Vehicle Mass Reduction and Cost
Analysis - Heavy Duty Pickup Truck
and Light Commercial Vans
Draft
&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-16-003
April 2016
-------
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 79
3.3.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 79
-------
3.3.1.1 Silver ado 2 5 00 Analysis 81
3.3.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 82
3.3.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 83
3.3.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 94
3.3.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 95
3.3.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 96
3.3.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 100
3.3.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 101
3.4 BODY GROUP -B- SYSTEM 105
3.4.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 105
3.4.2 Silverado 2500 Analysis 107
3.4.2.1 2500 System Scaling Summary 108
3.4.2.2 System Scaling Analysis 109
3.4.2.3 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 114
3.4.3 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 116
3.4.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 117
3.4.4 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 124
3.4.4.1 System Scaling Analysis 125
3.5 BODY GROUP -C- SYSTEM 131
3.5.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 131
3.5.1.1 Silverado 2500Analysis 133
3.5.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 134
3.5.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 135
3.5.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 140
3.5.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 141
3.5.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 141
3.5.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 146
3.5.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 146
3.6 BODY GROUP -D- SYSTEM 150
3.6.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 150
3.6.1.1 Silverado 2500Analysis 152
3.6.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 152
3.6.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 153
3.6.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 155
3.6.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 156
3.6.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 157
3.6.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 159
3.6.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 160
3.7 SUSPENSION SYSTEM 162
3.7.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 162
3.7.1.1 Silver ado 2 5 00 Analysis 164
3.7.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 165
3.7.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 166
3.7.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 173
3.7.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Analysis 173
3.7.2.1 Mercedes Sprinter System Scaling Summary 175
3.7.2.2 System Scaling Analysis, Mercedes Sprinter 176
3.7.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi Analysis 182
3.7.3.1 Renault Master System Scaling Summary 182
3.7.3.2 System Scaling Analysis, Renault Master 183
3.8 DRIVELINE SYSTEM 184
3.8.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 184
3.8.1.1 Silverado 2500Analysis 185
3.8.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 187
3.8.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 188
-------
3.8.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 194
3.8.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Analysis 196
3.8.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 197
3.8.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 201
3.8.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 202
3.9 BRAKE SYSTEM 205
3.9.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 205
3.9.2 Silverado 2500 Analysis 208
3.9.2.1 System Architecture 208
3.9.3 System Scaling Summary 210
3.9.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 270
3.9.4 Brake System Comparison, Silverado 2500 217
3.9.5 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Analysis 217
3.9.5.1 System Architecture -Sprinter 277
3.9.5.2 System Scaling Summary 219
3.9.5.3 System Scaling Analysis 219
3.9.6 Renault Master Analysis 226
3.9.6.1 System Architecture - Renault Master 2.3 CDi 226
3.9.6.2 System Scaling Summary 226
3.9.6.3 System Scaling Analysis - Renault Master 227
3.10FRAME AND MOUNTING SYSTEM 228
3.10.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 228
3.10.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis 228
3.10.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 230
3.10.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 230
3.10.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 232
3.10.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 232
3.10.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 233
3.10.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 233
3.10.3.1 System Scaling Analysis - Renault Master 2.3 DCi 233
3.11 EXHAUST SYSTEM 234
3.11.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 234
3.11.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis 235
3.11.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 235
3.11.1.3 System Scaling Analysis-Silver ado 2 5 00. 237
3.11.1.4 System Comparison - Silverado 2500 243
3.11.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 244
3.11.2.1 System Scaling Analysis - Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 244
3.11.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 249
3.11.3.1 System Scaling Analysis-Renault Master 2.3 DCi 250
3.12 FUEL SYSTEM 253
3.12.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 253
3.12.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis 254
3.12.1.2 Silverado 2500 System Scaling Summary 254
3.12.1.3 System Scaling Analysis-Silver ado 2 5 00. 256
3.12.1.4 System Comparison - Silverado 2500 261
3.12.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 262
3.12.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 263
3.12.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 265
3.12.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 266
3.13STEERING SYSTEM 267
3.13.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 267
3.13.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis 269
3.13.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 270
3.13.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 277
-------
3.13.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 273
3.13.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 274
3.13.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 275
3.13.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 279
3.13.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 27P
3.14CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM 284
3.14.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 284
3.14.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis 285
3.14.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 286
3.14.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 286
3.14.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 288
3.14.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 288
3.14.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 289
3.14.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 292
3.14.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 2P2
3.15INFORMATION, GAGE AND WARNING DEVICE SYSTEM 294
3.15.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 294
3.15.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis 295
3.15.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 296
3.15.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 298
3.15.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 301
3.15.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 302
3.15.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 302
3.15.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 305
3.15.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 306
3.16 ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY 309
3.16.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 309
3.16.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis 311
3.16.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 372
3.16.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 372
3.16.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 314
3.16.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 314
3.16.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 315
3.16.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 316
3.16.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 377
3.17LIGHTING 319
3.17.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 319
3.17.1.1 Silverado 2500 Analysis 320
3.17.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 327
3.77.7.3 System Scaling Analysis 327
3.17.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 323
3.17.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 323
3.77.2.7 System Scaling Analysis 324
3.17.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 326
3.77.3.7 System Scaling Analysis 326
3.18 ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION AND ELECTRICAL CONTROLS SYSTEM 328
3.18.1 Silverado 1500 Summary 328
3.7S.7.7 Silverado 2500Analysis 337
3.18.1.2 2500 System Scaling Summary 332
3.18.1.3 System Scaling Analysis 333
3.18.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500 344
3.18.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 346
3.18.2.1 System Scaling Analysis 346
3.18.3 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 350
3.18.3.1 System Scaling Analysis 352
-------
4. CONCLUSION 358
-------
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 rod for 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 BMW4.4LV8 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 5.3L LC9 (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 dd) 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 77
Image 3.2-12: Transmission for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 (Right) 78
Image 3.2-13: Planet Gears for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Drive Gears Master 2.3 (Right) 78
Image 3.3-1: Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Body Group -A- System 81
Image 3.3-2: Cabin for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 84
Image 3.3-3: Radiator structure for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 84
Image 3.3-4: Extra cabin - radiator support Silverado 2500 (Silverado 1500 similar) 85
Image 3.3-5: RH/LH front wheelhouse arch for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 85
Image 3.3-6: Front splash shield for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 86
Image 3.3-7: Engine cover for Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 86
Image 3.3-8: Radiator covers for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 87
Image 3.3-9: Front fenders (RH/LH) Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 88
Image 3.3-10: Hood assembly without hinges, Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 88
Image 3.3-11: Front door assemblies for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 89
Image 3.3-12: Rear door assemblies for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 90
Image 3.3-13: Front bumper for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 90
Image 3.3-14: Rear bumper for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 91
Image 3.3-15: Pickup box assembly for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 92
Image 3.3-16: Pickup boxgatefor the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 93
Image 3.3-17: Front Wheelhouse Arch for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 96
Image 3.3-18: CDi Engine Cover for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 97
Image 3.3-19: RH/LH front fenders for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 97
Image 3.3-20: Hood assembly without hinges for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
98
-------
Image 3.3-21: Front door assemblies for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi 98
Image 3.3-22: Front bumper for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom) 99
Image 3.3-23: Front wheelhouse arch for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and the Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 101
Image 3.3-24: Front splash shield for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and the Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 102
Image 3.3-25: Engine covers for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 102
Image 3.3-26: RH/LHfront fenders for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 103
Image 3.3-27: Hood assembly without hinges for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 103
Image 3.3-28: RH front door assemblies for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 104
Image 3.3-29: Front bumper for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom) 104
Image 3.3-30: Rear Bumper for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom) 105
Image 3.4-1: Chevrolet Silverado 2500 107
Image 3.4-2: Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
112
Image 3.4-3: Sealing Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and the Silverado 2500 (Right) 112
Image 3.4-4: Seating Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 113
Image 3.4-5: Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
114
Image 3.4-6: Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 and Silverado 2500 114
Image 3.4-7: Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem for Silverado 1500 (Left) and the Mercedes Sprinter 311
CDi (Right) 120
Image 3.4-8: Sealing Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 120
Image 3.4-9: Seating Subsystems for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 121
Image 3.4-10: Instrument Panel and Console Subsystems for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311
CDi (Bottom) 122
Image 3.4-11: Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311
CDi (Bottom) 123
Image 3.4-12: Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystems for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3
DCi (Right) 128
Image 3.4-13: Sealing Subsystems for Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 128
Image 3.4-14: Seating Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 129
Image 3.4-15: Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi
(Bottom) 130
Image 3.4-16: Occupant Restraining Device Subsystems for Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi
(Right) 130
Image 3.5-1: Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Body Group -C- System 133
Image 3.5-2: Radiator Grill for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 136
Image 3.5-3: Bumper Guard-Front Door for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 136
Image 3.5-4: Bumper Guard - Rear Door for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 137
Image 3.5-5: Tailgate Trim for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 137
Image 3.5-6: Cowl Grill for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 138
Image 3.5-7: Cowl End Cap - RH and LHfor the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 138
Image 3.5-8: Exterior Mirror (Driver and Passenger Side) for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
138
Image 3.5-9: Front Fascia for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 139
Image 3.5-10: Front Fascia -Air Dam for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 139
Image 3.5-11: Rear Bumper Cover (LH/RH) for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 140
Image 3.5-12: Rear Bumper Cover for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 140
Image 3.5-13: Radiator Grill for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom) 143
Image 3.5-14: Bumper Guard (Front Door) for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom)
143
Image 3.5-15: Exterior Mirror (Driver Side shown; Passenger Side similar) for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and
Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 144
Image 3.5-16: Front Fascia for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 144
Image 3.5-17: Rear Bumper Cover (LH/RH) for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
144
Image 3.5-18: Rear Bumper Cover - Center for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom) 145
Image 3.5-19: Radiator Grill for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom) 147
Image 3.5-20: Bumper Guard (Front Door) for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom) 148
Image 3.5-21: Cowl Grill for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom) 148
-------
Image 3.5-22: Exterior Mirror (Driver side shown; passenger side similar) for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and
Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 149
Image 3.5-23: Front Fascia for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 149
Image 3.5-24: Rear Bumper Cover - RH and LH Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 149
Image 3.5-25: Rear Bumper Cover (Center) for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom) 150
Image 3.6-1: Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Body Group -D- System 152
Image 3.6-2: Windshield for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 153
Image 3.6-3: Back Window for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 154
Image 3.6-4: Rear door glass for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and 2500 (Right) 154
Image 3.6-5: Washer Tank Assembly for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 155
Image 3.6-6: Windshield for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 757
Image 3.6-7: Washer Tank for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 158
Image 3.6-8: Windshield for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 160
Image 3.6-9: Washer Tank for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 161
Image 3.7-1: Lower Control Arm for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 167
Image 3.7-2: Aluminum Lower Control Arm 167
Image 3.7-3: Upper Control Arm for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 168
Image 3.7-4: Mass Reduced Upper Control Arm 168
Image 3.7-5: Knuckle for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 169
Image 3.7-6: Aluminum Knuckle 169
Image 3.7-7: Leaf Spring Assembly for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and the Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 170
Image 3.7-8: GFRP Leaf Spring Assembly 170
Image 3.7-9: Road Wheel for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and the Silverado 2500 (Right) 171
Image 3.7-10: Ultra-Lightweight Forged Aluminum Monoblock Wheel 171
Image 3.7-11: Spare Wheel for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 772
Image 3.7-12: Aluminum Spare Wheel 772
Image 3.7-13: Mercedes Sprinter Front Suspension System 173
Image 3.7-14: Mercedes Sprinter Rear Suspension System 174
Image 3.7-15: Mercedes Sprinter Road Wheel Assembly 174
Image 3.7-16: Mercedes Sprinter Spare Wheel Assembly 175
Image 3.7-17: Mercedes Sprinter Spare Wheel Support 175
Image 3.7-18: Lower Control Arm for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter (Right) 178
Image 3.7-19: 2009 Chevrolet Silverado Lower Control Arm Billet 178
Image 3.7-20: Steering Knuckle for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter (Right) 179
Image 3.7-21: Aluminum Steering Knuckle 179
Image 3.7-22: Leaf Spring Assembly for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Sprinter (Bottom) 180
Image 3.7-23: Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic Leaf Spring Assembly 180
Image 3.7-24: Spare Wheel for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter (Right) 181
Image 3.7-25: Aluminum Spare Wheel 181
Image 3.8-1: Silverado 1500 Driveline System 186
Image 3.8-2: Forward Propeller Shaft for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 189
Image 3.8-3: Rear Axle Shaft Silverado 1500 (Top), Rear Axle Shaft Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 189
Image 3.8-4: Example of technology used on rear axle shaft of varied wall thicknesses 190
Image 3.8-5: Rear Axle Cover Plate for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 190
Image 3.8-6: Rear Carrier Casting for the Silverado 1500 (Right) and Silverado 2500 (Left) 191
Image 3.8-7: Example of new carrier 191
Image 3.8-8: Rear Carrier Ring Gear Silverado 1500 (Right), Rear Carrier Ring Gear Silverado 2500 (Left).... 191
Image 3.8-9: Front Differential Output Shaft with Hub for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
192
Image 3.8-10: Front Carrier Casting for the Silverado 1500 (Right) and Silverado 2500 (Left) 192
Image 3.8-11: New Lightweight Differential Example 193
Image 3.8-12: Front Carrier Ring Gear for the Silverado 1500 (Right) and Silverado 2500 (Left) 193
Image 3.8-13: Front Differential Mounting Bracket RH for the Silverado 1500 (Right) and Silverado 2500 (Left) 193
Image 3.8-14: Front Half Shaft Axle Shaft for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 194
Image 3.8-15: Front Half Shaft Hub with locations for drilling lightening holes 194
Image 3.8-16: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Driveline rear axle 197
Image 3.8-17: Rear Axle Sleeve for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom) 198
Image 3.8-18: Rear Axle Shaft for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom) 198
Image 3.8-19: Rear Axle Cover Plates for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom) ..199
-------
Image 3.8-20: Rear Carrier Casting for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 199
Image 3.8-21: New Carrier Example 200
Image 3.8-22: Rear Carrier Ring Gear for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) ....200
Image 3.8-23: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Rear Driveline 203
Image 3.8-24: Rear Axle Sleeves for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom) 203
Image 3.8-25: Rear Axle Shaft for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom) 204
Image 3.8-26: Rear Axle Cover Plate for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 204
Image 3.8-27: Rear Carrier Casting for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 205
Image 3.8-28: New Carrier Example 205
Image 3.8-29: Rear Carrier Ring Gear for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 205
Image 3.9-1: Front Rotor for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 272
Image 3.9-2: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component Example 272
Image 3.9-3: Front Caliper Housing; 1500 Series (Left), 2500 Series (Right) 273
Image 3.9-4: Front Caliper Housing Mass Reduced Component example 273
Image 3.9-5: Front Caliper Mounting Bracket; 1500 Series (Left), 2500 Series (Right) 214
Image 3.9-6: Front Caliper Mounting Bracket Mass Reduced Component Example 214
Image 3.9-7: Rear Drum for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 275
Image 3.9-8: Rear Drum Mass Reduced Component 275
Image 3.9-9: Brake Pedal Frame; 1500 Series (Left), 2500 Series (Right) 216
Image 3.9-10: Brake Pedal Arm Frame Mass Reduced Assembly Example 216
Image 3.9-11: Mercedes Sprinter Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem 277
Image 3.9-12: Mercedes Sprinter Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem 27$
Image 3.9-13: Front Rotor; 1500 Series (Left), Sprinter Series (Right) 227
Image 3.9-14: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component Example 227
Image 3.9-15: Caliper Housing, 1500 Series (Left), Sprinter Series (Right) 222
Image 3.9-16: Front Caliper Housing Mass Reduced Component example 222
Image 3.9-17: Front Caliper Mounting Bracket for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
(Right) 223
Image 3.9-18: Front Caliper Mounting Bracket Mass Reduced Component Example 223
Image 3.9-19: Rear Drum; Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 224
Image 3.9-20: Rear Drum Mass Reduced Component 224
Image 3.9-21: Vacuum Booster for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 225
Image 3.9-22: Vacuum Booster Mass Reduced Sub-Assembly Example 225
Image 3.10-1: Chevrolet Silverado Frame System 22P
Image 3.10-2: Frame for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 237
Image 3.11-1: Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Exhaust System 235
Image 3.11-2: Crossover Pipe for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 23S
Image 3.11-3: Down Pipe for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 23P
Image 3.11-4: Steel hanger brackets 1500 (Left), 2500 (Right) 23P
Image 3.11-5: Hollow Stainless Steel Hanger Brackets Example 23P
Image 3.11-6: EPDM hangers for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 240
Image 3.11-7: Example of 'SGF® fiber reinforced hanger 240
Image 3.11-8: Muffler skin for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 241
Image 3.11-9: Muffler end plates for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 242
Image 3.11-10: Muffler pipe for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 242
Image 3.11-11: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Exhaust 245
Image 3.11-12: Muffler skin for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter (Right) 246
Image 3.11-13: Muffler endplatesfor the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter (Right) 246
Image 3.11-14: Muffler pipes for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter (Bottom) 247
Image 3.11-15: EPDM hangers for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter (Right) 248
Image 3.11-16: Example of SGF® fiber reinforced hanger 248
Image 3.11-17: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Exhaust 250
Image 3.11-18: Muffler skin for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 257
Image 3.11-19: Muffler endplatesfor the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 257
Image 3.11-20: Muffler pipes 1500 (Top), Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom) 252
Image 3.12-1: Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Fuel System 254
Image 3.12-2: Fuel Tank Side - Fuel Pump Retaining Ring for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)
257
Image 3.12-3: Fuel Tank Bottom Shield for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom) 257
-------
Image 3.12-4: Fuel Pumping Module Retaining Ring for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right)..258
Image 3.12-5: Example of Plastic POM Fuel Pumping Module Retaining Ring 258
Image 3.12-6: Fuel Filler Neck for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 259
Image 3.12-7: Fuel Filler Cap Housing for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 259
Image 3.12-8: Fuel Cap for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 260
Image 3.12-9: Hose clamps for both the Silverado 1500 and 2500 260
Image 3.12-10: Example of a lighter hose clamp 260
Image 3.12-11: Vapor Canister for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 261
Image 3.12-12: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Fuel system 263
Image 3.12-13: Fuel Filler Cap Housing for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right).264
Image 3.12-14: Fuel Cap for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 264
Image 3.12-15: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Fuel System 266
Image 3.12-16: Fuel Filler Cap Housing for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 267
Image 3.12-17: Fuel Cap for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 267
Image 3.13-1: Chevrolet Silverado Steering system 269
Image 3.13-2: Steering Column for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 272
Image 3.13-3: Steering Wheel for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 272
Image 3.13-4: Column cowl for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 272
Image 3.13-5: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Steering 275
Image 3.13-6: Steering Gear for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Sprinter 311 (Right) 276
Image 3.13-7: Pump for the Silverado 1500 (Left) andMercedes Sprinter 311 (Right) 277
Image 3.13-8: Steering Tubes for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Sprinter 311 (Right) 277
Image 3.13-9: Steering Column for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Sprinter 311 (Bottom) 27$
Image 3.13-10: Steering Wheel for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Sprinter 311 (Right) 27S
Image 3.13-11: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Steering Components 280
Image 3.13-12: Steering Gear for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 (Right) 281
Image 3.13-13: Pump for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 (Right) 281
Image 3.13-14: Steering Tubes for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 (Right) 2S2
Image 3.13-15: Heat Exchangers for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 (Right) 2S2
Image 3.13-16: Steering Column for the Silverado 1500 (Left) Renault Master 2.3 (Right) 283
Image 3.13-17: Steering Wheel for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and the Renault Master 2.3 (Right) 283
Image 3.14-1: Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and 2500 Climate Control System 285
Image 3.14-2: Air Distribution Duct Components are the same for Silverado 1500 and 2500 2S7
Image 3.14-3: HVAC Main Units are the same for Silverado 1500 and 2500 2S7
Image 3.14-4: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Climate Control System 289
Image 3.14-5: Air Distribution Duct Components for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) andMercedes Sprinter
311 CDi (Bottom) 290
Image 3.14-6: HVACMain Unit for Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom)..291
Image 3.14-7: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Climate Control System 293
Image 3.14-8: Air Distribution Duct Components for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3
DCi (Bottom) 293
Image 3.14-9: HVACMain Unit for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom)..294
Image 3.15-1: Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Information, Gage and Warning Device System 296
Image 3.15-2: Cluster Mask Assembly is the same for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 298
Image 3.15-3: Cluster Rear Housing is the same for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 299
Image 3.15-4: Display Housing is the same for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 299
Image 3.15-5: Horn outer plastic cover (LH/RH) is the same for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 300
Image 3.15-6: Horn outside steel cover (LH/RH) is the same for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 300
Image 3.15-7: Horn Mounting bracket (LH/RH) is the same for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 301
Image 3.15-8: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Information, Gage, and Warning Device System 3 03
Image 3.15-9: Cluster Mask Assembly for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) andMercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
(Right) 303
Image 3.15-10: Cluster Rear Housing for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) andMercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
(Right) 304
Image 3.15-11: Display Housing for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) andMercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 304
Image 3.15-12: Horn Outside steel cover for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) andMercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
(Right) 305
Image 3.15-13: Horn Mounting bracket for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) andMercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
(Right) 305
-------
Image 3.15-14: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Information, Gage and Warning Device System 307
Image 3.15-15: Cluster Mask Assembly for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
308
Image 3.15-16: Cluster Rear Housing for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
308
Image 3.15-17: Horn Outside steel cover for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi
(Right) 309
Image 3.15-18: Horn Mounting bracket for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
309
Image 3.16-1: Chevrolet Silverado electrical power supply system 311
Image 3.16-2: Battery for the Silverado 15 00 (Left) and Silverado 2 5 00 (Right) 313
Image 3.16-3: Battery Tray for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 313
Image 3.16-4: 2012 Ford F150 Battery Tray Assembly 313
Image 3.16-5: Auxiliary battery tray for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 314
Image 3.16-6: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Battery 316
Image 3.16-7: Battery for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 316
Image 3.16-8: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Battery 318
Image 3.16-9: Battery for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 319
Image 3.17-1: Headlamps for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 321
Image 3.17-2: Headlamp Housing for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 322
Image 3.17-3: Headlamp inner reflector for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Silverado 2500 (Right) 323
Image 3.17-4: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Headlamp 325
Image 3.17-5: Headlamp housing for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right) 325
Image 3.17-6: Headlamp inner reflector for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)..326
Image 3.17-7: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Headlamp 327
Image 3.17-8: Headlamp housing for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 327
Image 3.17-9: Headlamp inner reflector for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 32$
Image 3.18-1: Chevrolet Silverado engine wiring 337
Image 3.18-2: Front Bumper Harness (Wiring on front module) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 334
Image 3.18-3: Engine Wire Harness for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 334
Image 3.18-4: Power train mass cable (ground cable) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 335
Image 3.18-5: Alternator Power Cable for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 335
Image 3.18-6: IP Harness 1 for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 336
Image 3.18-7: IP Harness 2 for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 337
Image 3.18-8: Body and Rear End Wiring (Complete) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 337
Image 3.18-9: Body and Rear End Wiring (Complete) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 33$
Image 3.18-10: Differential wiring for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 33$
Image 3.18-11: Under frame/tow harness (wiring on understructure) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 33P
Image 3.18-12: Battery cable - primary positive (starter wiring harness) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 33P
Image 3.18-13: Battery Cable - Primary Negative for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 340
Image 3.18-14: Battery Cable-Positivefor the Silverado 1500 and2500 341
Image 3.18-15: Fuse Box (Support) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 341
Image 3.18-16: Fuse box- cover for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 342
Image 3.18-17: Center console wiring for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 342
Image 3.18-18: Headliner wiring for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 343
Image 3.18-19: Front door harness for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 343
Image 3.18-20: Rear door harness for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 344
Image 3.18-21: Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System Components347
Image 3.18-22: Front Bumper Harness (Wiring on front module) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and
Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom) 348
Image 3.18-23: Engine Wire Harness for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
(Bottom) 348
Image 3.18-24: Fuse Box (Support) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
349
Image 3.18-25: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System 352
Image 3.18-26: Engine Wire Harness for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Bottom)
353
Image 3.18-27: Body and Rear End Wiring (Complete) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Top) and Renault Master
2.3 DCi (Bottom) 355
-------
Image 3.18-28: Fuse Box (Support) for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)356
Image 3.18-29: Fuse Box Cover for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 356
Image 3.18-30: Headliner wiring for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and the Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right)
357
Image 3.18-31: Front door harness for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (Left) and Renault Master 2.3 DCi (Right) 35 7
-------
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 76
Table 3-17: Body Group -A- System Mass Reduction Summary Silverado 1500 79
Table 3-18: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -A- System, Silverado 2500 82
Table 3-19: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -A- System, Silverado 2500 83
Table 3-20: Body Group -A- System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 94
Table 3-21: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -A- System, Mercedes Sprinter 95
Table 3-22: System Scaling Analysis for Body Group -A- System, Mercedes Sprinter 96
Table 3-23: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -A- System, Renault Master 100
Table 3-24: System Scaling Analysis for Body Group -A- System, Renault Master 101
Table 3-25: Body Group -B- System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 105
Table 3-26: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -B- system, Silverado 2500 108
Table 3-27: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -B- System, Silverado 2500 109
Table 3-28: Body Group -B- System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 115
Table 3-29: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -B- System, Mercedes Sprinter 116
Table 3-30: System Scaling Analysis, Body Group -B- System, Mercedes Sprinter 117
Table 3-31: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -B- Subsystem, Renault Master 124
Table 3-32: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -B- Subsystem, Renault Master 125
Table 3-33: Body Group -C- System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 132
Table 3-34: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -C- System, Silverado 2500 134
Table 3-35: System Scaling Analysis Body Group C System, Silverado 2500 135
Table 3-36: Body Group -C- System Comparison, Silverado 2500 140
Table 3-37: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -C- System, Mercedes Sprinter 141
Table 3-38: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -C- System, Mercedes Sprinter 142
Table 3-39: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -C- System, Renault Master 146
Table 3-40: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -C- System, Renault Master 147
Table 3-41: Body Group -D- System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 151
Table 3-42: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -D- System, Silverado 2500 152
Table 3-43: System Scaling Analysis Body Group D System, Silverado 2500 153
Table 3-44: Body Group -D-System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 155
Table 3-45: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -D- System, Mercedes Sprinter 156
Table 3-46: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -D- System, Mercedes Sprinter 757
Table 3-47: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -D- System, Renault Master 159
Table 3-48: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -D- System, Renault Master 160
-------
Table 3-49: Suspension System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 162
Table 3-50: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Suspension System, Silverado 2500 165
Table 3-51: Suspension Components Scaling Analysis Results, Silverado 2500 166
Table 3-52: Suspension System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 173
Table 3-53: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Suspension System, Mercedes Sprinter 175
Table 3-54: Suspension Components Scaling Analysis Results, Mercedes Sprinter 176
Table 3-55: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Suspension System, Renault Master 182
Table 3-56: Suspension Components Scaling Analysis Results, Renault Master 183
Table 3-57: Driveline System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 184
Table 3-58: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Driveline System, Silverado 2500 187
Table 3-59: System Scaling Analysis Driveline System, Silverado 2500 188
Table 3-60: Driveline System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 194
Table 3-61: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Driveline System, Mercedes Sprinter 196
Table 3-62: System Scaling Analysis Driveline System, Mercedes Sprinter 197
Table 3-63: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Driveline System, Renault Master 201
Table 3-64: System Scaling Analysis Driveline System, Renault Master 202
Table 3-65: Brake System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 206
Table 3-66: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Brake System, Silverado 2500 210
Table 3-67: Brake Components Scaling Analysis Results, Silverado 2500 211
Table 3-68: Brake System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 277
Table 3-69: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Brake System, Mercedes Sprinter 219
Table 3-70: Brake Components Scaling Analysis Results, Mercedes Sprinter 220
Table 3-71: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Brake System, Renault Master 22<5
Table 3-72: Components Scaling Analysis Results, Renault Master Brake 227
Table 3-73: Frame and Mounting System Mass Reduction Summary 22$
Table 3-74: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Frame and Mounting System, Silverado 2500 230
Table 3-75: System Scaling Analysis Frame and Mounting System, Silverado 2500 230
Table 3-76: Frame & Mounting System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 232
Table 3-77: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Frame System, Mercedes Sprinter 232
Table 3-78: System Scaling Analysis Frame System, Mercedes Sprinter 233
Table 3-79: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Frame System, Renault Master 233
Table 3-80: System Scaling Analysis Frame System, Renault Master 234
Table 3-81: Exhaust System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 234
Table 3-82: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Exhaust System, Silverado 2500 23<5
Table 3-83: System Scaling Analysis for Exhaust System, Silverado 2500 237
Table 3-84: System Comparison, Silverado 2500 243
Table 3-85: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Exhaust System, Mercedes Sprinter 244
Table 3-86: System Scaling Analysis for Exhaust System, Mercedes Sprinter 245
Table 3-87: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Exhaust System, Renault Master 249
Table 3-88: System Scaling Analysis Exhaust System, Renault Master 250
Table 3-89: Fuel System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 253
Table 3-90: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Fuel System, Silverado 1500 254
Table 3-91: System Scaling Analysis Fuel System, Silverado 2500 256
Table 3-92: Fuel System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 261
Table 3-93: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Fuel System, Mercedes Sprinter 262
Table 3-94: System Scaling Analysis Fuel System, Mercedes Sprinter 2<53
Table 3-95: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Fuel System, Renault Master 265
Table 3-96: System Scaling Analysis Fuel System, Renault Master 266
Table 3-97: Steering System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 268
Table 3-98: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Steering System, Silverado 2500. 2 70
Table 3-99: System Scaling Analysis Steering System, Silverado 2500 277
Table 3-100: Steering System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 273
Table 3-101: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Steering System, Mercedes Sprinter 2 74
Table 3-102: System Scaling Analysis Steering System, Mercedes Sprinter 275
Table 3-103: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Steering System, Renault Master 27P
Table 3-104: System Scaling Analysis Steering System, Renault Master 27P
Table 3-105: Climate Control System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 284
Table 3-106: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Climate Control System, Silverado 2500 286
Table 3-107: System Scaling Analysis Climate Control System, Silverado 2500 286
-------
Table 3-108: Climate Control System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 288
Table 3-109: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Climate Control System, Mercedes Sprinter 288
Table 3-110: System Scaling Analysis Climate Control System, Mercedes Sprinter 289
Table 3-111: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Climate Control System, Renault Master 292
Table 3-112: System Scaling Analysis Climate Control System, Renault Master 292
Table 3-113: Information, Gage and Warning Device System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 295
Table 3-114: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Information, Gage and Warning Device System, Silverado 2500
296
Table 3-115: System Scaling Analysis for Information, Gage and Warning Device System, Silverado 2500 298
Table 3-116: Information, Gage, and Warning Device System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 301
Table 3-117: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Information, Gage and Warning Device System, Mercedes
Sprinter 302
Table 3-118: System Scaling Analysis Information, Gage and Warning Device System, Mercedes Sprinter 302
Table 3-119: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Information, Gage and Warning Device System, Renault Master
305
Table 3-120: System Scaling Analysis Information, Gage and Warning Device System, Renault Master 306
Table 3-121: Electrical Power Supply System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 30P
Table 3-122: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Power Supply System, Silverado 2500 372
Table 3-123: Electrical Power Supply System Scaling Analysis for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 372
Table 3-124: Electrical Power Supply System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 314
Table 3-125: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Power Supply System, Mercedes sprinter 314
Table 3-126: System Scaling Analysis Electrical Power Supply System, Mercedes Sprinter 375
Table 3-127: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Power Supply System, Renault Master 317
Table 3-128: System Scaling Analysis for Electrical Power Supply System, Renault Master 37$
Table 3-129: Lighting System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500. 320
Table 3-130: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Lighting System, Silverado 2500 327
Table 3-131: System Scaling Analysis Lighting System, Silverado 2500 322
Table 3-132: Lighting System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 323
Table 3-133: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Lighting System, Mercedes Sprinter 323
Table 3-134: System Scaling Analysis Lighting System, Mercedes Sprinter 324
Table 3-135: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Lighting System, Renault Master 326
Table 3-136: System Scaling Analysis Lighting System, Renault Master 327
Table 3-137: Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500 328
Table 3-138: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System, Silverado
2500 332
Table 3-139: System Scaling Analysis Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System, Silverado 2500 ...333
Table 3-140: Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500 344
Table 3-141: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System, Mercedes
Sprinter 346
Table 3-142: System Scaling Analysis Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System, Mercedes Sprinter346
Table 3-143: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System, Renault
Master 357
Table 3-144: System Scaling Analysis Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System, Renault Master ...352
-------
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
• 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 $4.35.
Key boundary conditions for the analysis included mass production volume (i.e., 450K),
manufacturing in the US, mature market conditions, and a high level of product maturity.
The results are provided in the following tables and charts which summarize the study findings.
• Reference Overview
The reference for this study was: FEV-P310324-02_R2.0: Mass Reduction and Cost
Analysis - Light-Duty Pickup Truck Model Years 2020-2025
-------
Vehicle Level Summaries Overview
The Vehicle Level Summaries ^ provide information on Mass Reduction and Cost at a
vehicle system level. At the bottom of each table (row "a"), vehicle system mass and cost
are summed establishing vehicle level results.
This study, like the original 1500 Silverado, did not include a comprehensive, full vehicle,
noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) evaluation. As a result an NVH countermeasure,
proportional to that applied in the 1500 Silverado study, was also applied to each vehicle in
this study. The vehicle NVH countermeasure allowance is captured in row "b" of each
vehicle summary table below. Row "c" of the vehicle summary table provides the vehicle
total with the NVH countermeasure allowance.
The values in each vehicle summary table column were determined based on a standard
assumptions and methodologies.
Mass Reduction Impact by System
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" d)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (D
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" d)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
n*n
* (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
Explanation
% Vehicle Mass Reduction
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 trendlines
regions of vehicle
0 to -4% 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 Table 0-2 and Table 0-3, the largest contributor to vehicle mass
reduction was Body Group A contributing over 50% of the overall vehicle mass reduction. This
3 See section 2.1 for a complete explanation of the Vehicle Level Summaries and Cost Curve assumptions and
methodologies.
-------
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
Ul
1
1
(10
01
02
03
03
03
0 .
04
05
IK
Hi
00
05
10
11
17
1
14
1rc
j|
M
i:
V.I
H
t,
'
Description
SHVirMO 2500
Cnoinc Gvsterr.
Transmission System
Body System (Group -A-)
Hixlv KyslHin ({liuup -K-)
liiKly System (Omup -C-)
Uody system (Group -U-) &iazmg & Body
Mcchatronics
Suspension System
Dnvelme System
HinkH KystHtn
1 r*niH ami Mtiurihny System
Clutch System
Exhaust System
Fuet System
Slating System
ClinuilH Control SyslHui
Information. Gag* and Warning Dlwcft System
ttoctncal Power Supply Syslom
In Vehicle Entertainment System
Vacuum Distrbution Subsystem
Lighting Systam
i.feclncnl Disliitmliim rtiid I kfcliunic Cunlru!
System
Electronic Features Syst&m
Aimlvsi-^ IntHKWilfunil NVM Ctjtinl+Hi MHHSLIWS -*
Vohtcto NVH Counter Measures •
Analysis Totals With NVH Counter Measures —
Mass Reduction Impact by System
Mass
Reduction
N«w Tncli
"Wm
63 W
3375
137 20
3310
sar
360
11332
25 11
MH1
[] m
000
8C8
065
3.S4
175
025
1267
000
000
039
SA'r
000
hf>1 M
Mass
Reduction
r:,.nn>
"Win
855
488
IT SO
000
000
0.00
12,49
0.00
ym
:3? fla
000
0 JS
8.21
000
p.OO
o.oo
000
0.00
ooo
0 1)11
00X1
000
8/3?
Mass
Reduction
TdlHl
"kO" ,1;
72.03
38 61
20005
:.W 1 0
207
3.80
125,81
25.11
&a 39
3? HD
000
n 10
86C
354
1 K,
0.29
1 2 67
pVop
000
ti:)g
MH
000
rant
' 50 9S
581.90
Cost
Impact
N«» Tecli
"*"(!i
S22-I 20
S110ii7
-$1 14326
-Sl^h 41
s:i ?:i
S1!M
S3W3.C4
$48.71
-S19? 8?
$OOO
WOO
$21 96
51 00
M S3
$1:1 .to
$066
517081
SO 00
SO 00
-S? 07
$61. M
SO 00
-$?.?< 1 SI
Cost
Impact
CtMIlp
-$-„,
W0.70
S20 7ij
-S7C73
$0 (Kt
So m
to.oo
S9061
$000
571 hfi
-$fb 31
$000
SB 55
S1242
$000
$0 (W
$0 00
$000
$000
$000
$(] (XI
$0.00
$000
$40 Ml
COS!
Impact
Total
To
$18350
S89 31
-$1,219.98
-S17S41
M 7:1
$1.94
S29C03
S4871
-Sin ?/
-$/tj 31
$000
$1041
$1342
$f, M
$13 •!<]
$06S
$17081
SO 00
4000
$? 0?
$6t.M
$000
-$?,701 31
$17084
-S2.372.16
ilncrr.,-..,
COM/
Kdogram
Total
"$/Kg"
SJ.55
5-2 33
•S09f.
-s^ '•)!
*158
J0.51
-ja.35
S1JM
-$3M
-S7 :!()
$000
5108
si :•?
SI w
$/t«l
$282
$13.40
SO 00
$000
-s^ ?:i
$726
$000
-s:f -i-i
-$4.08
(IficfM--.*)
Vftriiclfl
Mas;
Reduction
Total
"%•
2.72%
1.25%
o or."i<
1 'M11,,
007%
0.12%
4 08!)
(131-,.
i H:II:I.,
1 OB%
0.00%
030»i
u s.
(i ii°i,
(IdBti
001°*,
0.41%
000%
000%
001%
027%
OOWi
?l) /U%
18.86%
'(2) '»-" = coat decrease "-" = cost incraa«e
2013 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 4WD LT EXT CAB
Final Vehicle Solution
PFftc*wi«* Tntrvdllrv*
I8.0OK 2D.OOK
- 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%
-------
2007 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
Table 0-2: Vehicle Level Summary, Mercedes Sprint
!?
00
ni
!,,<
us
03
Hi
03
o:
05
08
07
08
09
'1:1
11
'12
ia
H
15
ie
17
a
i<>
..,
-i
'.•
Description
Mercedes Sprinter 111 CDl
Engine System
Transmission System
Body System (Group -A-)
Body System (Group 6 >
Body System (Group C )
Body System (Group -DO Glazing A Body
Mechatronics
Suspension System
Dtivelme Syslem
Brake System
Frame and Mounting System
Clinch System
Exhaust System
Fuel System
Steering System
Climate Control System
Information. Gaga and Warning Owce System
Electrical Power Supply System
In vehicle Entertainment System
Vacuum Distrrjulion Subsystem
Lpghting System
Electrical DnlributKm and ttecliomc Control
System
Etectfmnc Features System
Anafysis lolatsWitnout NVH Counter Measures —
Vehicle NVH Counter Measures —
Analysis Totals With NVH Counter Measures —
Mass Reduction Impact by System
MESS
Reduction
New tech
•*9"f>
2849
684
2-1657
20 07
1 17
214
42.02
745
J775
000
000
231
oo?
38f>
1 16
02:)
12:i
42459
' -3785
386.75
fO«i«a«)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Tea
^t9812
-$843
-$1,59749
SM '«
$1 «.
$1 10
S11081
si/ ra
-$11053
$000
$000
-S12JO
$0 18
-$11088
$799
Si ?f.
S1S4 :«
$0 1X1
$0(KJ
$? 02
S2722
$000
$2 231 08
Cost
Impact
Comp
fa
S2i»
$559
-$583
$0 IXI
$0 rx>
$000
$1342
$01X1
$526
$000
$000
$205
$915
$000
$000
$000
$0.00
SO 00
SO 00
$0.00
$0.00
$000
S51 14
COS!
Impact
Total
•*•«,
-$7662
-$283
-$1.80332
Sb'i M
S1 IA
SI 10
•$97.39
$1770
410527
SO 00
$000
-$10 15
S932
-$11068
$799
SI 2«
•$18433
so oo
SO 00
S2 0?
$2722
$000
$2.179.91
-SH355
•$2.295,46
(IW*flS*f
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
•$*g-
S??fl
-SO 32
S«44
S? «.
$1.42
(051
4221
f,y ss
S3 72
SO 00
SO 00
-S4 12
S! 54
-$28 715
SO 90
S5 4
-------
2010 Renault Master 2.3 DCi 125 L3H2
Table 0-3: Vehicle Level Summary, Renault Master
I
00
01
02
en
go
03
01
04
ffi
oe
07
08
ps
in
11
t?
i,j
'14
"13
K
17
IB
1"!
.1
b
c
Description
Renault Mailer DCi
Engine System
Tiansmisbiwi System
Body System (Group -A-)
liody System ((irouf) -It-)
uody System (Group -C-)
Body System (Group D ) Glazing A Body
Mechatronics
Suspension System
DfnMtinH System
BfHktg System
1 rniiiti and Mounting System
Clutch System
EKhaust System
Fuel System
Steering System
Climiilw Control System
InlorrmitiiiM. (jHijH «nd WHIIIIIII| DrvtriH System
f Iflclncal power supply System
tn Vehicle entertainment System
Vacuum Distrbution Subsystem
Ligming Syslcm
Eleclncal Distribution and Electronic Control
System
I tacliufiK: 1 HHturas System
Analysis TotafcWilrtout NVH Counter Measures -
V»h«:lH NVH Counter Mdmuins —
Analysis totals Wrtn NVH counter Measures —
Mass
Reduction
Now Toch
•ng'.n
30.51
700
?ha Ht>
r.te/
1 62
2 18
5f> 37
1.138
in :M
000
000
2 13
001
547
058
013
19 13
0.00
0.00
0.39
SS1
Out)
45606
1
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"Kg~,i:-
S>W
2.43
»86
000
0.00
000
2.ee
000
Or5[]
000
0.00
0.18
S.81
000
non
inn
OKI
0.00
000
0.00
000
000
2320
/lass Re
Mass
Reduction
Total
W.i,
39.98
9.44
?M Htt
?:i at
1 62
2 18
59 73
13.38
111 91
000
000
2.31
C. SI
547
059
013
IS 13
0.00
0.00
0.39
381
OIK)
473 25
' -1? 17
436.53
ILletreHsc)
Auction
f'.tJSl
impact
Now Toch
"*" <:i
-$'-3207
-S10 14
-jl.riBfili;1
-$91 41!
%'12I
(1 12
-4140 -tr-
»3993
-(1Z341
$00t)
$000
$11 48
$014
•$9037
$291
to as
-$?fi/ IH
$0.00
$0.00
$202
%•& 33
$1)00
$2.409 CM
inpact b
Co*
Impact
Comp
"*" ii,
$23 70
S778
-$H3 ft
$0 tK}
So.oo
SO 00
$18 70
SI) ml
in i/
to ix)
SO 00
4233
SB. 79
$000
SO 00
SI) IKI
SO IX)
SO. 00
SO. 00
£000
SO 00
SO 00
$3380
y Systen
Cnsl
Impact
Total
"»" .!.
-$108 83
-$23S
-$1,719 t)q
-$91 4H
$2.2?
$11?
-$521 70
$.15 93
-$11/24
$04)0
$OOO
$9 .15
$802
-$90.37
$291
$(itm
-$?S/ f!1
$0.00
$000
$202
$.1? 99
$000
S2.435 24
-$171) 1ri
-S2.66340
Urn. Ptfjjiwl
1
Cost/
KlIlHilHIII
lolnl
"$.*g"
-S3 03
-JO 25
-&(•- ^p(l
-Sll t«1
$1 40
5051
-1204
$?68
-Sll B'
$0 IK)
$000
$357
si :><
-$16 53
«..-! V:
s-i gi
•$14??
$000
SO 00
4523
$865
$0!K)
51.08
-S5.87
rll*-rirtt9e)
Vehicle
Mass
Ui^iJui:li(iii
Total
"V
153%
0 aO'f
1 1 ?•>'•;.
1 01%
00^%
009%
2.54%
057%
1 .16%
000%
000%
o 10%
025%
023%
il ir,",.
HOI11,.
0 Ufa
0.00%
000%
002%
016
-------
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^ 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-subsystem,
subsystem and system level values. In addition primary and secondary mass savings were
tracked separately for use in the development of the cost curves.
5 FEV-P310324-02_R2.0: Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis - Light-Duty Pickup Truck Model 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-P310324-02_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
CD
st
fo
3
"do"
01
02
03
"03
03
03
M
Ttt
:.]<:•
07
08
'09
1 0
'11
'12
13
14
"15
'16
'17
18
"T'g"
a
b
c
Description
Silverado 2500
Engine System
Transmiss'cn System
Body System (Group -A-)
Body System (Group -B-)
Body System (Group -C-)
Body System (Group -D-) Glazing & Body
Mechatronics
Suspension System
Driveiine System
Brake System
Frame a-:c fv'oj-itiric System
Clutch System
Exhaust System
Fuel System
Steering System
Climate Control System
Information. Gage and Warning Divice System
Electrical Power Supply System
In-Vehicle Enteitannitnt System
Vacuum Distrb-Ao" Subsystem
Lighting System
Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control
System
Electronic Features System
Analysis Totals W "~o. .' ,/H Counter Measures —>
Vehicle NVH Counter Measures — »
Analysis Totals With NVH Counter Measures — >
Mass Reduction Impact by System
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ID
63-48
33775
ZjfLisZ
32.10
2.07
3.80
11332
25.11
54.31
6166
6766
See
6"65
3754
1J5
6.25
1~2~67
6766
6"66
6739
8.47
6766
551.54
—
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" d»
8J55
4JB6
17-85
______
0.00
000
12749
6766
2768
32786
6-66
6748
8721
o'oo
6766
6-00
o'oo
6766
6"6o
"6"66
000
6"66
87.32
—
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (D
72763
38761
265765
3~27io
ZIJOJLZ
3.80
125.81
25"Tl
56739
32780
6-66
9.16
8.86
3754
i-75
6~25
12767
6"66
6766
asg"
8.47
6766
638.85
-56795
581.90
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" ,2,
Z|2?T28~
-$110.67
'r$T7l43"26
..-_-._.__..
$3.23
$1.94
""-$386764
$4871
""-'$"l"92782'
""~~$a66
$6"66
-$21.96
$1-66
$5753
$13.40
$6".6~5
-$170"81
$6.66
$6" 66
-$2762
$61.54
$'6"'66
-$2,241.86
—
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" ,2,
$46.76
$20776
-$76773
'$"6766
$0.00
$0.00
'$"90.61
'$"6766
$Ti756
-$75-31
'$"6766
$6.55
$12742
$6" 66
$0.00
$6.66
$6.66
$"6766
$"6766
$"6766
$0.00
'$"6766
$4055
—
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
""-"$"183758
"$"89".91
-.__-___
"-"$"125741
$3.23
$1 94
____
7 I$48;ZlZ
-$171.27
"-"$"75"3"i
$6"66
-$15741
$13.42
$5"53
$13.40
$6-65
-$170"81
$o"oo
$6"66
-$2'762
$61.54
$6"66
-$2,201.31
.._-._.._..
-$2,372.16
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
-$255
-$2"33
-$5""95
-$3'"9"l
$1.56
$0.51
-$"2735
!Z5I-MlI
-$3.04
-$2"'."3"6'
$6"66
-$1.68
$i".5"2
$i".56
$7768
$2762
-$13748"
$6". 06
$6766
-$5723
$7.26
'$"6766
-$3.45
.
-$4.08
(Increase}
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
'2772%
l""25%
'6765%
l"64%
0.07%
0.12%
4768%
6781%
1.83% i "
i .06%
6"66%
6-36%
_.____.__
6-11%
6"66%
6.61%
6'4i%
6"66%
6"66%
6"6i%
0.27%
6"66%
20.70%
—
18.86%
(1) "+" = mass d>
'(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
g
I
1
I
^
tt
8
v
s
v
$6.00
2013 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 4WD LT EXT CAB
-$10.00
-$12.00
w/o Compounding
Lw/ Compounding
Final Vehicle Solution
8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.00% 20.00%
% Vehicle Mass Reduction
Trendline Description
With Mass Compounding/Secondary Mass Savings
Cost/Kilogram Mass
Reduction Formula
$/kg=163.26*(VMR) -7.8466
$/kg = 34.482*(VMR}-2.5938
% Vehicle Mass
Reduction Zone
0%
-------
2.3 MERCEDES SPRINTER
Shown below is the Vehicle Level Summary chart (Table 2-3) by system new tech and secondary
mass savings.
Table 2-3: Vehicle Level Summary, Mercedes Sprinter
CO
fD
3
00
'6l
"02
"03
"°3
03
03
'04
06
06
03
09
"To
Ti
"12
'13
'14
r15
"16
'17
18
19
a
b
c
Description
Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
Engine System
Transmission System
Body System (Group -A-)
Body System (Group -B-)
Body System (Group -C-j
Body System (Group -D-) Glazing & Body
Mechatronics
Suspension System
Driveline System
Brake System
Frame and Mounting System
Clutch System
Exhaust System
Fuel System
Steering System
Climate Control System
hfoonatiO1- Gac;« a"c War" -,g Drv.ce Svslern
Electrical Power S..pply System
In-Vehicle E-ite:lanme ••>( System
Vacuum Distrbjtio:: Subsystem
Lighting System
Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control
System
Electronic Features System
Analysis TotalsWithout NVH Counter Measures -»
Vehicle NVH Counter Measures —>
Analysis Totals With NVH Counter Measures —>
Mass Reduction Impact by System
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (D
28.49
6.84
246757
20.02
I IlLl
2.14
42.02
"7745
27.75
6766
6"66
"TsT
S62
3785
i7ie
6.23
12.96
6.66
6.66
6"39
2.85
0.00
406.22
—
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i»
5.07
2.14
2.42
6"66
II1MI
0.00
~2ju4~~
6.66"
I'j:52ll
0.00
""abb"
6.15
6.05
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
abb""
6.66
000
000
18.38
—
Mass
Reduction
Total
"k9" (D
33.56
8.99
248"99
26.62
" Tl7
2.14
ZilMI
7.45
28""26
6"66"
6.06
2.46
6.06
3.85
l7l6
6.23
12.96
6.66
6.66
6.39
2.85
000
424.59
-37785
386.75
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
-$98.12
-$8743
-$1,597.49
-$53.33
I Mil I
$1.10
-$Tia8i
$iT76
-$Ti6753'
$606
$"6"66"
-$i2.2o
$6" is
"'-'$Tl6.88
$7.99
$1.26
""-$184.33
$6.66
$6.66
-$"2762
$27.22
$0.00
-$2,231.06
—
Cost
Impact
Comp
T<2>
$21.50
$5.59
-$"5" 83
$1T66
$o7og
$0.00
$l"3""42
$6.66
$5.26
$6."66
$6"66
$2.05
$9""15
$6^66
$6.60
$6.66
$6.66
$6.66
$6.66
$6"66
$0.00
$0.00
$51.14
—
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" 12)
-$76"62
-$2783
"-$i^63"32
-$53.33
$1.65
$1.10
:j9739
TIT/TO
"-$"l05".27
$"6"66
$6.66
-$10.15
$9.32
-$110.88
$7.99
$1.26
-$"l84.33
$6.66
$6.66
-$2762
$27.22
$0.00
-$2,179.91
-$113.55
-$2,293.46
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
-$/kg"
-$2728
-$"6732"
-$6744
-$"2766
$1 42
$0.51
-$2721
$"2."38
-$3"72"
$b.bb
$6'."66
-$4.T2
$l"54
428/76
$6.90
$5"49
-$14722
$6.00
$6"66
-$5"23
$9.54
$000
-$5.13
—
-$5.93
(Increase}
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
1.57%
6.42%
lT.68%
654%
" p765% ~
0.10%
2.67%
6.35%
" T33% I
0.00%
6j56%
"6.12%
0."28%
6.16%
0.05%
6.61%
6^61%
6.66%
6.66%
6.02%
0.13%
0.00%
19.92%
—
18.15%
(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 2-4: Vehicle Cost Curve w/Trendline, Mercedes Sprinter
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
-0 $2.00
S $0.00
§ 0.000%
01
.2 -$2.00
3
I -$4.00
u
*j -$6.00
HI
< -$10.00
-$12.00
2007 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
Final Vehicle Solution
2.000% ,/*?:000% 6.000% 8.000% 10.000% 12.000% 14.000% 16.000% 18.000% 20.000%
Piecewise Trendline
;>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
$/kg = 34.497*(VMR)-0.5536
% Vehicle Mass
Reduction Zone
0% < VMR < 4.2%
4.2%
-------
2.4 RENAULT MASTER
Shown below is the Vehicle Level Summary chart by system new tech and secondary mass savings.
Table 2-5: Vehicle Level Summary, Renault Master
(1)
•^
H-
oT
=1
00
01
02
03
03
03
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
'Te
17
18
19
a
b
c
Description
Renault Master DCi
Engine Svstem
Transmission Svstem
Body System (Group -A-)
Body Svstem (Group -B-)
Body System (Group -C-)
Body System (Group -D-) Glazing & Body
Mechatronics
Suspension System
Driveline System
Brake System
Frame and [v'ountng System
Clutch System
Exhaust System
Fuel System
Steering System
Climate Control Svstem
Information. Gage and Warning Divice System
Electrical Power S'jpplv Svstem
Vacuum Distrbution Subsystem
Lighting System
Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control
System
Electronic Features System
Analysis TotalsWithout NVH Counter Measures — >
Vehicle NVH Counter Measures — >
Analysis Totals With NVH Counter Measures — •
Mass Reduction Impact by System
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" di
3051
7.00
258.80
23.67
1.62
2.18
56.87
13.38
31.34
0.00
0.00
2.13
0.01
5.47
0.59
0.13
18.13
6766
0.39
3.81
0.00
456.06
—
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ,:n
5.46
2.43
5.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.86
0.00
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.18
5.81
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
2320
—
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" in
35.98
9.44
264.66
23.67
1.62
2 18
59.73
13.38
31.94
000
0.00
2.31
5.82
5.47
0.59
013
18.13
6.66
0.39
3.81
0.00
479.25
-42.72
436.53
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
-$132.57
-$10.14
-$1 ,685.32
-$91.43
$2.27
$1.12
-$140.45
$35.93
-$123.41
$0.00
$0.00
-$11.48
$0.14
-$90.37
$2.91
$0.66
-$257.84
$6.66
-$2.02
$32.99
$0.00
-$2,469.04
—
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
$23.75
$7.78
-$33.77
$0.00
$0.00
$000
$18.76
$0.00
$6.17
$0.00
$0.00
$2.33
$8.79
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$6.66
$0.00
$000
$0.00
$33.80
—
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2,
-$108.83
-$2.36
-$1,719.09
-$91.43
$2.27
$1 .12
-$121.70
$35.93
-$117.24
$0.00
$0.00
-$9.15
$8.92
-$90.37
$2.91
$0.66
-$257.84
$6.66
-$2.02
$32.99
$0.00
-$2,435.24
-$128.16
-$2,563.40
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
-$3.03
-$0.25
-$6.50
-$3.86
$1.40
$0.51
-$2.04
$2.68
-$3.67
$0.00
$0.00
-$3.97
$1.53
-$16.53
$4.96
$4.91
-$14.22
$6.66
-$5.23
$8.65
$0.00
-$5.08
—
-$5.87
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
1 .53%
0.40%
11.25%
1.01%
0.07%
0.09%
2.54%
0.57%
1.36%
0.00%
0.00%
0.10%
0.25%
0.23%
0.02%
0.01%
0.77%
a66%
0.02%
0.16%
0.00%
20.36%
18.55%
(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 2-6: Vehicle Cost Curve w/ Trendline, Renault Master
2010 Renault Master 2.3 Dei 125 L3H2
$8.00
Final Vehicle Solution
"~
Piecewise Trendline
HI 0.00% 2.00% / 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.0O% 20.00%
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 [8].
