DRAFT

COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF A 50% BODY AND CHASSIS

WEIGHT-REDUCTION GOAL IN LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES

Sujit Das

Energy and Transportation Science Division

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Prepared for
Lightweight Materials
Office of Vehicle Technologies
U. S. Department of Energy

May 2010

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
managed and operated by
UT-Battelle, LLC
for the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
under contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725
 Cost-Effectiveness of a 50% Body and Chassis Weight-Reduction Goal
in Light-Duty Vehicles

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

May 2010

1. Background

With the recent higher gasoline prices and new emission and fuel economy regulations
that require by 2016 a 30% reduction in CO2 and other emissions and an average fuel
economy of at least 35 mpg, the pressure to lightweight vehicles is stronger than ever
before. Vehicle lightweighting represents one of several design approaches automakers
are currently evaluating to improve fuel economy. The next few years will see
considerable lightweighting across the automotive industry. Lightweighting is typically
accomplished by downsizing, integrating parts and functions, substituting materials, or by
combining these methods. Lightweight Materials’ (LM’s) component of the U.S.
Department of Energy’s Vehicle Technologies program focuses on the development and
validation of advanced materials and manufacturing technologies to significantly reduce
automotive passenger vehicle body and chassis weight without compromising other
attributes such as safety, performance, recyclability, and cost. The specific goals of LM
are to develop material and manufacturing technologies by 2010 that, if implemented in
high volume, could cost-effectively reduce the weight of passenger-vehicle body and
chassis systems by 50% with safety, performance, and recyclability comparable to 2002
vehicles. In order to achieve this long-term weight-reduction goal, LM has set annual
intermediate weight-reduction goals, starting with 10% in FY2007, and finally achieving
50% by FY2010. This paper is a follow-on to earlier studies that focused on the 25% and
40% body and chassis weight-reduction goals of FY2008 and FY 2009, respectively (Das
2008, Das 2009). The present study emphasizes the assessment of cost-effectiveness to
achieve the desired goal of 50% body and chassis weight reduction in FY2010.

To achieve its long-term weight-reduction goal, LM has prioritized its research areas in
several lightweighting materials including advanced high-strength steel, aluminum,
magnesium, titanium, and composites. Composites include metal-matrix materials and
glass- and carbon-fiber reinforced thermosets and thermoplastics. Over the past several
years, the LM R&D portfolio has included assessments of various lightweight body and
front-end structures, such as those constructed of advanced high-strength steel,
composite-intensive, and magnesium. These assessments, either completed or underway,
include, for example, one in which the goal is to design, analyze, and develop the
technology for a composite-intensive, body-in-white structure that achieves a minimum
of 60% weight savings over steel. Additionally, the latest LM multi-material vehicle
(MMV) project aims to synthesize and demonstrate these various lightweight material
component options in a single vehicle.

Cost remains one of the major obstacles to successful market penetration of these various
lightweight materials. Complete vehicle system-level cost estimation is essential since it
captures the cost reduction potential due to both part integration and mass de-

1
compounding effect. Today OEMs remain more focused on the vehicle’s retail price than
on vehicle life cycle cost.

This paper provides an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of a 50% body and chassis
weight-reduction goal for FY2010 using the same methodology as used in the past two
studies. The cost-effectiveness of the proposed weight-reduction goal is determined based
on the vehicle retail and life cycle cost analysis of a potential lightweight material
substitution scenario in various body and chassis components to achieve the desired
weight-reduction goal. Cost methodology and potential data sources for the analysis are
then discussed. Cost data collected for various vehicle components considered for
achieving the weight reduction goal are then discussed, as are the assumptions and
methodology used. A discussion of the results of the cost analysis of the proposed
scenario is then presented, followed by conclusions.

2. Approach

2.1 Scenario Development

Cost-effectiveness of a 50% body and chassis weight-reduction goal was demonstrated

based on a scenario analysis by focusing on a specific lightweight material type
substitution at a major vehicle-component level. A representative mid-size vehicle, i.e.
Honda Accord, was considered as the baseline against which the cost-effectiveness of the
weight reduction goal was determined. Due to a significantly higher weight reduction
goal, carbon fiber-reinforced polymer-matrix composites (carbon-FRPMCs) and
magnesium were primarily considered for body and chassis applications. These two
materials have the potential to achieve the desired weight-reduction goal. Only carbon-
FRPMCs offer the potential for greater than 50% reduction in the weight of body and
chassis components while providing strength five times greater than steel for structural
parts.

Current application of these lightweight materials is limited today. Carbon-FRPMCs have

been used primarily in high-end vehicles and race cars. Magnesium use in today’s light-
duty vehicles is limited to less than 10 lbs/vehicle, mainly in interior applications such as
instrument panels and parts of the steering structure. It can be found in various
mainstream models (e.g., Cadillac models CTS, SRX, STS, Seville; Opel Vectra; BMW
Mini, 5 and 7 Series; Rolls-Royce Phantom ; Daimler Chrysler’s SL Roadster; the Jaguar
X-type; or the Alpha Romeo 156). New automotive magnesium components gaining
interest are front end structures, engine cradles, center consoles, and powertrain
applications. The recent analysis by Meridian Lightweight Technologies indicates a 200
lbs total vehicle weight savings potential by magnesium use in mid-size vehicles. There is
a great need for development of wrought magnesium products and manufacturing
processes to provide improved mechanical and physical properties, crash performance,
and corrosion resistance before magnesium’s use in more critical body and chassis
applications can be expanded.

2
Table 1 shows the 50% body and chassis weight-reduction scenario for a mid-size
passenger car considered in the cost-effectiveness analysis. The scenario focuses on a
plausible specific lightweight material substitution option (i.e., mainly carbon-FRPMC
and magnesium) at the broad component category level based on the materials’ near-term
market potential to achieve the desired overall body and chassis weight reduction goal.
For a few vehicle systems, such as glass, paint, exterior trim, and body hardware, weight
reduction has been based on either on a material other than carbon-FRPMC or
magnesium, or as a factor of the vehicle’s overall reduced weight. Figure 1 shows the
material composition comparison of two alternative vehicle scenarios by six major
material categories. To achieve the 50% weight reduction goal, the distribution of
material types would change significantly. At the expense of conventional steel,
magnesium and polymer/composites use would increase significantly by 10 and 1.7
times, respectively.

This scenario approach allows determination of cost-effectiveness at a vehicle level, the

context important for the actual implementation and commercialization of the
lightweighting materials technologies in the market place. Specific components
considered under body and chassis vehicle subsystems are highlighted in Table 1 (in bold
type). The potential weight reduction for each part also is given. Since most lightweight
component options considered here are yet to be commercialized, the percentage weight
reduction assumed in each case is based on the best estimated value available in the
literature today. The definitions of various vehicle components are based on the
Automotive System Cost Model (ASCM, discussed below) and are provided in Appendix
A.

