Proceedings of the ASME 2008 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and

Information in Engineering Conference

IDETC/CIE 2008
August 3-6, 2008, Brooklyn, New York, USA

DETC2008-49722

THE DESIGN OF FUTURE CARS IN A NEW AGE OF ARCHITECTURAL COMPETITION

Carlos Gorbea∗ Ernst Fricke
BMW Group / Technische Universität München BMW Group
Udo Lindemann
Technische Universität München

“Yesterday’s automotive innovations have become today’s regulatory demands to reduce vehicle emissions. Future
innovation challenge and some of tomorrow’s more research lies in presenting a methodology for selecting vehicle
progressive ideas” – C. Gorbea architectures early on in the product development cycle that
are best suited for the market going forward based on a
Keywords: Architectural Innovation, Product Architecture manufacturer’s goals and a cost-benefit analysis.
Lifecycle, Architectural Competition
1. INTRODUCTION
ABSTRACT
The automotive industry has entered a new age of
This paper presents how complex system architecture
architectural competition where hybrid cars have emerged as
lifecycles, such as that of cars, follow a similar S-curve shaped
the first mass produced architectural challenge to the century
path as that of individual technological innovations. By
long dominance of the internal combustion engine car. Follow
applying this theory we show that today’s automotive industry
on architectures such as plug-in hybrids and electric cars are
has started a new chapter of architectural competition with
already being presented by automakers as upcoming solutions
similarities to its early history from 1885-1915 when steam,
towards meeting the increasingly stringent future emissions
electric and internal combustion engine cars were competing
laws being developed in the major auto markets worldwide.
to dominate the automotive market. Taking a historical
As an initial step in determining which architectures will be
perspective, we find that firms that organize their development
best suited for the future, we take a closer look at the history
activities to focus on bringing about architectural innovation
that has brought us up to this point. This paper presents that
are better placed in succeeding in the future market until a new
the architectural competition currently underway is very
dominant architecture emerges. The architecture lifecycle
similar to the era of architectural innovation of the early
framework used in this study is constructed by means of a
1900’s. Then as is now, firms that develop methodical ways to
performance index. The index scores the performance of 91
achieve architectural innovation will have the greatest
cars of various architectures based on five overall system
competitive advantage in the future market for automobiles.
variables: power, weight, maximum velocity, fuel efficiency
First, some basic definitions will develop a clear
and the manufacturer’s suggested retail price. Depicting
understanding of what is meant by the terms vehicle
architectural performance over time helps identify periods of
architecture, architectural competition, incremental innovation
architecture competition and dominance where historical
and architectural innovation. Next, an introduction to
agents to change can be identified. The key factors that
innovation lifecycle theory and a historic representation of
brought about architectural competition in the early 1900’s
vehicle architecture performance is presented. We use these
involved a series of innovation breakthroughs in engine and
results to develop an understanding of the current challenges
fuel technologies. Today, a new wave of power train
facing automakers as they look to compete on architecture.
innovations is being triggered primarily by environmental
Finally, we present the authors’ ongoing research on cost-
∗
Research associate and author of correspondence, Phone: +49-89-382-78718, Email: [email protected]

1 Copyright © 2008 BMW Group

used by ASME with permission
benefit relationships that will assist automakers in selecting new technology over time as a function of the performance
architecture concepts that best fit their customer’s needs. level offered [7]. The basic theory holds that the spread of
innovation occurs in 3 phases: early adoption, fast adoption
and saturation. Later, a fourth phase was added outside of the
2. DEFINITIONS basic model that describes a decline in adoption. Figure 1
Understanding the car to be a complex system, meaning shows a qualitative s-curve with the four basic stages.
one with multiple component subsystems, vehicle
architecture refers to the linking of vehicle sub-systems in a

