Memo

To:	Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472

From:	Michael Olechiw, U.S. EPA-OTAQ-ASD

Date:	25 March 2010

Re:	“Binning” of FEV Costs to GDI, Turbo-charging, and Engine
Downsizing

1.0	Introduction

*** This document is meant to be referenced in conjunction with a
spreadsheet by the same name.***

As a general matter, the best way to derive technology cost estimates is
to conduct real-world tear down studies.  These studies break down each
technology into its respective components, evaluate the costs of each
component, and build up the costs of the entire technology based on the
contribution of each component.  As such, tear down studies require a
significant amount of time and are very costly.  EPA has been conducting
tear down studies to assess the costs of vehicle technologies under a
contract with FEV.  The values presented in this memo are direct
manufacturing costs developed by FEV for the EPA through the case
studies noted below.  These costs could be termed “intermediate
values” in that they are used to develop overall costs for conditions
where tear downs were not performed.  While the costs presented here
were used to develop those presented in the final rule, they are not the
final rule costs.  For the final rule costs, refer to Chapter 3 of the
joint Technical Support Document (TSD).

To date, the following three engine technologies have been evaluated: 

1.	Stoichiometric gasoline direct injection (SGDI) and turbo charging
with engine downsizing for a 	large Dual Overhead Cam DOHC 4 cylinder
engine to a small DOHC 4 cylinder engine. 

2.	SGDI and turbo charging with engine downsizing for a Single Overhead
Cam (SOHC) 3 	valve/cylinder V8 engine to a DOHC V6 engine. 

3.	SGDI and turbo charging with engine downsizing for a DOHC V6 engine
to a DOHC 4 cylinder 	engine. 

Using the costing methodology described in report (EPA-F-09-020) , FEV
has developed costs for each of the above technologies.  These studies
consist of complete system tear-downs to evaluate technologies down to
the nuts and bolts to arrive at very detailed estimates of the
associated manufacturing costs.  In addition to the above case studies,
FEV and EPA extrapolated the engine downsizing costs for the following
scenarios that were outside of the noted study cases.

A.	Downsizing a SOHC 2 valve/cylinder V8 engine to a DOHC V6.

B.	Downsizing a DOHC V8 to a DOHC V6.

C.	Downsizing a SOHC V6 engine to a DOHC 4 cylinder engine.

D.	Downsizing a DOHC 4 cylinder engine to a DOHC 3 cylinder engine

E.	V8 SGDI incremental to V6 SGDI

This memo to the docket describes how the costs developed by FEV were
parsed or “binned” into the individual technologies; GDI,
turbo-charging, and downsizing and then extrapolated to determine the
costs associated with the 5 conditions identified above.

2.0	Cost calculation summary

The FEV tear-down studies developed an incremental cost associated with
each one of their case studies for each of the major subsystems.  The
case studies are numbers 1, 2, and 3 identified above, and the
subsystems considered were:

a.	Crank Drives

b.	Counter balance systems

c.	Cylinder block

d.	Cylinder heads

e.	Valvetrain subsystem

f.	Timing drive system

g.	Accessory drive subsystem

h.	Intake subsystem

i.	Fuel subsystem

j.	Exhaust subsystem

k.	Lubrication subsystem

l.	Cooling subsystem

m.	Induction air charging subsystem

n.	Exhaust gas re-circulation subsystem

o.	Breather subsystem

p.	Electrical subsystem

q.	Accessories subsystem (Starter, Generators, Power Steering, etc.)

These subsystem costs were then assigned to the three major technologies
under consideration: SGDI, Turbo Charging, and Engine Downsizing.  In
some cases a portion of the overall cost result was distributed over
several technologies (i.e. Cylinder head costs were distributed between
GDI and downsizing).  The sum of the costs associated with these three
major technologies adds up to the results of the FEV tear-down studies.

2.1 	Universally applied cost results

NHTSA and EPA agreed that some of the results from the FEV studies would
be considered universal.  In other words, the cost of turbo charging an
I4 engine, as determined from the FEV study of downsizing a 2.4L MPFI
engine to a 1.6L Turbo charged engine, would be applied to all I4
engines that were turbocharged.  The following results from the cost
assignment were universally applied:

1.	Stoichiometric gasoline direct injection (SGDI) and turbo charging
with engine downsizing for a large Dual Overhead Cam DOHC 4 cylinder
engine to a small DOHC 4 cylinder engine. 

Turbo charging an I4 Engine

Conversion of an I4 MPFI to I4 SGDI		

2.	SGDI and turbo charging with engine downsizing for a Single Overhead
Cam (SOHC) 3 valve/cylinder V8 engine to a DOHC V6 engine. 

