New greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for cars and light trucks are taking effect for model year 2017, progressing towards an anticipated sales-weighted average level of 173 g/mile C0 2 for model year 2025, and fuel economy standards increasing each year to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) target of 51.4 mpg fleet-wide by 2025 (for a projected vehicle sales mix). As a result, vehicle manufacturers are looking for solutions that can meet these goals without sacrificing marketable vehicle attributes (Nehuis et al., 2014;U.S. EPA, 2012aU.S. EPA, , 2014. Reducing mass enables vehicles to operate more efficiently during the use phase because energy demands (e.g., acceleration, rolling friction) on the powertrain are reduced. This reduction in mass can have major benefits on the total life-cycle impacts of vehicles because the current use phase accounts for 84-88% of the total life-cycle energy consumption and GFIG emissions for conventional light-duty vehicles. Comparatively, the manufacturing contributes approximately 4-7% of the energy consumption over the life of a light-duty vehicle (Keoleian and Sullivan, 2012;Mcauley, 2003; Sullivan and Cobas-Flores, 2001; Sullivan et al., 1998). Because of this dominant contribution of impacts from the use phase, mass reduction efforts and other use-phase efficiency measures provide an effective means to reduce the total life-cycle impacts. Flowever, the share of life-cycle impacts between the production and use phase for vehicles is likely to shift away from the use phase with increasing efficiency and with reduced light-duty vehicle GFIG emissions standards, as shown in the example comparison in Fig. 1

The United States Environmental Protection Agency contracted with FEV North America, Inc. to conduct a whole vehicle analysis of the potential for mass reduction and related cost impacts for a future light-duty pickup truck. The goal was to evaluate the incremental costs of reducing vehicle mass on a body on frame vehicle at levels that are feasible in the 2020 to 2025 model year (MY) timeframe given the design, material, and manufacturing processes likely to be available, without sacrificing utility, performance, or safety. The holistic, vehicle-level approach and body-structure CAE modeling that were demonstrated in a previous study of a mid-sized crossover utility vehicle were used for this study. In addition, evaluations of closures performance, durability, and vehicle dynamics that are unique to pickup trucks are included. Secondary mass reduction was also analyzed on a part by part basis with consideration of vehicle performance requirements. This paper presents an overview of the study "Vehicle Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis-Light-duty Pickup Truck Model Years 2020-2025", by FEV North America, Inc. This study indicates that when mass reduction strategies are considered using a full-vehicle approach, significant mass reduction can be achieved relative to a 2011 light-duty pickup while maintaining vehicle functional objectives. The incremental results are assembled into a curve for mass reduction costs (in $/kg), as a function of the vehicle mass reduction level. Results from the study show that relative to the baseline vehicle (2011MY), mass reduction levels below 9% can result in a cost savings (cumulative net incremental direct manufacturing costs) with cumulative costs increasing to $4.36/kg, or $2,228 per vehicle, at 21.4% (510.9 kg) mass reduction.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract