How Much Can Automakers Save?

John Wolz

Emhart Fastening Teknologies spent an estimated $10,000 of engineering time to reduce the fasteners in a new model of a pickup truck. The results save 95 cents per truck.
When an automaker is producing 1 million trucks a year the 95 cents add up to $950,000 in savings, Gustafson pointed out.
Emhart president Paul Gustafson offered two examples of savings for a 1998 compact car produced in North America.
Example #1: Saving $180,000
The previous annual cost for producing rear axle plates for the half million vehicles was calculated at $230,000. The new fastening method would be $50,000. The savings is $180,000.
Previous fastening: �Large metal plates are welded at the point where the trailing axle and the trailing arms meet. Each plate has various components mounted to it. Both plates have one brake line isolator clip, and the passenger side plate has an emergency brake line isolator clip mounted on it.�
New fastening method: Attach the bracket by drawn arc welding (�Weldfast�) instead of resistance weld. When using this attachment method it is possible to reduce material cost by eliminating the spot welds and reducing the size of the bracket. The Weldfast system can be mounted to the end of a robot for a repeatable pick and place system. The $180,000 investment estimate includes both a Weldfast system and a robot.
Substantial weight savings would also be possible by implementing this proposal. In addition, the elimination of the torque requirement is an ergonomic enhancement.
Example #2: Saving $150,000
The previous annual cost for producing ABS sensor wire routing for the half million vehicles was calculated at $240,000. The new fastening method would be $90,000. The savings is $150,000.
Previous fastening: ABS wire is held in place and protected by means of a plastic tube that runs the length of the trailing axle. Plastic tube is secured to the trailing axle by means of three push pin retainers.
New fastening method: T5 type drawn arc weld studs would be welded at the axle source at the routing locations. Plastic clips designed for the stud type would be shipped to the electrical supplier and attached either mechanically or by tape. The electrical conduit assembly would then be simply pushed over the studs at the proper routing locations.
Gustafson told FIN the concept is simple: �Fewer parts generally make it less expensive.�
Toyota, which featured the Emhart process in its annual report, �would like to reduce fasteners by 10% per project,� he revealed. �That is not an expressed goal,� he clarified.
So Emhart formed a joint engineering team with design and production engineers, marketing staff and business managers from both sides to study plans for an entirely new vehicle.
They weren�t looking just to cutting the total number of fasteners. Even just reducing the variety of fasteners can cut costs. �Fewer SKUs mean less inventory,� Gustafson pointed out.
DaimlerChrysler approached Emhart because SUV sales were cutting into the minivan market and they wanted to cut production costs to make their vehicle more competitive. Together they did a complete teardown of a minivan. Eliminating some fasteners in minivans with a more efficient production process could yield millions of dollars in savings.
Part of the change is due to increasing modular construction, Gustafson noted.
It is not just automakers. Emhart has formed a joint team with John Deere to streamline the assembly process for a new tractor.
However, any change requires the fasteners still to perform. �None of this supplants good engineering and testing. Labor, time, money saved must be in the context of integrity of the joint,� Gustafson said. Fastening systems must meet or exceed requirements and be able to pass crash testing.