Technology Performance
particular configuration to meet a set of desired functions the Fast
vehicle is to perform as a whole. In this paper, we classify Adoption
vehicle architecture by how a car is propelled. Examples of Decline
vehicle architectures include the internal combustion engine Saturation
car, the hybrid electric car, the electric car and the steam car to
name a few. Early
Architectural competition then refers to differentiating a Adoption
product from others in the market based on architecture.
During the early years of modern automotive history (1890-
1915), cars used to compete primarily on architecture. For
example, electric cars were marketed to female driver’s for
their ease of use and minimal maintenance, whereas internal
combustion engine and steam cars where attractive to male Time
drivers seeking power and speed. Figure 1 Innovation Lifecycle S-Curve
In this paper we apply Henderson and Clark’s typology
framework on innovation (radical, incremental architectural Critics of the S-Curve argue that the theory serves well as
and modular) to the automotive industry. The more important a mental model, but that innovation lifecycles are complex and
concepts of incremental and architectural innovation are subject to many exogenous variables not easily depicted. For
defined below as they apply to our study. example, the model fails to take into account that radical or
Architectural Innovation is the reconfiguration of an disruptive innovations might also strongly alter the shape of
established system in a new way [5]. The system in this case is the innovation diffusion across a population and might start
the car as a whole and the reconfiguration refers to how sub- new s-curves at higher performance levels. Finally, the model
systems made up of vehicle components are linked with each does not account for instances of path dependence that might
other to perform the car’s basic functions. For example, we lock in a certain innovation allowing it to dominate the market
consider the market introduction of the hybrid electric car in as is the case with the internal combustion engine car.
the late 1990’s an architectural innovation, as it presented a
new way to propel the car by using both an electric motor and
an internal combustion engine but keeping the core concepts 4. BUILDING A PERFORMANCE INDEX
The aim of this study is to use the innovation lifecycle
of a basic automobile.
theory commonly used for simple technological advancements
Incremental Innovation – also known as evolutionary
and apply it to system architectures in cars. The performance
innovation refers to the use of a current product as a starting
index created for this study is inspired from vehicle
point for the next generation car product that holds the same
performance measures found in today’s popular press.
architecture. Incremental innovation focuses on optimizing
However, such rating schemes combine both quantitative and
sub-systems by incorporating new technology [3]. This model
qualitative data using a variety of weighting schemes in their
of innovation has been the prevalent method used in the auto
assessments. In creating our own index to rate different
industry ever since the internal combustion engine achieved
market dominance around 1915. It was at this time that the architectures spanning over a century, we were constrained by
the amount of information that could be collected. For
assembly line process used by Ford for the Model-T
revolutionized the market by creating cars in large volumes at example, safety data from standardized crash testing goes back
only two decades, hence it is not a measure that can be
affordable prices.
considered in our case study.
The data collected was compiled from basic vehicle
3. INNOVATION LIFECYCLE THEORY specifications put together by museums, history books, and car
In developing a theory for how architecture lifecycles guides [1]. A database of 911 cars was collected on five basic
behave, we build upon technological innovation theory. parameters: overall power, curb weight, maximum velocity,
Everett Rodgers [8] was one of the first to use the basic form fuel consumption in miles per gallon and the manufacturer’s
of the S-curve in modelling the lifecycle of innovations. An suggested retail price. These parameters remain unweighted in
example of this class of function is the logistics growth our assessment as some parameters have had periods with
function: increased and decreased importance (ie. overall power was a
 1 + me − t / τ  key parameter in the 60´s yet today its focus has diminished).
P (t ) = a b −t / τ 
+c The data collected focuses particularly on passenger street cars
 1 + ne  (1) 1
The data set is presented in Appendix A. For each architecture type
Where a, b, c, m, n, and τ represent real parameters and (ICE, Steam, EV, Hybrid) figure 2 shows an average value for every year –
P(t) shows the fraction of the population that have adopted the not all 91 data points are shown.

