM
^•\ y
3.18.1 Silverado 1500 Summary
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System included
overall vehicle wiring, which includes standard copper wire with Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)
sheathing and miscellaneous brackets.
The Chevrolet Silverado 1500 analysis identified mass reduction alternatives and cost implications
for the Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System with the intent to meet the function
and performance requirements of the baseline vehicle. Table 3-137 provides a summary of mass
reduction and cost impact for select sub-subsystems evaluated. The total mass savings found on the
Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System mass was reduced by 8.47 kg (25.21%). This
decreased cost by $61.44, or $7.26 per kg. Mass reduction for this system reduced vehicle curb
weight by 0.35%.
Table 3-13 7: Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500
-------
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Mass
"kg"
Mass
Reduction
"kg" :•:
Cost
Impact
NIDMC
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
"$/kg" [2;
Mass
Reduction
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem
Front End and Engine Cc™:-artment Wiring
instrument Panel Harness
33.59
"579
6l8
8.47
I'M
..._...
61.44
7.26
10^25
25.21%
"25"86"%"
p.35%
Tp6%"
...__..
18
01
02
13
01
03
13
01
04
18
01
07
Body and Rear End Wiring
Trailer Tow Wiring
Battery Cables
Load Co~c-art~ent Fuse Box ' Passive
3.52
T-1F
-
0.95
-
15.91
'"III""
""119T"
0.00
p-pp
Too"
T.27""
6.94
""¥1?"
18
01
08
18
01
33
Interior & Console wiring
Frt & Rear door harness
"Misc"
1.40
TIT"
"4"24"
0.67
1-45
Too""
p
•••"Ob""'
p.oo
Top""
P-PJ
'Top"
Too"
2476%
'27/10%'
¥P"P%
.__....
0.07%
114%""
'"dl'6%""
4776%
"""
0.03%
"""
pp%
""'""
pp%
"bTo'%'
33.59
8.47
(Decrease;
61.44
(Decrease)
7.26
(Decrease)
25.21%
0.35%
(1) "*" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "V = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Columns in the "Net Value of Mass Reduction" chart above may contain combined masses of
assembly hardware such as nuts, bolt, washer, etc. that were not mass reduced at the component
level, and may not match base mass and mass reduction totals in text below component reduction
weights.
Mass savings opportunities were identified for the following components: front bumper harness
(wiring on front module); engine wire harness; power train mass cable (ground cable); alternator
power cable; IP harness 1; IP harness 1 connector box bracket; IP harness 2; body and rear end
wiring (complete); differential wiring; under frame/tow harness (wiring on understructure); battery
cable - primary positive (starter wiring harness); battery cable - primary negative; battery cable -
positive; fuse box (support); fuse box - cover; center console wiring, headliner wiring, front door
harness, rear door harness.
Front Bumper Harness (Wiring on front module): The front bumper harness (wiring on front
module) mass was reduced by changing the copper wire to aluminum wire and changing the PVC
sheathing to Polyphenylene Oxide (PPO) sheathing. Mass was reduced by 42%, from 0.97 kg to
0.56kg.
Engine Wire Harness: The engine wire harness mass was reduced by changing the copper wire to
aluminum wire and changing the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Mass was reduced by 42%,
from 2.79 kg to 1.6kg.
Power train Mass Cable (ground cable): The power train mass cable (ground cable) mass was
reduced by changing the copper wire to aluminum wire and changing the PVC sheathing to PPO
sheathing. Mass was reduced by 48%, from 0.07 kg to 0.04 kg.
Alternator Power Cable: The alternator power cable mass was reduced by changing the copper wire
to aluminum wire and changing the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Mass was reduced by 45%
from 0.24 kg to 0.13 kg.
IP Harness 1: The IP harness 1 mass was reduced by changing the copper wire to aluminum wire
and changing the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Mass was reduced by 42%, from 3.75 kg to
2.16kg.
-------
IP Harness 1 Connector Box Bracket: The IP harness 1 connector box bracket mass was reduced
by changing from steel to plastic and using PolyOne® foaming agent. Mass was reduced by 42%,
from 0.38 kg to 0.27 kg.
IP Harness 2: The IP harness 2 mass was reduced by changing the copper wire to aluminum wire
and changing the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Mass was reduced by 42%, from 0.48 kg to
0.27 kg.
Body and Rear End Wiring (Complete): The body and rear end wiring (complete) mass was reduced
by changing the copper wire to aluminum wire and changing the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing.
Mass was reduced by 42%, from 2.44 kg to 1.40 kg.
Differential Wiring: The differential wiring mass was reduced by changing the copper wire to
aluminum wire and changing the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Mass was reduced by 44%,
from 0.08 kg to 0.04 kg.