Turbo charging a V6 Engine

Converting a V6 MPFI to V6 SGDI

3.	V8 SGDI

2.2	Scaled costs

With each one of the case study costs broken into its constituent
technology, and each technology broken into the subsystems above, FEV,
EPA, and NHTSA could then consider how each subsystem would scale from a
set of technologies that were part of an actual tear-down, to
technologies that were not part of an actual tear down.  For example,
given the cost results for a 3V SOHC V8 to V6 DOHC tear-down, we could
estimate the incremental cost to create a DOHC V8 from a SOHC V8.  Prior
to describing the details of how this was done for each subsystem and
each engine it is important to note that FEV and the agencies did not
consider Overhead Valve (OHV) configurations, as there were no OHV case
studies.  The actual tear-downs conducted simply were not considered by
the agencies to be relevant for scaling to OHV configurations. 
Secondly, note that the costs were scaled as closely as possible to a
similar technology and case study.  For example, the creation of an I3
downsizing cost was estimated from the I4 engine downsize to a smaller
I4 rather than the V8 to V6 case.  Under some conditions the scaling was
informed across tear down analyses, this was required to determine the
most accurate estimate possible.

Table 1 summarizes the results of binning the costs:

Engine	Incremental to	FEV Results	SGDI	Turbo- Charging	Downsizing

3.5L V6 DOHC Turbo SGDI	5.4L V8 MPFI 3-valve SOHC	$846	$321	$681	($155)

I4 DOHC	3.0L V6 MPFI V6 DOHC	$69	$213	$404	($547)

1.6L I4 DOHC Turbo SGDI	2.4L I4 MPFI DOHC	$532	$213	$404	($85)

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  1 :  Summary of binning analysis from FEV
results

Table 2 below shows the final results for non-tear down conditions. 
Recognize that the SGDI and Turbo-charging costs are carried down from
the actual FEV results above.

Engine	Incremental to	FEV Results	SGDI	Turbo- Charging	Downsizing

V6 DOHC	V8 SOHC (2-valve)	n/a	$321	$681	($83)

V6 DOHC	V8 DOHC	n/a	$321	$681	($274)

I4 DOHC	V6 SOHC	n/a	$213	$404	($382)

I3 DOHC	I4 DOHC	n/a	$213	$404	($193)

V8 2V SOHC	V8 3V SOHC	n/a	n/a	n/a	($72)

V8 DOHC	V8 3V SOHC	n/a	n/a	n/a	$119

V8 SGDI	V8 MPFI	n/a	$386	n/a	n/a

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  2 :  Calculated FEV results for non-tear
down conditions.



Because the costs were calculated in increments, Table 3 shows the steps
taken to arrive at extrapolated costs.

Change	Step #1	Step #2	Final result

V8 SOHC 2-valve to V6 DOHC	Downsizing a V8 SOHC 3-valve to V6 DOHC is a
$155 cost savings	V8 SOHC 2-valve is $72 less costly than a 3-valve
configuration	($155) – ($72) = ($83)

V8 DOHC to V6 DOHC	A V8 DOHC is $119 more costly than the 3-valve
configuration	V6 DOHC is $155 less costly than a V8 SOHC 3-valve
configuration	($119) – $155 = ($274)

V6 SOHC to I4 DOHC	V6 DOHC is $165 more costly than a V6 SOHC	V6 DOHC is
$547 more costly than an I4 DOHC	($547) – ($165) = ($382)

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  3 :  Cost calculations from tear-downs to
FRM results

3.0	Cost calculation details

Note:  The reader should be able to follow the logical progression of
these descriptions by referencing the related spreadsheet

3.1	I3 DOHC downsized from an I4 DOHC =  ($193)

Downsizing an I4 DOHC to an I3 DOHC engine is relevant to small and
compact cars.  The cost estimates associated with this change are fairly
straightforward.  Most of the scaling is simply a ratio of the number of
cylinders.

3.1.1		Crank drive

The crank shaft was scaled by the number of cylinders and the cost of
one piston, and one connecting rod as determined from the 2.0L study,
were subtracted.  The one wrist pin cost of $1.14 was missed.

3.1.2		Counter balance systems

No changes due to downsizing.

3.1.3		Cylinder block

The cylinder block cost was scaled down 25% due to the reduced number of
cylinders from the 2.0L study.  

3.1.4		Cylinder heads

The cylinder head cost was scaled down 25% due to the reduced number of
cylinders from the 2.0L study.  

3.1.5		Valvetrain subsystem

The valvetrain system cost was scaled down 25% due to the reduced number
of cylinders from the 2.0L study.  

3.1.6		Timing drive system

No changes due to downsizing.

