Advanced Automotive Technology: Visions of a Super-Efficient Family Car September 1995 OTA-ETI-638 GPO stock #052-003-01440-8 Foreword his report presents the results of the Office of Technology Assessment’s analysis of the prospects for developing automobiles that offer significant improvements in fuel economy and reduced emissions over the longer term (out to the year 2015) The congressional request for this study—from the House Committees on Commerce and on Science, and the Senate Committees on Energy and Natural Resources and on Governmental Affairs-asked OTA to examine the potential for dramatic increases in light-duty vehicle fuel economy through the use of “breakthrough” technologies, and to assess the federal role in advancing the development and commercialization of these technologies The report examines the likely costs and performance of a range of technologies and vehicle types, and the U.S and foreign research and development programs for these technologies and vehicles (to allow completion of this study before OTA closed its doors, issues such as infrastructure development and market development -critical to the successful commercialization of advanced vehicles-were not covered) In particular, the report presents a baseline forecast of vehicle progress in a business-as-usual environment, and then projects the costs and performance of “advanced conventional” vehicles that retain conventional drivetrains (internal combustion engine plus transmission); electric vehicles: hybrid vehicles that combine electric drivetrains with an engine or other power source; and fuel cell vehicles OTA has focused on mass-market vehicles, particularly on the mid-size family car with performance comparable to those available to consumers today Based on our analysis, OTA is quite optimistic that very high levels of fuel economy-up to three times current averages —are technically achievable by 2015; attaining these levels at a commercially viable price will be a more difficult challenge, however This report is the last in a series on light-duty vehicles that OTA has produced over the past five years Previous topics include alternative fuels (Replacing Gasoline: Alternative Fuels for Light-Duty Vehicles); near-term prospects for improving fuel economy (Improving Automobile Fuel Economy: New Standards, New Approaches); and vehicle retirement programs (Retiring Old Cars; Programs To Save Gasoline and Improve Air Quality) OTA also has recently published a more general report on reducing oil use in transportation (Saving Energy in U.S Trans- T portation) OTA is grateful to members of its Advisory Panel, participants in workshops on vehicle safety and technology, other outside reviewers, and the many individuals and companies that offered information and advice and hosted OTA staff on their information-gathering trips Special thanks are due to K.G Duleep, who provided the bulk of the technical and cost analysis of technologies and advanced vehicles ROGER C HERDMAN Director iii Advisory Panel Don Kash Kennerly H Digges Mary Ann Keller Chairperson Professor of Public Policy George Mason University Assistant Director National Crash Analysis Office Center George Washington University Managing Director Furman, Selz, Inc Steve Barnett Principal Global Business Network Christopher Flavin Vice President for Research Worldwatch Institute Ron Blum Gunnar Larsson Vice President of Research Volkswagen AG Marianne Mintz Director General Motors NAO R&D Center Transportation Systems Engineer Environmental & Economic Analysis Section Argonne National Laboratories Dave Greene Robert Mull Director Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles Ford Motor Co Malcolm R Currie Senior Research Staff Center for Transportation Analysis Oak Ridge National Laboratory Chairman M-B Resources, Inc Maurice Isaac Senior Auto Analyst International Union United Auto Workers Christopher Green Tom Cackette Chief Deputy Executive Officer California Air Resources Board John DeCicco Senior Research Associate American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy iv Nobukichi Manager Automotive Technical Programs GE Automotive Nakamura Project General Manager Toyota Motors Peter T Peterson Director, Marketing Strategies and Product Applications U.S Steel Daniel Roos Owen J Viergutz Director Center for Technology, Policy Executive Engineer New Generation Vehicles Chrysler Corp and Industrial Development Massachusetts Institute of Technology Rhett Ross Sales Manager/Engineer Energy Partners Dan Santini Section M a n a g e r Margaret Walls Fellow, Energy and Natural Resources Division Resources for the Future Claude C Gravatt Science Advisor National Institutes of Standards and Technology U.S Department of Commerce Barry McNutt Policy