Under Frame/Tow harness (Wiring on Under structure): The under frame/tow harness (wiring on
understructure) mass was reduced by changing the copper wire to aluminum wire and changing the
PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Mass was reduced by 42%, from 3.74 kg to 2.15 kg.
Battery Cable - Primary Positive (Starter Wiring Harness): The battery cable - primary positive
(starter wiring harness) mass was reduced by changing the copper wire to aluminum wire and
changing the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Mass was reduced by 46%, from 0.44 kg to 0.23
kg.
Battery Cable - Primary Negative: The battery cable - primary negative mass was reduced by
changing the copper wire to aluminum wire and changing the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing.
Mass was reduced by 46%, from 0.41 kg to 0.22 kg.
Battery Cable - Positive: The battery cable - positive mass was reduced by changing the copper
wire to aluminum wire and changing the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Mass was reduced by
45%, from 0.39 kg to 0.21 kg.
Fuse Box (Support): The fuse box (support) mass was reduced by using PolyOne® foaming agent.
Mass was reduced by 19%, from 1.41 kg to 1.15 kg.
Fuse Box Cover: The fuse box cover mass was reduced by using PolyOne® foaming agent. Mass
was reduced by 17%, from 0.45 kg to 0.37 kg.
Center Console Wiring: The center console wiring mass was reduced by changing the copper wire
to aluminum wire and changing the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Mass was reduced by 42%,
from 0.20 kg to 0.12 kg.
Headliner Wiring: The headliner wiring mass was reduced by using flat wire. Mass was reduced by
80%, from 0.35 kg to 0.07 kg.
Front Door Harness: The front door harness mass was reduced by using flat wire. Mass was reduced
by 80%, from 0.68 kg to 0.14 kg.
Rear Door Harness: The rear door harness mass was reduced by using flat wire. Mass was reduced
by 80%, from 0.43 kg to 0.08 kg.
-------
3.18.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis
The Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System is very similar
to the 1500.
Image 3.18-1: Chevrolet Silverado engine wiring
(Source: http://parts.nalleygmc.com/showAssembly.aspx?ukey_assembly=382010)
-------
3.18.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary
Table 3-138 summarizes the mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies
as applied to the Silverado 2500. Total Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System mass
savings was 8.47 kg at a cost decrease of $61.54, or $7.26 per kg.
Table 3-138: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (i)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" d)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Electrical Dist. and Electronic Control System
01
00
Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection
Subsystem
8.47
0.00
8.47
$61.54
$0.00
$61.54
S7.2G
0.27%
8.47
(Decrease)
0.00
8.47
(Decrease)
$61.54
(Decrease)
$0.00
$61.54
(Decrease)
$7.26
(Decrease)
0.27%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings. Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
0.0% -9-3%
8.47
7.75
109.3%
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
• % Lost, technology already implemented
-------
3.18.1.3 System Scaling Analysis
The Silverado 2500 Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System components were
reviewed for compatibility with lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed
in Table 3-139.
Table 3-139: System Scaling Analysis Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System, Silverado 2500
Silverado 1500
05
*c
9t
3
01
IT
03
*<
»
3
Sub-Subsystem
Component/Assembly
18 Electrical Distribution & Electrical Controls System
18
18
18
18
18
18
13
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
03
03
04
05
05
05
06
06
07
07
08
03
Front Bumper Harness ((Wiring on frt module]]
Enqine Wire Harness
Power train mass cable (cyl ground cable]
Alternator Power Cable
IP Harness 1
IP Harness 1 connector box brkt
IP Harness 2
Body and Rear End Wiring ((Complete!)
Differential 'ivirinq
Under frame/tow harness ((Wiring on understructure]!
Battery Cable - Primary PositivefiStarter wiring harness))
Battery Cable - Primary' Negative
Battery Cable - Positive
Fuse Box ((Support))
Fuse Box -Cover
Center console wiring
Headliner winnq
Frt door harness
Rear door harness
Base
Mass
33.60
0.87
241
0.07
021
3.35
0.34
0.43
217
007
333
039
0.36
035
1.04
045
018
047
083
0.33
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
8.47
0.37
102
0.03
0.10
1.42
0.10
018
0.92
0.03
142
0.18
017
0.16
0.20
008
008
038
066
0.27
* of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
25%
42%
42%
48%
45%
42%
29%
42%
42%
44%
42%
46%
46%
45%
19%
17%
42%
80%
80%
80%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
0.97
279
0.07
024
3.75
038
048
2.44
0.08
3.74
044
041
0.39
141
045
0.20
035
068
0.43
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
8.47
0.41
1.18
0.03
011
1.60
0.11
020
1.04
0.03
1.59
020
019
018
026
008
009
0.28
054
0.34
Notes
Tech DOES apply. Use aluminum ivire 8, PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply: Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply: Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply: Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply: Change from steel to plastic and use
PolyOne foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum sire & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply: Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum wire & PFO sheathing
Tech DOES apply. Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply: Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply Use PolyOne foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use PolyOne foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES a ?;•!••, Use flat viire
Tech DOES accl1, Use flat ;iuf
Tech DOES apply. Use flat wire
Components with significant mass savings identified on the 2500 series Silverado include the front
bumper harness (wiring on front module); engine wire harness; power train mass cable (ground
cable); alternator power cable; IP harness 1; IP harness 1 connector box bracket; IP harness 2; body
and rear end wiring (complete); differential wiring; under frame/tow harness (wiring on
understructure); battery cable - primary positive (starter wiring harness), battery cable - primary
negative; battery cable - positive; fuse box (support); fuse box - cover; center console wiring;
headliner wiring; front door harness; rear door harness.