1800

1600

1400

1200 OTHER
Polymer/Composite
Weight (kg)

1000
Magnesium

800 Aluminum
Low Carbon Steel
600 Hi/Med Steel

400

200

0
Baseline 50% Body and Chassis Wt.
Redn. Scenario

Figure 1. Material Composition of the Baseline and Alternative Vehicle Scenarios

3
 Table 1. Mid-Size 50% Body& Chassis Weight Reduction Scenario1
Baseline 50% Weight Reduction Scenario
SYSTEM Mass Mass
Technology (kg) Technology (kg)
Powertrain
V-6 3.0L DOHC
Engine AL/AL 197 V-6 3.0L DOHC AL/AL 197
Energy Storage Lead-Acid, Standard 19 Lead-Acid, Standard 19
Fuel System Gasoline, 17 gal 83 Gasoline, 17 gal 83
Transmission Automatic (L5) 81 Automatic (L5) 79
P/T Thermal Generic (car) 29 Generic (car) 29
Driveshaft/Axle Generic 77 Generic 77
Differential Generic 25 Generic 25
Exhaust System Generic 48 Generic 48
Oil and Grease Generic 15 Generic 15
Powertrain Electronics Generic 10 Generic 10
Emission Control
Electronics Generic 10 Generic 10
Body
Carbon Fiber Polymer Composites
Body-in-White Midsize steel unibody 320 (68% wt redn.) 102
Carbon Fiber Polymer Composites
Panels Stamped Steel 60 (68% wt redn.) 19
Front/Rear Bumpers Sheet Steel 10 TP/Carbon Fiber (60% wt reduction) 4
Glass Conventional, 4 mm 40 Polycarbonate (25% reduction) 30
Solventborne, avg Solventborne, avg color (25% wt.
Paint color 12 reduction) 9
Exterior Trim Generic 10 ULSAB (50% wt. reduction) 7
Body Hardware Generic 10 Lightweight (50% wt. reduction) 5
Body Sealers and
Deadners Generic 2 Generic 2
Chassis
Cradle Generic 35 Magnesium (60% wt. reduction) 14
Corner Suspension Generic 47 Magnesium (45% wt. reduction) 26
Braking System ABS 48 Magnesium (7% wt reduction) 45
Wheels and Tires Aluminum 15” 71 Magnesium 15" -- (17% wt. reduction) 59
Steering System Generic 27 Magnesium (7% wt. reduction) 25
Interior
Instrument Panel Generic 26 Generic 26
Trim and Insulation Generic 24 Generic 24
Door Modules Generic 28 Generic 28
Seating and Restraints Generic 66 Generic 66
HVAC Generic 22 Generic 22
Electrical 33 33
Final Assembly 40 40
Total Body & Chassis
Weight 692 346
(% less than baseline) (50%)
Total Vehicle Weight 1525 1180

1
All weights in the table denote values achieved by primary weight savings only.

4
2.1.1 Carbon-FRPMC

Application of carbon-FRPMC in automobiles is quite limited and occurs mostly in low-

volume niche vehicles today such as Formula 1 race cars, Mercedes-Benz McLaren SLR
supercar, Mazda’s RX-8, Honda’s Legend sedan, Mitsubishi’s Pajero SUV, and Nissan’s
latest GT-R super sports car. BMW has been using carbon fiber composites in its vehicles
for a number of years in applications such as the roof of the M-series car. General Motors
is using the Corvette ZR1 to study the feasibility of high-volume carbon-FRPMC parts,
whereas Toyota is planning to use a body frame made of this material in its 1/X concept
car that will offer the same interior space as the Prius hybrid but only weigh one-third as
much. Recently, the new Lexus LFA premium sports car has been designed with a carbon
fiber cabin that weighs 200 kg less than a comparable aluminum cabin while maintaining
the same rigidity. Most carbon-FRPMC applications today include drive shafts, spoilers,
A-pillars, underbody structures, and various body panels for high-performance, low-
volume cars.

Three Japanese companies, i.e., Toray Industries, Teijin, and Mitsubishi Rayon, that
control 70% of the global carbon fiber market are aiming to pioneer mass production of
this material for widespread use in cars. For example, Teijin, which is planning to start
supplying carbon-resin composites to automotive parts makers as early as 2010 via its
subsidiary Toho Tenax, is aiming to first make engine undercovers for high-end sports
cars and then move towards mass market models. Toray Industries has invested in a
German developer of carbon-FRPMC parts for cars and trucks and is planning to expand
its sales for automotive applications to approximately $510 million by 2015, including
ultimately mass-producing carbon-fiber parts mainly for Toyota. Honda and Nissan have
similarly joined with Toray and Mitsubishi Rayon to research new, less-expensive carbon
fiber for cars. In 2009, the SGL Group formed a joint venture with BMW for the
development of the material for use in BMW’s Megacity vehicle, where carbon fiber
composites will make up as much as 10-15% of the final vehicle weight.

To achieve a significantly higher body and chassis weight reduction goal, this analysis
considers carbon-FRPMC for three major body components as shown in Table 1. These
three body components, body-in-White (BIW), panels, and front/rear, have been
considered as the most suitable components application of this lightweight material since
these components contribute more than 25% of total vehicle weight. Potential percentage
weight reduction assumed for these components has been in the mid range of 55-60%,
although expected weight reduction has been reported to be 45-80% compared to mild
steel depending on the specific automotive part application. For example, on the
equivalent modulus basis and a minimum 75 vol.% resin requirement to facilitate the
sufficient wetting out of carbon fibers, carbon-FRPMC has been shown to have a 64-70%
weight reduction potential compared to glass fiber but with the manufacturability
limitations for having less than 2.5 mm thickness (Ibis 2009c). Focal Project 3 of the
Automotive Composites Consortium (ACC)—a collaborative, pre-competitive R&D
partnership of the three big U.S. OEMs and DOE—predicted a 66% BIW weight
reduction with a total number of parts less than 20 by demonstrating the potential on a
carbon fiber B-pillar (Iobst et al. 2007). Similarly, niche vehicles such as X-Power sports
vehicles have demonstrated 70% weight reduction potential in body panels compared

5
with steel (Marsh 2006). On the other hand, the structural composite underbody targeted
to be a part of the United States Automotive Material Partnership (USAMP) Multi-
Material Vehicle (MMV) project has obtained only 29% weight reduction using carbon
fabric for floors. The project’s objective, however, was to capitalize on the material’s
strength to optimize the crash performance rather than to reduce weight (Berger and
Jaranson 2009). In fact, carbon-FRPMC is currently not under further consideration in the
MMV project and a new project on carbon-FRPMC body structure to optimize the weight
savings potential has been under consideration for near-term funding. Use of carbon
fibers in Formula 1 cars such as Mercedes McLaren SLR in monocoque design is 50%
lighter than steel components (Marsh 2006), and a 40% reduction in BIW mass without
doors and the roof has been reported for the Lamborghini Murcielago using carbon/epoxy
body material over its an all-aluminum body predecessor (Feraboli and Masini 2004).
Our 68% weight reduction assumption using carbon-FRPMC for two body components
(out of total three body oconsidered here for substitution) is more of an optimistic case
dictated by the overall 50% body and chassis weight reduction goal.