Analyst Office of Energy Efficiency and Alternative Fuels Policy U.S Department of Energy Environmental & Economic Analysis Argonne National Laboratories Note: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report OTA assumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents Project Staff Peter D Blair Assistant Director Industry, Commerce, and International Security Division PRINCIPAL STAFF Steven Plotkin Project Director Gregory Eyring Emilia L Govan Assistant Project Director Program Director Energy, Transportation, and Infrastructure Program Eric Gille CONTRACTORS Carol Clark Editor Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc K.G Duleep D.E Gushee D.E Gushee, Inc Michael Wang Consultant vi Research Assistant /ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF Marsha Fenn Office Administrator Tina Aikens Administrative Secretary Gay Jackson PC Specialist Lillian Chapman Division Administrator Reviewers John Alic Office of Technology Assessment Wolfgang Berg Mercedes Benz William Boehly National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Mark Delucchi Institute for Transportation Studies University of California, Davis Michael Gage CALSTART Philip Patterson U.S Department of Energy John Gully Advanced Research Projects Agency H Pero European Commission Elizabeth Gunn Office of Technology Assessment S Yousef Hashimi Office of Technology Assessment A Hayasaka Toyota M Salmon General Motors Corp Ray Smith Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Rao Valisetty ALCOA Daniel A Kirsch Stanford University Robert Williams Center for Energy and Environmental Studies Princeton University Michael Epstein U.S Council for Automotive Research Paul Komor Office of Technology Assessment Robert White U.S General Accounting Office Barry Felrice National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Adrian Lund Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Ronald York General Motors Corp Kenneth Freeman Office of Technology Assessment Joan Ogden Center for Energy and Environmental Studies Princeton University Kevin Dopart Office of Technology Assessment Karl-Heinz BMW Ziwica Kathleen Fulton Office of Technology Assessment vii w orkshop Participants Nabih Bedewi Charming Ewing Brian O’Neill National Crash Analysis Office Center George Washington University Snell Memorial Foundation Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Thomas Hartman Kennerly Digges Automotive Technology ALCOA National Crash Analysis Office Center George Washington University Leonard Evans General Motors NAO, R&D Center Automotive Safety and Health Research Vlll John Melvin General Motors NAO, R&D Center Automotive Safety and Health Research Patrick M Miller MGA Research Corp George Parker National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S Department of Transportation Priya Prasad Department of Advanced Vehicle Systems Engineering Ford Motor Co Tom Asmus Chrysler Corp Siegfried Friedmann BMW AG Jeff Bentley Arthur D Little, Inc Thomas Klaiber Daimler Benz AG Christopher E Borroni-Bird Chrysler Corp James F Miller Argonne National Laboratory Rolf Buchheim Volkswagen AG Timothy Moore Rock Mountain Institute Andrew F Burke University of California at Davis Institute of Transportation Studies Larry Oswald General Motors Alan Cocconi AC Propulsion, Inc Charles Risch Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles Ford Motor Co Kenneth Dircks Ballard Power Systems Robert Fleming Ballard Power Systems Harold Polz Mercedes Benz Ray Smith Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Al Sobey Independent Consultant Ro Sullivan U.S Department of Energy Raymond A Sutula U.S Department of Energy David Swan University of CA at Davis Institute of Transportation Studies Swathy Swathirajan General Motors Donald Vissers Argonne National Laboratory Marc Ross University of Michigan Ronald E York General Motors Chapter Executive Summary OTA’S APPROACH OTA’S METHODS DEALING WITH UNCERTAINTY OVERVIEW OF RESULTS Technical Potential Commercialization Potential Timing DETAILED RESULTS Business as Usual 10 Advanced Conventional 10 Electric Vehicles 11 Hybrid-Electric Vehicles 13 Fuel Cell Vehicles 15 PERFORMANCE AND COST OF OTHER TYPES OF LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 17 LIFECYCLE COSTS WILL THEY OFFSET HIGHER PURCHASE PRICES? 17 EMISSIONS PERFORMANCE 19 SAFETY OF LIGHTWEIGHT VEHICLES 21 A NOTE ABOUT COSTS AND PRICES 22 CONCLUSIONS ABOUT TECHNOLOGY COST AND PERFORMANCE 23 THE FEDERAL ROLE IN ADVANCED AUTO R&D 24 Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles 25 U.S COMPETITIVE POSITION 25 Leapfrog Technologies 26 Advanced Conventional Technology= 26 U.S R&D PROGRAM 27 Key Budgetary Changes in FY 1996 27 R&D Areas Likely to Require Increased Support in the Future 28 Future Role of Federal R&D Programs 30 Conclusions ABOUT R&D 32 Boxl-1: Box1-2: Box1-3: Box1-4: Box1-5: Reducing Tractive Forces 34 Spark Ignition and Diesel Engines 36 Battery Technologies 38 Nonbattery Energy Storage: Ultracapacitors and Flywheels 39 Series and Parallel Hybrids 40 Table l-1 Table l-2: Table l-3: Table l-4: Table l-5: What Happens to a Mid-Size Car in 2005? 