Front Bumper Harness (Wiring on Front Module)
Shown in Image 3.18-2 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series front bumper harness (wiring on front
module). Component masses were 0.87 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.97 kg for the 2500. The
lightweighting technology used on the front bumper harness (wiring on front module) was to change
the copper wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Due to similarities in
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 front bumper harness mass
reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-139Table 3-107).
-------
I
Image 3.18-2: Front Bumper Harness (Wiring on front module) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Engine Wire Harness
Shown in Image 3.18-3 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series engine wire harness. Component
masses were 2.41 kg for the 1500 versus 2.79 kg for the 2500. The lightweighting technology used
on the engine wire harness was to change the copper wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing
to PPO sheathing. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the
Silverado 1500 engine wire harness mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table
3-139Table 3-107).
Image 3.18-3: Engine Wire Harness for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Power train mass cable (ground cable)
Shown in Image 3.18-4 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 power train mass cable (ground cable).
Component masses were 0.07 kg for both the 1500 and 2500. The lightweighting technology used
in the power train mass cable (ground cable) was to change the copper wire to aluminum wire and
the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 power train mass cable mass reduction can be applied to the 2500.
(Refer to Table 3-139Table 3-107).
-------
Image 3.18-4: Power train mass cable (ground cable) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Alternator Power Cable
Shown in Image 3.18-5 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series alternator power cable. Component
masses were 0.21 kg for the 1500 versus 0.24 kg for the 2500. The lightweighting technology used
on the alternator power cable was to change the copper wire to aluminum wire and the PVC
sheathing to PPO sheathing. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage
of the Silverado 1500 alternator power cable mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to
Table 3-139Table 3-107).
Image 3.18-5: Alternator Power Cable for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
IP Harness 1
Shown in Image 3.18-6 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series IP harness 1. Component masses are
3.35 kg for the 1500 versus 3.75 kg for the 2500. The lightweighting technology used on IP harness
was to change the copper wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 IP harness 1
mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-139Table 3-107).
-------
^-
Image 3.18-6: IP Harness 1 for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
IP Harness 1 Connector Box Bracket
(No image for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 IP Harness 1 Connector Box Bracket.) Component
masses for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series IP harness 1 connector box bracket were 0.34 kg for
the 1500 versus 0.38 kg for the 2500. The lightweighting technology used on the IP harness 1
connector box bracket was to change from steel to plastic and apply PolyOne® foaming agent. Due
to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 IP harness
1 connector box bracket mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-139Table
3-107).
IP Harness 2
Shown in Image 3.18-7 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series IP harness 2. Component masses
were 0.43 kg for the 1500 versus 0.48 kg for the 2500. The lightweighting technology used on the
IP harness 2 was to change the copper wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing to PPO
sheathing. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado
1500 IP harness 2 mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-139Table 3-107).
-------
Image 3.18-7: IP Harness 2 for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Body and Rear End Wiring (Complete)
Shown in Image 3.18-9 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series body and rear end wiring
(complete). Component masses were 2.17 kg for the 1500 versus 2.44 kg for the 2500 respectively.
The lightweighting technology used on body and rear end wiring (complete) was to change the
copper wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Due to similarities in
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 body and rear end wiring
mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-139Table 3-107).
Image 3.18—8: Body and Rear End Wiring (Complete) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
-------
Image 3.18-9: Body and Rear End Wiring (Complete) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Differential wiring
Shown in Image 3.18-10 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 differential wiring. Component masses
were 0.07 kg for the 1500 versus 0.08 kg for the 2500. The lightweighting technology used on the
differential wiring was to change the copper wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing to PPO
sheathing. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado
1500 differential wiring mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-139Table
3-107).
Image 3.18-10: Differential wiring for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Under frame/tow harness (Wiring on understructure)
Shown in Image 3.18-11 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series under frame/tow harness (wiring
on understructure). Component masses are 3.33 kg for the 1500 versus 3.74 kg for the 2500. The
lightweighting technology used on the under frame/tow harness (wiring on understructure) was to
change the copper wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Due to
-------
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 under
frame/tow harness mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-139Table 3-107).
"J
Image 3.18-11: Under frame/tow harness (wiring on understructure) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Battery Cable - Primary Positive (Starter wiring harness)
Shown in Image 3.18-12 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series battery cable - primary positive
(starter wiring harness). Component masses were 0.39 kg for the 1500 versus 0.44 kg for the 2500.
The lightweighting technology used on the battery cable - primary positive (starter wiring harness)
was to change the copper wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 battery cable -
primary positive mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-139Table 3-107).
Image 3.18-12: Battery cable - primary positive (starter wiring harness) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Battery Cable - Primary Negative
Shown in Image 3.18-13 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series battery cable - primary negative.
Component masses were 0.36 kg for the 1500 versus 0.41 kg for the 2500. The lightweighting
technology used on battery cable - primary negative was to change the copper wire to aluminum
wire and the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Due to similarities in component design and
-------
material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 battery cable - primary negative mass reduction can
be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-139Table 3-107).
Image 3.18-13: Battery Cable - Primary Negative for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Battery Cable - Positive
Shown in Image 3.18-14 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series battery cable - positive. Component
masses were 0.35 kg for the 1500 versus 0.39 kg for the 2500. The lightweighting technology used
on the Battery Cable - Positive was to change the copper wire to aluminum wire and changing the
PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Due to similarities in component design and material, full
percentage of the Silverado 1500 battery cable - positive mass reduction can be applied to the 2500.
(Refer to Table 3-139Table 3-107).
-------
Image 3.18-14: Battery Cable - Positive for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Fuse Box (Support)
Shown in Image 3.18-15 the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series fuse box (support). Component masses
are 1.04 kg for the 1500 versus 1.41 kg for the 2500 respectively. The lightweighting technology
used on fuse box (support) was to change from steel to plastic and using PolyOne® foaming agent.
Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 fuse
box (support) mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-139Table 3-107).
Image 3.18-15: Fuse Box (Support) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Fuse Box - Cover
Shown in Image 3.18-16 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series fuse box - cover. Component
masses were 0.45 kg for both the 1500 and for the 2500. The lightweighting technology used in
fuse box - cover was to change from steel to plastic and apply PolyOne® foaming agent. Due to
-------
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 fuse box-cover
mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-139Table 3-107).
Image 3.18-16: Fuse box - cover for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Center console wiring
Shown in Image 3.18-17 the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series center console wiring. Component
masses were 0.18 kg for the 1500 versus 0.20 kg for the 2500. The lightweighting technology used
on the center console wiring was to change the copper wire to aluminum wire and the PVC
sheathing to PPO sheathing. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage
of the Silverado 1500 center console wiring mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to
Table 3-139Table 3-107).
Image 3.18-17: Center console -wiring for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Headliner wiring
Shown in Image 3.18-18 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series headliner wiring. Component
masses were 0.47 kg for the 1500 versus 0.35 kg for the 2500. The lightweighting technology used
on the headliner wiring was to change the copper wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing to
PPO sheathing. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the
Silverado 1500 headliner wiring mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table
3-139Table 3-107).
-------
Image 3.18-18: Headliner wiring for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Front door harness
Shown in Image 3.18-19 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 series front door harness. Component
masses were 0.83 kg for the 1500 versus 0.68 kg for the 2500. The lightweighting technology used
on the front door harness was to change the copper wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing
to PPO sheathing. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the
Silverado 1500 front door harness mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table
3-139Table 3-107).
I
Image 3.18-19: Front door harness for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
-------
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
Rear Door Harness
Shown in Image 3.18-20 is the Silverado 1500 and 2500 rear door harness. Component masses
were 0.33 kg for the 1500 versus 0.43 kg for the 2500. The lightweighting technology used in the
rear door harness was to change the copper wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing to PPO
sheathing. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado
1500 rear door harness mass reduction can be applied to the 2500. (Refer to Table 3-139Table
3-107).
Image 3.18-20: Rear door harness for the Silverado 1500 and 2500
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
3.18.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500
Table 3-140 summarizes the Silverado 1500 and 2500 lightweighting results. The majority of the
components were visually the same between the two Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls
Systems.