2.1.2 Magnesium

Most use of magnesium today has been as high pressure die casting (HPDC) components
in a broad range of non Class A-surface vehicle applications such as cross-beam
members and dashboard supports where a single cast component can replace various
conventional multi-component steel fabrications cost-effectively. While the growth of
magnesium die casting applications seems assured, there are other applications such as
wheels, suspension arms, subframes, etc. where significant weight saving could be
achieved but which require higher integrity than that provided by the HPDC process. For
automotive chassis and body applications, magnesium offers a number of benefits. In
terms of specific strength and stiffness, and buckling resistance, magnesium alloys
compare favorably with both steel and aluminum. In the field of chassis applications,
Porsche has quite a long experience with magnesium wheels and GM has been offering
cast magnesium wheels for the Corvette since 1998. However, magnesium wheels have
not been applied beyond these special sport car applications to the high-volume vehicle
market due to their much higher costs and potential corrosion problems. The general
experience, however, with material competition in North America has been that the
magnesium design is displaced when a lower-cost solution for a particular weight
trimming issue becomes available.

To achieve the 50% body and chassis weight reduction goal, magnesium substitution was
considered in five vehicle chassis components, i.e., corner suspension, cradle, braking
system, steering system, and wheels and tires, as shown in Table 1. Magnesium use in
cradle and corner suspension would provide 60% and 45% weight reduction,
respectively. The potential weight reduction in the corner suspension is less than in the
cradle because magnesium’s use in the suspension is limited to control arms and steering
knuckles, parts that account for about 47% of the total corner suspension weight when
aluminum is used. Magnesium use would provide a further 30% weight reduction in these
two parts compared to aluminum. The magnesium cradle weight reduction potential has
been based on the USAMP Corvette magnesium cradle design, which has been estimated
to yield a 33% weight reduction compared to aluminum. Both steering and braking

6
systems would experience a 7% weight reduction with magnesium use, since the
application is limited to the steering wheel column in the steering system and the brake
actuators in the braking system. Magnesium use in steering wheel columns—which
account for 15% of the overall system weight—would provide an additional 25% weight
reduction compared to aluminum. For wheels and tires, the total system weight reduction
is estimated to be 17% based on the 40% weight reduction magnesium provides in the
wheels. To achieve the total savings goal of 50% of the primary body and chassis weight,
a 50% reduction in body hardware weight has been assumed. These weight savings are
consistent with the target weight for the PNGV-Class vehicle which has a target weight
of around 1000 kg vehicle curb mass (ULSAB-AVC 1999).

2.1.3 Secondary Weight Savings

The objective for the selection of lightweighting material options for various vehicle
components (as discussed above) was to achieve the primary 50% body and chassis
weight-reduction goal. However, consideration of secondary weight savings in body and
chassis components is important because it takes into account the effect of primary
savings on the powertrain, chassis, and body components. The cost-effectiveness of
lightweighting options depends considerably on the secondary savings since those
savings helps to reduce the overall effect of higher lightweight material cost. Powertrain
resizing in secondary weight savings calculations allows comparisons of functionally
equivalent vehicle designs—a reduced vehicle weight requires a less powerful engine to
achieve equivalent performance (i.e., acceleration, range, etc.). Secondary weight savings
have been estimated by ASCM, and those savings related to the two scenarios considered
here are presented in Table 2 along with other estimated major parameters in the cost-
effectiveness analysis. Total secondary weight savings and secondary body and chassis
weight savings are estimated to be 54% and 14.5% of primary savings, respectively, and
depend on the number of vehicle components considered. Most of the secondary weight
savings occur in the powertrain system and depend on the extent of powertrain
downsizing assumed. Since the ASCM includes secondary weight savings only of major
vehicle components (i.e., all chassis components and a few major powertrain and body
components), the total weight savings estimated here is somewhat lower than other recent
estimates (Malen and Reddy 2007; Saad and Malen 2008). Very significant secondary
weight savings were expected for the General Motors 1992 Ultralite carbon body
structure that weighed 191 kg (compared to the 102 kg body structure in this analysis
based on primary weight savings only) and demonstrated a super-lean 635 kg curb weight
concept car. Our estimated secondary weight savings are quite close to the industry norm
of using 5% secondary weight savings for every 10% primary weight savings.

With the consideration of secondary weight savings, total body and chassis weight
savings are estimated to be 57% as shown in Table 2. There will be a decrease in
powertrain weight with powertrain resizing, where engine power is estimated to decrease
by 30%. The resulting vehicle weight reduction has been estimated to be 35%. Fuel
economy estimates have been based on a reasonable rule of thumb that each one percent
reduction in weight should give a 0.66 percent improvement in fuel economy, after a
vehicle has been fully redesigned to account for the reduced power demands of a lower

7
 Table 2. Major Parameters Considered in the Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis of the 50% Body and Chassis Weight Reduction Goal
50% Body and Chassis
Parameter Baseline Weight Reduction Scenario
Primary Body & Chassis NA 345 kg (50%)
Weight Savings
Secondary Weight Savings
Body & Chassis NA 50 kg (14.5%)*
Powertrain NA 137 kg
Total NA 187 kg
Body & Chassis Weight 692 kg 297 kg (57%)
Powertrain Weight 594 kg 457 kg (23%)
Engine Power 122 kW 85 kW
Final Vehicle Weight 1524 kg 993 kg (35%)
Combined Fuel Economy 23 mpg 28.3 mpg
Fuel Price $3/gallon
Vehicle Lifetime Operation 120,000 miles
Note: % values within parenthesis indicate savings with respect to baseline steel;
*% savings based on total primary body and chassis weight savings

mass (EEA 2001). Combined vehicle fuel economy would increase from the baseline
value of 23 mpg to 28.3 mpg with the 50% body and chassis weight-reduction goal.