41 What Happens to a Mid-Size Car in 2015? 42 Annual Fuel Costs for Alternative Vehicles 43 PNGV-Related FY 1995 Appropriations by Technical Area and Agency 44 PNGV Budgetary Changes in FY 1996 45 xi Chapter Introduction and Context 46 FORCES FOR INNOVATION 47 CONGRESSIONAL CONCERNS .48 NATURE OF THE TECHNOLOGY 49 DEALING WITH UNCERTAINTY 50 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT Box2-1: Box2-2: Box2-3: Box2-4: Counterpoint Forces Against Rapid Technological Change Energy Security, Economic Concerns, and Light-Duty Vehicle Fuel Use 53 Greenhouse Emissions and Light-Duty Vehicles 55 56 Air Quality Considerations Chapter3 Technologies for Advanced Vehicles Performance and Cost Expectations WEIGHT REDUCTION WITH ADVANCED MATERIALS AND BETTER DESIGN 60 Vehicle Design Constraints 61 Materials Selection Criteria 62 62 Manufacturability and Cost 63 Manufacturing costs Life Cycle Costs 63 Manufacturability 64 Performance 65 Weight 66 Safety 67 Recyclability 68 69 Future Scenarios of Materials Use in Light Duty Vehicles 2005 Advanced Conventional 70 70 2005-Optimistic 2015-Advanced Conventional 71 72 2015 Optimistic 73 Conclusions 74 AERODYNAMIC REDUCTION 75 Drag Reduction Potential Effect of Advanced Aerodynamics on Vehicle Prices 76 77 ROLLING RESISTANCE REDUCTION 77 Background 78 Potential for Rolling Resistance Improvement 79 Price Effects of Reduced Rolling Resistance 80 IMPROVEMENTS TO SPARK IGNITION ENGINES 80 Overview 81 Increasing Thermodynamic Efficiency Spark timing 81 Faster Combustion 81 81 Increased compression ratios 82 Reducing Mechanical Friction xii TABLE A-2: Specifications of Some Advanced Electric Vehicles Vehicle type GM Impact Cocconi Honda CRX BMW E-1 Chrysler Van Ford Ecostar Honda CUV4 Total weight (kg) 1,348 1,225 880 2,340 1,405 1,680 Motor output peak (hp) 137 120 45 70 75 66 Fuel consumption (kWh/km) 0.115 0,103 0.133 0.300 0.188 0.155 P (hplkg) E (Wh/kg-km) 0.091 0.087 0.044 0.028 0.040 0.036 0.086 0.084 0.151 0.128 0.134 0.093 KEY: P = performance rating of vehicle + payload; E = specific efficiency of vehicle SOURCE: Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., “Automotive Technologies To Improve Fuel Economyto 2015,” prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, June 1995, p 10-39 Compiled from manufacturer brochures; Cocconi data from California Air Resource Board tests 287 TABLE A-3: Engine and Accessory Weights (lbs) Base engine a Accessories b Electrical system Emission controls Exhaust system Catalyst Total I output Specific output Specific weight Ford Taurus 3.OL Toyota Corolla 1.5L 444 264 34 26 38 27 30 incl 33 33 30 24 609 lbs (276 kg) 105 kW 0.3 kWlkg 2.63 kg/kW 374 lbs (170 kg) 78 kW 0.460 kW/kg 2.17 kg/kW a Includes radiator, water pump, hoses, coolant bIncludti s~rter, alternator and ignition sYstem SOURCE: American Automobile Manufacturers Association, 1994 288 TABLE A-4: Equations for Deriving HEV Weight 1) Engine operates at optimal bsfc only MHEV + Payload = MBZ + Payload + 1.4 MBA~ + 1.4MM0T0R + 1.4MEG Peak Performance = (Sp MBA~ + C MEG/(MHEV + Payload) ● ● Maximum Continuous Performance = C s MEG/(MHEV + Payload) If peak-power requirements are 50 kW/ton and the continuous requirement is 30 kW/ton, we have: ~z + Payload = 1M~EV + Payload 1.4 * 30 - 1.4 * (50-30) c1 ‘P - 1.4 *50 K 2) If the engine normally operates at or near optimal bsfc but can produce higher power output for a continuous requirement, such as hill climb, we have: Maximum Continuous Performance ~z + Payload = M~EV + Payload where MHEV ‘Bz MBA~ MMOTOR M EG C or Cl K C2 ‘P = = = = = = = = = = C2 MEG/(MHEV + Payload) 1.4 *30 C2 - 14 * (50 -30 * ‘P C]/c?.) -— 1.4 *50 K weight of hybrid electric vehicle “zero engine” body weight weight of battery weight of motor weight of ICE + generator continuous specific output of engine + generator, kW/ton specific output of motor, low/ton peak specific output engine + generator, kW/ton peak specific power of battery, kW/ton Note: Typical values used are S = 300 kW/ton, K = 1000 kW/ton, Cl = 125 kb/ton, C2 = 285 kW/ton SOURCE: Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., “Automotive Technologies To Improve Fuel Economy to 2015,” report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, June 1995, p 10-60 289 TABLE A-5: Energy Use for a Current (1995) Mid-size Car Converted to an HEV (kWh) Tractive energy