2009VorlK 3.3H
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 $4.82 per kg. Mass reduction for this system reduced
vehicle curb weight by 0.97%.
Table 3-1: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact, Silverado 1500
C/3
to_
a
=i
01
01
QJ
If
01
11.
01
"of
"o"i"
QJ
"o"i"
QJ
"o"i"
11.
01
QJ
If
6'j"
01
01
bi
If".
bi
11.
01
11.
bi
"of
of
IT
01
01
bi
11.
en
£=
CT
(/)
3
go
02
03
03"
03
"63"
_
"6s"
6s"
._
W
07
If
_
08
09
_
•jjj"
.........
"12"
_
13
_
_
14
_
iT
"14"
16
"17"
60
70
70
76"
to
cr
Cfl
£r
U)
ct>
3
00
00
66
If
03
04"
66
jpT
02
66
20
66
"06"
07"
66
66
..........
66
66
66
..........
66
..........
02"
66
oT
04
05"
66
66
00
00
"99"
oT
Description
Engine System
Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets
Subsystem
Crank Drive Subsystem
Crankshaft
Connect Rods (Assemblies: Connecting Rod,
Connecting Rod Cap)
Other Components
Cylinder Block Subsystem
Cylinder Block
Other Co -"jo ne nts
Cylinder Head Subsystem
Cyiindei Head Covers
Valvetrain Subsystem
Camshafts
Other Components
Timing Drive Subsystem
Accessory Drive Subsystem
Pulleys
Air Intake Subsystem
Fuel Induction Subsystem
Exhaust Subsystem
Exhaust Manifold
Lubrication Subsystem
'""""Oii'Pans pi Sump)
Other Components
Cooling Subsystem
Water Pumps
Heat Exchangers
Other Components
Exhaust Gas Re-circulation Subsystem
Breather Subsystem
Engine Management, Engine Electronic,
Electrical Subsystem
Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor,
Generator, etc.)
Misc.
Other Components
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Mass
"kg"
6.07
337.66"""'
24. 01
5.41
7759
59786"
47"l5
1271
24.96'
2764
16.26
4760
iT.65
i.75
8727
7'727
_J1S5_
1.12
_jyi_
12,17
ll55
7J8
'2777
2432
'4768
14723
5.41
...__.S«roZ
0.109
5.67
19.89
ZllfZ
16--2j
239.95
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (i)
110
2738
.ZiPlZ
1.07
I2"72"
336
2793
Q'7364
1.16
F.16
I'l92
b'185
ZlMZ
6.415
1 .73
IZiJiZ
6.941
616
IjTjsZ
3.15
O'i
'2758
07429
3731
2743
ile"
-67i'76
'bib
Zl.6j>Z
0.886
2.23
Z311Z
--
23.80
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
NIDMC
"$" ,2}
40.01
IJ2;952
-$2729
$6.34
41.10
$6'.8'o
$2778
4i'"98
ZJMiZ
$6-06
$6765
-$163
$6768
-$2'.44
$6.73
7167IZ
-$6.54
$'6I'o
"-$21.66
420766
"-$11.24
4'i'i'29'
$6764
'Z*9?-P?Z
494.12
$'2"7i'6
4'6."i6
$'6"6'o
2j67o£"
$1.97
-$0.89
$'l"53
311111
-$114.63
(Increase)
Average
Cost'
Kilogram
"$/kg" (2)
40.01
iJl-MZ
42722
$5.92
44705
$"6.24
'$'6795
4'5.'45
$5722
$5.22
$6.26
-$6739
ZjpZiZ
-$5.88
$6.42
$"6742
-$"6758
$6.66
-$"6735
-$6735
-$3774
44737
$I'T6
-$27778
'"43871
$2764
'$'6758
$166
ZIPJLl
$2.23
-$0.40
$"6782
Z1E11Z
-$4.82
(Increase)
Mass
Reduction
%
18.18%
Il-^Z
4.31%
19.82%
3'758"%"
5751%
I!:22%Z
2.86%
4.66'%"
j3796%T
1.18%
l7'85%
6'792%
23772%"
'"26.94%"
237'8'2'%"
7.'88%"
jpo%7""
25.88%
ffiJW%_
"28.m2
337i8%
.....__
33763%7"
51.91%
7.45%
Zlli^I
6.00%
6-00%
15.63%
11.20%
50.47%
---
9.92%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.04%
0.10%
0 04%
0.04%
67pii%
6.13%
6-12%
6-61%
O'.05%"
ZPI§%Z
6.61%
6766%
6766%
6762%
'6'.6'7%
b7o7%
6764'%"
Il-6o%'2
6.13%
6.13%
67i2%
6.11%
36762%T
6.14%
6.16%
'"jj4%r
-b.bi%
"jI6%Z
6-66%
0.04%
0.09%
ZPl%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.
Vonec (i.OL V-8 VVT ILCfi)
Image 3.1-2: Silverado 2500 base engine (6.0 liter LC8)
(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/bi-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
"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
Engine System
Engine Frames. Mounting, and Brackets
Subsystem
Crank Drive Subsystem
Counter Balance Subsystem
Cylinder Bioc< Si.icsyste." Alu "inn-1:
Cylinder B|ock Subsystem (jron to Aluminum]
Cylinder Head Subsystem
yalvetrain Subsystem
Timing Drive Subsystem
Accessory Drive Subsystem
Air Intake Subsystem
Fuel Induction Si.iasystem
Exhaust Subsystem
Lubrication Subsystem
Cooling 3u:.:E.ystem
0.95
2jf"
op
0.60""
'"4108
g"i9'"
0.44""
pj
0"87""
pb
Tijf"
"JM
4"33
J-MI
0.93
2.40
0.37
TOO
T-Pl"
TIT
TO?"
T1F
TIT
0.08
..._....
1.32
"'1.37'"'
7'57
"ll-'J!?""
2"62""
b3|
b"44
Tpj
0"87""
aob
f37
3^02
"'IjfT
ago""
IMII
0.93
2.40
$0.12
SZ88
$6"t2
$0.60
""11-IJ"'
""$pj> .....
"$2f'29"
"$2pJ"'
HOE'
" .....
$0.73
S0.55
"sTsJ"
'"$OLpO"'
"s'lpg"'
-'
"sio'sT"
""
|o.73
""$p|p
"""
"-S2"67f
"Wzl"
"""'
"S2"52""
i1 83
"sjpj"
I1-§Z
"s'p"b"p"'
"S0'72"
"'
..... $o"op
"-I2p'.'00""
..__..
'-Sl|22
— — —
"-S5"70"
— — •
0.04%
"g'25
"188
-
-$90.22
. ..
Exhaust Gas Re-circulation Sucsystem^
Breather Subsystem
Engine Management. Engine Electronic. Electrical
Subsystem
Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor. Generator.
etc.).
'¥??""
"I'M!."...
0.00
0.00
..... $o.gT'"
HOE
$2.07
-$0.80
$2.40
""sg""bT
"»gT"
JpToT
$0.00
$0.00
-$87.8.1
""""
-SI 8. 11
"Ipo""
Jpjf
$2.07
-$0.80
SO. 00
-$0.33
"fpo%"
""
"'.MM'.'..
0.03%
0.08%
Original aluminum block totals
Aluminum cyclinder block totals
21.00
63.48
(Decrease)
12.09
8.16
33.08
71.64
-$115.06
-$224.28
$34.17
$39.71
(Decrease;
-$80.89
-$184.57
-$2.44
-$2.58
1.07%
2.71%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
21.00
23.80
88.2%
0.9%
0.0% -0,2%
• % 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
1
1
Subsystem
»
\t
I
-------
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: Oil pan (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
CO
3
•j)l
oT
"oT
Description
Engine System
Silverado 150(F(LC9)
Silverado'2500 iLCEi;
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Base
"kg"
33708
7164
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
1179%
24772%
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$"(2)
"4lT5l6"""
4224.28
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$"(2)
$34717
13971
Cost
Impact
Total
"J" (2)
-$80789
..__._
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"Vkg"
-$2744
-$2.58
-------
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 CDI)
(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
CO
•-=;
'£-
ro
Jl
01
01
01
Oj"
"pi"
"d"i"
01
01
"bi"
........
"bi"
..........
..........
"bi"
.........
01
01"
01
01
Subsystem
"po"
02
03
04
"d'g"
_
"06
07
08
_
...........
..........
._.
_
14
"is"
16
"if
60
70
Sub-Subsystem
"go"
00
00
00
00
"do"
"bo
00
00
"bo"
"do
00
_
ob"
00
"do"
00
"ob"
00
00
Description
Engine System
Engine Frames. Mounting, and Brackets
Subsystem
Crank Drive Subsystem
Counter Balance Subsystem
Cylinder Blow SubsYSte^
Cylinder Block Subsystem (Aluminum;
Cylinder Head Subsystem
Valvetrain Subsystem
Timing Drive Subsystem
Accessory Drive Subsystem
Air Intake Subsystem
Fuel Induction Subsystem
Exhaust Subsystem
Lubrication Subsystem
Cooling Subsystem
Induction Air Charging Subsystem
Exhaust Gas Re-circulation Su::svstem
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" ;•;
1.10
0.00
0.00
0.07
20.92
1 50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.31
0.00
0.77
1.37
2.52
dl'd
0.00
o."bo
0.00
0.00
7.64
28.49
(Decrease;
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" re
0.44
138
0.00
2.88
1.48
0 85
0.14
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.05
b'o'e"
0.15
did
0.00
bib
0.00
0.00
6.11
4.71
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" to
1.54
1.38
0.00
2 95
22.40
2 35
0.14
0.00
0.17
0.31
0.00
0.82
143
2.67
did
0.00
b."bb
0.00
0.00
13.75
33.20
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"S"(2>
-0.76
b'.o'b"
0.00
-0.12
454.11
783
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.05
0.00
4.89
-8.68
-37.46
did
0.00
did
0.00
0.00
44.14
-$98.12
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
0.72
268
0.00
8.79
$13.03
2.60
0.49
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.16
old"
0.68
blo
0.00
old
0.00
0.00
16.43
$20.66
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
-$0.05
$2,68
$0.00
$8.67
-141.08
$10.43
$0.49
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.05
$0.00
-$4.72
.....__
-$36.78
sold
$0.00
$"b"bo
$0.00
$0.00
-$27.71
-$77.46
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"Vkg"
40.03
$1.94
$0.00
$294
41.83
S443
$3.57
$0.00
$0.00
40.15
$0.00
45.79
45""87""
413.77
slid
$0.00
sold
$0.00
$0-00
-$2.01
-$2.33
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
0.07%
0.06%
0.00%
0.14%
1.05%
0 11%
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.04%
dl7%
0.13%
b"bo%
0.00%
o"bb%
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%
32,1% B% Saved, technology applies
^^f^^^^^f • %Lost, component does n't exist
%Lost, technology doesn't apply
^1 20.6% •%Lost, technology already implemented
^fr • % Lost, technology reduced impact
*3MS 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
I
1
Subsystem
n
h
I 9
3
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
lit
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
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Base
Mass
1.91
0.67
0.18
2.95
2.62
1.09
1.76
2.97
4.76
0.21
2.52
2.45
3.45
Mass
Savings
New Tech
7.64
0.43
0.67
0.07
1.50
0.05
0.26
0.77
1.23
0.14
1.35
0.10
1.07
Notes
Tech does NOT apply: Aluminum Mounts; AHSS does not apply.
Tech DOES apply: Stamped steel engine mount bracket. Deep draw, may
reqiure redesign for AHSS.
Tech DOES apply: Assuming all lift bracket bolts are accessable for removal
after engine installation. 2 of 3 lift brackets appear accessable based on
engine assembly images. 3rd bracket cannot be seen in engine assembly
images.
Tech does NOT apply: Forged crank for turbo application; cannot core cast.
Tech does NOT apply: Forged diesel conrod; Not Powder metal gas.
Tech does NOT apply: Secondary mass savings applies
Tech does NOT apply: Piston pin is already tapered.
Tech does NOT apply: Cast Iron cylinder block; Plasma liners do not apply.
Tech DOES apply: Aluminum component; could be made from plastic.
Tech does NOT apply: 4 cylinder tubo-diesel; no cylinder decativation
system.
Tech does NOT apply: Secondary mass savings applies.
Tech DOES apply: Aluminum valve cover is candidate for plastic.
Secondary mass savings applies.
Tech does NOT apply: Overhead cam; no retainer comparable to 1500.
Tech does NOT apply: No cam Phaser.
Tech does NOT apply: Front cover integrates other components. Cannot
confirm plastic as material option.
Tech does NOT apply: Components is already plastic.
Secondary mass savings applies.
Tech does NOT apply: Pulley appears to already be plastic.
Tech DOES apply: Plastic intake manifold is a candidate for glass bubbles.
Tech DOES apply: MuCell applies.
Tech DOES apply: Fabricated exhaust manifold technology applies.
Tech DOES apply: Aluminum oil pan could be Magnesium.
Tech does NOT apply: No baffle plate could be found.
Tech does NOT apply: No baffle plate could be found.
Tech DOES apply: Steel pick up tube; Technology applies.
Tech DOES apply: All Aluminum pump and housing, steel pulley.
Tech DOES apply: Could be shared with other applications.
Tech DOES apply: MuCell Applies
Tech does NOT apply: Component does not exist.
Tech does NOT apply: Diesel; no coil exists.
Tech does NOT apply: Diesel; no coil exists.
Tech does NOT apply: Mount is integrated into front cover.
Tech does NOT apply: Bracket 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 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 15005.3LLC9 (Left) and Sprinter 2.1 GDI (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.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-RJ10! 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).
-r, t^r
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 5.3LLC9
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 3.1-19: Water pump assembly components for Sprinter 2.1 GDI
(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 dCi)
(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 $3.08
per kg.
Table 3-7: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Engine System, Renault Master
fa
•-=:
Hi
<&"
Ol"
01
01
01
01
01
01
"01"
01
"6i"
01
"b'T
01
"01"
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
00
02
03"
04
05
05
06
..........
08
09"
10
..........
12
..........
14
15
16
17
60
70
Sub-Subsystem
Op"
00
"b"b"
00
00
00
00
no"
no
ob"
00
ob"'
00
ob"
00
00
00
00
00
00
Description
• i
Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets
Subsystem
Crank Drive Subsystem
Counter Balance Subsystem
Cylinder Block Sucsyste ~
Cylinder Block Sucsystem (Aluminum;
Cylinder Head Subsystem
Valvetram Subsystem
Timing Drive Subsystem
Accessor; Drive Subsystem
Air Intake Subsystem
Fuel Induction Subsystem
Exhaust Subsystem
Lubrication Subsystem
Ccolintj Si.i-syste--
Induction Air Charging Subsystem
Exhaust Gas Re-circulation Subsystem
Breather Subsystem
Engine Management. Engine Electronic. Electrical
Subsystem
Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator,
etc.)
Aluminum cyclinder block totals
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;•;
0.28
6766"
0.00
0.00
22.94
0.00
6766
O.S2
6742
0.21
b"."b"d
1.00
2.21
2. 59
0.00
b.bb
0.00
0.00
0 .14
7.58
30.51
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i)
0.39
147
0.00
3.27
1.62
0.90
bli"
0.00
b"i9
0.00
bib
0.06
b"ii
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.74
5.09
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
0.67
l"47
000
3.27
24.56
0.90
0.04
0.62
6.61'
0.21
b'76'6
107
2.32"
2.99
0.00
0.00
b.bb
0.00
0 14
14.32
35.60
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
-$0.26
$"6766
$0.00
$0.00
459.32
$0.00
$6766
-$3.67
$6763
$0.09
$6766
-$6.38
"-$15" 63"
-$47.11
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.92
-$73.25
-$132.57
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Comp
vm
$0.63
$"2.86
$0.00
$9.99
$14.28
$2.71
$"b""i5
$0.00
$b.bo
$0.00
s"676b"
$0.22
$6".57
$140
$0.00
56.60
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$18.54
$22,83
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
$0.38
$2".86
$0.00
$9.99
-$45.04
$2.71
$b'."i5
-$3.67
$"6.63
$0.09
$"6766
-$6.16
'-$"l5."b7
-$45.71
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.92
-$54.71
-$109.75
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
$0.57
$194'
$"6766
$"3.05
""-$"1.83
$3.02"
'$"3~57
-$5.90
$164
$0.41
$6766
-$5.77
_.._
-$15.28
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$6.53
-$3.82
-$3.08
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
0.03%
b".o6%"
6766%
6""l4%
104%
b".'b4"%"
6766%
0.03%
6763%
0.01%
6766%'
0.05%
6'."i'6%
0.13%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
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%
31,3% •% Saved, technology applies
^_ ^^^^^ B%Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
i 22.3% • ^
• % Lost, technology already implemented
^^B ^^^^^^B f ^^^^^^^F
% 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
CO
Subsystem
n
j?
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
k 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
eve 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 $3.75 per kg. Mass reduction for this system
reduced vehicle curb weight by 1.43%.
Table 3-9: Transmission System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500
Table •
-------
w
•<
yi
ST
3
02
^
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
I2,
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
Subsystem
00
^jf
02
02
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
.._
04
04
04
04
05
05
06
06
06
5Z_
08
09
JQ
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
20
Sub-Subsystem
00
Ho
00
01
02
03
04
05
00
01
02
03
04
05
"99
00
01
03
99
00
01
00
01
04
Ji
00
00
00
00
00
01
02
03
04
05
07
08
00
Description
Transmission System
^JBctenial^Comgonents
_Ca^Subg^em
Tranmission Case
Transfer Housinc|________________________
Covers
Transmission Fluid measurement
Bolts
Gear Train Subsystem
Sun Gears
__Rjnc[ Gears
Planetary Gears
__Pl^netaryjCarriers
Bearings
Misc.
Internal Clutch Subsystem
^SipjagjuejM^ne^
Clutch & Brake Hubs
Misc.
Launch Clutch Subsystem
Torque Converter Asm
^OjMPijmgjmd^Filter Subsystem
Oil Pump Asm
Oil Cooler
^jVlechanjcalhControlsjjjb^
Electrical Controls Subsystem
_Parldin£jyiechai^
Misc. Subsystem
Electric Motor & Controls Subsystem
_Tj^ynsfeir^a«^jjibsydem
Carrier
Planetary Gears
Drive Gears & Shafts
Clutch & Brake Hubs
__Shift^rkj°issembly
Bearings & Spacers
__Case^umg
Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Mass
"kg"
_
30.73
18.78
10.09
0.04
0.36
1.30
12.39
1.11
3.14
2.03
4.64
1.02
_J}45___
30.47
2.24
20.72
0.59
20.29
19.32
7.50
4.71
2.35
__LH_
4.30
0.88
0.00
0.00
28.44
1.95
3.66
12.75
3.72
1.75
1.19
0.63
3.13
145.28
Mass
Reduction
"kg" ID
_
10.66
6.93
3.41
0.01
0.30
0.00
2.05
0.17
0.47
0.30
0.70
0.04
0.37
4.23
0.34
3.84
0.06
8.62
8.62
2.42
1.44
0.98
__MZ__
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
5.27
0.29
0.49
2.25
0.14
1.00
0.88
0.21
0.00
34.19
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
NIDMC
"$" (2)
_
-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
-4.79
-34.21
-0.94
-21.73
-21 .73
-11.52
-12.27
0.75
__-5J)3_
0.00
5.24
0.00
0.00
-48.81
3.60
-6.43
-33.00
-20.38
9.57
-2.63
0.46
0.00
-128.20
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
"$/kg" (2)
_
-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
-14.28
-8.91
-16.57
-2.52
-2.52
-7.74
-8.51
0.77
__^J6___
0.00
87.45
0.00
0.00
-152.39
12.31
-13.17
-14.68
-145.57
9.53
-2.98
2.16
0.00
-3.75
(Increase)
Mass
Reduction
"%"
______
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%
15.00%
18.54%
9.66%
42.49%
44.63%
32.27%
30.65%
41.56%
_12J2%_
0.00%
6.84%
0.00%
6.68%
18.53%
15.00%
13.33%
17.63%
3.76%
57.54%
74.49%
33.97%
0.00%
23.53%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
~™OJOO%^
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%
0.01%
0.16%
0.00%
0.36%
0.36%
0.10%
0.06%
0.04%
_JLO*%__
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.
> ,
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 $2.39 per kg.
Table 3-10: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Transmission System, Silverado 2500
-------
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"k9" (i>
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (1)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg",,.
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" m
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
02
00
00
Transmission
02
01
....?.?. m.p.?n. ?.n!.?.
Case Subsystem
Gear Train Subsystem
Internal Clutch Subsystem
Launch Clutch Subsystem
p.po
ITzT
2-2p
2^69"
p.po
T1F
p. 00
'Hi!"
""
$0.00
$0.00
""""
$0.00
$0.00
"'
0.00%
Tjf%"
p-12%
02
02
434,85
"MIz"
426JO
"42114"
.._._.
$194"
"""
-$30.90
"$12^46
-52189
"-$"2"l".60
-$2.45
lilr
iZ-26
"'""
05
Pip
T'72""
$1.54
——
02
06
Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem
M^hanic.?! Contra is Subsystem
Beetricai Controls Sussysterr
1.78
0,00
I-!?
Tod""
1.78
TP.F
Too"
-$11.74
'
46-60
"-?liP."
'"so'po"
"$86"68"
"*P'~P"P~"
——
006%
"p"p3%"
P-Pfl¥
——
02
07
02
08
Tod""
"'"$Tdd
""$d".od""
$p,pq
——
02
09
Subsystem
Misc. Subsystem
Electric Motor & Controls Subsystem
Transfer Case Subsystem
Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem
0.11
Too"
"MF
III
..................
0.01
""P.iF
Tod'"
P-5?"
Too"
0.12
'T'oo'"
"F'p'F'
TzI"
..................
$9,6.0
"
$0.57
""$p".'od""
"IFPJ"'
""$6".72""
"'sold'"
""$FPJ""
429"lT'
— —
422^39
— — -
02
20
—
——
"o"do%"
33.75
(Decrease)
4.52
(Decrease;
38.27
(Decrease)
-$110.67
(Increase)
$19.28
[Decrease)
-S91.38
(Increase)
42.39
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
01
•<
a
•
3
Subsystem
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
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 Bcdv 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
0.59
19.32
4.71
2.35
B.S6
O.SE
1.95
3.66
12.75
3.72
1.75
1.S6
e.?:-
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
O.B7
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
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
0.52
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
O.S7
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
magnesium
Tech DOES apply: Steel tub and dip stick went to
carbon fiber
~ech 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
hiah strength gear alloy and down sized in mass
Tech DOES apply: Base grade of gear steel went to
hioh 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
~ech 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.
~ech DOES apply: Base grade meterials were
replaced with lightweight materials
~ech DOES apply: Base grade cart-on 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 applv: Converted aluminum to manesium
~ech DOES apply: Base grade 52100 steel to a light
weioht MMC
~ech DOES apply: Base grade Powder Metal to
Stamped Steel
"ech DOES apply: Replace Base grade 3150 with
9310
~ech DOES ar:: -T: a-:; i-.ivf ;.;:• . r \i\i
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
Vesoel P21
~ech DOES acpiv: Steeitube 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
M
*<
s
3
02
|J2
02
Description
Transmission
Silverado 1500
Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Base
"leg" (D
145.28
156.36
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (i)
34.49
33.75
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kSfcfl
5.91
4.52
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" :•.
40.41
38.27
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
27.81%
24.47%
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" {5}
-$124.61
-$110.67
Cost
Impact
Comp
"I" 3
$26.73
$19.28
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2>
-$97.88
-$91.38
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"ykg"
-$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 $.39 per kg.
Table 3-13: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Transmission System, Mercedes Sprinter
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ;•:
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" o)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" {2}
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
01
00
Transmission
External Components
p.pp
..._...
p.pp
..._...
0.00
50,00
"42p'58J'
...__.
$0.00
!!!!""
....__
$0.00
$0.00
"-$27f
.._._.
0.00%
02
02
Case Subsystem
Gear Train Subsystem
Internai ciutch Subsystem
-$17.05
"$13"66"
""$F"bF"
02
03
..._...
p. 12%
"Fbo"%"
"blb'%"
02
04
P-PP.
P-PP
"FbF
p.pp
P-PPT
""bib""
p.pp
P-PP
TP¥"
..._...
JO. 00
""jolo""
'"$p""pF"
'"$b"p"b"'
""spF
"jFol"
""jp'pp"'
'"jp"pF"
""jd'Fd""
jq.po
"MLpF"
"jp"p"p"'
'"$p"pF"
"$b"'b"d""
$p.pq
"solo"
——
02
05
... .CJutch Subsystem
Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem
Mechanical Controls SLpsystem
Electrical Controls Subsystem
Parking Mechanism Subsystem
Misc. Subsystem
$0.00
"io'po"
"solo""
02
06
p.pp%
"pjp"b%"
"Fp"p%"
'Fp"p%'
"b"bb%"
p.pp
"FpF
P-PP
..._...
P-PP
P-PP
"FpF
P-PP
"F'dd"
p.pp
P-P"P
"FpF"
""did""
$p.pq
IP-PP
"j'OF
$0.00
'"$q'pq"
IP-PP
""s'Fb'F
Electric Motor & Controls Subsystem
Transfer Case Subsystem
Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem
50,00
"solo""
••••-•—•••
$0.00
"fp'pp"
"$b".'bb""
$0.00
'"$p"pp"
——••
p.po%
"FpF%"
——•
02
20
6.84
(Decrease)
1.93
(Decrease}
8.77
(Decrease)
-$8.43
(Increase)
$5.04
(Decrease)
-J3.39
(Increase;
.$0.39
0.41%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 31.701
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg" 6.845
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 21.6%
10.8%
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
-------
3.2.2.1 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
3"
Subsystem
n
\o_
1 D
f
Component'Assembly
02 Transmission
02
92
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 measuremei
Sun Gears
Ring Gears
Planetary Gears
Planetar>T Carriers
Bearings
Sprague / One-'A'ay Clutches
Clutch & Brake Hubs
Misc.
Torque Converter Asm
Oil Pump Asm
Oil Cooler
Valve Body Asm
Pawls
Carrier
Planetary1 Gears
Drive Gears & Shafts
Clutch S 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
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
017
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%
34c-j
Select Vehicle
Tech Applies
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yss
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
509
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
5.0S
0.52
0.27
0.22
0.32
0.40
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 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 Hot 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: -wiual 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 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).
'
l;?7
?
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).
O *
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 $0.34 per kg.
Table 3-15: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Transmission System, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (,)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (•;
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" {1}
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"I" (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"I/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
02
Transmission
02
01
00
External Components
Case Subsystem
Gear Train Subsystem
0.00
0.00
P.-P..P.
TIT
.._....
SO. 00
$0.00
"I5J29"'
..._._
$0.00
$0.00
"-IZ45"
.__..
0.00%
02
02
5.61
'"III"'
Tod""
0,80
TIP.'"
Too"
-$21.00
llP-fl
i"d"b"d
-$1570
"$12"59"
"$d"od"
02
03
0.12%
Tpp%"
Tbb"%"
02
04
!.n.?.?.m.?.i
Launch Clutch Subsystem
Oil Pumo and Filtei Suss/stem
0.00
P-PP
Too"
10,00
"Woo""
lulo"
so.po
"solo"
"$b""d"o"
02
05
0,00
Too"
...._..
p. op
P-PP
Tod""
so.pp
'"sdjp"'
•——
ip.po
"spTpT
——
02
06
P-PP.%
"p"pp"%"
••——
02
07
Mechanical Controls Subsystem
Electrical Controls Subsystem
Parking Mechanise Sucsystem
Misc. Subsystem
Electric Motor & Controls Subsystem
transfer Case Subsystem
Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem
P.-P..P.
Top"
P-PJP
Top
P-PP
Top
..._...
$p,po
"ip'pp"'
""$o."po"
?p-0p
""$o."pd""
1P-PJ
..——
$p.po
"$p'p"p"
"$p"dp"
"$p"pp"'
"$p"do"
P-PP.
P-PP
p-ppr
P-PJ
p-ppr
...._..
P-PP
P-PP
P-PP
P-PP
P-PP
Tod""
$g,pg
'"M-PJ""
?P-PP
1P-PP
""$o."pd""
——
$p,go
"$o"po"
"ijpTpT
"$ip""do"
"ijgTpT
——
ppp%
Tpd%"
'pjpp%'
Tpd%
"o"db"%"
20
— — •
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, New 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
I
1
Subsystem
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%
SelectVehicle
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
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 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 Gears Master 2.3 (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
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 [RH/LH], front rock shield, under hood cover, radiator; Body Closures
Subsystem - front fenders (LH/RH); 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. 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
^<
^
fD
3
n
03
03
03
03
03
03
03"
"bT
"py
03
03
03
03
03
(3
03"
03
03
03
03
Subsystem
01
01
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
"l'9
19
"19
26
26
26
Cfl
c
o-
ffi
£=
O-
-------
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 $5.95 per kg. This system uses compounding mass reductions only.
Table 3-18: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -A- System, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" d)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg"(D
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (D
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
M<£M
* (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
""(£""
* (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
BodyStructure Subsystem
69.50
0.00
69.50
Front End Subsystem
12.80
0.00
12.80
Body Closure Subsystem
55.15
0.00
55.15
J>OOO_
$0.00
$0.00
-$465.77
-$63.44
-$297.80
-$465.77
$0.00
2.25%
-$63.44
-$4.95
0.41%
-$297.80
-$5.40
1.79%
19
00
JBurnpersSubsystern
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
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 Structure1]
Extra Cacu Rj-'at.n ,-jupport
Front Wheelhouse Arch • LH
Front Wheelhouse Arch • RH
Frt Splash shield
Splash Shield -LH Corner
Splash Shield - RH Corner
Eng Cover
Cover - Radiator
Body Closing Subs^sk - - tap =vioeis (LH & RH}
Body Closures Subsystem - Hood Assembly w'o Hinges
Body Closures Stttegtor - Eruni LCJUI -ss»" .hes ILH & RD
Body Closures Subsystem - Rear Door Assemblies (LH & RD)
Front Bumper
Rear Bumper
Pickup Box Assembly
Pickup Box Gate
Base
Mass
574.72
207.20
12.90
12.10
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
0.01
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%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
19100
1360
12.30
190
199
071
0.81
2.56
26.30
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
020
007
0.03
0.26
10.11
11.97
19.35
13.72
10.70
7.15
41.42
8.33
Notes
Tech DOES a :!, LJse ftunwuni
Tech DOES apply: Use Aluminum
Tech DOES a.-,l'. '.-';•: '-in ; iium
Tech DOES apply: Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES a.'j Use Fclyc-ne foa- ing agent
Tech DOES apply. Use Polvone foaming agent
Tech does HOT acdy Hot en vehicle
Tech does NOT apply: Not on vehicle
'•:'.':• JOES a.. i; '.':• F'.i. :'i;ica ••••$ agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES a.,1. Jse MLI -nm
Tech DOES apply: Use Aluminum
Tech DOES spJiKv Use AJir-aiucn
Tech DOES apply: Use Aluminum
Tech DOES apply Use Aluminum
Tech DOES apply: Use Aluminum
Tech DOES apply. Use Aluminum
Tech DOES apcly Use "lir-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 12.9kgforthe 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).
_07 XIL
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.)
J
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
0}
'-z
K
3
03
03
03
Description
Body Group A
Silverado 1500
Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Base
"kg" ::-;.
574.72
587"l2"
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" d)
0.00
old
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" {1}
203.50
205."05
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
203.50
20515
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
35.41%
"'34"93%"
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2,
0.00
bio
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (;;
-$1.213.18
'-$i,219'.98
Cost
Impact
Total
"IT"
* (2)
-$1,213.18
'-$T!219'.98
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"S/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 $6.44 per kg.
Table 3-21: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -A- System, Mercedes Sprinter
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;.
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" r
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" {!>
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Body System "A"
Body Structure Subsystem
Front End Subsystem
Body Closure Subsystem
Bumpers Subsystem
Pickup Box
217.98
CL46
28'l4
0.00
0-M
"OF
T°F
..._...
217.98
046
2F.14
$0.0.0
"Woo"'
"$o"b"o"
-$1,460.73
$F.52
"-$137"29"
-$1,460.73
SF.52
"413"7"2"9""
$0.00
Tf-1?""
-$4-88"
10.23%
0-02%
132%
2.42
'"OF"
2.42
""Fd'F"
$0.00
"$b"'b"6""
-$5.83
""$Fob
-$5.83
——•
-$2.41
""$o"bo"'
p.11%
"F"db"%"
248.99
(Decrease)
0.00
248.99
(Decrease)
0.00
-1603.32
(Increase)
-$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%
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
-------
3.3.2.1 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
Subsystem
System
Sub-Subsystem
Component/Assembly
03 Body Group A System
03 01
03 02
03 02
03 02
0; 02
Kj 02
H 02
o; 02
iji 02
03 LI:
03 03
03 03
03 03
03 03
03 19
03 19
03 25
| 2-:
01
01
02
04
04
1i)
10
10
11
11
01
02
03
04
01
02
01
02
Body Structure Subsystem - Cabin
Front End Subsystem (Radiator Structure)
Extra Cabin - Radiator Support
Front Wheelhouse Arch - LH
Front Wheelhouse Arch - RH
Fit Splash shield
Splash Shield - LH Comer
Splash Shield -RH Corner
Eng 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 8 RD)
Body Closures Subsystem - Rear Door Assemblies (LH & RD)
Front Bumper
Rear Bumper
Pickup Box Assembly
Pickup Box Gate
Base
Mass
574.720
20720
12.90
12.10
181
1.81
091
013
028
1.00
1.08
2890
22.70
57900
4420
28.50
19.90
108.30
18.80
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
203.502
75.40
570
5.90
018
0.18
009
001
0.03
010
0.11
10.90
1100
20.30
14.20
990
6.50
34.40
860
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
35%
36%
44%
49%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
33%
43%
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
172
1.70
120
1582
17.53
3901
696
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
248.991
217.98
0.17
0.17
0.12
597
8.49
1368
242
Notes
Tech DOES apply Use Aluminum
Tech does NOT apply Part on vehicle but technology does not apply
T~di :ices NOT apply: Part on vehicle but technology does not apply
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming aqent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apdy Fart not en .elude
Tech does NOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Part not on vehicle
- . .. -il-.^ . . . ^ z . . ^ ... ... .....
Tech does NOT applv Fail not an vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Aluminum
Tech DOES apply Use Aluminum
Tech DOES apply: Use Aluminum
Tech does NOT apply: Part not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Aluminum
Tech does NOT apdy Part on vehicle :ui technology does not apply
Tech does HOT a;;d: Fart njt en vehicle
Tech does NOT appl1, -an n-t :n .ehide
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/LHfront 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).
L
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 $6.50 per kg.
Table 3-23: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -A- System, Renault Master
GO
•-=:
(£_
ST
03
03
03
03
03
03
Subsystem
00
01
02
"03
.........
26
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
ob"
"60
00
Description
Body System "A"
Body Structure Subsystem
Front End Subsystem
Body Closure Suisyste.™
Bumpers Subsystem
Pickup Box
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" r;
231.80
0.55
2644
5".86
0.00
264.66
(Decrease;
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i)
0.00
0.00
b".ob
o."6b
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" r;
231.80
0.55
26"44
5".86
0.00
264.66
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
•'$" (2)
$0.00
JO. 00
$d'."6b
jo'oo
$0.00
0.00
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
41,553.39
$0.37
"':$'l"32"'3"b'""
:j33j7"
$0.00
-1719.09
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$•• (2)
41,553.39
$0.37
"-$132730
-$3377
$0.00
-$1,719.09
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
$0.00
$0.58
""45.00"
.__....
$0.00
-$6.50
(Increase;
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
9.85%
0.02%
T.i2%
0725%
0.00%
11.25%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 264.66
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg' 203.50
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 130.1%
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
2,8% ^H •% Lost, technology already implemented
*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 1500
fn
1
CO
*<
3
Sub-Subsystem
03 Body
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
M
10
10
10
11
11
01
02
03
04
01
02
01
02
Component/Assembly
Group A System
Body Struci'..:H : . . - : - • - Ca'nn
Front End Subsystem (Radiator Structure)
Extra Cabin - Radiator Support
Front Wheelhouse Arch - LH
Front '. Vheelhouse Arch - RH
Frt Splash shield
Splash Shield - LH Corner
Splash Shield - RH Coiner
Enq Coyer
Cover - Radiator
Body Closing: 5:..:;. iV- - Front Fenders ILH & RH
Body Closures Subsystem - Hood Assembly w'o Hinges
Body Closures Subsystem - Front Door Assemblies (LH & RD)
Body Closures Subsystem - Rear Door Assemblies (LH & RD:
Front Bumper
Rear Bumper
Pickup Box Assembly
Pickup Box Gate
Base
Mass
574.720
20720
1290
1210
1 81
181
0.91
0 13
028
1.00
108
2890
2270
57900
44.20
2850
1990
10830
1880
Mass
Savings
Mew
Tech
203.502
7540
570
5.90
0 1B
013
009
001
003
0 10
011
1090
11 00
2030
1420
990
650
3440
360
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
35%
36%
44%
49%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
38%
43%
35%
32%
35%
33»b
32%
46%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
ves
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
Base
Mass
637.00
1 27
124
2.68
035
1285
1426
41 89
4.85
1278
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
264.657
231 80
0 13
012
027
004
435
691
14.69
1 63
4 17
Notes
Tech DOES acolv Use Aluminum
Tech does NOT apply Part on vehicle but technology does not apply
Tech does NOT apply Part not on vehicle
Te-:h DOES apply UseFci.:. i'::"'. Client
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 apply Use Polyone foaming aqent
Tech does NOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Aluminum
Tech DOES apply Use Aluminum
Tech DOES apply Use Aluminum
Tech does NOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Aluminum
Te-:>-> DOES a:plv Use Aluminum
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 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/LHfrontfenders 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 assemblywithout 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: RH front 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
-------
(f)
•<:
S2.
-------
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 $3.91 per kg.
Table 3-26: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -B- system, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
Hew Tech
"kg" m
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ;•:
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (.}
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"J/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Body System "B"
Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Sound and Heat Control Suosyste-n (Body)
S?ai.!n.g i.y.i^y.?*?™
1.64
'Oo
0.00
"plo"
..._...
1.64
O'b"
$5.12
solo
$0.00
—
$5.12
s'b'lb"
$3.11
$616
0.05%
616%
4.18
""18"62"
""III"'"
6"83""
4.18
11-62
""I'll""
""61'3"
$28.58
412160
"-pslif
-6'22
$0.00
"so"?.?
fOjOp'
'$"616
$28.58
4123''60
435"3p"
'"40'22"'
$6.83
"46"&i"
-Il-ll
$616"
0.14%
"6'.6p%"
———.
Seating Subsystem
Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
0.00
"PF"
T'b'b"
32.10
(Decrease;
0.00
32.10
(Decrease)
-125.41
(Increase)
0.00
-$125.41
-$3.91
1.04%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
32.10
34.02
94.4%
0.0% 0.0%
1.7%
% 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
-------
3.4.2.2 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
vi
3
en
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
05
K
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
06
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
06
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
D5
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
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
08
08
08
08
:
08
:_.:_
08
08
•:•-.
08
LH drivers doc /indc . i /itch cover
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 passenger door window switch cover
RH psssenqer Door arm rest attachment cover
RH passenger Door Pull handle attachment cover
RH passenqe -..:-'..- T -• I ^
RH passenger Door cgrner cover
RH passenger Door Iwr main trim
!£!zr!£±iin!n±"r^bn*H
RH passer^' '. ....•• jg . - n trirri
LH passenger Door Iwr main trim
LH passenger Door Iwr main trim map pocket
LH passenger Door Iwr main trim close out
LH passenger Door Iwr main tnm 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 dcci . : .'•_ -... Mil cover
Pn Rea: Doer arm rest attachment cover
RH Rear Door Pull handle attachment cover
RH rear door arm rest
LH Reardcici n-,-:. :. -,:h 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 Iwr mam trim map ?o::-:et
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 mam trim
LH rear door Iwr main trim map pocket
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 LwrA-Pillar
Passenger Lwr A-Pillar
Front Driver kick plate
Front Driver kick plate mount
Rear Driver kick plate
Rear Driver kick plate mount
LHB-PillarLwr
Front Passenger kick plate
Front Passenger kick plate mount
Rear Passenger kick plate
Reaj Passen |ej ick plate mount
RH B-Pillar Lwr
C-Pillar cover RH upr
C-Pillar cover RH Uvr
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 Uc.i- E ;- Ba : . ffl
Driver LH Upper B-Pillar Cover slide
Driver restraint LIT- BolLsi :ol: co,er
Driers B Dillar tiountirr: : no : : ••:••
Passenger Upr A-Pillar cover
Passenger RH Upper B-Pillar Cover
Passenger LH Upper B-Pillar Cover slide
Passenger restraint upr B-pillar bolt cower
Passenger B pillar mounting screw
Base
Mass
247.02
0 10
0.03
0.01
0.13
006
0 10
0.03
001
0 13
006
2.09
0.50
005
0.28
0.03
001
076
209
050
0.05
028
006
003
001
076
023
O.OB
002
001
027
008
0.02
001
027
153
0.23
002
001
0.58
1.53
0.23
0.02
001
058
023
0.22
0.20
0 18
0 14
0 12
0.53
021
018
0 14
013
0.63
034
0.53
00020
034
052
000
0.56
035
000
029
006
001
0.01
033
028
0.06
001
000
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
34.02
0.010
0003
0.001
0.013
0006
0010
0.003
0001
0 01.3
0.006
0.209
0.050
0005
0028
0003
0001
0076
0209
0.050
0.005
0.028
0005
0.003
0001
0076
0023
0.008
0002
0.001
0027
0008
0.002
0001
0027
0.153
0023
0002
0 001
0058
0.153
0023
0.002
0001
0.058
0023
0022
0020
0.018
0014
0.012
0.063
0.020
0018
0.014
0012
0063
0034
0053
0.0002
0034
0.052
0000
0056
0.04
000
0.03
001
0.00
0.00
0.03
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
yes
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
0.10
003
001
0.13
006
209
050
0 05
0.28
0.03
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
023
023
022
0.16
0 12
016
012
011
037
000
0.11
090
000
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
0.00
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
0.01
017
002
0.17
002
002
002
0.02
001
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.00
001
0.09
0.00
004
004
Notes
Te h DOES a--.:. Jjj Fc^one foa~imq agent
Te h DOES a-d; UE.-J Fdvone foaminq agent
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 agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te h DOES - ' •:-.-" .:vone foaming agent
Te h DOES a :•-!,• UE.e Foi1. une foa-img agent
Te h DOES ap_pj Jse_Pj /onejoa -,_• agent
Te h DOES ac'dv U=.e F civ one foa"inc] ac;ent
Te hDOESa::!, •_':••:• PC;, CTM- ^a-mq agent
Te hDOESa-'d; Jse -:•.:.••• .: -•- \\-\q agent
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 agent
Te h DOES a:-;! Jse_Pj one •:?. "ing agent
Te h DOES ,-..'. Jse_Polj one foaminq agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaminq agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polvone 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 agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polvone foaming agent
Te h DOES a:-:!.: LUe PoK une j'oa -ing a^eni
Te h DOES .?. -i JIT F ._:!•., one foaming agent
Te h DOES a -;••;•! •; U=.e Fch,.one ioa~mq agent
Te hDOES.: . . _':•. -•: ::T •:.;, --,nq .agent
Te h DOES a—I; U^e Fo'vcn^- fca-mo ageni
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 agent
Te hDOESd.'i. JsePoj Mrafofl fegjj firi
Te h does HOT apply Not on vehicle
i e " : .:e: NO" .• : :: : i." o - .el' :!-
Te h does HUT arLt, :!o- ? - •:•- :le
Te h DOES a?e>K Use F'olycne foaminq agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te h does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Te h does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Te h does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Te h DOES apply Use Polvone foaminq aqent
Te h DOES ,-* . .-.-". , - •_ r mig agent
Te h DOES a. -i JIT F:!. one foaming agent
Te h does HOT aodv Net on '.elude
Te h DOES a :••:!•,• UE-e FdYone fea"inq agent
Te h does HOT apdy tJot on vehicle
Te h does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Te h DOES apply Use Pclyone 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 '.elude
Te h does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Te h DOES ,j . .' . JseJ^olyone foa-ning agent
Te hDOESa-:-:!; UEe Fci one foaming agent
Te h DOES a-pl', Use Pol one foaminq agent
Te hDOESa::!. _•:•: F.:: c-i:- '•T—imq agent
Te h DOES apply. Use Pol one foaming agent
Te h DOES apply Use Pol one foaming agent
Te h does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaminq aqent
Te h does MOT 3 col1/ Not cm vehicle
Te h does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Te h does HOT acdv No; en vehicle
Te h does HOT a £•:•!•,• Not on .elude
Te h does HOT apoly Not on vehicle
Te h DOES a ::••:•! ; !_Ue Folvone foaminq agent
Te h does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Te h does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Te h does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Te h does NO" --< - -\ Mo- o fl& :!•?
Table 3.4-3 Continued Next Page
-------
Table 3-27: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -B- System, Silverado 2500
Silverado 1500
•~-
3
co
3
co
T
CO
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
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
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
•o
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
0
10
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
03
04
04
04
04
04
05
03
Os
05
05
Os
Os
L'~ DII.T. Leo t:.-. er sea
RH Passenqer Door Lower sea
LH Rear Door Lower seal
LH Rear Door hinge aide upr seal
RH Rear Door Lower seal
RH Rear Door hinge side upr seal
RH rear door inside window track bottom inner sea
RH rear door inside /..ir:i: trac : :ttcm 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 mdo trac :eal
_! • -:i •:• : ..i: - '.:.::• '-,::: ';•: -ottom 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
Passenqer 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 Tint Cover RH
Driver Seat rear Bolt Cover LH
Driver Seat reai Bolt Covei RH
Driver seat '.,! - - 7 - _ . ^
Driver Seat LH Track coyer
Dn.ei Seat Lr T -. ... r • . :.-. . ?3|
Driver Seat LH Tar •:..-.•' - : •:.••. 'it
Driver Seat LH cover
Driver Seat LH cover close out
Driver Seat LH cover seat belt insert cover
Driver Seat LH rove; U'-L-ar -.noc
Driver Seat LH cover recline handle
Driver Seat RH cover
Passenger seat back frame
Pass seat map back inner
Pass Seat map back
Pass Seat safety belt cover
Passenqer seat bottom frame
Frt Passenqer 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
60% Seat back frame
Arm rest inner tub
Arm rest frame
Arm rest cup holder
Arm rest cu: .: la - .-• t nv.
60% Seat bottom frame
RHrecliner cover #1
RH recliner cover *2
LH recliner cover #1
40% Seal bottom frame
40% Seat back frame
RH Brkt close out S1
RH Brkt close out £2
LH Brkt close out #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
0.11
007
0 16
0.30
052
0 16
030
060
0 19
0.35
0.60
0 19
0.35
082
2.10
1.93
082
205
1.91
220
049
064
0.04
360
0.02
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
0.02
0.31
005
0.01
002
003
011
678
0.23
1.11
013
009
423
0 14
0.24
0.08
2.98
316
0.23
0 14
007
2.97
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
0.05
0.10
0 17
o o;
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
000
0 00
0 00
0 01
0 00
0 02
000
0.00
0.03
001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 01
1 10
005
0 06
000
1 79
0 00
000
001
000
0.00
002
000
000
0.03
001
000
000
000
001
278
003
0.43
001
0 01
224
0 01
0 02
0 01
1 55
1 76
0.02
0.01
001
1 04
0.01
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%
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%
10%
52%
10%
10%
10%
52%
56%
10%
10%
10%
35%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
Setecr Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
V»s
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
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
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
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
0.07
019
019
047
0 19
0 19
0 64
035
0.34
0.64
0.35
034
0.82
210
1 07
0.82
2.05
1 07
220
0.49
064
004
360
002
0.03
002
0 0'
0 04
016
0.02
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
005
0 85
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
32.10
005
0.06
0.03
0.02
003
002
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
027
067
035
1.10
005
006
000
1 80
0.00
000
0.00
001
000
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
001
000
000
0.02
000
000
003
0.01
000
000
0.00
001
278
224
002
1 55
1 76
0.01
1.04
001
000
001
000
0.00
0.09
Notes
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPU to TPV
ech DOES a?.:l L.ha-n:ie from EDPU to TPV
ech DOES apply Change fior- EDPU to TPV
ech DOES apply Change from EDPU to TPV
ech DOES apply Change from EDPU to TPV
ech DOES apply Change fro- EDPU to TPV
ech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
ech DOES apply Change from EDFM to TPV
ech DOES apply Change fro- EDPU to TPV
ech DOES apply Change fror- EDFU to TPV
ech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
ech DOES ;,::i ••'. h:, -;;•(:- EDPU to TPV
ech DOES aoply Change fro- EDPU to TPV
ech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
ech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
ech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
ech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
ech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
ech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
ech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
ech DOES apply: Change from EDPM to TPV
ech 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 foaminq agen
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agen
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agen
Tech DOES apply Change from welded steel BASF Plastic
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agen
Tech DOES apply L's- r .!•, • i- i ,H --ing agen
Tech DOES apply L::.- r. ' •• '•_ r , r-. -r
Tech DOES?.. i . -.•: r .', jnejoa nq a,|7?n
Tech DOES ri ..: i_;.^".i._.. ..- .7
Tech DOES a. :! L ^ ~ .! . .",- ''..a '..in. 7:11
Tech DOES a: . :. E.e ~ :iyone foaming agen
Tech DOES a :~L Lse F":.ly:ne teaming agen
Tech DOES a . Use_PoJyone tea ^mq agen
Tech DOES a-: .1 L EE- - :l , Ene tea-ing agen
Tech DOES a"l. L 3e F :l'.,.::ne tea "inq anen
Tech DOES?: . :- : : :ne fcaminq agen
Tech DOES ;. : : se_Pc E : - . .• ^''i
Tech DOES a : . :~ -::.: : .: - ... :l
Tech DOES apply Change from welded steel BASF Plastic
Tech DOES t: :! '. EE- ~ :l /one tea ^inq agen
Tech DOES ;.::! .;- : : one .,: •" nq aqen
Tech DOES a-; :i L se Pojyone foaminq agen
Tech DOES apply Change from welded steel BASF plastic
Tech DOES ; : . ..:-:. : :: : i 3 :n
Tech DOES a: :l. Lse F'Elvcne teaming agen
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agen
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agen
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaminq agen
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agen
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaminq agen
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agen
Tech DOES apply Use Polvone foaming agen
Tech DOES apply Use Polvone foaming agen
Tech DOES apply Use Polvone 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 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
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES a i ' '•.-. - i . ..-Lied steel to mag
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Change fiE" ej ed_steehojnag
Tech DOES apply Change f:E ejded steel :o -iag
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES?::! yse_PoJ :-- •: 3 --nq agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
TechDOESa::1 J-a ::- : .need steel to mag
Tech DOES a : :i L Ee :- :l . :re Ea^nqagent
TechDOESa::! I.E.eFil ;n.:. EEI ".nq agent
Tech DOES apply USE ~ :i', EII.E :a "inq agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone oaniinq agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone oaminq agent
TechDOESa:.: .:. •:''-: EIIE- :?":,: .I..EIIE
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 JOJ
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 JOJ
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
0! 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 10
03 12
03 J2J
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 J2j
03 J2J
03 12
03 ~\2\
03 J2j
03 J2J
03 12
03 12
03 J^J
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 Kj
03 12
03 20
03 20
j; 20
j; 20
o; 2j
j: ij
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
13
Frt wrap around close out
Rear wrap around close out
Cup holder
Cup holdertop
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 Bea^ t>:: Floor BK! Cover
P Ham Sub Molding
P Mam Molding
P 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 qlove box door inner
Upr qlove box bucket
Top IP Cover
iP Driver side cover
IP Passenger side cover
Top IP Decretive trim
P Control I.I. •: . ' I".; ..:K[
P Control Module 2 & 3 mounting i:iv:t
IP Control Module 4 mounting brkt
HousingAss 7 .— :-: ,r 5. de Airbag
.'-... ..7 :. ~ -.:.•:. :un:ir.q .:rkt
Passenger 'E.ide cudain aiMsq "ovntinq brkt
-ront Cover 5.^eii:v ' :'ee L' :.::.: L ssv
Brackets! Drivers side airbag
gnition Caivv.!-:- '_ •:•:• -:; -:•:- rbac I .
Base
Mass
247.02
051
0.65
031
012
3.77
1 60
002
004
1 08
006
0.20
0.23
065
034
002
002
11.34
0.10
1.60
337
02'
0 10
059
0.42
0.35
085
0.40
0.05
0.45
0.11
O.OS
034
026
049
029
0 15
0.15
1 06
0 13
0 15
009
1 09
0.30
031
0.14
0.25
049
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
34.02
0.05
006
003
001
1 66
081
000
0.00
0.11
0 01
0.02
003
007
003
0.00
0.00
544
001
016
0.34
0 03
001
006
024
004
009
0.04
001
005
001
001
003
003
0.05
003
002
002
0 11
0 01
0 02
001
0.62
0 19
019
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%
57%
62%
62%
10%
44%
28%
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
y s
y s
y s
y s
V s
V s
V s
V s
V s
V s
V s
V s
V s
V s
y s
y s
y s
n
n
y s
y a
y s
Base
Mass
051
065
031
012
3.77
160
002
004
1 08
006
020
026
065
034
002
002
11 34
0.10
1 60
337
027
0 10
059
042
0.35
085
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
0.14
0 12
049
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
32.10
0.05
0.06
0.03
001
1 66
081
000
000
0 11
001
002
003
007
003
000
000
544
001
0 16
034
003
001
006
0.24
004
009
0.04
001
005
001
001
0.03
003
005
003
002
002
0 11
001
002
001
0.62
0.02
005
0 14
Notes
Te I DOES apply Us Polyone foaming agent
Te DOES apply Us Polyone foaming agent
Te I DOES apply Us Polyone foaming agent
Te i DOES apply Us Polyone foaming agent
Te i DOES apply Ch nge from welded steel to mag
Te i DOES apply. Ch nge from welded steel to mag
Te i DOES apply Us Polyone foaming agent
Te i DOES apply Ui .v- H ^ing agent
Te i DOES apply Us Polyone foammq agent
Te t DOES apply Us Polyone foaming agent
Te i DOES apply Us Polyone foaming agent
Te DOES apply Us Polyone foaming agent
Te DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te DOES.?::, Use_Po! V:IT 'v? " no agent
Te h DOES apply Change from welded steel to mag
Te hDOES _•::•. .':.:• -vivone foaming agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agen
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foammq agen
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foammq agen
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agen
Te hDOES apply Change from steel to ABS lastic and use
Po yone foaming agent
Te h DOES apply. Use Polyone foammq agen
Te h DOES apply. Use Polyone foaminq agen
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foammq agen
Te h DOES apply Us Polyone foaminq agen
Te h DOES apply Us Polyone foammq agen
Te h DOES apply: Us Polyone foaminq agen
Te h DOES apply Us Polyone foaminq agen
Te h DOES apply Us Polyone foaminq agen
Te h DOES apply Us Polyone foaminq agen
Te h DOES apply. Us Polyone foaminq agen
Te h DOES apply Us Polyone foaminq agen
Te DOES apply Us Polyone foaminq aqen
"if | ::, - 1 . .: ..::T v , : . - ,
Te DOES apply. Us Polyone foaminq av:en
TT DOES ,. . . !-':. V V T '. .-' l!:.| a^el'l
Te DOES-..: . J-; " . v .: 'iiqagen
TT DOES r •_'. r v : . v i ' e ' . .r i . .: ad-en
Te DOES apply Ch nge from steel to DSM Akulon Nylon6
Tr •:•::. °IO~ .- . : Not on ..'elude
T- v .::.:.-. rIOT a-;:l, Not on .ehule
Te hDOESe.;.: Use -olvone foaming agen
Te hDOES apply Change from steel to plasti
Tel- DOES 3:. Repjacejkja staoe - ate : ::le staqe
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 kgforthe2500. 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
CO
•-*:
cn_
to
^
03
03
03
Description
Body Group B
Silverado 1500
Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Base
"kg" ;•
247.02
220.48
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (1>
34.02
32.10
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" m
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" d>
34.02
32.10
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
13.77%
14.56%
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" B
-$127.22
-$125.41
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" <2>
$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
w
••<
Cf^
to
3
n
03
03
03
03
03
03
CO
CT-
tn
*<
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
$6.23
$0.00
$12.31
-$37.27
-$36.26
$1.66
-$53.33
(Increase)
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
$2.88
$0.00
$6.83
-$5.26
-$5.43
$0.00
-$2.66
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
0.10%
0.00%
0.08%
0.33%
0.31%
0.11%
0.94%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 20.02
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 33.92
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 59.0%
....,, -11.7%
0.0% °'0%
^.
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
^k^^^^^g •% Lost, technology already implemented
^HP • % Lost, technology reduced impact
*SMS not included - has no signif cant 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
en
tr-
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
OS
05
05
05
06
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
06
05
05
05
05
05
05
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
06
06
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
03
06
08
OS
03
03
03
OS
08
LH drivers door window switch cover
LH drivers Door arm rest attachment cover
LH drivers Door F'ull handle attachment cover
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 I'M main trim inner support brkt#1
RH passenger Door Iwr main trim inner support crkt#2
RH passenger Door Lvr main trim inner support brkt#5
RH passenger Door Iwr main trim inner support brkt#6
RH passenger Door upr main trim
LH passenger Door Iwr main trim
LH passenqe Doorjwj .- ; • . :: . -
LH passenger Door Iwr main trim close out
LH passenger Door Iwr main trim inner support brkt#1
LH passenqer Door kr main trim inner support crKt*2
LH passenger Door kvr mam trim inner support brkt#5
LH passenqer Door kvr main trim inner support brkt#6
LH passenger Door upr main trim
Frt dorr harness feed through
RH Rear door window switch cover
RH pear 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 LAI mam trim map pocket
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
Rear Driver kick plate mount
LH B-Pillar Lwr
Front Passenger kick plate
-rent pevF,err.|e- r -.,;!- -n. o:
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-Pillai to C-Pillar cross trim
Drivers Upr A-Pillar cover
Drivers upr A-pillar mounting scre>A cover
Driver LH Upper B-Pillar Cover
Driver LH Upper B-Pillar Cover slide
Driver restraint upr B-pi!lar bolt cover
Drivers B pillar mounting screw cover
Passenqer Upr A-Pillar cover
Passenger RH Upper B-Pillar Cover
Passenqer LH Upper B-Pillar Cover slide
Passenger restraint upr B-pillar bolt cover
Passenger E .•• - . • :; screvv
Base
Mass
247.02
0-10
003
001
013
006
0 10
003
001
0 13
006
203
050
0.06
0-28
006
003
001
076
2.09
050
005
023
0.06
003
001
076
023
003
002
001
027
0.08
002
001
027
1.63
023
002
001
058
1 53
023
002
001
058
023
0.22
020
0 18
0 14
0 12
0.63
021
0.18
0.14
013
063
0.34
053
00020
034
062
0.00
066
0.35
000
029
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.33
028
006
0.01
0.00
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
34.02
0010
0003
0001
0013
0006
0010
0003
0001
0013
0006
0209
0050
0.005
0028
0005
0003
0001
0076
0209
0060
0005
0028
0005
0003
0001
0.076
0023
0003
0002
0001
0027
0.008
0002
0.001
0027
0.163
0023
0002
0.001
0068
0.153
0.023
0002
0001
0058
0023
0022
0020
0.018
0014
0012
0.063
0020
0018
0 014
0012
0063
0034
0.053
0 0002
0034
0062
0000
0056
0.04
0.00
0 03
001
000
0.00
0.03
0.03
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
ves
ves
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
006
0.09
006
3.30
067
0 59
254
330
067
059
254
005
022
2.36
065
036
033
122
123
038
0-38
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
20.02
0.01
001
0.01
0.33
007
006
025
033
0 07
006
0.25
000
002
024
0.07
0.04
003
012
0.12
004
0.04
Notes
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 fJot 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 apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
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 NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES a:dv L'5e Pol .:"•: - .. r .~rt
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 apply: Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apdv Not en :•;• :
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming aqent
Tech does NOT applv Noi en .ehide
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polvone foaming aqent
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 foaming agent
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT acdv Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NO" ..-.-:-.!, lie! ::n diide
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES a. .: I. -^ cc I1, :ne foaming 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 vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NO" a: :l Not en dude
Tech does HOT applv Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES applv Use Polvcme foaming agent
Tech does HOT apply Not on '.elude
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT applv Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT acolv Not on vehnle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does NOT 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 HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES applv Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NO" 5:'!. Not on .elude
Table 3.4-6 Continued Next Page
-------
Table 3.4-6 Continued: System Scaling Analysis, Body Group -B- System, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1500
a
3
1
3
Sub-Subsysfem
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
OJ
07
07
0?
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
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 Driver Door Lower seal
RH Passenqer Door Lower seal
LH Rear Door Lower seal
LH Rear Door hinqe side upr seal
RH Rear Door Lower seal
RH Rear Door hinqe side upr seal
RH rear door inside window track seal
RH rear door inside window rack bottom inner seal
RH rear door inside window rack bottom outer seal
LH rear door inside window rack seal
LH rear door inside window rack bottom inner seal
LH rear door inside '.vin.:|.:: ~: ;otton cu,..-r sea
LH drivers door inside window track seal
^r :: ers M:C'- rsi.ie r:::i: •'.= : :::'._-• iner sea
LH drivers door inside window track bottom outer seal
RH passenger door inside window track seal
RH passenqer door inside window track bottom inner seal
RH passenger door inside window track bottom outer seal
Drivers Upr Outside seal
=ront driver door sea
Rear driver door seal
Passenger Upr Outside seal
Front passenqer door sea
Rear passenger door seal
Driver seat back frame
Driver seat map back inner
Driver Seat map back
Driver Seat safetv. oelt cover
Driver seat bottom frame
Driver Seat frt Hut Cover LH
Dnver Seat frt Nut Cover RH
Driver Seat rear Bolt Cover LH
Driver Seat rear Bolt Cover RH
Driver seat wire harness cover
Driver Seat LH Track cover
Driver 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
Driver Seat LH cover lumbar knob
Driver Seat LH cover recline handle
Driver Seat RH cover
passenger seat back frame
Pass seat map back inner
F.-VE {^: -a' :?,:
Pass Seat safety belt cover
Passenqer 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 c ose out
passenger Seat LH cover seat belt insert crr.er
Dassenqer Seat LH cover lumbar knob
Passenger Seat LH cover recline handle
Passenger Seat RH cover
60% Seat back frame
Arm rest inner tub
Arm rest frame
Arm rest cup holder
Arm rest cup holder retainer ring
G0% Seat bottom frame
RH recliner cover #1
RHreclmer cover S2
LH rechner cover #1
40% Seat bottom frame
40% Seat back frame
RH Brkt close out #1
RH Brkt close out #2
LH Brkt close out #1
Base
Mass
247.02
014
0 14
0 11
007
011
0.07
052
0 16
030
052
0 16
030
060
0 19
0.35
060
019
035
OS2
2 10
193
082
205
1 91
220
049
064
0.04
360
002
003
002
007
004
0 16
002
0-02
0.31
0-05
001
002
003
0 11
220
0.49
064
004
3.59
0.02
004
006
002
004
016
002
002
0.31
005
001
002
003
0 11
578
028
1 11
013
009
428
0 14
0.24
008
298
3 16
023
0 14
0-07
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
34.02
005
005
004
002
004
0.02
0 17
0.05
010
0 17
005
0.10
0.20
006
0 11
020
006
0 11
027
0.68
063
0.27
067
0.62
1 10
0.05
0.06
0.00
1 80
000
000
000
001
000
002
000
000
003
001
0.00
0.00
000
001
1 10
0.05
006
000
1 79
000
000
0.01
000
0.00
002
0.00
000
0.03
001
0.00
000
0.00
001
2.73
003
043
001
0.01
224
001
002
001
1 55
1 76
002
001
0-01
% 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
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Base
Mass
0.77
0.18
077
018
1 82
1 32
395
300
0.29
0.04
003
031
395
3.00
0.29
0 04
0 03
031
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
20.02
025
0 06
0 25
006
0.59
0 59
197
1.50
0.03
0 00
001
0 03
1 97
149
0.03
0 00
0 01
003
Notes
Tech does MOT apply Hot on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply No on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply No on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply No on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply No on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply No on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply No on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply No on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply No on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply No on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply No on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOtS aj>p!y Change from EDPM to TPV
Tech DO^S apply Change from EOPt.l to TPV
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPIJ to TPV
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
Tech does NOT a::-:l'., !lo' on .elude
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Change from EDPM to TPV
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Chanqe from EDPW to TPV
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Change from welded steel to BASF Plastic
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Change from welded steel to BASF Plastic
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on -..elude
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 NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT applv Not on vehicle
Tech DOES applv Use Polvone foaminq aqent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaminq aqent
Tech DOE S apply Change from welded steel to BASF Plastic
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT applv Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply. Change from welded steel to BASF Plastic
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on ..eh.de
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehide
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES a-:d.. Use PcUc.r.e foa 'unq aqent
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on .ehirle
Tech DOES apply Use Polvone foaminq aqent
Tech DOES apply Use Polvcne foaming agent
Tech DOES applv Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does Nrr n .; . _ T :-
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 HOT applv 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 HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Table 3.4-6 Continued Next Pac
-------
Table 3.4-6 Continued: System Scaling Analysis, Body Group -B- System, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1500
Cfi
3
in
c
3
CO
c
Y~
co
c:
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
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
20
20
20
20
20
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
13
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,1oldinq
P Mam Molding
P Mam Molding support box
Elec. Breaker box cover
Knee Bolster cover
Knee Bolster P-mL:'':T iwri :rLi;t
Glove box brkt
Glove box inner tub
Glove box inner tub cover
Decorative glove box trim
Lvvr Center IP Cover
Lwr Center IP Cover ashtrav door
Ashtray
Upr qlove box door
Upr glove box door inner
Upr glove box bucket
Top IP Cover
P 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 sirbaq mounting brkt
Passenger side curtain airbag mounting brkt
Front Cover. Steering Wheel Airbag Assy
Bracket #1 Drivers side airbag
Ignition Canister. Steering Wheel Airbag Assy
Base
Mass
247.02
297
0.07
0 05
0 06
0.05
005
0.35
051
065
031
0 12
377
1 60
0.02
0.04
1 08
006
0.20
0.28
065
034
002
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
049
029
0 15
0 15
1 06
0.13
0 15
0 09
109
030
031
014
025
049
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
34.02
1.04
0.01
000
001
0.00
0.00
0.03
005
006
003
0.01
1 66
0.81
000
0-00
0.11
0.01
0.02
003
007
003
000
000
5.44
001
0.16
0.34
003
0.01
0.06
024
004
0.09
004
0.01
005
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.03
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%
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%
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
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
11.60
5.91
030
0.66
1 11
069
006
006
022
0.82
050
0 12
0 12
050
339
1.26
0.19
1 26
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
20.02
557
0.59
003
007
011
007
001
001
002
0.08
005
001
001
005
193
004
008
0.25
Notes
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does Ni - ~ Mol ::n vehicle
Te h does HOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does NOT aoplv Hot en .-:-h:i-?
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does NOT apply Mot on - ::
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h DOES apply Change from welded steel to mag
Te ti does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te h does NOT apply Mot on '.ehicle
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
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 agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te n DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polvone foaming agent
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h DOES apply Change from steel to DSM Akulon NylonS
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Te h DOES apply Use Polyone foaming aqent
Te h DOES apply Change from steel to plastic
Te h 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 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—8: Sealing Subsystem for the Silverado 1500 (Left) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.com)
Seating Subsystem
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.A2macl.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).
J - . - L
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 $3.86 per kg.
Table 3-31: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -B-Subsystem, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"k9" (»
Mass
Reduction
Cornp
"kg" (1>
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
System "B"
Interior Trim and Ornamentation i
Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)
Sealing Subsystem
1.21
0.00
'
1.21
S3.25
SO 00
$3.25
$2.S8
0.05%
0.00
.
$p.p q
SO. 00
'
$0.00
$0.00
0.00%
Too"
i-
"""
"'
"p"o7%"
'"
p. go
"
??
-J7597
"""
-$797
"
-$543
"
59%
"""
. .......
Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
To"
"sq'ob"
__
"-$5lT
'"""""'
OJ25
...._..
b"25
l"99
__
..__...
'"$o"b"b""'
..._._..
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, New 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
C % Lost, technology reduced impact
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecenl 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
1
tn
c
c
to
u-
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
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
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
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
07
07
0!
07
0,'
0,'
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
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 Pull handle attachment cover
RH passenqer Door vertical Pull handle
RH passenger Door corner cover
RH passeiv:iTi f oo i i aj ' u "
RH passenge [.:._• v i .?i- ' ;. voC' et
RH passenger Door Iwr main trim close out
RH passenger Door Iwr mam trim inner support brkt#1
RH passengei L or:; K. --ai;- [i:- inrei .=.,...•."• • '-1
RH passen^e: C ..:: :..i a: ' - ....... j '-':
RH passenger Door Iwr main trim inner support brkt#6
RH passenger Door upr main trim
LH passenger Dooi K'/r r-ain trim
LH passenger Door L',r r-ain trim -rac Docket
LH passenger Door Iwr main trim inner support brktSI
LH passenger Door kr main trim inner support brkt*2
LH passenger Door kr main trim inner support brki-5
LH passenger Door I'M main trim inner support brkt#6
LH passenger Door upr main trim
RH Rear door '.-/mriovv 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 Iwr main trim nap pocket
LH rear door jvfl goto , :^t #1
LH rear door Iwr main trim mountinq bkt #2
LH rear door upr main trim
Driver LwA-Pillar
Passenger Lwr A-Pillar
Front Driver kick plate
Front Driver kick plate mount
Rear Driver kick plate
Rear Driver kick plate mount
LH B-Pillar Lwr
Front Passenger kick plate
Front Passen.::'? : iLv-: -cunt
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-Pillsrto C-Pillar cross trim
Drivers Upr A-Pillar cover
Drivers upr A-pillar mountinq 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 mountinq screw cover
Passenqer Upr A-Pillar cover
Passenqer RH Upper B-Pillar Cover
Passenqer LH Upper B-Pillar Cover slide
Passenqer restraint upr B-pillar bolt cover
Passenqer B pillar mounting screw
Base
Mass
247.02
0 10
0.03
001
0.13
006
0 10
003
001
0.13
0.06
209
050
0 05
0.23
0.06
0.03
001
076
209
0.50
028
0.06
0.03
001
076
003
0.01
0.27
0.08
002
0.01
0.27
1.53
0.23
002
0.01
058
1.53
023
002
0.01
053
023
022
0.20
0 18
0 14
012
0.63
0.21
0 18
014
0 13
063
034
053
0 0020
034
052
000
0.56
035
000
029
006
0.01
001
033
023
006
001
0.00
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
34.02
0010
0003
0001
0013
0006
0.010
0003
0001
0013
0.006
0209
0 050
0005
0.028
0005
0.003
0001
0076
0209
0.050
0.023
0005
0.003
0001
0 076
0008
0001
0027
0008
0002
0001
0027
0153
0023
0002
0.001
0058
0 163
0023
0002
0.001
0053
0023
0022
0020
0.018
0.014
0012
0.063
0.020
0018
0014
0.012
0.063
0034
0 053
0 0002
0034
0.052
0000
0066
004
0.00
0 03
0.01
000
000
0 03
0.03
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%
9%
11%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
0%
- 0%
• 0%
0%
• 0%
- 0%
0%
0%
- 0%
- 0%
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
no
es
es
es
es
no
es
es
es
es
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
10
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
Base
Mass
003
005
0 04
021
003
0 05
0.04
021
246
036
2.46
0.36
006
244
0 11
0 14
0.30
0.89
0.25
0.25
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
23.67
0.00
001
000
002
000
001
000
0.02
025
0.04
0.25
004
001
0.24
0 01
0 01
0.09
000
0.02
002
Notes
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaminq agent
Tech does NOT apply Mot on veh cle
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 veh cle
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 ageni
Tech DOE S a . . i •. :. r r .'_••-- .- •..--•
Tech does NOT a-:--:|./ Not on ',eh : e
Tech does NOT ap_pl riu .jn ^h _ e
Tech does NOT a 3d.,1 Net en veh •: e
Tech does NOT a^dy Not on '..eh : e
Tech does HOT ao^\-- Not on ,eh : e
Tech does NOT apply Not on veh c e
Tech DOES a ::l. L se ^ilvone lea -'ing ageni
Tech DOES a-::!. L'se ^ Dlyjine fca-ir:i a:;em
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does HOT aoply Mot on vehic e
Tech does HOT aoply Not on vehic e
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Not on ve ice
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone oaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on ve lie e
Tech does NOT apply Not on ve ic e
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT apph, 'let en i.~hi; e
Tech DOES apply L'SH i1 ;!•, :.np fe^ nmg agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Not on veh c e
Tech does NOT apply Not on veh c e
Tech does NOT apply Not on veh c e
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh c e
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh c e
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone loaning agent
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh c e
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh c e
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh c e
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh c e
Tech DOES a: :!. Use_Ppjy^ine foaming ageni
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh c e
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh c e
Tech does HOT apply Not on \~h c e
Tech does HOT apply Not on '.eh c e
Tech DOES apply Use Polyline foaming ageni
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh c e
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh c e
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh c e
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh c e
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh c e
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh c e
Tech does HOT apply Net on veh c e
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaminq agent
Tech does HOT apply Not on veh c e
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaminq agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Tech does NOT a&:\ • ' - ••
Table 3.4-8 Continued Next Page
Table 3.4-8 Continued: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -B- Subsystem, Renault Master
-------
Silverado 1500
rsi
s
3
VI
a
B
Sub-Subsystem
Component/Assembly
03 Body Group B System
03
03
03
03
03
03
Hi
03
1)3
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
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
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
0?
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 Drrjer Door Lower seal
RH Passenger Door Lower seal
LH Rear Door Lower seal
LH Rear Door hinqe side upr seal
RH Rear Door Lower seal
RH Rear Door hinge side upr seal
RH rpar dcoi in'id^ :,in-lc.o !rar-: ^j3
RH r?ar door mr.id? .-.m-lo'.', ir..v: : ill- - u -•:•( oea!
RH rear floor inside .Minlo.'. rr3C'' DOtto— oilier s~.3
LH rear door inside '//mdo» Irac* seal
LH rear door inside ',vmdO'.'. trac* Dcltom inner seal
LH rear door inside window track bottom ouler sea!
LH drivers doer inside window track sea!
LH drrvers door inside window track bottom inner seal
LH drivers door inside window track bottom outer seal
RH passengv' '! . "^ ''•' '-' '•;!<;* seal
RH passenger door inside window track boStorp inner sea!
RH oassenger door inside v,mdov, trac* ootto"-; outer seal
Dnvers Ut<- O'jioi'io seal
Front driver door s?a
Rear driver door seal
Fa3:-'3nq?r Upr Outside seal
Front passenger door seal
Rear passenger door seal
Driver seat back frame
Dover seat map back inner
Drwe Seat map back
Dii,- .^3; -;afe:, :vl! c-,.^r
Gn.e :,eat ~-.tr- ; fi.v-.-
r:r;.e Seer fit Nut Cover LH
Drive Seal frt Milt Co'.er RH
Drive Seat rear Bolt Cover LH
Drive Seat rear Bolt Cover RH
Drive seat wire harness cover
Driver Seat LH Track cover
Driver Seat LH Track cover end cap rear
Driver Seat LH Track cover end cap frt
Dnver Seat LH cover
Dnvef Seat 1- •. u jou out
Driver Seat LH cover seat belt insert cover
Uii.er Sea' L-! cO'.ei u~:-3r -no:;
Driver Seat LH cover recline handle
Dri.er Seat RH cover
Rassengei seat back frame
Pass seat map back inner
Pass Seat map back
Pass Seat safety belt cover
Passenger seat bottom frame
Frt Passenger Seat frt RH Mut Cover
Frt Passenger Seat rrt LH Nut Cover
Rassenge, Sea! rear Bolt Cover LH
Passenger Seat rear Belt Co.er RH
Pa-:.?eoger seat .',:re 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% Seat ~3C°, fra^e
Arm rest inner tub
Arm rest frame
Arm rest cup holder
Arm rest cup holder retainer nng
60% Seat bottom frame
RH recliner cover #1
RH recliner cover #2
LH recliner cover #1
40% Seat bottom frame
40% Sear bat i.ar-ie
RH & ; dose cut *1
RH Brkt close out *2
LH Brkt close out ~1
Base
Mass
247.02
014
014
0 11
007
0.11
007
052
0 15
030
052
016
030
060
019
035
060
013
035
032
2 10
1 33
082
205
1 91
220
049
064
004
3 60
002
003
002
007
004
016
002
002
031
005
00!
002
003
0 11
220
049
064
004
3.59
002
0.04
006
0 02
0 04
0 16
002
002
031
005
001
002
003
011
6 73
028
1 11
0 13
009
428
014
024
003
293
3.16
o ;3
014
007
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
34.02
005
005
004
002
004
002
ll 17
0 05
0 10
0 17
005
010
020
006
011
020
006
011
027
068
0 63
027
067
052
1 10
0.05
0.06
000
1 30
0 00
000
000
001
000
002
000
000
003
001
0 00
000
000
001
1 10
005
006
000
1 79
000
0.00
0 0 1
0 00
000
002
000
000
003
001
000
000
000
0 U I
273
003
043
001
001
224
001
002
001
1.55
176
0 02
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%
3.3',
.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%
in".
10°,
10%
10°-,
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
43°,
10%
35°,
10%
10%
52%
10%
10%
10%
52%
56%
10°,
10%
10%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
ve.s
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
ves
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
ves
no
no
no
ves
mi
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
in-
no
no
no
Base
Mass
057
012
050
057
0 12
0 50
1 47
! 47
467
467
0 17
0 04
009
928
926
026
0.05
Muss
Savings
New
Tech
23.67
019
004
016
019
0 04
0 '6
048
043
234
2 34
002
0 00
001
464
463
003
000
_
Tech does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
T?.;h ,;fo^; NOT .--c:: , f.'.l rji --'n I-
Tech does NOT ao;?!1.. Mot on •.•jhict*
T*ch dc^s NOT a-jii-'l'., No! on ...vlncle
Tech dees NOT aDril1, Not en .ehicle
Tech rice? NOT asri, Not on .elude
Tec does NOT soo\\ Not on i,-:4n;i-?
Tec does NOT appl; Not an •.whirls
Tec does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tec DOES apply Change from EDPM lo TPV
Tec DOES apply Change fro^ EDPM to TPV
Tec DOES apply Change from EDPM lo TPV
Tec i DOES ar^ Cnany* iro^] EGPU to TPV
Tec DOESacpiv Change fro- EDPM to TPV
Tec DOESarolv Change fro- EDPM tc TPV
Tec does NOT aaply Not on vehicle
Tec DOESaralv Chang? fro- EDPM tc TPV
Tec DOES asp!; Changs frc-r. EDPM lo TPV
Tec does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tec i does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tec does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Change from welded sleel lo BASF Plastic
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT aoplv Not en .-lucle
Tech does NOT aooK Not on ^lu-le
Te-c DOES .3 :•?•.>, Chan.;;? ir.^- ,'^ki-d 3!**! tc BASF Plastic
Tec dne-:-. NOT a^K Not on ..eh d?
Tec does NOT 33?]-. No! on .eh cle
Tec does NOT an?lv Net on ^.eh cle.
Tec doei NOT .a?-!1, Nof on ^h cle.
Tec does NOT apply Not on veh cle
Tec does NOT apply Not on veh cle
Tec does NOT apcly Not on vehicle
Tec does NOT apply Not on veh cle
Tec DOES .i:', ' : :." ''• ' '•!- v, v-Minq aqent
Tec does NOT aosly Not on veh cl*
Tec does NOT aoply Not en veh cle
Tec i DOES ap_pj , Use Pol . ine foaming agent
Tec DOES appiy Use Pclyene fca—mg agent
Te.c does NOT apoly Not on veh cle
Tec DOES SDD!V Change ircrv ..velderi stee! tc BASF Plastic
Tec does NOT apply Not on veh cie
Tec i does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT aoply Not on veh cle
Tech DOES apply Change from welded sleel to BASF Plastic
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT arc-l; Nnt en -,i?lri:l«
Tech does NOT .=rx'i> Not on .-^h el-
Tech dees NOT ascly Net on ..eh cle
[ech does NOT a:^-'1., Not on ..eh cie
Tech does NOT apulv [Jot on Chicle
Tech dees NOT asdv Not on .ehicle.
Tec does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tec DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tec does HOT acpiy Not on vehicle
Tec does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tec does NOT aoolj- Not on vehicle
Tec DOES acoiv U ^ "..:,•;:!•:• :"..,•:• ;- • aged
Tec does NOT apoly Mot on ve icJe
Tec does NOT apply Not on ve icle
Tec does HOT apply Not on ve icle
Tec does NOT apply Not on ve icle
Tec does HOT apply Not on ve icle
Tec does HOT apply Not on ve icle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apcly Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT aprly Mot on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Mot on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Mot on vehicle
Tech does NOT ator, No; en vehic-l-:1
Tech ooes NOT 3S2\\ Not on Chicle
Tech dees NOT a Dpi1.; Not on ..eh cfe
Tech does NOT ap_p_lj Nor on .ehicle
Table 3.4-8 Continued Next Page
-------
Table 3.4-8 Continued: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -B- Subsystem, Renault Master
Silverado 1500
w
y |
Sub-Subsystem
ComponentfAssembiy
03 Body Group B System
03 10
03 in
03 10
03 10
03 In
03 I')
03 HI
03 HI
03 In
03 I'J
03 HI
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 12
03 12
03 12
03 i:
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 1 2
02 12
02 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
,:3 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 12
03 20
03 20
03 20
03 20
03 20
03 20
06
06
Of.
On
05
05
IK
05
Oa
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
01
01
02
02
02
32
03
33
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
05
05
05
12
12
13
13
16
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 clcse 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 handled
Cross Car Beam
Cross Car Beam to Floor Brkt Cover
IP Main Sub Molding
IP Main Molding
F ['.'lam Mgkj ' : . -' . .
Elec. Breaker box cover
Knee Bolster cover
• jlee EclEie L - :'i_ _•_- T' i '.'rit
Glove box brkt
Glove box inner lur.
Glove box inner tub cover
Decorative glove box trim
Lwr Center IP Co'.'er
2',vr Center IF G:.i?r a:htrav door
Ashtray
Upr glove co>. 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. Steering Wheel Airbag Assy
Bracket #1 Drivers side airbag
Ignition Canister Steering Wheel Airbaq Assv
Base
Mass
247.02
297
007
005
0.06
005
0.05
0.85
051
0 65
031
0 12
377
1 60
002
0.04
1.08
006
0.20
0.28
0.65
0.34
002
002
11.34
010
1 60
3.37
027
0 10
059
042
035
085
0.40
005
0.45
0.11
008
034
026
049
029
015
015
1 06
013
015
009
1 09
030
031
014
025
049
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
34.02
1 04
0.01
000
001
000
0.00
009
005
0.06
003
001
1 66
081
0.00
0-00
0 11
0.01
0.02
0.03
007
0.03
000
0.00
5.44
0.01
0 16
034
003
001
006
024
004
009
0.04
001
0.05
0.01
001
003
003
005
003
0.02
0.02
0.11
0-01
002
001
0.62
019
019
002
011
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%
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%
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
ves
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
Base
Mass
10.68
8.06
0.94
1 05
047
039
026
0 65
083
0 13
013
071
0.06
033
077
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
23.67
5.12
081
005
0 10
005
0.04
003
0 07
003
0 01
0.01
007
0.01
0.03
022
Notes
Te does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Te does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Te does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Te does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Te does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Te does NOT apply Not on ,'ehic e
Te does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Te does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Te does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Te does NOT apply Not ::••• .>:•'>: ••
Te does NOT apply: Not on vehic e
Te does NOT apply: Not on vehic e
Te does NOT apply: Not on vehic e
Te does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Te h does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Te h does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Te h does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Te h does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Te h does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Te h does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Te h does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Te h does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Te h does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Te h DOES apply Change from we ded steel to mag
Te h does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Te h does NOT apply Not on vehic e
Te h DOES ; . :: r jl1, one foam ng agent
Te does NO"" .-. . , I..,1 . -• : ~
Te does Nil - .. -' -
~H DOES .. : . . L :- Fij T , . _, --.r:ii
Te does NOT apply: Not on vehic e
Te does NO" :: i . . . - . -
Te DOES arc:1,' Use Fclyone tea " rig agent
~e DOiE "3 :• : . . : r - : ' one foa r ng agent
Te DOES::' .': E r- ::, one fear ng agent
Te DOES a;.-:1/ Use Fnlyone fear ng agent
Te does NOT :-•-.. - : : - •:
Te does HOT apply Not on vehic e
Te does NOT apcly Not on , 'elm: e
Te does NOT apply Hot on vehic e
Te DOES:'::; U:: Fdvone fearing agenr
Te DOESapcly Use Polyone foaming agent
2'i-iL - : : : : : g__ag_ent
Te DOES apply Use pulvune foaming agent
Te DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te does HOT apply Not on vehic e
Te DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Te does NOT apply. Not on vehic
Te does NOT apply Net on vehic
Te does NOT apply Nut on vehic
Te does NOT apply Nolonmiuc
Te i DOES apply Use Polyone foa ing agent
Te i does NOT apply Not on vehic
Te DOES apply Replace dual sta e infiator '.vitn 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 1500 versus 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 $1.28 per kg. Mass reduction for this system reduced
vehicle curb weight by 0.09%.
Table 3-33: Body Group -C- System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500
in
^<
U3_
(D
3
03
__
03
03
03
JQ3
03
03
03
JJ3
03
03
03
Of
03
Subsystem
08
_
08
08
08
"08"
03
09
09
"69"
09
23
23
"24"
24
Sub-Subsystem
00
01"
02
04
07
j2"
15
00
01
02
99
00
02
00
02
Description
Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Radiator Griil
Lower Exterior Finishers
Upper Exterior and Roof Finish
Rear Closure Finishers
Badcjing
Cowl Vent Grill
Rear View Mirrors Subsystem
Interior Mirror
Exterior Mirrors
Misc.
Front End Modules
Module - Front Bumper and Fascia
Rear End Modules
Module - Rear Bumper and Fascia
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Mass
"kg"
12.82
6.79
2.05
0.68
1.16
Oi
1.84
4.28
0.53
173
0.01
21.08
21.08
236
2.30
40.48
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (1)
0.99
6'.49
0.20
0.00
0.11
616
0.18
0.37
0.00
617
0.00
0.57
0.57
6'.20
0.20
2.14
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
NIDMC
"$" B
1.05
CL44
0.26
0.00
0.12
'616
0.23
0.94
0.00
QL94
0.00
0.50
0.50
0.24
0.24
2.73
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
'•$/kg"(2)
1.06
'616
1.25
0.00
1.10
'616
1.28
2.51
0.00
2"!i
0.00
0.87
0.87
1.20
1.20
1.28
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
"%"
7.71%
7ll'%
10.00%
0.00%
9.76%
'616%'
9.90%
8.73%
0.00%
i"6"16%""
0.00%
2.73%
2.73%
8.72%
8.72%
5.28%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.04%
O'l2"%"
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
616%
0.01%
0.02%
0.00%
'6l2"%"
0.00%
0.02%
0.02%
Oiii
0.01%
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 $1.56 per kg.
Table 3-34: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -C- System, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" •
Mass
Reduction
Comp
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" •;•.
Cost
Impact
New Tecti
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"S/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Body System "C"
Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Rear Viev'v Mirrors Subsystem
Front End Modules
Rear End Modules
0.38
0.00
0 !
$0.96
SO.OO
$0.96
$1.08
0.03%
0.6.5
"¥?!"'
..._....
0.00
T-M'"
..._...
p. 65
I-??
..._...
$1.64
"M-1T
——
$000
"so "po"
.._._..
$1.64
$p"3p"
——
$2.51
"S109""
__...
0.02%
0-01%
——-
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, Hew Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
2.07
2.14
96.7%
10.9%
0.0%
0.0% -7.7%
*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
-------
3.5.1.3 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
08
08
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
009
0.09
1.87
1.87
1.12
005
1.12
0.046
2.67
0.75
0.47
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 05
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
385
1.30
1.30
0 90
1 63
0 10
0.09
326
326
209
0.63
0 78
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 Polvone 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 apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES applv Use Folyone foaming 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 appiy: 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).
I
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 3-3 5).
Image 3.5-11: Rear Bumper Cover (LH/KH) 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 3-35).
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
-------
C/>
•-=:
VI
CD
3
03
03
03
Description
Body Group C
Silverado 1500
Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Base
"kg" n
40.48
28.77
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (i)
2.14
2.07
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i)
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
2.14
2.07
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
5.28%
7.19%
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Tpj
$2.60
$3.23
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (Z)
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$"
-------
Table 3-38: System Scaling Analysis Body Group -C- System, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1500
CO
>*<
-------
Image 3.5-13: Radiator Grill for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and www.A2macl.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- Center for 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 $1.40 per kg.
Table 3-39: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -C- System, Renault Master
CO
•-=:
w)
(D
03
03
03
03
03
Subsystem
00
08
09
23
24
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
Description
Body System "C"
Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Rear View Mirrors Subsystem
Front End Modules
Rear End Modules
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;•:•
0.40
0.39
0.52
0.32
1.62
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg"
0.40
0.39
0.52
0.32
1.62
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
$0.38
$0.97
$0.53
$0.39
$2.27
'Decrease;
Cost
Impact
Comp
'T (2)
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"S"<2>
$0.38
$0.97
$0.53
$0.39
$2.27
(Decrease)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
$0.95
$2.51
$1.01
$1.23
$1.40
(Decrease)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.01%
0.07%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 1.62
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 2.14
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 75.9%
0.0%___J?^r-0.6%
24.8% •% Saved, technology applies
^V • % Lost, technology already impleme nted
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
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
CO
*<
St
3
Subsystem
Sub-Subsystem
C om pon e nt/Asse mbly
03 Body Group C System
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
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%
Setect Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
2.53
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
0.06
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 NOT apply. Part not on vehicle
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 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 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
(A
•-=;
J2-
-------
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 $0.51 per kg.
Table 3-42: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -D- System, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
Mass
Reduction
Comp
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg"(D
Cost
Impact
New Tech
' S' ;2
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
Body System "D"
00
Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism
Subsystem
Handles. Locks. Latches and Mechanisms
Subsystem
Wipers and VVasheis Subsystem
3.73
0.00
3.73
$1.88
$0.00
$1.88
$0.50
0.12%
0.00
000
0.00
$000
$000
SQOO
$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
3.80
4.50
84.4%
0.0%,
15.6%
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
-------
3.6.1.3 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
System
C
EJ
(fl
(fl
9
3
S u b- S u b s v st e 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
659
8.75
074
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
4.50
1590
1343
1.496
0074
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
9%
10%
20%
17%
10%
Se/ecrVeMcte
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
15.30
6.35
5.27
073
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
3.80
1.53
1.29
0.90
007
Notes
Tech DOES apply: Thin glass using Pikintrton .vindc/; abdications
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
kg for the 1500 versus 15.3 kg for the 2500. 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
OT
•-=:
S3.
-------
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 $.51 per kg.
Table 3-45: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -D- System, Mercedes Sprinter
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (D
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (D
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (D
Cost
Impact
New Tech
M<£M
* (2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
M<£M
* (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
""(£""
* (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
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
Wipers and Washers Subsystem
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
r 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 1500
m
9
01
c
H
ED
3
ffl
c
IT
E
CT
(ft
W
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
1.343
1.496
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 $0.51 per kg.
Table 3-47: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body Group -D- System, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" .-.
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ;-
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg",-,
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" <2>
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
"D"
11
00
Glass (Glazing). Frame, and Mechanism
Subsystem
Handles, Locks. Latches and Mechanisms
Subsystem
Wipers and Washers Subsystem
2.12
0.00
2 12
S107
$0.00
$1.07
$0.50
009%
0.00
0.00
0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00%
0.06
0.00
0.06
$0.05
$0.00
$0.05
JO. 84
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, Hew Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New 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 impleme nted
• % 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
•<
«
B
-
CO
—
tn
•<
w
3
ro
c
IT
CO
c
tr
«
VC
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
1590
1343
1.496
0.074
1 of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
9%
10%
20%
17%
10%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
no
no
yes
Base
Mass
2119
0.59
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
2.18
2.12
0.06
Notes
Tech DOES apply: Thin glass using Pilkington window applications
Tech does NOT apply: Part not on vehicle
Tech does HOT 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 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
($183.78 increase). Furthermore, the contribution of the suspension system to the overall vehicle
mass reduction is 3.85%.
Table 3-49: Suspension System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500
(f)
•-=:
3.
o
3
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
jjJ4
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
Subsystem
00
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
03
_
03
04
04
04
04
04
04
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
02
03
04
04
"bo"
01
01
00
"b'T
02
00
01
01
02
02
02
Description
Suspension System
Front Suspension Subsystem
Lower Control Arm
Upper Control Arm
Steering Knuckle
Other Components...
Rear Suspension Subsystem
Leaf Spring Assembly
Other Components...
Shock Absorber Subsystem
Front Strut Coil Spring
Other Components...
Wheel and Tires Subsystem
Road Wheels
Road Tires
Spare Wheel
Spare Tire
Other Components...
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Mass
"kg"
54.76
19.10
4.57
15,35
15.75
63.52
52.43
11.08
24.36
1106
13.29
158.61
48.51
69.45
14.54
16.96
9.14
301.24
Mass
Reduction
Vw
20.07
7.70
3.05
7.89
1.43
35.75
31.46
4.29
6.44
'slo
0.84
29.64
9.70
9.92
7.42
2.09
0.50
91.90
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
NIDMC
"$" (2)
-77.45
-56.78
-2.47
-12.07
-6.13
-113.47
-115.17
1.70
-5.78
-2ll
-3.47
12.93
-28.03
41.14
-7.98
8.67
-0.87
-183.78
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
"$/kg" (2)
-3.86
-7.38
-0.81
-1.53
4.28
-3.17
-3.66
0.40
-0.90
-0.41
0.00
0.44
-2.89
4.15
-1.08
4.15
-1.72
-2.00
(Increase)
Mass
Reduction
"%"
36.65%
40.31%
66.77%
51.39%
9.09%
56.28%
60.00%
38.69%
26.46%
50.62%
6.35%
18.69%
20.00%
14.28%
3.16%
3.16%
3.16%
30.51%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.84%
0.32%
0.13%
0.33%
0.06%
1.50%
1.32%
0.18%
0.27%
0.23%
0.04%
1.24%
0.41%
0.42%
0.31%
0.09%
0.02"%
3.85%
(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 Suspension Subsystem
are the lower control arms, upper control arms, and the steering knuckles.
-------
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 $1.83 per kg.
Table 3-50: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Suspension System, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" {1}
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (,,
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" d>
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" {2}
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Suspension System
Front Suspension Subsystem
Rear Suspension Subsystem
Shock Absorber Subsystem
38.56
..._.....
3.53
42.08
-$42.45
S13.48
-$28.96
-S0.69
1.36%
3.00
""M?""
.__.
63.67
'blip
...__
-$206,74
""sbTqp
——-
$32.89
f°-°9
——
•$173,86
''"foliij'
——•
42.73
"$o"oo""
——
2.06%
"olo%"
——
0,00
II-PIT
(fooT
Wheels And Tires Subsystem
Suspension Load Leveling Control Subsystem
Rear Suspension Modules Subsystem
Front Suspension Modules Subsystem
0.00
Tp"F
..._...
0,00
Tip"
..._...
$0.00
'"sEpToo"
——
jq.pq
"'$p™pT
——
$0.00
"Woo'
"$b"lb""
$p,qp
"$o"pF
——••
p,qp%
"'o."bo%'"
——•
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, Hew 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 - lias 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
CO
y jr
Sub-Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
04 SuspensionSystem
04 0
04 0
HI B
0- 0
'J-l C
ni 0
04 0
04 0
04 0
04 0
04 0
04 0
04 0
04 0
04 0
04 L
04 pj
04 01
04 01
04 02
04 02
04 02
04 02
04 Effi
04 02
04 02
04 04
04 03
04 01
04 03
04 03
04 04
04 04
04 04
04 OJ
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
CM
01
01
01
01
Lower Control Arm. LH
Lower Control Arm LH. Lonq Bushinq Asm
Lower Control Arm LH Short Bushing Asm
U BrCe • - 1 ' RH
-Ower_Contro -. 7r Loj : I'..E'! :-,.,-:--
Lower Control Arm RH Short Bushing Asm
Upper Control Arm LH
. • -•:• icnuol Arm LH Front Bushing Asm
Upper Control Arm. LH Rear Bushjnq 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 Ball Joint Asm, RH
Knuckle. LH
Knuckle RH
Front Stabilizer Bar - Mounting Bushings
Front Stabilizer Bar - Mounting Brackets
Front Stabilizer Bar - Mountinq Bolts
Leaf Spring Asm. LH
Leaf Sprinq Asm. RH
Saddle Bracket. LH
Saddle Bracket RH
Leaf Spring Spacer Block. LH
Leaf Scring Srjscer Block RH
Shackle Bracket Asm LH
Shackle Bracket Asm RH
Lower Strut Mount Asm LH
Coil Sprinq LH
Lower Strut Mount Asm RH
Coil Spring RH
Road Wheel
Road Tire
-I, I -- ' ,..'<--.
3gare 'heel
Spare Tire
Base Mass
301.2
963
039
0.30
947
0.39
0.30
2.28
029
0.29
058
228
029
029
058
767
7.67
0.16
046
0 12
2622
2622
1 30
1 30
1.51
1 51
0.85
0.85
1.16
5.53
1.16
5.53
4851
6945
1 01
1454
1696
Mass
Savings
New Tech
83.0
453
016
013
437
016
013
1 53
0 12
012
0.05
1.53
012
012
0.05
394
394
002
0.22
0.06
1573
15.73
081
oai
0.94
0.94
040
040
042
280
042
2.80
606
5.60
0.50
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%
50%
36%
12%
Setecr 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
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Base
Mass
1845
0.50
039
1856
050
039
374
054
054
000
376
054
054
0.00
1386
1380
025
060
035
47.62
4762
1 74
1.74
000
0.00
1.45
1 45
000
000
000
000
5443
000
201
1724
000
Mass
Savings
86S
021
0 16
856
021
016
250
0.22
022
000
2.51
0.22
022
0.00
7 12
709
0.04
029
0 17
2857
2857
1 OS
1 03
0.00
0.00
069
0.69
0.00
000
000
000
680
0.00
1 01
620
0.00
Base
Mass
1845
050
0.39
18 56
0.50
039
374
0.54
054
3.76
054
054
1385
1380
025
0.60
035
4762
4762
1 74
1 74
145
145
5443
2.01
1724
Mass
Savings
New Tech
113.3
868
021
0.16
856
021
016
250
022
022
251
022
022
7 12
709
004
0.29
0 17
2857
2857
1 08
1 08
069
069
680
1 01
628
_
Tech DOES apply Use forged aluminum
Tech DOES apply Use plastic spacer & nylon bushing
Tech DOES accl1, 'J.-.T .;,-: •_ .-...-.- " •• , ... .-.'.H,J
Tech DOES a,:-:!: LK-s forged aluminum
Tech DOES s : :. . Jse_glastic^gace ^nyjon rushing
Tech DOES a;:'!1; Use :lastic spacer & nylon bushing
Tech DOES :-. : : '_::-: DM magnesium
"•::!-! DOCS .1 : : , Use alurr nurr ; ::;;er & nylon bushing
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum spacer & nylon bushing
Tech does HOT apply: The 1500 ball joint was normalized. No
known comperable vehicle for the 2500
Tech DOES apply Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum spacer & nylon bushing
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum spacer & nylon bushing
Tech does HOT apply: The 1500 ball joint was normalized. No
mown comperable vehicle for the 2500
ech DOES ac:;.lY Use forged aluminum
ech DOES apply Use forged aluminum
ech DOES n : : . •_•:•: - .':•- n.i.-inqs
ech DOES apply Use aluminum & single bolt design
ech DOES apply Use single bolt design
Tech DOES apply Use glass fiber reinforced plastic
Tech DOES apply Use glass fiber reinforced plastic
Tech DOES apply Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply Use cast magnesium
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
"- :ii ;. 71. fJO .- . :: , :i on Chicle
Tech DOES I1.: : . Jse_sts at .r-.j-imum
Tech DOES a ;:•!',• Usr :•-,- _•:: ah"inu^
Tech does HOT aoplv Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT ao;:!1, ' c; en •:;n:i-:-
Tech does HOT applv I.ci .nn .^hule
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply Use lightweight aluminum monoblock wheel
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.
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: Lower 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^abus-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_WheelsAVheel/K16425884.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
en
•^
01
CD
3
"64
04
04
Description
Suspension System
Silverado 1500
Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Base
"kg" :••
3IHJ4
400.45
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;-:
8102
113.32
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" :-;
22"53
19.79
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" {t)
105T55
133.10
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
"35"04%"
33.24%
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2}
"-$259"57"
-$386.64
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2}
$1u5"95
$143.49
Cost
Impact
Total
"IT" w
v (2)
-$153.62
-$243.15
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
-$T.46""
-$1.83
3.7.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Analysis
The Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi's front suspension system (Image 3.7-13) was comprised of a
frame, lower control arms, shock absorber strut (not shown), stabilizer bar system, steering
knuckles, and a single composite leaf spring system. The rear suspension system (Image 3.7-14)
included the spring blade system and shock absorbers. Finally, the wheel system included the road
wheels (Image 3.7-15), spare wheel (Image 3.7-16), and spare wheel support (Image 3.7-17).
Image 3.7-13: Mercedes Sprinter Front Suspension System
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
-------
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 $2.00 per kg.
Table 3-53: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Suspension System, Mercedes Sprinter
-------
UJ
•-<
'£
(D
=!
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
CO
cr
«
*<
'£-
3
00
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
CO
c
o-
01
£L
Cf-
V)
•-=:
137
0.91
0.00
0.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.13
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" ;•;:
17.27
22.15
0.00
5.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
45.15
(Decrease/
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" ji>
416-03
473.39
$0.00
421.39
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$110.81
(Increase/
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
$5.35
$9.95
$0.00
$5.31
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$20.61
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Total
»(T«
* <2>
410-68
463.44
$0.00
416.08
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$90.20
(Increase)
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
40.62
42.86
$0.00
42.81
$0.00
$0.00
$0-00
-$2.00
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
0-81%
1.04%
0.00%
0.27%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.12%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, Hew Technology "kg" 42.0
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 83.0
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 50.6%
°.°% ^ 16.5%
9.3% ^^^fc
^^^•^^^
23.6%
^•^^J
^^^H
Dm % 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
CO
1
Subsystem
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
05
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Lowe Control Arm LH
Lowe Control Arm LH. Long Bushing Asm
Lowe Control Arm. LH. Short Bushing Asm
Lowe Control Arm. RH
Lowe Control Arm RH Long Bushing Asm
Lowe Control Arm. RH Short Bushing Asm
Uppe Control Arm. LH
Uppe Control Arm LH Front Bushing Asm
Uppe Control Arm. LH Rear Bushing Asm
Uppe Ball Joint Asm LH
Uppe Control Arm RH
Uppe Control Arm. RH. Front Bushing Asm
Uppe Control Arm. RH Rear Bushing Asm
Uppe 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 Sprinq Asm. RH
Saddle Bracket LH
Saddle Bracket. RH
Leaf Sprinq 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
LuqA/Vheel Nuts
Spare Wheel
Spare Tire
Base Mass
301.2
9.63
0.39
0.30
9.47
039
0.30
2.28
029
0.29
0.68
2.28
029
0.29
0.58
7.67
767
0.16
0.46
0.12
2622
2622
1.30
1 30
1.61
1.51
0.35
0.85
1.16
5 53
1.16
5.53
4351
69.45
1.01
14.54
1696
Mass
Savings
New Tech
83.0
453
0 16
0.13
4.37
0 16
0.13
1.53
0 12
0 12
0.05
1 53
0 12
0.12
005
3 94
394
0.02
022
0 06
15.73
15.73
0 81
081
094
094
0.40
0.40
042
2 80
042
2.80
6.06
5.60
050
S30
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
Ho
No
No
No
Ho
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
029
022
8.55
855
0 18
0 16
0 11
16.67
1667
1 30
1 30
069
1242
Mass
Savings
New Tech
42.0
3.30
0 12
0.09
3.23
0 12
0.09
440
440
0.03
0.08
0.06
10.00
10.00
0 62
0.62
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 applv Nat 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 HOT apply: Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply. Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT 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 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 HOT apply Different design
Tech does HOT apply Different design
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply: Use stamped aluminum
Tech DOES apply Use stamped aluminum
Tech does HOT apply: Not on vehicle
Tech does HOT 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 comparable 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_WheelsAVheel/K16425884.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 $1.82 per kg.
Table 3-55: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Suspension System, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" c;
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg"(D
Mass
Reduction
Total
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Suspension System
Front Suspension Subsystem
16.99
1 60
1-1Z
...._...
18.59
-S15.53
$5.92
-59.61
-$0.52
0.79%
Rear Suspension Subsystem
Shock Absorber Subsystem
Wheels And Tires Subsystem
29.80
4"85
5"24
31.16
5^28
6""24
-$101.69
""-$0'25
———
$14.97
'"|j"-"?f"
——
-$86.72
"$153""
——
-$2.78
"Sp"29""
——
1.32%
'T22%"
——
1.00
"Too"
TW"
...._...
Suspension Load Leveling Control Subsystem
Rear Suspension Modules Subsystem
Front Suspension Modules Subsystem
0.00
'Too"
..................
0.00
Too"
..._...
$0.00
'"$o"oo"
——..
$0.00
'"strop"'
——
$0.00
"$q"oo"
——
$0.00
"$o"po"
——
0.00%
'"q"po%"'
——
56.87
('Decrease}
4.40'
(Decrease)
61.27
(Decrease)
-$140.45
(Increase)
$28.87
(Decrease)
-$111.59
(Increase)
-1.82
(Increase)
2.60%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
56.9
83.0
68.5%
9.3%
0.0%
7.6%
• % 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 Silverado 1500 analysis do not exist in the Renault Master Suspension
System, such as the upper control arms and rear suspension saddle brackets.
-------
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
if}
1
U)
•<
1
co
c
CO
c
I
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
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
U-oer 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
Sha; ;!e Bracket Asm RH
Louver Strut Mount Asm. LH
Coil Spring. LH
Lower Strut Mount Asm. RH
Coil Spring. RH
Road Wheel
Road Tire
Lii'ii '.•'•.'heel lints
Spare Wheel
Spare Tire
Base Mass
301.2
9.63
0.39
0.30
9.47
0.39
0 30
2.28
0.29
029
0.58
2.28
0.29
0.29
058
7.67
767
0.16
0.46
0.12
26.22
26.22
1 30
1.30
1.51
1.51
086
085
1.16
5.53
1.16
5.53
48.51
69.45
1 01
14.54
16.96
Mass
Savings
Hew Tech
83.0
4.53
0.16
0.13
4.37
0 16
0 13
1 53
0.12
0 12
005
1.53
0 12
0.12
0 05
3.94
394
0.02
022
006
15.73
1573
0 81
081
094
094
040
040
0.42
280
0.42
280
6.06
5.60
050
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%
Se/ecr 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
035
027
8.68
036
0.28
7.86
786
0.09
027
0.31
23 10
23.10
1.01
1 01
0 87
087
479
479
075
13.35
Mass
Savings
New Tech
56.9
4.09
0.14
0.11
4.00
0 15
0.11
4.04
404
0.01
0.13
0.16
1386
13.36
0.63
063
041
041
2.43
2.43
037
4.87
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 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 Hot on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Not on '.eNde
Tech DOES apply: Use forged aluminum
Tech DOES applv Use forged aluminum
Tech DOES apply Use nylon bushings
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 apply Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply Use cast magnesium
Tech DOES apply Use stamped aluminum
Tech DOES aosly Use sta~oed alu-inum
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES appl1; Use Mi.icea vyinding process
Tech does NOT apply: 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 av:l, Lke icr:ied alLjrmmjm
Tech DOES apoly 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
VI
*<
trt
-------
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
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
Mass
Reduction
Comp
Mass
Reduction
Total
Cost
Im pact
New Tech
iiq-n
* (2)
Cost
Im pact
Comp
iiq-n
* (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
iiq-n
* (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Rear Drivs Housed Axle Subsystem
9.06
0.00
J2J5JL
9.06
$4.29
"$2a'69
$4.29
$0.00
joocL,
$3.17
0.29%
03
00
Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
11.72
0.00
11.72
$12.71
$0.00
$12.71
$0.00
0.38%
04
00
Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem
1.67
0.00
1.67
$3.02
$0.00
$3.02
$0.00
0.05%
07
00
4WD Drivsline Control Subsystem
0.00
0.00
0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00%
25.11
(Decrease)
0.00
(Decrease)
25.11
(Decrease)
$48.71
(Decrease)
$0.00
$48.71
(Decrease)
$1.94
(Decrease)
0.81%
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
(n
i
CO
c
1
CO
CO
I
Component/ Assembly
05 Driveline System
05
05
05
OS
06
OS
05
05
05
05
05
05
06
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
3.34
0.31
3.60
2.64
4.50
5.40
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
20.42
2.10
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%
50%
25%
4%
Select 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
5.37
6.97
504
5.42
7.26
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
25.11
266
3.12
1.13
3.08
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).
tffn\ \
•
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.)
lightweight 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 EH 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
-------
O)
*<
1
Us
05
05
Description
Driveline System
Silverado 1500
Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Base
"kg" d)
— —
183.82
288.89
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (D
_____
20.42
25.11
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (D
_______
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (D
_______
20.42
25.11
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
_____
11.11%
8.69%
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
_____
$37.98
$48.71
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
_____
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
_____
$38.01
$48.71
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
_____
$1.86
$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" (i)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" m
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
T'{2>
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"J/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Driveline System
Driveshaft Subsystem
Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
0.00
.._...