2.2 Cost Estimation Methodology

As with the earlier studies (Das 2008 and Das 2009), this analysis employs the
Automotive System Cost Model (ASCM), developed jointly by Oak Ridge National
Laboratory and Ibis Associates, Inc. in collaboration with Argonne National Laboratory,
to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the 50% body and chassis weight-reduction goal.
ASCM estimates the vehicle-manufacturing cost at a level of five major vehicle
subsystems (powertrain, chassis, body, interior, and electrical) consisting of more than
thirty-five components (some components have been shown in aggregate form in Table
1) based on the aggregation of several components under the definition of Uniform Parts
Grouping (UPG) generally used by the automotive industry (as listed and defined in
Table 1 and Appendix A). Each component represents a specific manufacturing
technology. Vehicle retail price based on the sum of manufacturing cost (i.e., costs of
components and assembly), overhead, and selling is added to vehicle operation costs for
the vehicle life cycle cost estimation. The interrelationships among vehicle subsystems
and their effect on vehicle manufacturing cost are addressed, allowing inclusion of the
impacts of secondary mass and cost savings as well. Functional interrelationships have
been developed for major chassis components to estimate secondary mass savings based
on first principles of physics, and using semi-empirical and empirical information
available from the literature today. The powertrain sizing routine in this model is based
on the algorithm used in the Argonne National Laboratory’s (ANL) hybrid vehicle cost
model (HEVCOST), where the power and mass projections of various powertrain

8
components are based on component-specific power and efficiency values, with the
capability to evaluate alternative hybrid electric vehicle configurations and performance
strategies (Plotkin et al. 2001). The main objective of this model is to facilitate estimation
of vehicle-manufacturing and life-cycle costs using a uniform methodology to allow
comparison of alternative advanced technologies being considered for vehicles today.
This cost model has been integrated into the vehicle performance model PSAT
(Powertrain System Analysis Toolkit) developed by Argonne National Laboratory,
thereby facilitating instantaneous vehicle cost estimation based on the detailed powertrain
component sizing estimates by PSAT. Several studies have used this cost model for a
comparative cost assessment of different powertrain and body-in-white options for
advanced technology vehicles (Das 2004 and 2005; Rousseau et al. 2005).

Two types of overhead, i.e., OEM and dealer margin are added to the vehicle
manufacturing cost to estimate vehicle retail price. The former is assumed to be fixed,
while the latter varies with the vehicle manufacturing cost. Vehicle operation cost
categories considered in the vehicle life cycle cost estimation include financing,
insurance, local fees, fuel, battery replacement, maintenance, repair, and disposal.
Financing, insurance, and local fees costs are dictated by the vehicle retail price, while
the fuel cost is dictated by the vehicle’s fuel economy (estimates are shown in Table 2)
and a gasoline price of $3.00/gallon, based on the latest energy outlook (EIA 2010). With
the exception of maintenance and repair, all other operation cost categories vary with the
two lightweighting scenarios considered here based on estimated vehicle retail price and
fuel economy. Total life cycle cost is estimated as the net present value assuming total
vehicle lifetime miles are 120,000—based on average 10,000 miles driven annually and a
vehicle life of 12 years—and a discount rate of 10%.

2.3 Component Cost Data

Component technology cost data used in the analysis are mainly based on the latest
estimates developed by Ibis Associates, Inc. using results of the recent studies developed
for the industry (Ibis 2008 and Ibis 2009a). One such recent study stems from the
USCAR-ACC composite structure programs that have been involved in the detailed cost
analysis of carbon-FRPMC body structures. Even detailed cost analyses can have
limitations—in this case the limitation is that the program never developed a complete
design or high production-volume-scale cost analysis for a fully functional BIW
structure. Cost data for other components—those for which the technology remained
unchanged—were the same as those in the original model, since our objective in this
analysis is to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of the plausible lightweight
scenario to achieve the desired weight reduction goal and not the absolute total vehicle
cost. Note that component technology costs in ASCM are based on OEM costs and
represented in terms of functional relationships such as component mass and power,
based on the detailed cost analyses available in the literature.

Several recent USCAR-ACC composite structure programs have been used in order to
extrapolate to a full BIW structure and panel system functionally equivalent to the carbon
fiber scenario considered previously in ASCM. The ACC programs contributing to this
analysis include the FP2-composite truck box, FP3-carbon fiber structures, the Composite

9
Underbody program, and a recent fiber, preforming, and molding technology tradeoff
study (Ibis 2007, 2009b; Berger and Jaranson 2009 and Boeman and Johnson (2002)).
The truck box study evaluated a high volume composite design and process study
employing P4 preforming and SRIM molding. Similarly, the carbon fiber structures
program demonstrated a 60% mass savings over steel for a molded carbon fiber
composite, although this was a large pillar type component and not a full vehicle
structure. The Underbody program examined a broad range of concepts, including
random and fabric glass, carbon, and high modulus polypropylene (HMPP) reinforcement
through sheet molding compound (SMC) compression, long-fiber injection (LFI), and
direct long-fiber thermoplastic (DLFT) molding processes. The most recent ACC tradeoff
study compared glass, carbon, and natural fiber composites produced through SMC,
structural reaction injection molding (SRIM), and resin transfer molding (RTM), and
evaluated design based on equivalent strength and stiffness. Mass savings on individual
components relative to steel ranged from 37% to 70% depending on the tensile or
modulus equivalency. As noted earlier, a mass savings of 68% has been assumed in our
case of carbon-FRPMC body structure, i.e., BIW and panels.

The production economics in this assessment are based on the recent studies using high
production-rate P4 preforming and SRIM molding, achieving production rates of 15 parts
per hour. The carbon material pricing is based on current commercial grade pricing
estimates of $17.60/kg ($8/lb), rather than the optimistic $11.00/kg ($5/lb) target price
for the ongoing DOE ALM R&D efforts (considered later as a part of the sensitivity
analysis), and $4.24/kg for polyurethane systems.

The entire body structure and carbon SMC panel systems were modeled using IBIS
Technical Cost Models and the new regression analyses have been conducted to establish
updated cost relationships sensitive to production volume, mass, material price, piece
count, and part area. Figure 2 shows the estimated cost sensitivity to annual production
volume of carbon-FRPMC body-in-white structures for a mid-size vehicle. Estimated
costs are based on the baseline BIW and panel mass of 128 kg and 42 kg, respectively,
representing a 49% reduction in mass compared to the baseline steel body structures. As
one would expect, carbon-FRPMC body structure is quite insensitive to annual
production volume since it is a low-volume process: total part cost varies less than
$20/part and is relatively constant at around $2,690/part beyond production volume of
50,000 parts/year.

The cost sensitivity to annual production volume for body-in-white structures of various
materials is shown in Figure 3. The costs represented in Figure 3 include the assembly
cost. Cost graphs shown here are based on the baseline weight for a mid-size vehicle
considered in the model and not the actual weight used in the analysis here. For example,
baseline masses of body-in-white structure considered for steel, aluminum, and
thermoset/glass composites (TS/glass composites) are 250 kg, 143 kg, and 202 kg,
respectively. Body structure cost in this figure is based on the material pricing as follows:
steel $0.77/kg; aluminum sheet $3.31/kg; aluminum casting $2.86/kg; vinyl ester
compound $4.24/kg; glass fiber $1.50/kg; and carbon fiber $17.60/kg. Based on these
material prices and masses assumed, the carbon-FRPMC structure is more expensive than
all other lightweight material options considered here, except at annual production