Table 3-140: Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500
tf>
•-=:
ft
1
"18
_
13
Description
Electrical Distribution A Electrical Controls System
Silve'radolSQO
Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Base
"kg" r;
'3160'
33.64
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;•
7775
8.47
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" 0
oo
0 00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" ;••;
775
847
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
23707%"
25.18%
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$"(2)
$6144'
561.54
Cost
Impact
Comp
T'(2)
"$oo"
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$••(2,
$6144"
$61.54
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
$7""93
S7.26
-------
-------
3.18.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
Table 3-141 summarizes the mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies
as applied to the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. Total Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls
System mass savings was 2.85 kg at a cost decrease of $27.22, or $9.54 per kg.
Table 3-141: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System, Mercedes Sprinter
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;•;
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i>
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" ;••
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"&" ™
w
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Electrical Dist. and Electronic Control System
Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection
Subsystem
2.85
0.00
285
$27.22
$0.00
$27.22
$9.54
0.13%
2.85
(Decrease)
0.00
2.85
(Decrease)
$27.22
(Decrease;
$0.00
$27.22
Decrease)
$9.54
(Decrease)
0.13%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 2.853
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 7.749
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 36.8%
% Saved, technology applies
i % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
I % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
:SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecenl contributions
3.18.2.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System components
were reviewed for compatibility with lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are
listed in Table 3-142.
Table 3-142: System Scaling Analysis Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System, Mercedes Sprinter
-------
Silverado 1500
VI
3
CO
E
O-
*<
3
Sub-Subsvstem
Component/Assembly
18 Electrical Distribution & Electrical Controls System
18
13
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
03
03
04
06
05
05
06
06
07
07
08
08
Front Bumper Harness ((Wiring on frt module'!!
Engine Wire Harness
Po';.'ertiain --ass cable icyl ground cable
Alternator Power Cable
IP Harness 1
IP Harness 1 connector box brkt
IP Harness 2
Body and Rear End Wiring ((Complete!
Differential wiring
Under frame'tow harness ((Wiring on understructure))
Battery Cable - Primary Positive((Starter wiring harness)!
Battery Cable - Primary Negative
Battery Cable - Positive
Fuse Box ((Support))
Fuse Box - Cover
Center console wiring
Headliner wiring
Frt door harness
Rear door harness
Base
Mass
33.60
0 87
241
0.07
0.21
335
034
043
2172
0 07
333
039
036
035
1 04
045
01S
047
083
033
Mass
Savings
New
Tsch
7.75
037
1 02
003
0.10
142
0 10
0 18
092
0 03
1.42
018
0 17
016
020
008
008
038
0 66
027
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
23%
42%
42%
48%
45%
42%
29%
42%
42%
44%
42%
46%
46%
45%
19%
17%
42%
80%
80%
30%
Setecr Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
Base
Mass
052
1.46
0 14
202
026
1.31
019
028
0 13
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
2.85
023
0.63
006
0.88
0 11
0.57
004
0.23
0 10
Notes
Tech DOES a::'pK Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply Use aluniniri '.'/ire & PPO sheathing
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES ac-ply Use alu-Tmu~ ' ne ;. r- : -,•-,•':••:•
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use alunmun wire & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES a-oK Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply ['Jot on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use PolyOne foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply ['Jot on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply [Jot on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use flat wire
Tech DOES apply Use flat wire
'• . ....-: jU ." . .! :. c T!': J:e
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Mercedes Sprinter included the front
bumper harness (wiring on front module); engine wire harness; alternator power cable; IP harness
1; IP harness 2; body and rear end wiring (complete); fuse box (support); headliner wiring; and
front door harness. Image 3.18-21 shows the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Electrical Distribution
and Electrical Controls System components.
Image 3.18-21: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System Components
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
Front Bumper Harness (Wiring on front module)
Shown in Image 3.18-22 is the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi front bumper harness (wiring on front
module). Component masses are 0.87 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.52 kg for the Mercedes
Sprinter 311 CDi. The lightweighting technology used on the front bumper harness (wiring on front
module) was to change the copper wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing.
Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 front
bumper harness mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-142Table 3-107).
-------
Image 3.18-22: Front Bumper Harness (Wiring on front module) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter
311 CDi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Engine Wire Harness
Shown in Image 3.18-23 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi engine wire
harness. Component masses were 2.41 kg for the 1500 versus 1.46 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter
311 CDi. The lightweighting technology used on the engine wire harness was to change from
copper wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Due to similarities in
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 engine wire harness mass
reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-142Table 3-107).
Image 3.18-23: Engine Wire Harness for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Alternator Power Cable
(No image for the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi alternator power cable.) The alternator power cable
is part of the main engine harness. Component masses were 0.21 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus
0.14 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. The lightweighting technology used on the alternator
power cable was to change the copper wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing to PPO
sheathing. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado
1500 alternator power cable mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table
3-142Table 3-107).
