Time to market for automotive products that fit the market requirement is crucial. We take a two pronged approach to Product Planning and Target Setting –
- Competitor Benchmarking – Gap Analysis – Target Setting and Cascading
- Competitor Teardown – Raw Material and Process Cost Mapping – Vehicle, Assembly and Component Level weight and cost targets.
Performance and Attribute Benchmarking
We benchmark cars and trucks on more than 70 engineering parameters under various driving conditions. Click here for detailed list of parameters.
Gap Analysis and Vehicle Level Target Setting
Detailed vehicle level performance and attribute benchmark data helps you in assessing competitor vehicles. Gap analysis on various parameters between your products and competitor helps in setting engineering targets relevant to your business strategy.
Our on demand advanced benchmarking data and target cascading to sub system level helps you in doing a deep dive to set up performance targets for every sub-system. This ensures that vehicle level targets are met with minimal re-engineering at the end of development cycle.
Market Trend Identification and Competitor Strategy Analysis
Our large benchmark database contains deep insights of over 50 cars. This enables us to draw industry trends and product attribute leadership and product placement strategy for every segment as well as each manufacturer. Click here to read our blog on B+ Segment Car trends and overall manufacturer strategy.
Click here to read the full blog on our analysis of B Segment cars in Indian market.
ASI’s Passenger Car Attribute Benchmark Database
Our database contains over 50 cars and is regularly updated. Its most comprehensive and updated database of its kind in the world giving you instant insight into the market and competitor’s performance. Contact us on email@example.com to know more about the vehicles already in database and update schedules.
Teardown & Cost Modelling
In order to ensure that the developed vehicle meets the cost targets, we do detailed tear down on your target vehicles to map upto 20 parameters capturing vehicle level complexity, raw material cost, process cost, supplier information and sourcing channels. This helps us in setting weight, complexity and process targets to ensure that on vehicle, assembly and component level, your new product is cost competitive from day one.
Please click here to know more about teardown services.
Snippet from our Teardown and Cost Model Report Comparing Powertrain of Two Cars
Using data analytics and logic filters, comparative study of on each subsystem was done to predict the design philosophy, for cost reduction ideas. Please note: All the values mentioned are for purpose of representation only.
- Raw Material cost shares 40-70 % of the total part cost.
- Calculating (assuming Raw Material rates from ASI sources), out of Car A & Car B the Raw Material cost is high for Car A by 5.5% approx.
- Usage of plastic is more in Car A due to Plastic engine cover & Plastic attachment for gear selector mechanism.
- Weight difference b/w Car A & Car B is due to the usage of steel (Car A uses 10 Kg more steel than Car B)
- Steel Oil sump is large in case of Car A, in Car B crankcase acts as the oil sump (Hence a larger crank case is used in Car B, this leads to higher usage of aluminium for Car B)
- Overall no of parts used in Car A is 32% more than Car B.
- Considering the cost of complexity, it is quite evident that cost of assembling Car A powertrain & cooling system is more than Car B.
- Example: Car B has a single piece differential housing associated with final drive gear unlike Car A where Housing & final drive gear are connected using 10 screws. (Assembly Time + Cost will be high for Car A)
Weight and Manufacturing Process Targets
- Total weight Target for Engine, Transmission and Engine cooling at the System Level “ Less than or Equal to 136 kgs“
- Can be Achieved by:
- Reduction of Steel as Raw Material in the entire design Philosophy by approximately : 10 -12 kgs
- Reduction of Overall no. of parts by 20-25% to reduce Assembly cost
- Use of Less Expensive Manufacturing process:
- Example- Sheetmetal Fuel tank, instead of injection moulded Plastic tank, as the weight penalty is less than the cost implications of Injection moulding
- Design Inputs to achieve this:
- Example – Usage of separate Oil-sump rather than integrating it with the crank case
- Example – Instead of using a separate Final Drive Gear which is bolted using 10 bolts, ASI suggested to use integrated single piece FDG, so that complexity cost reduces as no assembly is required, although machining becomes more complex.
Contact us on firstname.lastname@example.org to know more about the our performance and cost target setting solutions and relevant case studies.