10
volume of less than 25,000 parts, when the aluminum unibody is more expensive than
carbon-FRPMC. The crossover between these two materials is estimated to occur
between production volumes of 25K-50K. The current estimate is consistent with most
past studies indicating cost parity of carbon-FRPMC with conventional baseline steel
structure at a production volume in the range of 5,000-35,000 at carbon fiber prices of
$11-$17.50/kg (Kang 1998 and Fuchs 2008). Fuchs (2008) estimate of a cross-over point
of 35,000 for the cost-effectiveness of traditional steel and carbon composites represents
45% of car models and 10% of all cars produced in North America in 2005. However,
another study indicates the cost-effectiveness of a directed carbon fiber preforming
closure panel to be between 500-9,000 annual part production volume (Turner et al.
2008). Similarly, the recently completed European superlight-car project shows a 36%
body-in-white weight reduction potential but at a cost penalty of $705 at a daily
production volume of 1,000 vehicles (VGR 2008). The cost sensitivities of steel and
aluminum structures are quite similar to each other in terms of the curve slope, but they
are offset by the material price difference and some increased processing costs. `As also
has been observed earlier, the cost sensitivity curves for composite body structures (i.e.,
for both glass-FRPMC and carbon-FRPMC) are relatively flat compared to other
materials. For our analysis, the threshold production volume of cost-effectiveness is
240K parts/year for baseline steel and 50K parts/year for the lightweight vehicle.

3500
Carbon-FRPMC Body Structure Cost ($/part)

3000

2500
Structure
Assembly
2000
Panels
Total
1500

1000

500

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Annual Production Volume (K)

Figure 2. Carbon-FRPMC Body Structure Cost Sensitivity to

Annual Production Volume

11
 3000

Body-in-White Structure Cost ($/part)

2500

2000

1500

1000
Steel Unibody
Aluminum Unibody

500 TS/Glass Composite

CF Composite

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Annual Production Volume (K)

Figure 3. Lightweight Material Body-In-White Cost Sensitivity to

Annual Production Volume

700

600

500
Part Cost ($)

Brake System
400
Steering System
Cradle
300 Corner Suspension

200

100

Base Price $4.44/kg

0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Mg Alloy Ingot Price ($/kg)

Figure 4. Magnesium Chassis Component Cost Sensitivity to Material Price

Figure 4 shows the per-part cost sensitivity to magnesium casting price for four different
magnesium chassis components considered under the carbon-FRPMC scenario based on

12
part weight used in a mid-size vehicle as shown under the baseline scenario in Table 1.
Note that the part cost estimates for the base price of $4.44/kg for magnesium alloy ingot
price is also shown. The cost estimates for the magnesium cradle includes not only
casting cost, but also melting, scrap recovery, machining, and corrosion protection. Cost
estimates of magnesium braking and steering systems were made by adding the estimated
cost of replaced magnesium component (e.g., brake actuators and steering wheel column
for braking and steering systems, respectively) to the unchanged original balance of
system cost made of conventional steel. Cost data for replaced chassis magnesium
components are based on the recently developed chassis cost relationships using the
available EEA estimates (Ibis 2008 and EEA 2007). These relationships consist of two
components, i.e., material and processing, with material cost a function of magnesium
alloy ingot price. With the exception of the cradle and steering system, the cost
relationships for the remaining magnesium chassis components were not explicitly
developed. For these remaining systems, relationships are based on the corresponding
aluminum component relationships, which were modified to take into account higher
magnesium weight reduction potential and using a multiplicative factor in the material
component of the cost relationship to reflect the difference in material prices.

As Figure 4 shows, the higher amount of magnesium substitution in the cradle than in the
case of the corner suspension causes the former component to be more sensitive than the
latter one to magnesium alloy ingot prices. The sensitivity of steering and braking system
costs to magnesium alloy ingot pricing is not significant since the magnesium
components contributes less than 10% of total system weight in each case. Estimated cost
for the steering system is about 1.5 times more than the braking system cost, although the
mass relationship between them is quite contrary. The cost of cast magnesium wheels
(not shown on this figure) are based on 15” wheels, and new relationships were
developed using the same procedure as outlined above. It reflects current material pricing
and processing technology improvements and also includes tire costs. It has been
assumed to have 20% price premium for processing compared to cast aluminum wheels
(EEA 2007 and Long et al. 2005).

3.0 Results

Figure 4 shows the estimated cost savings resulting from the 50% body and chassis
weight savings of the carbon-FRPMC scenario compared to the baseline, by major
vehicle systems, vehicle retail price, and life cycle cost. Only three major vehicle systems
are considered because the cost of other vehicle systems—interior, electrical, and final
assembly—are assumed to be the same under all scenarios. There would be a
$373/vehicle increase in retail price and a $1,212/vehicle life cycle cost savings assuming
a fuel price of $3.00/gallon and carbon fiber price of $8.00/lb. The increase in vehicle

13
 Powertrain

2000 Body
1552
Chassis
1500 1361
1212
Vehicle Retail Price
Cost Savings ($/vehicle)

1000 Operation

Life Cycle Cost

500

0
-133 1
-500 -373

-1000

-1500
-1424
-2000

Figure 4. Estimated Cost Savings of 50% Body and Chassis

Weight Reduction Scenario

retail price is mainly due to the body system cost increase of about $1,424, the result of
the higher cost of carbon unibody structure. The assumption of significant weight
reduction potential of 68% has moderated the body-in-white price increase. The cost
savings due to downsizing the powertrain and chassis is not sufficient to lower the
vehicle retail price. However, the 50% weight reduction goal can be achieved with a life
cycle cost savings because the fuel economy benefits more than offset the small vehicle
retail price increase. The life cycle saving occurs even though a number of operation cost
categories (e.g., financing, insurance, and local fees) are functions of vehicle retail price.
Magnesium use in chassis components does not result in much change in the overall
chassis system cost as component sizes are reduced considerably to meet the overall body
and chassis weight reduction goal. Since the retail price difference is so small, the fuel
price was found to adversely affect life cycle cost effectiveness only if fuel price dropped
below $1.50/gallon. It is estimated that if the price of magnesium used in chassis
components is reduced from the baseline price of $4.44/kg to $3.85/kg and carbon fiber
price is reduced from the baseline price of $17.60/kg to DOE’s long-term target value of
$11.00/kg, the cost-effectiveness at the vehicle retail price level could be achieved, while
the assumed gasoline price of $3.00/gallon remains. Unless the carbon fiber price drops
to about $2.20/kg while the fuel price remains at $3/gallon, carbon fiber price alone
cannot provide the vehicle retail price equivalence (as shown in Figure 5). For carbon-
FRPMC to achieve cost-effectiveness at the vehicle retail price level, only less-than-
significant material price decreases in several lightweight materials in combination would
be necessary.