2 Copyright © 2008 BMW Group

used by ASME with permission
produced in relatively large volumes. The performance index vehicle’s MPGe is a function of the maximum electric range
used is described by equation 2 below. the vehicle can achieve in miles and battery energy capacity

( ) ( )
with respect to a gallon of gasoline as shown in equation 3.
  P 
Architectural   − P +  Electric Range (mi )   33.56 kWh 
= ∑i  W i W min
( ) ( ) MPGeEV =   ×  
Performance Index  P − P   Battery Capacity ( kWh)   1 galGasoline 
  W max W min  (3)
Finally, the fourth category used is the manufacturer’s
 Vi − Vmin   MPGi − MPGmin 
  +   + suggested retail price (MSRP). Including a measure of price
 Vmax − Vmin   MPGmax − MPGmin  in the performance index allows awarding a higher score to
those architectures that provide the most performance per
  dollar spent. The data on price was adjusted for inflation by
 MSRPmax − MSRPi    converting all values to 2008 dollars using equation 4. The
  ÷4 
 MSRPmax − MSRPmin
inflation rate j used in the calculation was taken to be 3% as a
 in 2008US $   approximation of US inflation from 1885-2008 based on
 average values of the consumer price index fluctuations
(2)
recorded from 1914-Present by the Federal Bureau of Labour
The index is made up of four items that are measured in a
Statistics [9].
scale from 0 to 1. The sum is then normalized by 4 in order to
come up with an overall score that also lies between 0 and 1
for each car data point. The nomenclature in equation two with MSRP2008i = MSRPyear i × (1 + j ) ( 2008− year i )
max and min refers to the maximum or minimum value for the (4)
particular variable within the database. Each parameter with
the subscript i refer to the particular car considered in the
database shown in appendix A. So in order for a specific data 5. ARCHITECTURAL INNOVATIONS IN THE
point to receive a score of 1, it would have to beat all other AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY (1885-2008)
cars in the database in all four categories, likewise a score of 0 As a first step in understanding how automakers can best
requires that the car’s data is the worst in all categories. select car architectures in the future, we consider more than a
The first category comprises the overall power to weight century of automotive history. Figure 2 shows architecture
ratio. The power to weight ratio is proportional to the performance for automobiles between 1885 and 2008 and the
acceleration the car can achieve as well as its ability for hill cyclical nature of the market. Three basic periods have been
climbing. A high power to weight ratio is a measure of good identified: initial architectural competition, architectural
performance and should be maximized when possible. dominance of the internal combustion engine (ICE) and
The second category is maximum velocity. This measure renewed architectural competition.
is one that helps differentiate early cars from more modern The first time period (1885-1920) shows that three
cars in their performance. During the early years, velocity was different architectures -electric, steam and internal
a key factor that differentiated car architectures. Winning a combustion- where competing to dominate the market. At this
local race with a certain brand car during the weekend would early stage, automakers (large and small) innovated around the
result in increased sales during the subsequent months. This of basic structure of a car but with significantly different
course made racing a very attractive sport for major auto concepts. Hence, the market was exhibiting an age of
manufacturers. From 1885-1905, a top speed of 20mph in a architectural innovations where a variety of power train
city environment was considered plentiful as long distance elements linked in different ways where able to achieve the
driving was not possible due to a lack of a highway function of propelling the car.
infrastructure. In this speed range, architectural competition The second time period (1920-1998) shows a shake out
flourished amongst steam, electric and internal combustion in the market that allowed one architecture to dominate over
cars. Today most cars can comfortably achieve the 80mph all others - the ICE car. Because the entire market adopted this
velocity and can reach upwards of 150mph for sports cars. dominant architecture, the basic risk of not knowing which
The third category is the measure of fuel efficiency in architecture will prevail was completely eliminated. This
miles per gallon, a performance measure where clearly more is allowed manufacturers to focus on innovation at the sub-
better. Fuel consumption was, and still is, a definite measure system level as opposed to the overall system architecture
of car performance. The data on fuel consumption however is level [2].
somewhat tricky, as laws designating standard driving cycles Incremental innovation flourished during this time period.
for measuring fuel consumption did not come about until the The next generation cars developed exhibit changes only in
1970s. This means that the data collected prior to 1974 is more styling and advances in major sub-systems but keeps the same
an estimate than an agreed value. Furthermore, flexible fuel basic architecture concept. During this time of architectural
cars where taken into account by using a miles per gallon dominance, automakers pay little attention to other
equivalent (MPGe) measure. The MPGe measure normalizes architecture alternative power-trains and focus in generating
the energy content of various fuels to that of the energy core competencies that support the optimization of the
content in one gallon gasoline. For example, an electric dominant architecture.

