evaluation of alternative materials for biw design
DESCRIPTION
Evaluation of Alternative Materials for BIW Design. Stephanie Dalquist Seward Matwick Bill Nickerson 8 April 2002. Mercedes-Benz Strategy. Provide the world’s best high-end automobiles Maintain industry leadership in technology and design - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Evaluation of Alternative Materials for BIW Design
Stephanie Dalquist
Seward Matwick
Bill Nickerson
8 April 2002
Mercedes-Benz Strategy
• Provide the world’s best high-end automobiles
• Maintain industry leadership in technology and design
• Maximize profits while delivering consumer and environmental benefits
Motivations for Change
• Maintain profitability• Meet environmental mandates
– Recycling laws– Fuel efficiency
• Balance the competing mandates while still achieving profitability– Increased fuel efficiency leads to decreased
recyclability
Body In Weight Design Proposal• Production volume: 50,000 per year• Materials Selection:
– Aluminum Roof– Steel Quarter Panel Inner– SMC Quarter Panel Outer– Aluminum Floor
Base Case Comparison
New Design DifferenceTotal Weight 2685.6 lbs -425.4 lbsBIW Cost $2128 -$221Mileage 23.1 MPG +1.5 MPGRecyclable Material 66.2% -3.4%
BIW Cost vs. Vehicle Weight
260026502700275028002850290029503000305031003150
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
BIW Cost ($)
Vehi
cle
Wei
ght (
lbs)
Vehicle Weight vs. Fuel Efficiency
21.4021.6021.8022.0022.2022.4022.6022.8023.0023.2023.40
2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100
Vehicle Weight (lbs)
Fuel
Effi
cien
cy (m
pg)
Fuel Efficiency vs. Recyclability
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
21.5 22.0 22.5 23.0 23.5
Fuel Efficiency (MPG)
Rec
ycla
bilit
y (%
)
Sensitivity Analysis: Production Volume
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51
Materials Selection Case #
BIW
Cos
t ($) 40K/yr
50K/yr80K/yr
Sensitivity Analysis: Al Prices
16001800200022002400260028003000320034003600
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51
Materials Selection Case #
BIW
Cos
t ($)
Al at $1.10Al at $1.50Al at $1.75
Design Conclusions
• Increased fuel efficiency with a slight reduction in recyclability
• Robust results protect company from the unexpected
• Maintains profitability• Preserves technological edge
ExtrasChange in Profit with Changing Al Prices
-1000-750-500-250
0250500750
10001250
1 6 11 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 51
Materials Selection Case #
Chan
ge in
Pro
fit p
er
Vehi
cle
($)
Al at $1.10Al at $1.50Al at $1.75
Extras
Changes to Yearly Profits with Production Volume
-6.E+07
-4.E+07
-2.E+07
0.E+00
2.E+07
4.E+07
6.E+07
1 6 11 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 51
Materials Selection Case #
Chan
ge to
Yea
rly P
rofit
40K/yr50K/yr60k/yr
ExtrasRecycle % and Change in Profit
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
Recycle %
Chan
ge in
Pro
fit p
er
Vehi
cle
($)
Extras
Recycling Percentages by Case
596061626364656667686970
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51
Materials Selection Case #
Perc
ent R
ecyc
led
Thoughts
• Revamp current recycling/fuel efficiency laws– Counterproductive– Provide Mercedes-Benz with a clearer objectives
• Require a standardized way to calculate recycling percentages– Expectations too high for total car– Reasonable for body in white