Motor output Regenerative braking recovery Tractive energy input a Engine output Fuel economy, mpg Percent improvement over 1995 base Urban Highway 0.201 0.214 0.045 0.216 0.315 32.7 44.1 0.184 0.192 0.008 0.205 0.263 41.2 8.4 ZIAs~um~ ba~eri~ r~harged to initial state at end Of Cycle Analysis assumes highly optimized electrical drivetrain components SOURCE: Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., “Automotive Technologies To Improve Fuel Economy to 2015,” report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, June 1995, p 1O-64 290 NOTE: Numbers indicate urban energy distribution Numbers in parentheses indicate highway energy distribution SOURCE: Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles 291 (4,308-391) SOURCE: M Ross and W Wu, “Fuel Economy of a Hybrid Car Based on a Buffered Fuel-Engine Operating at its Optimal Point,” SAE paper 95000,1995 292 2.93 2.68 2.43 2.26 Final drive ratio 4- speed transmission performance vs economy 293 13 10 11 12 Vehicle performance (0-60 mph in seconds) SOURCE: Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., “Automotive Technologies to Improve Fuel Economy to 201 5,” prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, June 1995, pp 10-13 294 1.0 0.5 SOURCE: Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., “Automotive Technologies to Improve Fuel Economy to 2015,” prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, June 1995, p 10-41 295 APPENDIX B: Methodology: Technology Price Estimates In this report, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) has estimated the approximate retail price of technologies that range from those already present in the current light-duty vehicle fleet to those whose final design, choice of materials, and manufacturing process are not known Some warning about these estimates and their sources is warranted: For technologies far from commercialization, price estimates should be treated with skepticism The only available manufacturing experience with these technologies is likely to be one-of-a-kind hand building Redesigning to solve remaining problems may increase costs; mass production will certainly lower costs; the technologies will be redesigned to cut manufacturing costs; and learning over time will cut costs both through product redesign and through continual cost-cutting in manufacture The magnitude of changes over time is not particularly predictable 2% Although technology developers know the most about their technology’s costs and remaining problems, their estimates of costs are particularly suspect Technology developers are at the mercy of their finding sources their company’s directors, venture capitalists, and government agencies and these sources generally will not proceed without assurances that costs will be competitive The sole exception occurs when regulatory demands require proceeding with a technology regardless of market factors Alternative estimates of technology prices are exceedingly difficult to compare, because they rarely focus on precisely the same technological specifications and often differ in their inclusion of key cost components For example, vehicle price estimates must include a range of expenses, including amortization of design costs, transportation, dealer markups, and so forth, but key cost components are frequently ignored in cost analyses OTA’s analysis focuses on the incremental effect introduction of the technology will have on a vehicle’s retail price, averaged across new vehicles The price effect on an individual car or light truck model may be higher or lower than the estimated “retail price equivalent” (RPE), but these price variations represent cross subsidies between consumers For example, marketing strategies may require certain models to be priced lower than other technologically similar models to compete efficiently in the marketplace, but average price increment is the focus of this analysis The analysis assumes that the industry is sufficiently competitive, and the technology and production methods are widely enough understood by competing companies, that manufacturers earn only their usually expected returns on capital that is, they get no benefit by being able to charge a premium because no one else has the technology In fact, most of the technologies considered in this report, except for battery and fuel cell technology, cannot be considered proprietary This is also true of production methods, although different companies can be more or less efficient in production In a competitive marketplace, all manufacturers must price their product so that the average producer earns a normal rate of return on capital; more efficient producers can gain market share by pricing lower than average at the expense of less efficient 296 producers, or they can increase unit profits by charging the same as their less-efficient competitors In reality, the auto manufacturers are not a fully competitive industry but an oligopoly, in that three manufacturers control more than 70 percent of the U.S market, and there are difficult barriers to entering the market The picture is further complicated by a segmented car market that has some highly competitive market segments while others, such as large-car segments, are less competitive The methodology used here is based on a manufacturer’s “expected” rate of return on capital, which may be higher than the “normal” rate of return (if sales volume goals are attained) because the market is not perfectly competitive Using this method, the calculated price impact may overstate the actual price impact in very market competitive segments, but may understate the impact in more oligopolistic segments Some technologies, such as diesel engines, are all already widely available, and their price effect is reported from direct observation of market prices For most technologies, the method of estimating RPE is based on first estimating the cost of manufacturing a technology, then translating this to a retail price equivalent, assuming an expected rate of return For those technologies that affect horsepower and performance, RPE is adjusted to account for the market value of performance For example, the RPE of a four-valve engine would be determined as an increment to a two-valve engine of equal performance, which translates into a comparison with a larger displacement two-valve engine METHODOLOGY TO DERIVE RPE FROM COSTS I The RPE evaluation uses an approach followed by industry that includes the variable cost for each unit of the component or technology, and the allocation of the fixed costs associated with facilities, tooling, engineering, and launch expenses The methodology has been used widely by regulatory agencies and is described in a report to the Environmental Protection Agency It has been adopted here with modifications suggested by recent manufacturer submissions to the U.S Department of Transportation The methodology estimates both the amortization (based on the expected rate of return) of the investment cost of R&D engineering, tooling, production, and launch, and the labor, material, and plant operating costs, based on expected sales If actual sales volume exceeds expected volumes, the manufacturer records a higher profit margin, but a lower volume can result in a loss These excess profits and losses are balanced over a range of models which exceed, or are below, sales targets for a given manufacturer The expected rate of return is set at 15 percent (real), which is higher than the normal rate of about 10 percent, and represents the risk-adjusted oligopoly rate of return IU.S Envkmllental Rotectl“on Agency, “cost Esthatl “on fm Emission Control Related Component@stems and Cost Methodology,” Report No 460/3-78402, 1978 297 The methodology uses a three-tier structure of cost allocation A specific component, such as a new piston or a turbocharger, is first manufactured by a supp lier companv, or by a division of the manufacturer that is an in-house supplier (e.g., Delco supplies GM with electrical components) The supplier part “cost” to the manufacturer has both variable and fixed components the variable cost is associated with materials, direct labor, and manufacturing overhead, and the pretax profit is calculated as a percentage of variable costs Fixed costs tooling and facilities expenses are based on amortizing investments undertaken before production and include the return on capital In-house and external suppliers are treated identically, so that RPEs are not affected by outsourcing decisions, which is consistent with the idea of a competitive marketplace for subassemblies The second cost tier is associated with vehicle assembly, where all of the components are brought together (for example, the stamping plant producing body sheet metal parts can be treated as a “supplier” for costing) Manufacturer overhead and pretax profit are applied to the components supplied to an assembly plant plus the assembly labor and overhead Fixed costs include the amortization of tooling, facilities, and engineering costs, and include return on capital The final tier leads to the retail price equivalent, and includes the markups associated with transportation, dealer inventory and marketing costs, and dealer profits Table B-1 summarizes the cost methodology, and all of the overheads and profits are specified as standard percentage rates applied to variable costs Amortizing fixed costs and applying them to individual vehicles requires estimates of: fixed-cost spending distribution over time, return on