14
 600

500
Vehicle Retail Price Diff. ($)

400

300

200

100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Carbon Fiber Price ($/kg)

Figure 5. Carbon Fiber Price Sensitivity to Vehicle Retail Price Difference

An alternative 50% body and chassis weight reduction scenario was also considered. In
this alternative the weight reduction potential in body structures is assumed to be around
60%, achievable based on the current technology today. In order to achieve the overall
50% primary weight savings goal, the analysis includes material substitutions in two
interior body components, i.e., seat frames and instrument panel, both components in
which magnesium use has been successfully commercialized. Both of these magnesium
components have been successfully implemented by Jaguar, and magnesium seating
applications occur in several vehicle models such as Hyundai Azera, Mercedes Benz
SLK 350, Acura RL, and Lexus LS. Meridian Technologies, Inc. is currently producing
some of these components, such as steering column brackets and instrument panels, at the
rate of 3 and 2.5 million parts per year, respectively. It is estimated that magnesium use
would cause a weight reduction of 55% and 33% for seat frames and instrument panel,
respectively, with the corresponding cost premiums of 45% and 56%, respectively (Greer
2010 and EEA 2007).

Table 3 shows the estimated weight savings differences between the original 50% weight
reduction scenario and this alternative “Mg Interior” scenario. Vehicle mass decreases as
secondary body and chassis mass savings increase from 14.5% in the original 50%
weight reduction scenario to 16.8% in the “Mg Interior” scenario. The increased
secondary weight savings results not in the interior components themselves, but in the
affected body and chassis components, particularly the body-in-white. For example,
secondary weight savings for body-in-white was found to be 14 kg and 19 kg for the
original and new 50% body and chassis weight reduction scenarios, respectively. Under
the “Mg Interior” scenario, the final vehicle weight decreases 9 kg and fuel economy
improves 0.1 mpg. Due to more extensive use of the relatively high priced magnesium

15
($4.44/kg) components, cost equivalence is not achieved at either the vehicle retail price
or life cycle cost level. It is estimated that the vehicle life cycle cost spremium would be
$131/vehicle, compared to $1,212/vehicle savings obtained under the original scenario.

Table 3. Estimated Major Parameters of the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the 50% Body and
Chassis Weight Reduction Goal Scenarios, including Mg Interior Scenario
50% Body and Chassis 50% Body and Chassis
Parameter Baseline Weight Reduction Scenario Weight Reduction Scenario
Mg Interior
Primary Body & Chassis NA 345 kg (50%) 345 kg (50%)
Weight Savings
Secondary Weight Savings
Body & Chassis NA 50 kg (14.5%) 58 kg (16.8%)
Powertrain NA 137 kg 138 kg
Total NA 187 kg 196 kg
Body & Chassis Weight 692 kg 297 kg (57%) 289 kg (58%)
Powertrain Weight 594 kg 457 kg (23%) 456 kg (23%)
Engine Power 122 kW 85 kW 84 kW
Final Vehicle Weight 1524 kg 993 kg (34.8%) 984 kg (35.4%)
Combined Fuel Economy 23 mpg 28.3 mpg 28.4 mpg
Vehicle Retail Price NA -$373 -$1,200
Savings
Vehicle Life Cycle Cost NA $1,212 -$131
Savings

4.0 Conclusions

Cost-effectiveness of ALM’s 2010 goal to reduce body and chassis weight in light duty
vehicles by 50% was assessed based on the use of lightweight material options for
various body and chassis components under a plausible mid-size vehicle scenario. The
weight reduction goal here is very similar to the earlier 1990s Partnerships of a New
Generation Vehicle target and the recently expressed intention of the Japanese
government to mass-produce a cost-effective, recyclable carbon fiber vehicle and use it to
achieve a 40% reduction in cars’ weight by the middle of the next decade (Brooke 2009).
The lightweight material substitution options considered here focused on carbon-FRPMC
for body systems and magnesium for chassis components to achieve the weight reduction
goal. Among potential lightweighting materials, carbon-FRPMC has the greatest weight
savings potential. An alternative scenario to achieve the desired weight reduction goal
included more extensive magnesium use coupled with less weight savings potential for
carbon-FRPMC. The analysis also considered the effect of the 50% primary weight
savings on all vehicle components that can be resized while maintaining the same level of
vehicle performance with the reduced vehicle weight. These weight savings are known as
secondary weight savings. Due to consideration of secondary weight savings, total body

16
and chassis weight savings are estimated to be 57%, whereas the final vehicle weight
savings of 35%.

Cost-effectiveness of the 50% body and chassis weight reduction goal is estimated in
terms of both vehicle retail price and life cycle cost using the detailed 35+ component
level automotive system cost model developed by ORNL and Ibis Associates, Inc. Cost
data of components considered for lightweight material substitution are collected from
recent major studies, thereby reflecting the latest technology developments and material
prices.

With the consideration of powertrain resizing and secondary body and chassis mass
savings, the carbon-FRPMC lightweight material vehicle option is cost-effective in
meeting the ALM 50% body and chassis weight savings goal from the life cycle cost
perspective if current gasoline prices continue. The slightly higher vehicle retail price—
an increase of $373—results mainly from using the carbon-FRPMC body system which
is $1424 more expensive than the baseline system. The body system’s higher cost is
mostly offset by the powertrain and chassis savings. The higher vehicle retail price does
affect some of the operation cost categories such as financing, insurance, and local fees
which are functions of vehicle retail price. The effect, however, is outweighed by fuel
efficiency and the resulting fuel cost savings at the life cycle level. The vehicle retail
price is estimated to be only $373 higher than baseline since the consideration of
secondary weight savings significantly reduces the final vehicle body weight to 993 kg.

Because the estimated vehicle retail price premium is relatively small, only small
decreases in some combination of various lightweight material prices would be required
to achieve the cost-effectiveness goal at the level of vehicle retail price—the primary
consideration of OEMs for determining the viability of any new vehicle technology.
Magnesium and carbon fiber prices need to be at around $3.85/kg and $11.10/kg,
respectively for the lightweight vehicle to be cost-effective at the retail price level. The
material prices assumed in the analysis are $17.60/kg for carbon-FRPMC and $4.44/kg
for magnesium. However, the volatile nature of both material prices and fuel price could
affect life cycle cost equivalence. The extent of secondary mass savings is an important
consideration in vehicle price and life cycle cost. This analysis employs a conservative
estimate of secondary mass savings compared to some recent estimates in the literature.
An alternative scenario that uses more magnesium to account for smaller (60%) weight
savings for carbon-FRPMC finds that the relatively higher magnesium price would result
in higher vehicle retail price and the reduce life cycle cost savings.