3 Copyright © 2008 BMW Group

used by ASME with permission
 1

0,9

Increased regulatory requirements worldwide

0,8
particularly safety and emmisions controls
GM's EV-1 Electric Car ?
Architecture Performance Index.

0,7
?
0,6
Ford introduces the assembly line
reducing the price of ICE cars making
0,5 them afordable to a wider public ?

First HEV enters US market

0,4 Dominant Architecture
Internal Combustion Engine
New
0,3 Architectural
Competition

0,2
Architectural Competition
Steam cars increase in weight and price
0,1

0
1885 1901 1906 1915 1930 1948 1960 1968 1978 1990 1998 2006
Year

EV Hybrid ICE Steam Polynomisch (ICE)

Figure 2. Performance of various automotive architectures from 1885-2008

The current time period (1998-Present) shows a effect a new technology will have on the overall system will
renewed focus on vehicle architecture. The key historical depend on at which system level the technology being
event that marks the beginning of this new age is the re- implemented is found in. Figure 3 shows a qualitative picture
introduction of electric vehicles in the market and the first of how a shift in a new technology within a car’s component
mass produced hybrid electric cars. At the moment, some auto has a strong effect within its direct sub-system lifecycle but a
manufacturers are trying to shift their focus from incremental lesser effect on the overall system.
innovation to that of architectural innovation. The shift has not
come easy as most organizations have been structured around Overall Vehicle
the major subsystems within the automobile. Most auto
manufacturers have invested in developing their core
competencies in areas specific to the design of internal
combustion engine cars. Now, automakers that compete on Sub-System level
architecture are shifting to build competency in other areas
pertinent to fuel flexible architectures such as hybrid, fuel cell
and electric cars.
The shift towards architectural competition is significant
because it can place established firms in jeopardy of dying if
they are not able to adapt to the new competitive landscape Component Systems level
that is developing [5]. This was the case of most steam car
manufacturers during the 1920s that failed to adapt to market
changes. Firms that develop methodical ways to achieve Figure 3 The effect of technological innovation from
architectural innovations are considered to be better placed in component to the overall system
generating a competitive advantage over firms that stay the
course of incremental innovation in the future market for Take for example the introduction of a new fuel injection
automobiles. technology that allows for a more complete combustion within
6. ANALYSIS OF ARCHITECTURE LIFECYCLES the engine’s cylinder. This technology will have a great impact
In complex technological systems, each contributing sub- on the performance of the engine – its major sub-system - but
system or component technology finds itself in a different a more limited impact on the performance of the overall car’s
stage of maturity in their innovation life cycle [6]. The net architecture.