-------
IP Harness 1
(No image for the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi IP harness 1.) The harness is part of the main cockpit
harness. Component masses were 3.35 kg for the 1500 versus 2.02 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter
311 CDi respectively. The lightweighting technology used on the IP Harness 1 was to change the
copper wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Due to similarities in
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 IP harness 1 mass reduction
can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-142Table 3-107).
IP Harness 2
(No image for the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi IP harness 2.) The harness is part of the main cockpit
harness. Component masses were 0.43 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.26 kg for the Mercedes
Sprinter 311 CDi. The lightweighting technology used on the IP harness 2 was to change the copper
wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Due to similarities in component
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 IP harness 2 mass reduction can be
applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-142Table 3-107).
Body and Rear End Wiring (Complete)
(No image for the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi body and rear end wiring (Complete). The harness
is part of the main cockpit harness. Component masses were 2.17 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus
1.31 kg for the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. The lightweighting technology used on the body and
rear end wiring (complete) was to change the copper wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing
to PPO sheathing. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the
Silverado 1500 body and rear end wiring mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to
Table 3-142Table 3-107).
Fuse Box (Support)
Shown in Image 3.18-24 are the Silverado 1500 and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi fuse boxes
(support). Component masses were 1.04 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.19 kg for the Mercedes
Sprinter 311 CDi. The lightweighting technology used on fuse box (support) was to change from
steel to plastic and apply PolyOne® foaming agent Due to similarities in component design and
material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 fuse box (support) mass reduction can be applied to
the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-142Table 3-107).
Image 3.18-24: Fuse Box (Support) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
-------
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Headliner wiring
(No image for the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi headliner wiring.) The harness is part of the main
cockpit harness. Component masses were 0.47 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.28 kg for the
Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi respectively. The lightweighting technology used on the headliner
wiring was to change the copper wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing.
Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500
headliner wiring mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-142Table 3-107).
Front door harness
(No image for the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi front door harness.) The harness is part of the main
cockpit harness. Component masses were 0.837 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.13 kg for the
Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. The lightweighting technology used on the front door harness was to
change the copper wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 front door
harness mass reduction can be applied to the Sprinter. (Refer to Table 3-142Table 3-107).
3.18.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi
-------
Table 3-143 summarizes mass and cost impact of Silverado 1500 lightweighting technologies
applied to the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. Total Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System
mass savings is 3.81 kg at a cost decrease of $32.99, or $8.65 per kg.
-------
Table 3-143: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;•;
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (1)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (1)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"I/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
18
00
00
Electrical Dist. and Electronic Control System
18
01
00
Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection
Subsystem
3.81
0.00
3.81
$32.99
$000
3299
$865
0 16%
3.81
(Decrease)
0.00
3.81
[Decrease)
$32.99
(Decrease)
$0.00
$32.99
(Decrease)
$8.65
[Decrease)
0.16%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 3.811
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg" 7.749
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 49.2%
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
I % Saved, technology applies
I % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
1% Lost, technology already implemented
s % Lost, technology reduced impact
\
-------
3.18.3.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Renault Master 2.3 DCi Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System components
were reviewed for compatibility with lightweighting technologies.
Table 3-144: System Scaling Analysis Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System, Renault Master
VI
a.
TO
3
18
18
18
18
13
18
13
18
18
13
13
13
18
18
13
13
13
18
18
13
to
o-
a
3
El
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Sub-Subsystem
ect
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
03
03
04
05
05
05
06
06
07
07
03
03
Silverado 1500
Component/Assembly
rical Distribution & Electrical Controls System
Front Bumper Harness ((Wiring on frt module})
Engine Wire Harness
Power train mass cable (cyl ground cable!
Alternator Power Cable
IP Harness 1
P Harness 1 connector box brkt
IP Harness 2
Body and Rear End Wiring i(Completei)
Differential wiring
Under frame/tow harness [(Wiring on understructurei;
Batten; Cable - Primary positiveiiStarter wiring harness))
Battery Cable - Primary Negative
Battery Cable - Positive
Fuse Box ((Support!)