capital, annual production capacity, and amortization periods The fixed-cost spending occurs over five years before technology introduction in the marketplace, with most spending taking place in the two-year-period before launch The rate of return on capital is assumed to be 15 percent real (inflation adjusted), consistent with the normal project rate used by the automotive industry (using this rate, every dollar of total investment in a project has a net present value of $1.358 at launch) of 3Mwuf@re ova ~m~ t ~ 0.25, ~~~rm ~ofit to be 0.20, W on ibid., and auto hd~ sutiions to he U.S ~t of Transportation 4m1m -@ um~ ~ ~ 0-25, H on auto indq submissions to the U.S Dep*ent of T_~tion 5~m= ad ~~mm~ ~]ysi~ hc., “Documentation of tie Fuel ~nomY, p~~ and Price Irnpaet of Automotive Technology,” report prepared for the Oak Ridge National laboratory, Martin Marietta Energy S- July 1994 298 Plant capacity is 350,000 units a year, a “representative average” for automotive body-related technologies Atypical model lifecycle is eight years, with a “facelift” at the midpoint in a model’s product cycle; the appropriate period for amortization of engineering expenses related to the exterior design is four years Engine and drivetrain components usually have a longer lifecycle than vehicle platforms, ranging from to 10 years In general, there are no major changes during this period, so that cost recovery over an 8-year-period is appropriate Typical production capacity is 500,000 units a year for engines and transmission plants and designs Calculations to derive unit costs assume operation at 85 percent capacity Table B-2 shows the conversion method for deriving unit prices from variable and fixed costs for engine and drivetrain components It should be noted that the purpose of this analysis is not to derive the total cost, but the incremental cost, of a technology relative to the existing baseline technology The analysis, therefore, estimates the difference in variable costs and investment between a technology and the one it supersedes In this context, the choice is not between continuing production of an existing technology whose investment costs may have been fully amortized versus a new technology, but between a new model with baseline technology versus a new model with new technology This is a crucial difference that potentially accounts for the great differences between some very high estimates of technology RPE and estimates presented here The high estimates basically treat the fixed costs of the conventional vehicles as “sunk,” making the conventional vehicles a much greater bargain than vehicles with new technology This may be reasonable for the short term, but eventually manufacturers will have to redesign the conventional vehicles, including their powerplants, and the decision between conventional and new technology should then be based on the framework presented here 299 TABLE B-1: Costing Methodolo~ Tier I Supplier/Division Cost [Materials + Direct Labor+ Manufacturing Overhead] x [1 + Supplier Overhead+ Supplier Profit] + Tooling Expense+ Facilities Expense+ Engineering Expense Tier II Automanufacturer Cost Tier III Retail Price Equivalent Notes Supplier Overhead Supplier Profit Manufacturer Overhead Manufacturer Profit Dealer Margin [Supplier Cost + Assembly Labor+ Assembly Overhead] x [1 + Manufacturing Overhead+ Manufacturing Profit] + Engineering Expense+ Tooling Expense + Facilities Expense = Manufacturer Cost x Dealer Margin = = = = = 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.20 0.25 SOURCE: Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., “Automotive Technologies To Improve Fuel Economy to 2015,” report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, June 1995, p 9-5 300 TABLE B-2: Methodology to Convert Variable and Fixed Cost to RPE Supplier cost to manufacturers = A Total manufacturer investment in tooling, facilities, engineering, launch = B Unit cost of investment for drivetrain technology = ‘ B X 1.358 +(500,000X 0.85X 4.487) c Automanufacturer cost = D ● = R.PE D X 1.25 au~t ~Q for My tw~olo= = (B * 1.358)+(350,000x 0.85x 2.855) SOURCE: Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., “Automotive Technologies To Improve Fuel Economy to 2015,” report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, June 1995, p 9-8 301 ... 248 ANALYSIS OF ADVANCED AUTOMOTIVE R&D PROGRAMS 249 U.S Competitive Status in Advanced Automotive Technologies 249 ‘Leapfrog’’ Technologies ... conservative about when many of the advanced technologies will enter the marketplace Also, the history of market introductions of other technologies strongly implies that technologies will penetrate... 224 Chapter Advanced Automotive R&D Programs: An International Comparison AUTOMOTIVE R&D