3.1.7		Accessory drive subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.1.8		Intake subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.1.9		Fuel subsystem

System cost reduced by one fuel injector.  Fuel rail scaled down by 25%
due to the reduced number of cylinders.

3.1.10	Exhaust subsystem

Exhaust manifold cost reduced by 25%.  Remainder of the exhaust was
determined to remain the same under the premise of constant power and
flow.

3.1.11	Lubrication subsystem

Oil pan scaled down by 25% due to the reduced number of cylinders.

3.1.12	Cooling subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.1.13	Induction air charging subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.1.14	Exhaust gas re-circulation subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.1.15	Breather subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.1.16	Electrical subsystem

The cost was reduced by one less spark plug, one less coil-on-plug, and
the associated wiring.

3.1.17	Accessories subsystem (Starter, Generators, Power Steering, etc.)

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2	I4 DOHC to an I4 SOHC = ($80)

The calculation for changing to a I4 DOHC valvetrain configuration from
a I4 SOHC configuration is required for 2 reasons.  The first is to
account for the cost in the baseline fleet, and the second is that the
mechanical change improves pumping losses.

3.2.1	Crank drive

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.2		Counter balance systems

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.3		Cylinder block

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.4		Cylinder heads

The cylinder head costs were calculated  by taking the 2.0L I4 Turbo GDI
head machining costs minus the machining costs for Turbo GDI features
(based on 3.5L V6 Turbo/GDI to 3.0L V6 naturally aspirated MPFI) x 65%
(estimate of machining associated with valvetrain) x 50%  (reduction in
valvetrain).  All the costs were from FEV cost analyses.

3.2.5		Valvetrain subsystem

Costs for the intake camshaft, the exhaust cam phaser, and cam phaser
solenoid were taken directly from the 2.0L I4 study.  In addition there
was a $7.38 credit for a reduction in valvetrain components, replacement
of direct acting mechanical buckets (DAMB) valvetrain components with
roller finger followers (RFF) valvetrain and an OEM engine labor
assembly difference for RFF versus DAMB.

3.2.6		Timing drive system

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.7		Accessory drive subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.8		Intake subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.9		Fuel subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.10	Exhaust subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.12	Lubrication subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.12	Cooling subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.13	Induction air charging subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.14	Exhaust gas re-circulation subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.15	Breather subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.2.16	Electrical subsystem

A penalty for the cam sensor wiring, ~$1.00,  should have been
calculated but was missed.

3.2.17	Accessories subsystem (Starter, Generators, Power Steering, etc.)

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3	V6 DOHC to a V6 SOHC = ($165) 

The calculation for changing to a V6 DOHC valvetrain configuration from
a V6 SOHC configuration is required for 2 reasons.  The first is to
account for the cost in the baseline fleet, and the second is that the
mechanical change improves pumping losses.

3.3.1		Crank drive

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.2		Counter balance systems

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.3		Cylinder block

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.4		Cylinder heads

The cylinder head costs were calculated by taking the machining cost for
3.0L V6 head, equal to $50.60, then taking 65% of  that to estimate the
machining cost for valvetrain.  Finally a 50% reduction in cost was
applied based on the reduced valve count. This value was multiplied by 2
to account for 2 heads.

3.3.5		Valvetrain subsystem

Costs for the intake camshaft, exhaust cam shaft, the intake cam phaser,
and exhaust cam phaser, and cam phaser solenoids were taken directly
from the 3.0L V6 analysis.  In addition there was a $7.54 credit for a
reduction in valvetrain components, replacement of DAMB valvetrain
components with RFF valvetrain,  the OEM engine labor assembly
difference for RFF versus DAMB.  Component costs were taken from 3.0L V6
base cost analysis.

3.3.6		Timing drive system

Timing Drive subsystem cost for DOHC 3.0L V6 ($70.71) has been reduced
by approximately 25% for SOHC.

3.3.7		Accessory drive subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.8		Intake subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.9		Fuel subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.10	Exhaust subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.12	Lubrication subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.12	Cooling subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.13	Induction air charging subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.14	Exhaust gas re-circulation subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.15	Breather subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.16	Electrical subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.3.17	Accessories subsystem (Starter, Generators, Power Steering, etc.)

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4	V8 SOHC 3-valve to a V8 SOHC 2-valve = ($72)

While the change from a V8 SOHC 2-valve configuration to a V8 SOHC
3-valve configuration is not something that would be anticipated by the
GHG rule, this cost was an important stepping stone to calculate the
cost of a V8 2-valve configuration to a V8 DOHC.