Fuse Box - Cover
Center console wiring
Headliner wiring
Frt door harness
Rear door harness
Base
Mass
33.60
087
2.41
007
021
335
0.34
0.43
2172
007
333
0.39
036
035
1 04
0.45
0.18
047
0.83
033
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
7.75
0.37
1 02
003
0.10
1.42
0 10
0.18
092
0.03
1.42
0 18
0.17
016
020
0.08
0.08
0.38
066
027
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
23%
42%
42%
48%
45%
42%
29%
42%
42%
44%
42%
46%
46%
45%
19%
17%
42%
80%
80%
80%
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
Base
Mass
062
1.72
013
0 16
240
031
1.56
070
027
030
045
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
3.81
0.27
0.75
0.09
0 OS
1.04
0 13
0.68
0 13
0.05
0.24
0.36
Setect Vehicle
Notes
Tech DOES apply: Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply: Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum wire
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply Use aki -.!••:'• ' ::.--. ;."-3thing
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply: Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply: Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tecti does NOT apply Mot on vehi le
Tech does NOT apply [Jot on vehi le
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehi le
Tech does NOT apply [Jot on vehi le
Tech does NOT apply [lot on vehi le
Tech DOES apply Use PolvOne foaming aqent
Tech DOES apply Use PolvOne foaninq agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply: Use flat wire
Tech DOES apply Use flat wire
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
If the original Silverado 1500 mass reduction concept idea was not able to be applied to the
comparison vehicle it is not described in the section below.
Components with significant mass savings identified on the Renault Master 2.3 DCi included the
front bumper harness (wiring on front module); engine wire harness; power train mass cable
(ground cable); alternator power cable; IP harness 1; IP harness 2; body and rear end wiring
(complete); fuse box (support); fuse box - cover; headliner wiring; and front door harness. Image
3.18-25 shows the Renault Master 2.3 DCi Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System
components.
P*»v»og*< com pan nwiil
Image 3.18-25: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
-------
Front Bumper Harness (Wiring on front module)
(No Image for the Renault Master 2.3 DCi front bumper harness (wiring on front module). The
harness is part of the main cockpit harness. Component masses were 0.87 kg for the Silverado 1500
versus 0.62 kg for the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. The lightweighting technology used on the front
bumper harness (wiring on front module) was to change the copper wire to aluminum wire and
changing the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Due to similarities in component design and
material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 front bumper harness mass reduction can be applied
to the Renault. (Refer to
Table 3-144).
Engine Wire Harness
Shown in Image 3.18-26 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi Engine Wire Harness.
Component masses are 2.41 kg for the 1500 versus 1.72 kg for the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. The
lightweighting technology used on the engine wire harness was to change the copper wire to
aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Due to similarities in component design
and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 engine wiring harness mass reduction can be
applied to the Renault. (Refer to
Table 3-144).
Image 3.18-26: Engine Wire Harness for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Power Train Mass Cable (Ground Cable)
(No image for the Renault Master 2.3 DCi power train mass cable [ground cable].) Component
masses were 0.07 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.18 kg for the Renault Master 2.3 DCi. The
-------
lightweighting technology used on the power train mass cable (ground cable) was to change the
copper wire to aluminum wire and changing the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 power train
mass cable mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to
Table 3-144).
Alternator Power Cable
(No image for the Renault Master 2.3 DCi alternator power cable.) The harness is part of the main
cockpit harness. Component masses were 0.21 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.16 kg for the
Renault Master 2.3 DCi. The lightweighting technology used on the alternator power cable was to
change the copper wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Due to
similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 alternator
power cable mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to
Table 3-144).
IP Harness 1
(No image for the Renault Master 2.3 DCi IP harness 1.) The harness is part of the main cockpit
harness. Component masses were 3.35 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 2.40 kg for the Renault
Master 2.3 DCi. The lightweighting technology used on the IP harness 1 was to change the copper
wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Due to similarities in component
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 IP harness 1 mass reduction can be
applied to the Renault. (Refer to
Table 3-144).
IP Harness 2
(No image for the Renault Master 2.3 DCi IP harness 2.) The harness is part of the main cockpit
harness. Component masses were 0.43 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.31 kg for the Renault
Master 2.3 DCi. The lightweighting technology used on the IP harness 2 was to change the copper
wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Due to similarities in component
design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 IP harness 2 mass reduction can be
applied to the Renault. (Refer to
Table 3-144).
Body and Rear End Wiring (Complete)
-------
Shown in Image 3.18-27 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi body and rear end
wiring (complete). Component masses were 2.17 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 1.56 kg for the
Renault Master 2.3 DCi respectively. The lightweighting technology used on the body and rear end
wiring (complete) was to change the copper wire to aluminum wire and changing the PVC sheathing
to PPO sheathing. Due to similarities in component design and material, full percentage of the
Silverado 1500 body and rear end wiring mass reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to
Table 3-144).
Image 3.18-27: Body and Rear End Wiring (Complete) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi
(Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Fuse Box (Support)
Shown in Image 3.18-28 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi fuse box (support).
Component masses were 1.04 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.70 kg for the Renault Master 2.3
DCi. The lightweighting technology used on the fuse box (support) was to change from steel to
plastic and apply PolyOne® foaming agent. Due to similarities in component design and material,
-------
full percentage of the Silverado 1500 fuse box (support) mass reduction can be applied to the
Renault. (Refer to
Table 3-144).