0.00
Too""
0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00%
$17.70
"'"IPI"
"
$000
"
$17.70
""$p"pF
""IPI"
——
$2.38
'"splo"
""IPI"
——
0.35%
""%"
Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem
4WD Driveline Control Subsystem
g.go
"PI"
..._...
g.pg
"¥IF
Too"
'"PI"
Too"
soTo
__..
— —
TbT%"
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
CO
w_
V
05
05
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 Propeiler 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
0.31
360
2.64
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 31
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
GO
^-=:
a
a
3
•s
_
06
joif
"05"
05
Subsystem
'do'"
.........
P2
03"
04
07
Sub-Subsystem
00
do
"do
od"
00
00
Description
Driveline System
Driveshaft Subsystem
Rear Drive Housed Axie Sucsystem
Front Drive Housed Axie Subsystem
Front Drive Half-Shafts Sutsystem
4WD Driveline Control Subsystem
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
-14.9%
n n%
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;••
bid
1318
bib'
0.00
0.00
13.38
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (D
did
bid
old
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"k9" ra
bib
ills'
bib
d.d'd
0.00
13.38
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"S" v
jblb
$35l3
jblb'
$0.00
JO.OO
$35.93
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" [3
"jTb'b""
"$blb"
"sold"'
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2}
$dld
j"3"5."93
'jTb'b
jb.db
$0.00
$35.93
(Decrease)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"J/kg"
jdlb
$2l8
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.68
(Decrease)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
ol'd'%
b.57%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.57%
13.38
20.42
65.6%
0.6% ^^
^ • % Saved, technology applies
^^H ^^^^ ^^^
55 5% • % Lost, component doesn't exist
• r I
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
l^^^^^g ^f •% Lost, technology already implemented
fjff _ % 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
to
«<
D£
1
05
05
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
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
4.28
1 10
158
1.21
0.13
0.88
125
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%
50%
25%
4%
Select 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 steet 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.
-------
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).
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 $3.43 per kg. The
contribution of the Brake System to the overall vehicle mass reduction was 1.96%.
Table 3-65: Brake System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500
CO
•-^
tfj.
fD
3
06
06
06
06
06
OS
06
06
06
If
06
06"
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
Subsystem
00
03
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
04"
04
05
05
05"
06
06
06
06
06
07
07
07
09
09
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
01
02
02
"do"
00
"07
OS
"08
00
"do
01
"do
00
02
02
02
00
00
01
00
00
01
Description
Brake System
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Front Rotor
Caliper Housing
Caliper Mounting Bracket
Other Components.-.
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rear Drum
Backing Plate
Wheel Cylinder Housing
Other Components...
Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
Parking Brake Lever & Frame
Other Components...
Brake Actuation Subsystem
Brake Pedal Arm
Brake Pedal Frame
Brake Pedal Bracket Assy
Other Components...
Power Brake Subsystem
Vacuum Booster Assembly
Other Components...
Brake Controls Subsystem
Brake Controls
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Mass
"kg"
42.98
23.32
9.61
4.36
5.69
34.26
22.09"
5J9
0"92"
5.46
4.70
1.61
3.09
10.66
1.30
1.70
0.97
S.69
4.24
4.24
0.00
4.17
4.17
101.01
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (D
22.82
12.43
6.41
2.98
1.01
18.26
14715
2.78
die
0.86
1.45
0.93
0.52
2.53
0.56
0.99
0.5S
0.43
1.58
1.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
46.65
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
NIDMC
"$" C2>
-57.95
-68.42
6.72
i.96
1.79
-60.03
-6742
1.59
eli
-0.31
-19.85
-3.88
-15.97
-1.32
-1.11
1.14
-1.78
0.43
-20.89
-20.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
-160.04
(Increase;
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
"$/kg"(2,
-2.54
-5.51
1.05
0.66
1.77
-3.29
476
0.57
13".23"
-0.36
flies'
4.16
-30.79
-0.52
d.bd
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""0"8%""
48.12%
5044%'"
15.73%
30787%
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%
6706%
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 $3.07 per kg.
Table 3-66: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Brake System, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (i)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (1)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
"1»
* (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
Brake System
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rear Rotof/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
30.42
....__.
1 28
TesT
..._...
3170
.__....
-$82,61
-$88.23"
$12.66
.__..
-$69.95
-$221
"-$190"
1.03%
._._..
Brake Actuation Subsystem
Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic)
Brake Controls Subsystem
Auxiliary Brake Subsystem
1.57
2-23
1.57
000
-$22,53
""$p"55""
'"$p""p"o""
"'""""""
$0,00
'WPP.'"
"IP-PJ"
'W~PJF
——
-$22.53
-$14,39
""
0,05%
"p"07%"
Tpp%""
"p'Fp"%"
——
'Too"
'"'p"pT
...._..
WPP"'"
IMP"
"solo""
WPP"""
"'IMP'"'
—
??
Too"
p"
Too""
"$Foo .....
54.31
(Decrease)
1.93
(Decrease)
56.24
(Decrease)
-$192.82
(Increase)
$20.03
(Decrease)
-$172.80
(Increase)
-$3.07
(Increase)
1.82%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 54.3
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg" 43.2
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 125.7%
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
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
CO
a
W)
to
re
CO
c
O"
GO
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
OS
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
048
048
4.80
2 18
430
2 13
22.09
5.79
092
061
0.77
0.41
044
1 73
2.14
1.70
1.50
1.54
424
Mass
Savings
Hew Tech
43.2
12.11
026
0.25
3.21
1 49
3 21
1 49
13.69
141
046
027
0.44
0.23
0.26
0.52
0.04
0.99
0.75
056
1 58
% 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%
37%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Mo
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Base
Mass
3356
0 67
0.68
6.59
2 55
6 59
255
32.43
0.76
0.40
0.48
2 07
037
2.49
1 57
Mass
Savings
New Tech
54.3
17.43
0 35
0.35
4.40
1 74
4.40
1 74
20.10
044
0.23
028
0 62
001
1.44
0.78
Holes
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 aluminum matrix 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).
-------
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
CO
•^
$18.95
$20.03
Cost
Impact
Total
ifjrif
* |'2)
-$150.71
-$172.80
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
-$3.33
43.07
3.9.5 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDS Analysis
3.9.5.1 System Architecture - Sprinter
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem: The Mercedes Sprinter Front Rotor/Drum and Shield
Subsystem (Image 3.9-11) used a similar architecture as the 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 Sprinter does not use a splash shield.
Image 3.9-11: Mercedes Sprinter Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem: The Mercedes Sprinter Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield
Subsystem architecture (Image 3.9-12) is unique compared to the 1500 architecture. The Mercedes
Sprinter 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 includes:
brake shoes with associated mounting hardware, brake pads, a cast iron brake caliper, a cast iron
caliper mounting bracket, and a stamped steel dust shield.
-------
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 $3.75 per kg.
Table 3-69: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Brake System, Mercedes Sprinter
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" :•:
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
'T<2>
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"I/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Brake System
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rear Rot or.'Drum and Shield Subsystem
18.GO
5.39
T?F"
...._..
0,38
T?F
Too"
18.97
-$43.07
$3.74
-$39.33
-$2.07
0.89%
5.47
T?f"
..._...
-$23.64
-117.26"
"-sols'"
$1.00
'"$o"oo"
——
-$.2.2,64.
'-$17^26'
——
-$4,14
414"06
'
0.26%
"0"06%"
——
Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
Brake Actuation Subsystem
Power Brake Subsystem [for Hydraulic)
Brake Controls Sutsystem
Auxiliary Bra
-------
Table 3-70: Brake Components Scaling Analysis Results, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1500
System
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
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
04
06
06
05
06
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
2332
048
0.48
4.80
2.18
4.80
2.18
22.09
5.73
0.92
061
0.77
041
0.44
1.73
2 14
545
4.24
Mas:
Savings
New Tech
43.4
12.11
0.25
025
321
149
321
1.49
13 69
1 41
046
027
044
0.23
0.26
0.52
0.04
249
1.58
% of Mass
Savings
New 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
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Base
Mass
18.16
4.69
2.13
469
2 13
869
063
033
0.36
1.55
030
1.20
5.32
Mass
Savings
New Tech
27.7
9.43
3.13
1.45
3.13
1.45
5.39
0 36
0.19
021
0.47
0.01
0 55
1.99
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 nagnesium
Tech DOES ap::lv Use alu "iim -• matrix netal
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply: Not on vehicle
Tech does NOT a::-:!. Not on .elude
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: FEVInc. andwww.A2macl.com)
Image 3.9-22: Vacuum Booster Mass Reduced Sub-Assembly Example
(Source: http://brakematerialsandparts.webs.com/boosterrebuilding.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 $3.70 per kg.
Table 3-71: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Brake System, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" :•:
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ,
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" ;•:
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"S" ;i:
Cost
Impact
Comp
"V (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Brake System
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
B?.3r.B.9!°?P.ry.m. ?.!ld Shield Suosystem
Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
19.12
8.25
!"•!?""
0.40
F-lI
"o"6o"
19.52
444.23
$3.99
-$40.24
42.06
8,39
TIF
"FIF
III
PF
Tod""
436-23
"-IIB'BS"'
-IF*?
$1.58
IPF
"$FpJT
"IPF
"IPF
'"itoTd""
434.65
418"65'
"-ML49"
"42181"
IFpJT
solo""
-$4.13
'
0.83%
"OL36%"
——
Brake Actuation Subsystem
Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic)
Brake Controls Subsystem
Auxiliary Brake Subsystem
0.00
"FIF
IPF
'"lo'qo"
"sdTo"
0.01%
P™
——
Tod""
so.'bo
""d"db""
0 i
31.34
(Decrease)
0.54
(Decrease/
31.89
(Decrease)
-$123.41
(Increase)
$5.57
(Decrease)
-$117.84
(Increase)
-$3.70
(Increase)
1.35%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, Hew Technology "kg" 31.34
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 43.13
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 72.7%
• % 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
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 do not exist in the Renault Master brake system,
such as the rear wheel cylinders.
-------
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
U)
£t
(?
3
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
Subsystem
Sub-Subsystem
Component/Assembly
Brake System
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
03
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
048
048
4.80
2 13
480
2 13
2209
5.79
0.92
0.61
0.77
041
0.44
1.73
2 14
1.70
1 50
1.54
4.24
Mass
Savings
New Tech
43.1
12 11
025
025
321
149
321
149
1369
141
0.46
0.27
0.44
023
026
0.52
0.04
099
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
1865
483
2 19
4.83
2 19
1332
1 22
064
0.70
1.37
0.22
070
483
Mass
Savings
New Tech
31.3
969
322
1.50
3.22
1.50
825
0.70
037
0.41
0.41
0.00
035
1.73
Notes
Tech DOES apply Use two-piece
aluminum/aluminum matrix metal
Tech does HOT 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)
*-=:
-------
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
"kg" (i>
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" {i>
Mass
Reduction
Total
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"S/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Frame and Mounting System
Frame :
Engine Transmission Mounting Subsystem
towing and Coupling Attach. Subsystem
0.00
32.80
32.80
-$75.31
$0.00
475.31
-$2.30
1.06%
0.00
0.00
0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$000
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
SO.00
0.00%
0,00
32.80
(Decrease)
32.80
(Decrease)
.$75.31
(Increase)
$0.00
-$75.31
(increase)
-$2.30
1.06%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg" 32.80
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg" 23.70
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 138.4%
I % Saved, technology applies
I % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
I % Lost, technology already impleme nted
I % Lost, technology reduced impact
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
3.10.1.3 System Scaling Analysis
The Silverado 2500 Frame and mounting components were reviewed for compatibility with
lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-75.
Table 3-75: System Scaling Analysis Frame and Mounting System, Silverado 2500
Silverado 1500
-------
Full Frame
Shown in Image 3.10-2 are the Silverado 1500 and 2500 frames. Masses were 242.0 kg for the
1500 versus 334.9 kg for the 2500. Both frames were similar in configuration, although the 2500
was more robust to allow for handling a larger payload. Due to similarities in component design
and material, full percentage of the Silverado 1500 full frame mass reduction can be applied to the
2500. (Refer to Table 3-75).
Image 3.10-2: Frame for the Silverado 1500 (Top) and Silverado 2500 (Bottom)
(Source: FEV, Inc. and Car and Driver)
-------
3.10.1.4 System Comparison, Silverado 2500
Table 3-76 summarizes the Silverado 1500 and 2500 lightweighting results. The majority of the
components were visually the same between the two frames. The 2500 frame is more robust to
allow for handling a larger payload.
Table 3-76: Frame & Mounting System Comparison, Silverado 1500 and 2500
CO
'-<
J2.
o
3
07
07
"07
Description
Frame & Mounting
Silverado 1500
Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Base
"kg" ;;-:
267.63
"395.88'
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;••
23.70
32""80
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" o)
0.00
o"bo
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" ;•:
23.70
32lO
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
8.86%
8"26%
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" <2>
$479.02
475.31
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$"(2)
-$533.44
j'bTti
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" <2>
-$54.42
"-$75.'3l"
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
-$2.30
-$2"30""
3.10.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
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
07
Description
Frame and Mounting System
frame Subsystem
Engine Transmission Mounting Subsystem
towing andCoupling Attach Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
Nei/v Tech
"k9"o>
000
T™
..._...
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (D
0 00
TOO
Too""
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (I,
0,00
T°T
__.
0.00
Cost
Impact
New Tech
SO Op
'"sToT"
——
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Comp
SO 00
so'oo"'
"solo"
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"S" (2)
SO 00
so'oo"
so'oo'
$0.00
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
SO 00
SO 00
"so'oo""
$0.00
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
0 00%
"""""
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%
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component does n't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already impleme nted
% 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
3
a
a
CO
or
(A
3
c
CO
c
01
3
Component/Assembly
07 Frame & Mounting System
07|Ol|Ol|FullFrame
Base
Mass
267.63
242.00
Mass
Savings
Hew
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 $0 per kg.
Table 3-79: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Frame System, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg":-
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" :-;
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2>
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" a
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"S/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Frame and Mounting Sy
Frame Sub System
0.000
0.000
0.000
TooT
"olob""
$0.00
——
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00%
Engine Transmission Mounting Subsystem
Towing and Coupling Attach Subsystem
p. pop
Tdb'o"
q.ppp
'"blob""
$0.00
"$o."bb"
$p.Qp
$b"bb
$p.pp
"$b".bb"
p.po%
0.00%"
04
0.000
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
ii % 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
lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-80.
with
-------
Table 3-80: System Scaling Analysis Frame System, Renault Master
Silverado 1500
*<
-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 $1.74 per kg.
-------
Table 3-82: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Exhaust System, Silverado 2500
(fl
*<
£3.
(D
3
09
09
Subsystem
00
01
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
Description
Exhaust System
Acoustical Control Components
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (i>
8.68
8.68
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i)
0.44
0.44
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" tfl
9.12
9.12
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" ffi>
-$21.96
-$21.96
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"S" ;;;;
$6.08
$6.08
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
-$15.87
-$15.87
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
-$1.74
-$1.74
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
0.30%
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%
0.0%^
• % Lost, technology already implemented
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
\
-------
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
•-=:
s
9
3
CO
cr
«
**z
S
3
-------
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).
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
CO
^<
2.
<•
3
09
09
09
Description
Exhaust
Silverado 1500
Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Base
"kg" m
38.37
45.52
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" {1)
6.34
8.68
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg"
1.67
0.44
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
8.01
9.12
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
20.87%
20.04%
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$"<2>
-119.54
421.96
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" K
512.13
$6.08
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" E.
-$7.41
-$15.87
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"5/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 $4.23 per kg.
Table 3-85: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Exhaust System, Mercedes Sprinter
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (i)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" ;-;
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Exhaust System
01
00
Acoustical Control Co.rnponents
2.31
0.14
2.45
-$12.20
$1.85
-$10.36
-$4.23
0.11%
2.31
(Decrease';
0.14
(Decrease';
2.45
(Decrease';
-$12.20
$1.85
(Decrease)
-$10.36
-$4.23
(Increase)
0.11%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
0.0%
2.31
6.34
36.4%
: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
3.11.2.1 System Scaling Analysis - Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
The Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi Exhaust components were reviewed for compatibility with
lightweighting technologies.
-------
Table 3-86: System Scaling Analysis for Exhaust System, Mercedes Sprinter
Silverado 1500
S-
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
03
09
en
o-
«
3
to
IT"
to
s
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
0.40
0.16
5.48
1.67
4.13
0.83
0.31
0.48
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
6.34
1.46
0.48
0 .12
0.11
1.69
052
1.27
0.26
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
Hew
Tech
2.31
1 12
027
0.87
0.05
Holes
Tech does HOT Apply Single exhaust does not have a cross
Tech does HOT apply No down pipe assy From header to
Tech does HOT apply: With no cross over or down pipe, no
steel hanger required
Tech does HOT 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 HOT apply Steel hanger alreadv hollo'//
Tech does HOT 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 iniay
Image 3.11-16: Example ofSGF* 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 $4.09 per kg.
Table 3-87: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Exhaust System, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" 0)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" :;•
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" <2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Exhaust System
Acoustical Control Components
2.13
0.16
2.29
411.48
$2.11
-$9.38
-$4.09
0.10%
2.13
fDecrease)
0.16
(Decrease)
2.29
(Decrease;
-$11.48
$2.11
(Decrease)
-$9.38
(Increase)
-$4.09
0.10%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
0.0%
2.13
6.34
33.6%
'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
-------
3.11.3.1 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
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
en
o-
3
rn
c
CO
(a
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
0.40
0 16
5.48
1.67
4.13
0.83
0.31
0.48
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
6.34
1.46
0.48
012
0 11
1 69
0.52
1.27
0.26
0.10
034
% of Mass
Savings
Hew
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
339
0.90
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
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 reguired
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 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 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 $2.02 per kg. Mass reduction for this system reduced
vehicle curb weight by 0.07%.
Table 3-89: Fuel System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500
•-=:
a
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
"10"
Subsystem
00
01
01
01
01
01
02
02~
02
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
01
02
03
04
00
.........
02
Description
Fuel
Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem
Fuel Tank Assy
Fuel Distribution
Fuel Filler (Refueling)
Fuel Tank Control Module (FTCM)
Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem
Fuel Vapor Canister
Purge Valve Assy
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Mass
"kg"
22.60
15.48
5.09
0.91
1.12
3.74
2'.83
0.91
26.34
Mass
Reduction
"k9" m
0.73
0.19
0.37
0.17
0.00
0.88
0.70
0.18
1.61
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
NIDUC
"$" {2}
2.36
0.93
1.30
0.13
0.00
0.89
uTg'e
-0.07
3.25
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
3.23
4.93
3.50
0.74
0.00
1.02
l"."37
-0.38
2.02
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
3.23%
1.22%
7.31%
18.59%
0.00%
23.42%
24J5%
19.31%
6.10%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.03%
0.01%
0.02%
0.01%
0.00%
0.04%
rTo3%
0.01%
0.07%
(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: fuel tank side - fuel pump
retaining ring, fuel tank shield (bottom), fuel pumping module retaining ring, fuel filler neck, fuel
filler cap housing, fuel cap, hose clamp (large), hose clamp (small), and vapor canister.
Fuel Tank Side - Fuel Pump Retaining Ring: The fuel tank side - fuel pump retaining ring mass was
increased by adding material to the fuel tank side 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. Mass was increased by 31.7%, from 0.139 kg to 0.183 kg.
Fuel Tank Shield (Bottom): The fuel tank shield (bottom) mass was reduced by using PolyOne®
foaming agent. Mass was reduced by 10%, from 2.33 kg to 2.09 kg.
-------
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
$1.52 per kg.
Table 3-90: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Fuel System, Silverado 1500
-------
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (i)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg";-;
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
•T(2»
Cost
Impact
Comp
T'<2>
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
Fuej System
Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem
Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem
0.59
..._...
7.62
T'ob""
8.21
1-07'
$0.05
""$b"."96"
$11..54
$blo"
$11.5.8
$"b".96""
$1,41
"$"T4""6l"
027%
"""""
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 does n't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
I % Lost, technology already implemented
i % 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
c?
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
10.75
0.14
2.33
0.21
0.01
1.74
025
0.21
0.10
0.08
0.02
002
0.004
1.96
071
004
023
Mass
Savings
New
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
000
0.06
0.64
000
017
% 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
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
Base
Mass
0.14
252
024
0.36
0.09
002
004
0.01
217
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.65
-0.04
0.25
0 12
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 foa'iing agent
Tech DOES apply: Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Smaflw ,;idth
Tech does NOT apply: No part on truck
Tech DOES apply Snnjta .-/idth
Tech DOES apply: Normalize to 2013 Chevy Malibu Eco 2.4
Tech does NOT apply Does not apply
Tech does HOT 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
w
*-<
CO
n
3
09
09
09
Description
Fuel
Silverado 1500
Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Base
"kg" ,;-:
26.34
..32.15"
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" 0
1.61
0"65
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" :;-;
12.19
7J&
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i>
13.79
8J28
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
52.37%
"25.74%
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" B
$3.20
silo
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2}
$30.95
.__
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" {2}
$34.15
$12"54
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
$2.48
$152
-------
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 $1.54 per kg.
Table 3-93: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Fuel System, Mercedes Sprinter
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;•:
Mass
Reduction
Cornp
"kg" m
Mass
Reduction
Total
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Cornp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
10
00
00
Fuel System
Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem
Fuel Vapor Management Sucsystem
0,02
•••---
5,45
"did"
5.47
'"OF"
$0.18
""sF'dF"
$8,24
"'"''""
$8,42
"jo'F'b""'
$1.54
""s'b'Fd""
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" 0.02
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 1.61
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 1.2*
0.0%
-0.1% _1.2%
:SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already impleme nted
• % 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
en
3
w
cr
ra.
1
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
10 75
0.14
233
021
0.01
1 74
025
021
0 10
008
002
0.02
0 00
1 96
0.71
004
023
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
1.61
000
-0.04
023
0 16
0-00
0.09
0 12
0-15
0.01
0 01
0-00
0.00
0-00
0-06
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
0 06
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.02
001
0 01
Notes
Tech does NOT A-;"ly Q ""ending only
Tech does NOT Apply omponenet does not exsist
Tech does NOT Apply omponenet does not exsist
Tech dees HOT Apply nmpenenet dees net exsist
Tech does NOT Apply: omponenet does not exsist
Tech does NOT apply: POM already
Tech dees NOT Apply componenei 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 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 $1.53 per kg.
Table 3-95: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Fuel System, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" :;•
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (,)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" :•
Cost
Impact
New Tech
I1(PU
* P)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"5" (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Fuej System
Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem
0.01
5.24
5.26
$0.14
$7.93
8.07
$1.53
0.22%
02
00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$000
$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, Hew Technology "kg" 0.01
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 1.61
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 0.9%
0.3% _0.9%
: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
-------
3.12.3.1 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
(n
•-=:
a
ro
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
0.10
0.08
0.02
0.02
0.00
1 96
071
0.04
0.23
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
1.61
0.00
-0.04
0.23
0.16
0.00
0.09
0.12
0.15
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
000
006
064
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
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
Base
Mass
0.09
0.04
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 apply: 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 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 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.
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 Renault Master 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
Cfl
£2.
a
3
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
j^
11
i"f
11
Subsystem
00
01
01
02
02
03
03"
03
04
04
_
04
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
01
00
01
00
.........
02
00
01
"02"
03
Description
Steering
Steering Gear
Steering Gear
Power Steering Pump
Pump
Power Steering Equipment
Power Steering Tube Assembly
Heat Exchange Assy
Steering Column Assy
Steering column assy
Steering wheel assy
Column Cowl
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Mass
"kg"
13.89
13.89
5.44
5.44
1.01
0"65
0.36
ill?'
10.18
178"
0.21
32.51
Mass
Reduction
"kg" :•;
-1.47
-1.47
5.44
5.44
1.01
0.65'
0.36
14.91
3.25
old
0.02
11.43
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
NIDMC
"V K
-247.24
-247.24
40.69
40.69
54.32
3"3J8"
20. 54
4.76
0.09
4""34
0.34
-57.21
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
168.57
168.57
0.00
748
53.73
5"i"97
56.91
6.32
0.03
21.22
15.84
-5.00
(Increase)
Mass
Reduction
-10.56%
-10.56%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
'io"o"'b"o%"
100.00%
12Z4'7%"
31.91%
11.47%
10.00%
35.16%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
-0.06%
-0.06%
0.23%
0.23%
0.04%
0.63%
0.02%
6.62%
0.14%
0.01%
0.00%
0.48%
(1( "-«-" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Mass savings opportunities were identified for the following components: steering gear, pump,
pump tube assembly, heat exchanger, steering column, steering wheel and column cowl.
Steering Gear: The steering gear mass was increased by changing from hydraulic to electric. Mass
was increased by 10.6% from 13.9 kg to 15.4 kg.
Pump: The pump mass was reduced by eliminating it because of using electric steering unit. Mass
was reduced by 100% from 5.44 kg to 0 kg.
Pump Tube Assembly: The pump tube assembly mass was reduced by eliminating it because of
using electric steering unit. Mass was reduced by 100% from 0.65 kg to 0 kg.
Heat Exchanger: The heat exchanger assembly mass was reduced by eliminating it because of using
electric steering unit. Mass was reduced by 100% from 0.36 kg to 0 kg.
Steering Column: The steering column mass was reduced by changing the steel tube fabrication to
a cast aluminum component. Mass was reduced by 32% from 10.2 kg to 7.0 kg.
Steering Wheel: The steering wheel mass was reduced by changing a steel frame to a cast
magnesium wheel. Mass was reduced by 11.24% from 1.78 kg to 1.58 kg.
Column Cowl: The cowl mass was reduced by changing the Polyphenylene Ether (PPE) to a
PolyOne®. Mass was reduced by 10% from .21 kg to 0.19 kg.
-------
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 $1.56 per kg.