4 Copyright © 2008 BMW Group

used by ASME with permission
 According to the theory presented, once a dominant could provide the car enough starting pressure within one
architecture exists, incremental innovation methods will focus minute. However the systems added tremendous weight and
on integrating new technologies at the component level. This increased the overall price of the already low production series
allows firms to build expertise in sub-system integration and of cars. The steam car that had dominated since the 1780’s
optimization. In contrast, when architectural competition takes eventually disappeared completely from the market by 1930.
place, technological innovation occurs at both the component
level and sub-system level having a more direct impact on the
overall system performance. Architectural innovation methods 8. TODAY’S COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE
are more suited for this type of competition as the firm must Today’s architectural competition is triggered by a
manage innovation at all levels of the product’s system. different set of factors to those a century ago. Increasing
operation costs of cars; heavy societal consideration for
environmental issues; and more stringent emission control
7. A LOOK AT THE PAST laws in leading automotive markets are all factors that have
What factors triggered architectural competition and led to the re-introduction of hybrid electric and electric cars in
dominance? During the first time period (1885-1915), steam the market.
was clearly the dominant architecture in the automotive sector Currently, the ICE car still enjoys a comfortable dominant
with its origins dating back to the late 1780’s. The shift position. Although hybrids are increasing their numbers year
towards architectural competition was triggered primarily by a to year and electric vehicles (EVs) are just now entering the
series of new technological breakthroughs that sought to market in target cities, alternative fuel vehicles make up less
improve on one of the main weaknesses of steam power; the than 2% of the world automotive market [10].
dependence on water availability. The first uses for the The dominance of ICE cars can only be challenged by
resulting internal combustion engine and the electric motor at new architectures that offer increased overall benefit to the
the time focused on solutions for the rail and electric power customer. The last ten years in figure 2, show that hybrids and
generation markets, before they entered into the nascent electric vehicles are still at a slight disadvantage to average
automotive industry. ICE cars. This is primarily due to the increased cost and
As competition grew amongst steam, electric and internal weight hybrids and EVs entail. For example, the hybrid drive
combustion engine cars, price and quality advantages became incorporates components such as electric motors and high
more acute. Steam cars exhibited high pricing and offered the voltage batteries in addition to the ICE power train. At the
ability to quickly accelerate achieving 0-40 mph in less than moment, the only major advantages gasoline-hybrids provide
10 seconds, due to the fact that the highest power and torque are improved fuel economy and slightly better acceleration
in a steam engine occurs when the vehicle starts from rest. over most gasoline cars. However, this comes at the expense
However, early steam models could not go more than two of increased weight, reduced luggage volume space and a
miles without replenishing their water tank and took more than reasonably higher purchase price to the customer.
20 minutes to start the boiler and build up enough pressure to Even the more fuel efficient gasoline-hybrids today offer
drive. comparable fuel economy to diesel ICE cars at a notable price
The early electric car exhibited comparable pricing to a premium. This might explain why the European market has
steam car and required an electric power source – found not been as receptive to the introduction of gasoline-hybrids as
mostly in major cities. It was limited in range to less than 40 much as in the US markets where diesel cars are hardly
miles per charge and no more than 20mph in velocity by its available to the customer.
battery and electric motor. However, its key advantages Companies such as the BMW Group have already taken a
remained that it was simple to drive with no complicated customer focus in developing cars in this new age of
shifting mechanisms and provided essentially no maintenance architectural competition. BMW’s “EfficientDynamics”
or uncomfortable emissions. strategy focuses in providing its customers cars with the
Early performance of the ICE car was in par with electric greatest efficiency without compromising performance. Table
cars but inferior to that of steam cars. Steam proponents would 1 shows statistics that offer a comparison between Toyota and
often call it “internal explosion engine” to communicate a Lexus hybrid models and BMW/MINI diesel cars offered for
negative feeling that the ICE car was less safe than the proven the 2008 European market [11]2.
steam car. Although starting the engine was achieved in less The BMW diesel cars in table 1 ranging from the upper
than a couple of minutes with the ICE, many motorists middle class to the compact class are often referred to as
suffered from injuries in starting the vehicle with the external “micro-hybrids”, as they include the motor-start-stop
hand crank – a real safety issue. functionality found in all hybrid cars. This function allows the
The dominance of the internal combustion engine came car to turn off the engine when the car is and quickly start the
only after two key events: first, the dramatic decrease in price engine before the driver applies the gas pedal idling -for
achieved through assembly line production of ICE cars and example while the car is stopped at a traffic light. In city
second, the development of the electric starter. The price and driving conditions, this function produces a notable reduction
quality improvements to the ICE car made it affordable to the in fuel consumption as the engine operates only when it is
masses and comparably a better solution to all other necessary. Because micro-hybrids have no high voltage
architectures in the market by 1920. battery or electric motors built in, they are unable to drive in
Steam cars built from 1920-1930 remained a high end
market product. Significant improvements were introduced to 2
compete with ICE cars such as the integration of a condenser Data shown in table 1 is taken from Auto Motor Sport a leading
automotive magazine in Europe. The fuel consumption figures are based on
to recycle the use of water and a spark ignition starter that the European Union regulatory cycle.