Findings in this analysis are consistent with earlier findings that vehicles with high
carbon-FRPMC are more expensive than baseline vehicles. However, with the
significantly lower cost of commercial grade carbon fiber available today and the high
level of weight reduction offered by carbon-FRPMC, the material is largely competitive.
Also carbon-FRPMC technology is suited mainly to low annual production volume, and a
reduction in carbon fiber price would help to a large extent to improve its viability.
Composite monocoque BIW designs considered in the past several studies indicate cost
to be in the range of 41-73% higher than the steel unibody, depending on the type of
tooling used (Mascarin et al. 1995). Vehicle platforming considerations which allow low

17
annual production volumes would facilitate the competitiveness of carbon-FRPMC body
structure (Fuchs et al. 2008). Lightweighting also improves the cost-effectiveness of
advanced technology vehicles by lowering the expensive powertrain cost while
maintaining the performance, which has been considered only in a few of the latest
studies and would be critical in the successful commercialization of the lightweight
materials technology (Aluminum Association 2008, Brooke 2009, and Das 2005).
Consideration of powertrain resizing, secondary mass savings, and life cycle cost
perspectives would therefore be important to maximize the fuel economy gains from a
lightweight structure and eventual successful market penetration of lightweight vehicles
in the future. A recent cost assessment of vehicle mass reduction using a synergestic
vehicle teardown approach indicates that a total 20-40% vehicle mass reduction can be
achieved without any powertrain weight savings consideration (LEI 2010). Similarly, a
recent review article on trends related to automobile mass reduction technology also
indicates that advanced vehicle mass optimization techniques such as use of a diverse
mix of materials could yield vehicle mass reductions of 30% or greater but would involve
some additional costs and manufacturing process modifications (Lutsey 2010). Overall
vehicle cost impacts have been estimated to be minimal, only 3% higher even in the 40%
mass reduction case, with an extensive use of aluminum and magnesium in body
structure components, close to 150 lbs/vehicle. With a higher lightweighting goal,
reduced material cost become more critical because it is such a large share of the total
part cost particularly in low production-volume manufacturing processes. Accordingly,
current foci of DOE’s lightweight materials program are the development low cost
carbon fibers from alternative inexpensive renewable resources and high-volume
processing of composites.

18
 REFERENCES

Aluminum Association (2008). “Aluminum Vehicle Structure: Manufacturing and

Lifecycle Cost Analysis: Hybrid Drive and Diesel Fuel Vehicles,” Research Report
No. 2008-05, written by Ibis Associates, Inc. for the Aluminum Association.

Berger, L. and Jaranson, J. (2009). “Automotive Composites Consortium Focal Project

4,” FY 2007 Progress Report for Lightweighting Materials, Vehicle Technologies
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, Available at:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/resources/vt_lm_fy07.html, accessed
on 5/22.

Boeman, R. G. Johnson, N. L (2002). “Development of a Cost Competitive, Composite

Intensive, Body- In-White,” SAE Paper No. 2002-01-1905, the Society of
Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.

Brooke, L. (2009). “A Featherweight Future,” Automotive Engineering International,

Vol. 117, No. 5, May, pp. 24-26

Das, S. (2004). “A Comparative Assessment of Alternative Powertrians and Body-in-

White Materials for Advanced Technology Vehicles,” SAE Paper No. 2004-01-0573,
the Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.

Das, S. (2005). “Lightweight Opportunities for Fuel Cell Vehicles,” SAE paper no. 2005-
01-0007, the Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.

Das, S. (2008). “Cost-Effectiveness of a 25% Body and Chassis Weight-Reduction Goal

in Light-Duty Vehicles,” draft report, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
TN, Aug.

Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. (EEA) (2001). “Technology and Cost of Future
Fuel Economy Improvements for Light-Duty Vehicles,” draft report for National
Academy of Sciences, June 4.

Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. (EEA) (2007). “Analysis of Light-Duty Vehicle
Weight Reduction Potential,” draft final report submitted to the U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Policy, Arlington, VA, July.

Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2010). “Annual Energy Outlook 2010 with
Projections to 2030: Early Release Overview (Summary Reference Case Tables),
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html, accessed on 3/17/10.

Feraboli, P. and A. Masini. (2004). “Development of Carbon/Epoxy Structural

Components for a High Performance Vehicle,” Composites: Part B, Vol. 35, pp. 323-
330.

19
Fuchs, E. R. H., F.R. Field, R. Roth, and R.E. Kirchain. (2008). “Strategic Materials
Selection in the Automobile Body: Economic Opportunities for Polymer Composite
Design,” Composites Science and Technology, Vol. 68, pp. 1989-2002.

Greer, D. (2010). Meridian Lightweight Technologies, Plymouth, MI. Personal

communication with Sujit Das, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, Apr.
2.

Ibis Associates, Inc. (Ibis) (2007). “Technical Cost Model Development for a Structural
Composite Underbody: Supporting USCAR-ACC Composite Structures Program,”
Waltham, MA.

Ibis Associates, Inc. (Ibis) (2008). “Data Document: ORNL Automotive System Cost
Model,” Waltham, MA, July 1.

Ibis Associates, Inc. (Ibis) (2009a). “Data Document: ORNL Automotive System Cost
Model,” Waltham, MA, April 9.

Ibis Associates, Inc. (Ibis) (2009b). “Technical Cost Analysis & Model Development:
Fiber and Process Preforming Alternatives: Supporting USCAR-ACC Composite
Structures Program,” Waltham, MA.

Ibis Associates, Inc. (Ibis) (2009c). “Technical Cost Model Development: Fiber and
Process Preforming Alternatives,” presentation made to the USCAR – ACC
Composite Structures Program, Mar.

Iobst, S. Berger, L. Fernholz, K. Dahl, J. and Smith G. (2007). “Fabrication of the

Automotive Composites Consortium Carbon Fiber B-Pillar,” International SAMPE
Symposium and Exhibition (Proceedings), v 52, SAMPE’07: M and P – From Coast
to Coast and Around the World, Conference Proceedings, 2007, 11p.

Long, S. Xu, S. and Cao, H. (2005). “Technical Economic Considerations for Production
and Application of Mg Castings in China,” Materials Science Forum, Vols. 488-489,
pp. 909-914, June.

Lotus Engineering, Inc. (LEI) (2010). “An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities
for a 2017-2020 Model Year Vehicle Program,” Version Rev006A, report prepared
for the International Council on Clean Transportation, Mar. Also available at:
http://tinyurl.com/ykp3soz

Lutsey, N. (2010). “Review of Technical Literature and Trends Related to

AutomobileMass-Reduction Technology,” report prepared for California Air
Resources Board, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis,
May.

20
Malen, D. E. and Reddy, K. (2007). “Preliminary Vehicle Mass Estimation Using
Empirical Subsystem Influence Coefficients,” report prepared for the FGPC Mass
Compounding Project Team, Auto/Steel Partnership, Southfield, MI, May 9.

Marsh, G. (2006). “Composites Conquer with Carbon Supercars,” Reinforced Plastics,

Jan., pp. 20-24.

Plotkin, S. et al. (2001). “Hybrid Vehicle Technology Assessment: Methodology,

Analytical Issues, and Interim Results,” Argonne National Laboratory Report
ANL/ESD/02-2, Argonne, IL.

Rousseau, A. Sharer, P. and Das, S. (2005). “Trade-off between Fuel Economy and Cost
for Advanced Vehicle Configurations,” presented and published at EVS21conference,
held in Monaco, Apr. 2-5.