Table 3-98: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Steering System, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (i)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (1)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" :•.
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (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
SO.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00%
——
.P..-P.P..P.
"pjopp""'
..__..
P-.P.P.P.
""OLpp'p"
._._..
P.-P.P.P
""P-M"
..__.
JO. 00
'""$p"oo"'
——
so. op
sn'oo
._._..
JO .00
"$o"po"
...__
$0.00
""$o"'po7
——-
. . .
Power Steering Equipment
Steering Column Assembly
0,00%
..__
3.54
(Decrease)
0.00
3.54
(Decrease)
$5.53
(Decrease)
$0.00
$5.53
(Decrease)
$1.56
(Decrease;
0.11%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New 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 perecent contributions
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
% 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
0)
CT
(0
CD
3
7
CO
c
CT
tfl-
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
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
0.02
% 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
10.39
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 Sih/erado 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
t/)
t-=:
£2-
(D
3
11
11
11
Description
Steering
Silverado 1500
Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Base
"kg" ;-:
32.51
J-9.86
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (D
8.46
154
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" j-
0.00
Ob'
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" r;
8.46
3"~54
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
26.01%
7'.i"b%'
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" {2>
-$146.70
$5"53
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
$0.01
""$'Oo""
Cost
Impact
Total
"(T»
* (2)
-J146.70
'""$5"5"3"
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
-$17.35
$l"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 $28.76 per kg.
Table 3-101: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Steering System, Mercedes Sprinter
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" :;•:
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ,;
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg"r:
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2}
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$"(2)
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Stearing System
Steering Gear
-1.189
""2305"
0000
Tooo"
-1.189
""zoos""
-$200-4.2
"$15"bb""
so go
"$b""6b"
4200.42
"'jis'bb""
$168.53
""
-0.06%
"""""
.... .
Power Steering Equipment
Steering Column Assembly
1.362
""1677""
P.-.PIP..
...._.....
1.362
...__..
$70.78
.__....
$0.00
$o."o"b"
$70.78
..__
$51.98
..——
0. 06%
..— —
— —
3.85
(Decrease)
0.00
3.85
(Decrease)
-$110.88
$0.00
-$110.88
-$28.76
(Increase;
0.16%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
3.9
8.5
45.6%
0.0% . ' 0.0%4.3%
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
-------
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
CO
0-
M
3
m
c
CT
CO
V)
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
13.39
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 Mass
Savings
New
Tech
26%
-11%
100%
100%
100%
32%
11%
10%
Select Vehicle
Tech Applies
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
11.26
201
1.36
475
1 33
0.09
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 apply. 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.
t
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.)
Pump
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).
-•a-
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" o>
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" d>
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (1)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
"5" (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"J/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Stearing System
Steering Gear
-1.387
0.000
-1.387
-$23382
SO.00
-233.82
$168.53
-0.06%
Power Steering Eguipment
2.170
T298"
•"2386""
0.000
"'pop'"
""o"ooo"'
2.170
'"2l98""
"2386""
$16.23
$123"93'
$3""2"a
sq.oo
jpp
"$"b"."b"b"
16.23
123^93
3"28
$7.48
$53"9j'
""$138"'
0.09%
5.47
(Decrease)
0.00
5.47
(Decrease)
-$90.37
(Increase)
$0.00
-90.37
(Increase)
-16.53
(Increase)
0.23%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
5.5
8.5
64.7%
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
3.13.3.1 System Scaling Analysis
The Renault Master 2.3 DCi Steering components were reviewed for compatibility with
lightweighting technologies. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 3-104.
Table 3-104: System Scaling Analysis Steering System, Renault Master
-------
Silverado 1500
I
3
CO
1
3
01
T
CO
o-
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
544
065
0.36
10.18
1.78
021
Mass
Savings
Hew
Tech
8.456
-1.47
5.44
065
0.36
3.25
020
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.
" f ^
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.)
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 $7.59 per kg. Mass reduction for
this system reduced vehicle curb weight by 0.08%.
Table 3-105: Climate Control System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500
(/I
«<
w.
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Subsystem
00
01
01
-Q:J-
02
02
03
03
04
04
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
02
04
00
01
00
05
00
03
Description
Climate Control System
._j|yrJHeHidJing_£Body_^
Air Distribution Duct Components
HVAC Main Unit
Heating/Defrosting Subsystem
Supplementary Heat Source
Refrigeration / Air Conditioning Subsystem
AC Lines, Receiver Drier and Accumulator
Controls Subsystem
Electronic Climate Control Unit
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Mass
"kg"
14.88
2.89
12.00
0.29
0.29
4.74
4.74
0.39
0.39
20.31
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (i)
1.94
1.43
0.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.94
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
NIDMC
"$" (2,
14.71
14.02
6.69
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.71
[Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
"$/kg" ,2l
7.59
9.82
1.35
-
..
-
-
—
-
7.59
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
"%"
13.03%
49.49%
4.26%
-
..
..
..
-
-
9.55%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.08%
0.06%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
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 $7.68 per kg.
Table 3-106: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Climate Control System, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg"<»
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" („
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i>
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"S/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Clii
' Body yentilatipn Subsystem
1.75
0.00
1.75
$13.40
$0.00
$13.40
$7.58
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
* % 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
3
CO
cr
w
st
3
rn
E
O"
GO
c
cr
(fl
Component/Assembly
12 Climate Control System
12
1?
01
m
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 PifluCell 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
CO
^=:
a
(0
3
12
12
12
Description
Climate Control
Silverado 1500
Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Base
"kg" (i)
20.31
32,53.
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ,..
1.94
1.75
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ::-:;
b'.do
g,po
P«1ass
Reduction
Total
"kg" r;
1.94
1.75
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
9.55%
5.37%
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" {2}
$14.71
$13.40
Cost
Impact
Comp
"5" (2)
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
$14.71
$13.40
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
$7.59
$7.68
3.14.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
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 $6.90 per kg.
Table 3-109: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Climate Control System, Mercedes Sprinter
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;•;
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"k9" TO
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
T'(2>
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Climate Control
01
00
Air Handling / Body Ventilation Subsystem
1.16
0.00
1.16
$7.99
$0.00
S7.99
$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, New Technology "kg" 1.16
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg" 1.94
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 59.7%
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
• % 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
rn
'-=:
=>
c
tn
3
£/)
V
1
eo>
Component/Assembly
12 Climate Control System
12
12
01
01
02
04
Air Distribution Duct Components
HVAC Main Unit
Base
Mass
20.31
289
1200
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
1.94
143
0.51
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
10%
49%
4%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
Base
Mass
1.53
937
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
1.16
076
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 $4.96 per kg.
Table 3-111: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Climate Control System, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (i)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg"•:-
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" :••:
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Tea
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"S/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Climate Control
01
00
Air Handling / Body Ventilation Subsystem
0.59
0.00
0.59
$2.91
SO.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, New Technology "kg" 1.94
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 30.3%
• % 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
3.14.3.1 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
en
o-
«
*<
3
CO
o-
co
c
cr
d
Component/Assembly
12 Climate Control System
12
V
01
01
02
04
Air Distribution Duct Components
HVAC Main Unit
Base
Mass
20.31
2B9
12.00
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
1.94
143
0.51
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
10%
49%
4%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
Base
Mass
0.51
yqn
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.59
025
0.34
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 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. wAwww.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
fD
3
13
13
13
13
13
Subsystem
01
01
02
02
02
Sub-Subsystem
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
0.49
0.49
0.17
0.09
0.09
0.66
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
"J/kg" {2,
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
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 $2.62 per kg.
Table 3-114: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Information, Gage and Warning Device System, Silverado 2500
-------
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (i)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i,
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
13
00
00
Information, Gage and Warning Diyice System
Instrument Cluster Subsyst e m
Traffic Horns (Electric)
0,06
...._...
0,00
...._...
0,06
._.„....
$0.49
•—•—•••
$0.00
"$"b"."b"b"
$0,49
....__...
$7.73
——
0,00%
_.._...
0.25
[Decrease;'
0.00
0.25
[Decrease;
$0.65
$0.00
$0.65
Decrease}
$2.62
[Decrease';
0.01%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, Hew Technology "kg" 0.25
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New 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
l % 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
3
CO
^
3
Sub-Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
13 Information, Gage and Warning Device System
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Cluster Mask Assy
Cluster Rear Housing
Displav Housing
Outer olasii: :•:. e
Outside stl cover
Mounting brkt
Outer plastic cover
Outside stl cover
Mounting brkt
Base
Mass
1.58
0.19
020
025
0.04
007
0.04
0.04
007
0.04
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.25
0018
0.020
0 026
0 004
0.058
0.030
0.004
0058
0.030
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
16%
10%
10%
10%
9%
78%
79%
9%
78%
79%
Se/ecr Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
0.19
020
0.25
004
007
004
004
0.07
004
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.25
002
002
0 03
000
006
003
000
006
003
Notes
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES applv Use Pnlycne fna^inq aqent
~-:-, JL-^S .- : : _:: 7 ': : : :-? . : - :v. ^. .-••'-
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 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
o>
^
w
$0.65
$0.65
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (z>
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
T'(2)
$0.65
$0.65
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/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
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" :;:
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" r;
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
•T{2>
Cost
Impact
Total
•T{2>
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Ply!?.?
Instrument Cluster Subsystem
0.16
0.00
0.16
$1.28
$0.00
$1.28
8.19
0.01%
0.07
0.00
0.07
40.01
$0.00
40.01
40 19
0.00%
0.23
(Decrease;
0.00
0.23
(Decrease)
$1.26
(Decrease)
$0.00
$1.26
; Decrease
$5.49
0.01%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, Hew Technology "kg" 0.23
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg" 0.25
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 93.0%
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already impleme nted
% 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
w
a
3
to
CT-
co
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
m
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
0.07
004
004
007
004
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.25
0 018
0020
0025
0004
0058
0030
0004
0.058
0030
14 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
008
004
0.04
006
002
Motes
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaminq aqent
Tech DOES apply Use Poly-one foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Pclvone foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Outer cover is steel
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 aqent
Tech does NOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech does NOT apply Part not on vehicle
Tech does NOT applv 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. andwww.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. andwww.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. andwww.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 $4.91 per kg.
Table 3-119: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Information, Gage and Warning Device System, Renault Master
-------
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;•;
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" :•;
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" {i}
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"ff»
* <2>
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Information, Gage and Warning Divice Systen
Instrument Cluster Subsystem
Traffic Horns (Electric)
0.08
0.00
""d"b"o"
0.08
$0.67
JO. 00
"""'""
JO. 67
'""
$8.75
"""'"
0.00%
rfuo'%
0.13
i'Decrease'1
0.00
0.13
(Decreas
$0.66
$0.00
$0.66
$4.91
(Decrease]
0.01%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, Hew Technology "kg" 0.13
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Hew Technology "kg" 0.25
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 54.2%
1.6%
• % Saved, technology applies
• %Lost, component does n't ex 1st
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % 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
CO
3
tn
CT-
1
CO
1
Component/ Assembly
13 Information, Gage and Warning Divice System
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Cluster Mask Assy
Cluster Rear Housing
Displav Housing
Outer plastic cover
Outside stl cover
Mounting brkt
Outer plastic cover
Outside stl cover
Mounting brkt
Base
Mass
1.58
019
020
025
0.04
0.07
0.04
004
0 07
004
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.25
0018
0020
0025
0.004
0.058
0030
0 004
0 058
0030
V, of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
16%
10%
10%
10%
9%
78%
79%
3%
78%
79%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
Base
Mass
0.44
0.34
005
002
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.13
004
0.03
0.04
0.02
Notes
'"-:••• X'rS ?::', Use Polvone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use Polyone foaming agent
Tech DOES apply No part on vehicle
Tech dees NOT apply Outer cover is steel
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 dries NOT aoDly Only one horn on vehicle
Tech does NOT aoply 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. andwww.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. andwww.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. andwww.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. andwww.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
-------
CO
^<
orj-
(D
3
14
14
CO
n
cr
w
*<
en
3
01
01
GO
£=
O"
CO
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
«NH
* 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 $13.48 per kg.
Table 3-122: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Power Supply System, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;:•:
Mass
Reduction
Comp
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (1)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
"I" (Z)
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Electrical Power Supply Syster
Service Battery 3u;syslem
12.67
0.00
12.67
-5170.81
50.00
-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, New Technology "kg" 12.807
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 98.9%
0.0% 1.1%
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
3.16.1.3 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
It
a
CO
o-
*<
09^
a
rn
c
o-
in
tr
«
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
New
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 Fl 50 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
•^c
H
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
-5170.81
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
so.oo
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2}
4172.73
4170.81
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"J/kg"
413.49
413.48
3.16.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CD!
The following table summarizes the mass and cost impact of the Silverado 1500 lightweighting
technologies as applied to the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. Total Electrical Power Supply System
mass savings was 12.96 kg at a cost increase of $184.33, or $14.22 per kg.
Table 3-125: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Power Supply System, Mercedes sprinter
-------
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
T' p,
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"I/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
E|ectrical Power Supply System
12.96
0.00
12.96
-$184.33
$0.00
-184.33
-1422
0.61%
12.96
(Decrease)
0.00
12.96
(Decrease)
-$184.33
itn crease)
$0.00
184.33
(Increase)
-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%
0.0% ..-9.0%
5.2% L
• % 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
3.16.2.1 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
"a.
a
CO
?•
CO
c
S"
d
Component/ Assembly
14 Electrical Power Supply System
14
14
14
01
01
01
01
01
01
Battery
Batten,' Tray
Aux Battery Tray
Base
Mass
21.12
17.71
1.95
0.98
Mass
Savings
Hew
Tech
12.81
11.81
0.67
0.34
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
61%
67%
34%
34%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
no
no
Base
Mass
1944
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
12.96
1296
Notes
Tech DOES Apply: Change to Lithium-Ion Battery
Tech does HOT apply Batten/ tray already plastic
Tech does NOT apply: With no aux battery tray, no need to
change to 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 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 $14.22 per kg.
-------
Table 3-127: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Power Supply System, Renault Master
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" r;
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" »:
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
00
00
Electrical Power Supply System
01
00
18.13
0.00
13.13
-$257.84
$0.00
-257.842
-S14.22
0.77%
18.13
(Decrease)
0.00
18.13
(Decrease)
-$257.84
(Increase)
$0.00
-$257.84
(Increase)
-$14.22
(Increase)
0.77%
Mass Savings, Select Vehicle, New Technology "kg"
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, Mew Technology "kg"
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500
18.128
12.807
141.5%
5.2%
! % 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
3.16.3.1 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
!
3
c
V
CO
D-
s.
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
0.67
034
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
61%
67%
34%
34%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
no
no
Base
Mass
27 19
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
18.13
18 13
Notes
Tech DOES Apply Change to Lithium-Ion Battery
Tech does NOT apply, battery tray already plastic
Tech does NOT apply: With no aux battery tray, no need to
change to 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 Renault Master 2.3 DCi included the
battery and battery tray. Image 3.16-8 shows the Renault Master 2.3 DCi electrical power supply
components.
Image 3.16-8: Renault Master 2.3 DCi Battery
(Source: www.A2macl.com)
Shown in Image 3.16-9 are the Silverado 1500 and Renault Master 2.3 DCi batteries, respectively.
Component masses were 17.7 kg for the Silverado 1500 versus 27.2 kg for the Renault Master 2.3
DCi. The lightweighting technology used in 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 Renault. (Refer to
-------
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
•-=:
en
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 Stop Light)
Lighting - Special Mechanisms Subsystem
Rain Sensor/Daylight Sensor
Headlamp Control Module
Lighting Switches Subsystem
Master Lighting Svvitchpacfc
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Mass
"kg"
6.70
6.18
0.52
0.00
bib
0.00
0.00
2.74
2.39
0.00
0'03
0.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.13
9.56
Mass
Reduction
"kg" R
0.39
0.39
0.00
0.00
o'oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o'oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
bib
0.39
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
NIDMC
"S"(2>
-2.00
-2.00
0.00
0.00
Ob"
o.'bo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
bib
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
b.oo
bib
-2.00
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
"ykg"p>
-5.18
-5.18
0.00
0.00
bib
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
bib
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
bib
-5.18
(Increase)
Mass
Reduction
"%"
5.76%
6.25%
0.00%
0.00%
06%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Ob%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Ob%
4.04%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.02%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
blb'%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
blb'%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Ob%
0.02%
(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: 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
by 40%, from 0.44 kg to 0.26 kg per headlamp reflector.
Mass was reduced
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 $5.23 per kg.
Table 3-130 .'Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Lighting System, Silverado 2500
09
17
17
17
17
17
17
CO
cr
tri
C/5
3
"66"
01
02
03
04
05
CO
O"
C/>
c
cr
•-=:
3
00
00
00
00
00
00
Description
Lighting System
Front Lighting Subsystem
Interior Lighting Subsystem
Rear Lighting Subsystem
Lighting - Special Mechanisms Subsystem
Lighting Switches Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ft)
0.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.39
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (t)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" m
0.39
0.00
d.bo
0.00
0.00
0.39
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
42.02
$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
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (Z>
-$2.02
SO. 00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$2.02
(Increase)
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
-$5.23
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$5.23
(Increase)
Mass
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, New Technology "kg" 0.386
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 100.0%
0.0%
^^^•^^^ . % Saved, technology applies
.% Lost, component doesn't exist
I • % Lost, technology doesn't apply
\*S^ =r=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
en
"I
3
en
T
03
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
0.73
0.45
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.39
0.02
0 18
0.02
0 18
14 of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
4%
2%
40%
2%
40%
Select Vehicle
Tech
Applies
yes
yes
yes
yes
Base
Mass
0.73
045
0.73
0.45
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: MuCell© 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
w
*<
en
SO. 00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
iign
* <2>
-$2.02
-$2.02
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
-$5.23
-$5.23
3.17.2 Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi
The following table summarizes mass and cost impact of the Silverado 1500 lightweighting
technologies as applied to the Mercedes Sprinter 311 CDi. The total Lighting System mass savings
was 0.39 kg at a cost increase of $2.02, or $5.23 per kg.
Table 3-133: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Lighting System, Mercedes Sprinter
-------
CD
'-*-_
'£•
CO
17
17
17
17
17
17
Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
"do"
00
00
Description
Lighting System
Front Lighting Subsystem
Interior Lighting. Subsystem
Rear Lighting Sue-system
Lighting - Special Mechanisms Subsystem
Lighting Switches Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" n
0-39
0.00
old
d.dd
0.00
0.39
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg"(i>
0.00
0.00
old
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" d)
0.39
0.00
dlo
0.06
0.00
0.39
(Decrease}
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"S" K.
-$2.02
$0.00
solo
$0.00
$0.00
-$2.02
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"I" (2)
$0.00
$0.00
"$Oo"
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" B.
-$2.02
$0.00
$blo
$0.00
$0.00
-$2.02
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
-$5.23
$0.00
$d.dd
$0.00
$0.00
-$5.23
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
0.02%
0.00%
d.oo%
0.00%
0.00%
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%
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
3
O)
1
17 Li
17
17
17
17
01
01
01
01
Sub-Subsystem
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
0.73
0.45
0.73
0.45
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
0.39
0.02
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
044
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-
(MD60+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 SAB 1C 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
CO
«<
tj)
to
^
17
17'
.........
17
17
17
Subsystem
00
.........
02
03
04
........
Sub-Subsystem
00
.......
00
00
00
"b'b"
Description
Lighting System
Front Lighting Subsystem
Interior Lighting Sucsystem
Rear Lighting Subsystem
Lighting - Special Mechanisms Subsystem
Lighting S'.vitches Sinsvste™
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg"
O9
0.00
0.00
0.00
bib
0.39
(Decrease;
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i)
blo
0.00
b.bo
0.00
blo
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" TO
0."39
0.00
0.00
0.00
blo
0.39
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
T'(2)
42.02
$0.00
'ibid
$0.00
$'blb
-$2.02
(Increase;
Cost
Impact
Comp
"*" (2)
•—•-•••
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Iblb"
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
"-$2l2
$0.00
$0.00
SO. 00
solo
-$2.02
(Increase;
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
'"-$5723
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$blb
-$5.23
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
b'b'2%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
bl'b'%
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%
*SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
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
09
*<
3
0)
3
M
c
(fi
c
o-
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
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
0.44
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-
(MD60+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
^Bh &'
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 $7.26 per kg. Mass reduction for this system reduced vehicle curb
weight by 0.35%.
Table 3-137: Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System Mass Reduction Summary, Silverado 1500
-------
Description
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Mass
"kg"
Mass
Reduction
"kg" ;•:
Cost
Impact
NIDMC
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
"$/kg" [2;
Mass
Reduction
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem
Front End and Engine Compartment Wiring
instrument Panel Harness
33.59
"579
6"88
8.47
Tip'"
..._...
61.44
7.26
10^25
0.35%
.....
'25-86%'
18
01
02
18
01
03
18
01
04
18
01
07
Body and Rear End Wiring
Trailer Tow Wiring
Battery Cables
Load Cc-c-art-ent Fuse Box ' Passive
3.52
0.95
'"
15.91
'""'
""'"'
0.00
'"p""pp'"''
Too"
24.76%
'27/10%'
.__....
g.p7%
TtW%"
b:o6%
TzF
2"95"
6.94
T.27""
p.pp
Too'"
18
01
08
18
01
99
Interior & Console wiring
Frt & Rear door harness
"Misc"
1.40
TIT"
"4"24"
0.67
lli""
Too""
0.00%
"p"gg%"
'4776%'
'""""
"ToF
og
Too'
"o"bo%"
0.03%
Tp6%"
'olb'%'
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 $7.26 per kg.
Table 3-138: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System, Silverado 2500
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" :.-
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (t>
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" r;
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
"S" P)
Cost
Impact
Total
'T<2>
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
18
00
00
Electrical Dist. and Electronic Control System
18
01
00
Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection
Subsystem
8.47
0.00
8.47
$61.54
$0.00
$61.54
$7.26
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" 8.47
Mass Savings, Silverado 1500, New Technology "kg" 7.75
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 109.3%
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecenl contributions
= % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component does n't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
% Lost, technology reduced impact
-------
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
to
*£
l£
1
Subsystem
Sub-Subsystem
Component/Assembly
18 Electrical Distribution & Electrical Controls System
18
18
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
05
05
05
06
06
07
07
08
03
Front Bumper Harness ((Wiring on fit module)}
Engine 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 wiring
Under frame;'to:v harness ((Wiring on understructure!)
Battery Cable - Primary PositiveilStarter wiring harness))
Battery Cable - Primary Negative
Battery Cable - Positive
Fuse Box ((Support))
Fuse Box - Cover
Center console wiring
Headlmer vvirinq
Frt door harness
Rear door harness
Base
Mass
33.60
0.87
241
0.07
021
3.35
0.34
0.43
217
0.07
3.33
0.39
0.36
0.35
1.04
0.45
018
0.47
083
0.33
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
8.47
0.37
102
0.03
0.10
1.42
0.10
0.18
0.92
003
1.42
0.18
017
0.16
020
008
0.08
0.38
0.66
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%
Se/e« 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
0.38
048
244
0.08
374
0.44
041
039
141
045
020
0.35
0.68
0.43
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
8.47
0.41
1 18
0.03
011
1.60
011
020
1.04
003
1.59
020
019
018
026
008
009
028
054
034
Notes
Tech DOES apply. Use aluminum » e & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply USP aluminum y e & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum w e & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply: Use aluminum w e & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply. Use aluminum w e & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply Change from ste to plastic and use
PolyOne foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum w e 8, PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum w e & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum v e & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply. Use aluminum w e & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum w e & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply: Use aluminum w e & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum w e & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES a:dv Us? PolyOne foaming agent
Tech DOES apply Use PolyOne foaminq aqent
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply Use flat wire
Tech DOES apply: Use flat wire
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).
-------
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).
r--
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 kgforthe 1500 versus 3.75 kgfor 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).
-------
/
3. «-<5: 7P 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).
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
w
•-=:
-------
-------
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 $9.54 per kg.
Table 3-141: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Distribution and Electrical Controls System, Mercedes Sprinter
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Description
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;•;
Mass
Reduction
Comp
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
Ejectricaj Dist. and Electronic Control System
Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection
Subsystem
2.85
0.00
2 85
$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%
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
3.18.2.1 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
in
*«
1
to
c
o-
1
Sub-Subsystem
Component/Assembly
18 Electrical Distribution & Electrical Controls System
IB
13
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
13
18
18
13
13
18
13
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
06
06
06
0?
07
08
03
Front Bumper Harness ((Wiring on frt module}}
Engine Wire Harness
Power train mass cable (cyl qrouncl 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 wirmq
Headlmer wiring
Frt door harness
Rear door harness
Base
Mass
33.60
0 87
241
0 07
021
335
0 34
043
2172
0 07
333
039
0 36
0.35
1 04
045
0 13
047
Cl 83
0.33
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
7.75
0 37
1 02
003
0 10
142
0 10
0 18
092
0.03
1.42
018
0 17
0 16
020
0.08
0.08
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%
80%
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
063
006
088
0 11
057
004
023
0 10
Notes
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum wire & PRO sheathing
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES a-xly Use ajuminurr r- -• PPO '-"'eathing
Tech DOES apply: Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES asply Use alu^inu^ '.'.'ire i PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum wire & PFO sheathing
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 (Jot on eiv:1?
Tech DOES apply Use flat wire
Tech DOES acdy Use flat ,','ire
Tech does NOT ac ~ ' :•" :'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
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg":-:
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i>
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg":;
Cost
Impact
New Tech
Cost
Impact
Comp
Cost
Impact
Total
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"J/kg"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
•iual Dist. and Electronic Control System
Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection
Subsystem
3.81
0.00
3.81
$32.99
$0.00
32.99
$8.65
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, New Technology "kg" 7.749
Mass Savings Select Vehicle/Mass Savings 1500 49.2%
'SMS not included - has no significant impact on perecent contributions
• % Saved, technology applies
• % Lost, component doesn't exist
% Lost, technology doesn't apply
• % Lost, technology already implemented
n % 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.
a
3
18
13
18
18
13
13
13
18
13
13
13
13
18
13
13
13
13
18
13
13
CO
o-
f
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
as
06
06
07
07
OS
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 cablel
Alternator Power Cable
IF Harness 1
P Harness 1 connector box brkt
IP Harness 2
Body and Rear End Wiring [(Complete))
Differential wiring
Under frame/tow harness ((Wiring on understructurei;
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
087
2.41
007
021
335
0.34
0.43
2172
007
333
039
036
035
1 04
0.45
0.18
047
083
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
008
0.38
066
0.27
% of Mass
Savings
New
Tech
23%
42%
42%
48%
45%
42%
29%
42%
42%
44%
42%
46%
46%
45%
19%
17%
42%
30%
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
2.40
031
1.56
070
027
030
0.45
Mass
Savings
New
Tech
3.81
0.27
0.75
0.09
0 08
104
0.13
0.68
0 13
005
024
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 alu:~ini.m :yire & PPO sheathinq
Tech DOES apply Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply: Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathing
Tech DOES apply. Use aluminum wire & PPO sheathinq
Tecli does NOT apply Not on yehi le
Tech does NOT apply [jot on vehi le
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehi le
Tech does NOT apply [Jot on yehi le
Tech does NOT apply Mot on yehi le
Tech DOES apply Use Fcly'I ne :^ r ncj .-.gent
Tech DOES apply Use polyOne foaming agent
Tech does NOT apply Not on vehicle
Tech DOES apply: Use flat wire
Tech DOES apply Use flat wire
Tech does NOT apply ['Jot on ehirle
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.
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 andRearEnd 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: Front door harness for the Silverado 1500 and 2500 (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
------- |