5 Copyright © 2008 BMW Group

used by ASME with permission
an all-electric mode. The lack of these components make these During architectural dominance, incremental (or
“EfficientDynamics” vehicles less expensive than gasoline- evolutionary) innovation has proven to be a successful
hybrids and offer comparable or better fuel economy, CO2 development strategy. OEMs focus on core competencies
emissions, and more luggage space. needed to produce the dominant architecture and the
continuous development of key component systems.
Table 1 Comparison of BMW/MINI diesel models and Architectural innovation (auto industry during 1895-1915 and
Toyota/Lexus Gasoline-hybrid models [11] 1998-Present) forces OEMs to focus on the overall vehicle
architecture and the new linkage of sub-systems within the car
2008 CO2 Power Fuel Vmax 0-100 MSRP in addition to key component development.
Model (g/km) (HP) Cons. (kmh) kmh (€) 3. Architecture lifecycles encompass many components
(l/100km)
(s) with different levels of maturity in their lifecycle. An
Luxury Class improvement at the component level might have a strong
BMW effect in improving the performance of a subsystem but little
730d 210 231 7.9 238 8.0 66,500 effect on the overall system. System architecture lifecycles can
also be modelled using the S-curve framework.
Lexus 4. Architectural competition brings in a new element of
LS 219 394 9.2 250 6.3 99,850 risk – Architectural risk. This is the risk that a particular
600h architecture platform will prevail in the future. Hence, a risk
Upper Middle Class Luxury Cars exists that the architecture an OEM has invested in will not
BMW dominate or capture enough market share in the future.
136 177 5.1 223 8.3 37,900 5. Automakers that focus their product development
520d
Lexus activities on new or upcoming architectural competition can
184 254 7.9 250 5.9 58,650 create competitive advantages over firms that continue on a
450h
Middle Class path solely based on incremental innovation.
BMW 6. Today’s gasoline hybrid vehicles have not yet
128 177 4.8 230 7.9 32,700 surpassed ICE cars in terms of overall performance. Diesel
320d
power trains with limited hybrid functions such as the “motor-
Lower Middle Class
start-stop” function offer customers comparable or superior
Toyota
104 78 4.5 170 10.9 24,900 benefit over gasoline-hybrids. However, as battery technology
Prius
and pricing of hybrid power train components improve
BMW
119 143 4.5 210 8.9 29,950 hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles will become
118d
more attractive.
Compact 7. The use of performance indexes can serve as a useful
MINI tool in showing trends in architecture development. These
Cooper 104 110 3.9 195 9.9 19,900 trends can help firms judge where they stand in maintaining a
Diesel Quality-Cost-Delivery (QCD) [12] advantage over the
competition.
The data above shows that gasoline-hybrids are not
always the most “ecological” or “economical” solution.
However, as hybrid systems are further developed, battery 10. FUTURE RESEARCH
technology is improved, and prices improve through Future research concentrates in going forward and
economies of scale effects, there is ample potential for predicting which vehicle architectures have a better chance to
improvement and future growth of hybrid technologies. These succeed based on both performance and cost. The research
first advances will undoubtedly have a positive impact in the requires developing a clear understanding of the competing
development of battery electric vehicles and other flexible fuel architectures and the use of simulation models to judge overall
architectures. cost and performance. The methodology aims at building a
Pareto frontier that identifies architectures that provide the
greatest benefit to cost ratio. It is these set of architectures that
9. CONCLUSION can be expected to have a better chance for success.
Taking a close look at automotive innovation history can
serve useful in learning lessons that apply to the new
competitive landscape the auto industry is currently engaged
in. This paper builds on basic innovation lifecycle theory to
create a more quantitative look at how vehicle architectures
have evolved through time.
The key points of this paper can be summarized as
follows.
1. The automotive industry has entered a new stage of
architectural competition.
2. Effective product development strategies differ
considerably during times of architectural dominance and
competition.