Saad, A. and Malen, D. (2008). “Mass Influence Coefficients: Phase 2,” draft report
prepared for the FGPC_Mass Compounding Project Team, Auto/Steel Partnership,
Southfield, MI, Dec. 26.

Turner, T. A. Harper, L. T. Warrior, N. A. and Rudd, C. D. (2008). “Low-cost Carbon

Fiber based Automotive Body Panel Systems: A Performance and Manufacturing
Cost Comparison,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers – Part D:
Journal of Automobile Engg., Vol 222, pp. 53-63.

Ultra light Steel Autobody – Advanced Vehicle Concepts (ULSAB-AVC) (1999).

“Description of ULSAB-AVC Benchmarking and Target Setting,” Southfield, MI.
Nov. 18.

Volkswagen Group Research (VRG) (2008). “Multi-material Lightweight Vehicle

Structure: EU-Project “Super Light Car”,” Status Final SLC-Body Concept, May.

21
 Appendix A
ASCM Vehicle Component Definition

ASCM UPG ASCM Description

Group Name
Powertrain Engine 30A Base Engine In this model, 'engine' refers to conventional heat
engines. In addition to basic powerplant and auxiliary
systems and components, engine cooling systems,
lubrication, fluid containers and pumps are also included.
30B Other Engine
Components
Fuel Cell n/a Fuel Cell Power System

Generator n/a The APU or power converter for parallel and series
hybrids.
Motor n/a The electric motor, including power cables.
Controller/ n/a The power controller/phase inverter system
Inverter
Energy 36K01 High Voltage The primary electrical energy storage device or package.
Storage Battery Maybe a single battery or module of linked cells.
Fuel System 36F Fuel Tank and Fuel tank, gauge, tank shield, access door, mounting
Lines straps, fuel pump.
37B Fuel
Transmission 36E G Transmission In this model the transmission refers to the gearbox only.
Note that in some literature, "transmission" refers to the
clutch, gearbox, driveshaft, and differential. These are
each treated as separate components/subsystems in this
model.
36C Clutch and Supplied as a single assembly, a releasable coupling that
Controls transmits torque from the engine to gearbox.
Driveshaft/ 31 Final Drive A single assembly that couples with the gearbox and
Axle differential
31 Final Drive An assembly of the axle shaft, housing, boots, and
couplings to the wheels
Differential 31 Final Drive Transmits energy from driveshaft to axles and allows for
differential speed of each wheel.
P/T Thermal Cooling module (radiator, fan assembly etc)
Exhaust 36E Exhaust System All exhaust equipment after the manifold; pipe: catalytic
System 36O Catalytic converter, muffler.
Converter
Powertrain 30C Engine Electrical Engine control wiring, sensors and processors. The
Electrical controller for electric motors for HEVs may be considered
as part of the electric motor, or could be included here, if
desired. Low voltage used for accessory power is also
included here.
Emission The sensors, processors, and engine feedback
Control Engine Emission equipment that maintain emissions within specified
Electronics 30C10 Controls parameters.
Oil and 37B Oil and Grease Engine oil, transmission oil, miscellaneous lubricants
Grease
Body BIW 11A-11B Body in White and The Body-In-White is the primary vehicle structure,
closures usually a single-body assembly, consisting of engine
compartment, passenger cabin, and storage. Closure
panels (including hinge mechanism) and hang-on panels
(such as fenders) are included, even if non-structural. In
this model, doors are included as well.

22
 ASCM UPG ASCM Description
Group Name
Front/Rear 36G Fenders
Bumper
Glass 18 Glass Front and rear windshields, door window glazing
22 Paint and Coating Includes the cost and mass of the total painting operation;
Paint e-coat, priming, base coats, color coats, clear coats.
37A, C, D Paint

Exterior 14, 20 Molding and Bumper cover, air deflectors, ground effects, side trim,
Trim Ornaments mirror assemblies, nameplates
Body Door window mechanism, wipe/wash, defog/deice, door
Hardware latch mechanism
Body Self-explanatory
Sealers &
Deadeners
Chassis Cradle 32 Frame A front sub frame that bolts to the BIW and supports the
mounting of the engine
Corner 33 Suspension Upper and lower control arms, ball joints, spring, shock
Suspension absorber, steering knuckle, stabilizer shaft
Braking 35 35D Brakes Hub, disc, bearings, splash shield, and calipers.
System
Wheels and 36A 36C Wheels, Tires, and Self explanatory. Tools determinant by type of tires
Tires Tools featured.
Steering 34 Steering A complex system from the steering wheel, column,
System joints, linkages, bushes, housings and potentially
hydraulic or electric assist equipment.
Interior Instrument 21 Trim and The instrument panel module consists of an underlying
Panel Insulation panel structure, knee bolsters and brackets, the
instrument cluster, exterior surface, wiring, console
storage, glove box panels, glove box assembly and
exterior, and a top cover.
Trim and 15,17,21 Headliner Headliner is actually the overhead system containing
Insulation acoustical sound absorption, assist handles, coat hooks,
modular headliner assemblies, overhead console
assemblies, small item overhead storage, pillar trim, sun
visors and retainer.
Center Console Emergency brake cover, switch panels, ash trays, arm
rest, cup holders, sometimes grouped with seating.
Package Tray A molded or formed panel behind the rear seat,
sometimes contains accessory brake light.
Carpeting/Flooring Acoustical sound absorption; padding and carpet,
insulation and accessory mats sometimes flooring may be
sold as part of a combined acoustic package, also
involving other sound abatement components, such as
wheel well liners and under hood insulation
Door 19 Convenience A door panel system containing door insulation, door trim
Modules Items assemblies/panels, map pocket trim, cup holders, ash
trays, seatbelt retractor covers, speaker grills, armrests,
switch panels and handles
Seatbelt & 16 Seats The seating system contains seat tracks, seat frames,
Restraints foam, trim, map pockets, restraint anchors, head restraint,
and armrests.
81 Safety Equipment Seat belts, tensioners, clips, air bags and sensors
assemblies
HVAC 80A, B Air Conditioning Condenser, heater, ducting, and controls, compressor
System and A/C hardware.

23
 ASCM UPG ASCM Description
Group Name
80H, J Heating System

80K, M, C Other Climate

Control
Electrical Interior 12F-13, 79 Electrical Wiring and controls for interior lighting, instrumentation,
Electrical Components and power accessories, entertainment system.
85 Accessories
Equipment
Chassis 36K Chassis Electrical ABS electrical system (wiring, sensors, processors),
Electrical traction control
Exterior 14,20 Molding and Head lamps, fog lamps, turn signals, side markers, tail
Electrical Ornaments light assemblies
Final Interior Final assembly of vehicle components is represented at
Assembly the level of five major vehicle subsystems under which
Chassis components are grouped

Powertrain

Electronics

Other
Systems

24