3.4.1		Crank drive

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.2		Counter balance systems

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.3		Cylinder block

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.4		Cylinder heads

The cylinder head costs were calculated by first estimating the
machining cost for 5.4L V8 SOHC to be equal to $53.80.  We then
estimated that 50% of that value could be attributed to machining
valvetrain specific items.  A on third reduction of machining of
valvetrain for 2 valves versus 3 valves was then applied.

3.4.5		Valvetrain subsystem

The valvetrain system costs were calculated by reducing the 5.4L V8
3-valve valvetrain component costs by one third.

3.4.6		Timing drive system

Timing Drive subsystem cost for DOHC 3.0L V6 ($70.71) has been reduced
by approximately 25% for SOHC.

3.4.7		Accessory drive subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.8		Intake subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.9		Fuel subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.10	Exhaust subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.12	Lubrication subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.12	Cooling subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.13	Induction air charging subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.14	Exhaust gas re-circulation subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.15	Breather subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.16	Electrical subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.4.17	Accessories subsystem (Starter, Generators, Power Steering, etc.)

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5	V8 DOHC from a V8 SOHC 3-valve = $119

Once again, this change from a V8 SOHC 3-valve to a V8 DOHC accounts for
initial changes in the baseline fleet.

3.5.1		Crank drive

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.2		Counter balance systems

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.3		Cylinder block

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.4		Cylinder heads

The cylinder head costs were calculated by taking the 3.0L V6 cylinder
head costs and scaling it upward by 4/3 (cylinder ratio), multiplying
the result by 2 for two heads, and subtracting that value from the 5.4L
V8 3-valve head costs.  ($324.54)

3.5.5		Valvetrain subsystem

The valvetrain system costs were calculated by taking the engine
assembly cost of ($61.32) and scaling up by valve count (32/24) to
calculate the incremental cost.

3.5.6		Timing drive system

The timing drive system cost was calculated by increasing the timing
drive subsystem roll-up for the 5.4L V8 ($61.50) by 25%, the increase in
the number of valves.

3.5.7		Accessory drive subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.8		Intake subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.9		Fuel subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.10	Exhaust subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.12	Lubrication subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.12	Cooling subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.13	Induction air charging subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.14	Exhaust gas re-circulation subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.15	Breather subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.16	Electrical subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.5.17	Accessories subsystem (Starter, Generators, Power Steering, etc.)

No changes due to downsizing.

3.6	V8 GDI incremental to a V6 = $65

This cost calculation provides the basis for all V8 GDI calculations.  
It is an incremental cost to the V6 condition studied by FEV.

3.6.1		Crank drive

The incremental cost to the V6 crank drive system consisted of 2 piston
upgrades at a cost of $2 per piston.

3.6.2		Counter balance systems

No changes due to GDI.

3.6.3		Cylinder block

The incremental cost to the V6 cylinder block is the addition of 2
piston squirters at a cost of $2.09 per squirter.

3.6.4		Cylinder heads

The cylinder head costs were calculated by scaling the cylinder head
incremental costs for a 3.5L V6 Turbo GDI by the cylinder count and
adding the engine upgrades also scaled from the 3.5L by cylinder count.

3.6.5		Valvetrain subsystem

The valvetrain system costs were calculated by adding the extra cost to
upgrade the intake and exhaust valves for two additional cylinder banks.

3.6.6		Timing drive system

The timing drive system cost was calculated by increasing the timing
drive subsystem roll-up for the 5.4L V8 ($61.50) by 25%, the increase in
the number of valves.

3.6.7		Accessory drive subsystem

No changes due to GDI.

3.6.8		Intake subsystem

No changes due to GDI.

3.6.9		Fuel subsystem

The fuel subsystem costs were calculated by scaling the 3.5L V6 GDI fuel
substem costs of $142.00 by 25%.

3.6.10	Exhaust subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.6.12	Lubrication subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.6.12	Cooling subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.6.13	Induction air charging subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.6.14	Exhaust gas re-circulation subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.6.15	Breather subsystem

No changes due to downsizing.

3.6.16	Electrical subsystem

Two additional spark plugs required, two additional coil on plugs (COP),
and PCM upgrades to support GDI.

3.6.17	Accessories subsystem (Starter, Generators, Power Steering, etc.)

No changes due to downsizing.

3.0 	Contact Information

Questions regarding this analysis and results may be directed to:

Michael Olechiw

EPA – OAR – OTAQ – ASD

2000 Traverwood Drive

Ann Arbor, MI 48165

(734)-214-4297

Olechiw.michael@epa.gov

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Light-Duty Technology Cost
Analysis,” EPA-F-09-020, Contract No. EP-C-07-069, Work Assignment
2-3, December 25, 2009.  (Docket #:   EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-11551)

 PAGE   2 

( Page   PAGE  13 

  PAGE  1 