6 Copyright © 2008 BMW Group

used by ASME with permission
REFERENCES
[1] Automotive database for analysis is taken from
www.conceptcarz.com, “Automobile information,
history, and statistics from concept to production” 2007
[2] Crawley E., et al., “Engineering Systems Monograph:
The influence of Architecture in Engineering Systems”
The ESD Architecture committee, MIT, 2004
[3] Gausmeier, J. et al., “Planung der Produkte und
Fertigungssysteme für die Märkte von Morgen”, VDMA
Frankfurt, 2004
[4] Gawer A. and Cusumano M., “How Companies Become
Platform Leaders” MIT Sloan Management Review
OnlineExclusive,http://sloanreview.mit.edu/smr/issue/20
08/winter/01, 2007
[5] Henderson R. and. Clark K, “Architectural Innovation:
The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies
and the Failure of Established Firms” Administrative
Science Quarterly 35(1):9-30, 1990
[6] Schulz A., Clausing D., Fricke E., Negele H.,
“Development and Integration of Winning Technologies
as a key to competitive advantage”, Systems Engineering
– The Journal of INCOSE, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp.180-
211, 2000
[7] Smaling R.., de Weck O., “Assessing Risks and
Opportunities of Technology Infusion in System
Design”, Systems Engineering, 10 (1): 2007
[8] Rogers, E., “Diffusion of Innovations”, Fifth Edition.
New York, NY: Free Press. 2003
[9] www.bls.com, US Department of Labor, Bureau for
Labor Statistics – Information used as a basis of 3%
inflation rate selection
[10] Gorbea C., Fricke E., Lindemann U., “Pre-Selection of
Hybrid Electric Vehicle Architectures during the Initial
Design Phases”, Procedings of the 9th International
Design Structure Matrix Conference -DSM ’07, pp 225-
234, October 2007
[11] www.auto-motor-und-sport.de, “Top Ten: CO2-Emission
nach Klassen”, stand: März 2008
[12] Clausing D., Campbell R., “Valuing System Engineering:
The Enterprise QCD Approach”, 18th International
Symposium of INCOSE, 6th Biennial European Systems
Engineering Conference, Feb 2008