Image 3.18-28: Fuse Box (Support) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Fuse Box Cover
Shown in Image 3.18-29 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi fuse box cover.
Component masses were 0.45 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.27 kg for the Renault Master 2.3
DCi. Both the Silverado 1500 and the Renault Master 2.3 DCi fuse box cover were similar in
configuration. The lightweighting technology used in the fuse box cover was to change from steel
to plastic and apply PolyOne® foaming agent Due to similarities in component design and material,
full percentage of the Silverado 1500 fuse box cover mass reduction can be applied to the Renault.
(Refer to
Table 3-144).
Image 3.18-29: Fuse Box Cover for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Headliner wiring
-------
Shown in Image 3.18-30 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi headliner wiring.
Component masses were 0.47 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.30 kg for the Renault Master 2.3
DCi. The lightweighting technology used on the headliner wiring was to change the copper wire to
aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Due to similarities in component design
and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 headliner wiring mass reduction can be applied
to the Renault. (Refer to
Table 3-144).
Image 3.18-30: Headliner-wiring for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and the Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Front door harness
Shown in Image 3.18-31 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi front door harnesses.
Component masses were 0.83 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 0.45 kg for the Renault Master 2.3
DCi. Both the Silverado 1500 and the Renault Master 2.3 DCi front door harness are similar in
configuration. The lightweighting technology used on the front door harness was to change the
copper wire to aluminum wire and the PVC sheathing to PPO sheathing. Due to similarities in
component design and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 front door harness mass
reduction can be applied to the Renault. (Refer to
Table 3-144).
-------
Image 3.18-31: Frontdoor harness for the Silverado 1500and2500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
\
-------
4. CONCLUSION
The primary project objective was to determine the minimum cost per kilogram for various levels
of vehicle mass reduction for the medium-duty trucks/vans, up to and possibly beyond 20%. The
selection criteria for the truck chosen for evaluation specified a mainstream vehicle in terms of
design and manufacturing, with a substantial market share in the North American medium-duty
truck market. Selecting a high-volume, mainstream vehicle increased the probability that the ideas
generated and their associated costs would be applicable to other pickups trucks within the same
market segment.
The Silverado 2500 total mass-reduction was 581.90 kg (18.86%). This increased cost by
$2,372.16, or $4.08 per kg. Most of which came from the engine, transmission, body group a,
suspension and brake systems. Mass-reduction came from changing the metals to a lighter version
(i.e., cast iron to aluminum, or steel to aluminum and aluminum to magnesium). Other notable
systems with mass-reductions are body group b, driveline, frame and mounting, and electrical
power supply systems. Some systems had very little or no mass-reduction at all - body group c,
climate control, lighting, clutch, in-vehicle entertainment, steering system and vacuum distribution
systems. The steering system for example could not use the electric power steering system on the
Silverado 1500 because it would affect function and performance of the baseline vehicle. Mass-
reduction could not be achieved on these systems because technology did not apply and/or
lightweighting of the materials were already implemented. Refer to Table 2-1 for details on each
sub-system.
The Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi total mass-reduction was 386.75 kg (18.15%). This increased cost
by $2293.46, or $5.93 per kg. Most of which came from the engine, body group a, body group b,
suspension, brakes and electrical power supply systems. The Body Group A had the single highest
amount of mass-reduced, 248.99 kg, which came from changing the body sheet metal to aluminum.
The biggest change with-in the suspension system came from the leaf spring assembly by changing
from steel to glass fiber reinforced plastic. Other notable systems with mass-reductions include:
transmission, driveline and electrical power supply. Some systems had no mass-reduction at all -
frame and mounting, clutch, in-vehicle entertainment and vacuum distribution. The frame and
mounting system for example could not use the lightweighting technologies used on the Silverado
1500 because they don't apply (i.e., Mercedes Sprinter does not have a full frame and the Silverado
1500 does). Refer to Table 2-3 for details on each sub-system.
The Renault Master 2.3 DCi total mass-reduction was 436.53 kg (18.55%). This increased cost by
$2563.40, or $5.87 per kg. Most of which came from the engine, body group a, body group b,
suspension and brake systems. Most of the mass-reduction came from changing the metals to a
lighter version (i.e., cast iron to aluminum, or steel to aluminum and aluminum to magnesium).
Other notable systems with mass-reductions include: transmission, driveline and electrical power
supply. Some systems had no mass-reduction at all - frame and mounting, clutch, in-vehicle
entertainment and vacuum distribution. The clutch system for example could not use
lightweighting technologies used on the Silverado 1500 because they don't apply (i.e., Renault
Master has a manual transmission and the Silverado 1500 has an automatic). Refer to Table 2-5
for details on each sub-system.
End of Document
------- |