7 Copyright © 2008 BMW Group

used by ASME with permission
APPENDIX A – PERFORMANCE INDEX DATA

Nominal Real Power to

Architec- Weight Power Vmax Performance
Year Make Model MSRP MSRP Weight MPGe
ture (lbs) (HP) (mph) Index Score
($) (2008 $) (hp/lbs)
ICE 1885 Benz Motorwagen 400 15172 400 0,8 0,0020 8 5 0,23
ICE 1896 Burnard Jartfer Quadricycle 200 5480 500 4 0,0080 8 4 0,27
ICE 1896 Ford Quadracycle 450 12331 410 4 0,0098 18 4 0,28
ICE 1897 Panhard ET Levassor 1130 30061 520 4 0,0077 15 4 0,23
Motor Carriage
ICE 1899 Winton 1000 25076 500 6 0,0120 15 4 0,25
Phanteon
Steam 1899 Locomobile Stanhope Style I 600 15046 640 2 0,0031 20 8 0,27
Steam 1900 Stanley Runabout 750 18259 640 2 0,0031 20 10 0,26
ICE 1900 Benz Duc vis-à-vis Victoria 1050 25563 600 6 0,0100 15 8 0,25
ICE 1901 Packard Model C Runabout 1500 35455 700 12 0,0171 15 8 0,25
ICE 1901 Oldsmobile Surrey 2200 52000 435 6 0,0138 15 15 0,21
ICE 1901 Knox Model A Runabout 485 11464 600 10 0,0167 35 8 0,35
Foster
Steam 1901 Steam Wagon 1200 28364 1285 6 0,0047 59 12 0,32
Artzberger
Steam 1902 White B Stanhope 1200 27538 1285 6 0,0047 30 12 0,27
EV 1902 Studebaker Runabout 1200 27538 1350 10 0,0074 13 35 0,28
ICE 1902 Rambler Model C 750 17211 1100 6 0,0055 20 8 0,27
ICE 1903 Ford Model A 700 15596 1240 8 0,0065 45 12 0,33
Columbia
EV 1903 Mark LX Runabout 1200 26736 1200 1 0,0008 14 40 0,27
Electric
EV 1903 Baker Electric Runabout 850 18938 1400 0,75 0,0005 14 55 0,31
Steam 1904 Stanley Spindle-seat runabout 1500 32446 700 8 0,0114 45 7 0,30
EV 1904 Baker Electric Stanhope 1600 34609 1500 1,75 0,0012 20 55 0,29
Model R Curved Dash
ICE 1904 Oldsmobile 650 14060 1100 4 0,0036 24 7 0,28
Runabout
EV 1904 Baker Electric Newport Electric 1500 32446 1100 0,75 0,0007 15 55 0,28
ICE 1905 Ford Model C 1240 26041 850 10 0,0118 25 12 0,28
Steam 1906 Stanley F-Touring 1500 30584 1700 20 0,0118 65 6 0,34
ICE 1907 Ford Model K 2800 55427 2000 40 0,0200 45 8 0,27
Steamer Model K Semi
Steam 1908 Stanley 1800 34594 1500 30 0,0200 65 8 0,36
Racer
ICE 1908 Ford Model N 500 9609 1400 15 0,0107 45 15 0,36
ICE 1910 Ford Model T 850 15398 1540 20 0,0130 40 16 0,35
Steam 1911 Stanley 85-Touring 2200 38693 3000 30 0,0100 80 8 0,35
EV 1911 Baker Electric 2300 40452 800 2 0,0025 20 55 0,28
Mountain Wagon
Steam 1915 Stanley 2700 42192 3200 30 0,0094 85 12 0,36
Condensing
ICE 1915 Ford Model T 470 7344 1540 22 0,0143 45 17 0,38
EV 1915 Detroit Electric Brougham 3000 46880 950 2 0,0021 20 55 0,26
Steam 1920 Stanley 735D - Sedan 6700 90313 4450 20 0,0045 80 10 0,22
ICE 1920 Mercer Series 5 4675 63017 2800 40 0,0143 75 10 0,30
ICE 1922 Dodge Series I 985 12515 2450 35 0,0143 60 12 0,39
Steam 1923 Doble Model E 9000 111021 5000 30 0,0060 95 13 0,21
ICE 1928 Ford Model A 570 6065 2375 40 0,0168 75 13 0,45
Steam 1930 Doble Model F 9500 95286 3500 30 0,0086 90 13 0,24
ICE 1935 Ford Model 48 700 6056 2643 85 0,0322 80 13 0,51
ICE 1937 Oldsmobile L-37 925 7544 3396 110 0,0324 85 9 0,51
ICE 1941 Oldsmobile 98 1505 10905 3790 110 0,0290 85 9 0,49
ICE 1946 Packard clipper deluxe Eight 1817 11357 3625 165 0,0455 85 9 0,54
ICE 1948 Oldsmobile 66 2730 16084 3940 100 0,0254 85 11 0,47
ICE 1950 Mercury Roadster 1980 10996 3320 110 0,0331 86 12 0,51
ICE 1952 BMW 501 3000 15704 2955 65 0,0220 86 14 0,47

8 Copyright © 2008 BMW Group

used by ASME with permission
 Nominal Real Power to
Architec- Weight Power Vmax Performance
Year Make Model MSRP MSRP Weight MPGe
ture (lbs) (HP) (mph) Index Score
($) (2008 $) (hp/lbs)
ICE 1954 Sunbeam Talbot 90 2899 14304 2856 70 0,0245 93 20 0,50
ICE 1955 Austin Healey 100M 3275 15689 1955 110 0,0563 109 22 0,63
ICE 1960 MG A 2450 10124 1900 80 0,0421 100 25 0,59
ICE 1960 Lincoln Continental Mark V 6850 28306 5150 160 0,0311 109 7 0,50
ICE 1962 Dodge Dart 2241 8729 2970 130 0,0438 100 11 0,58
ICE 1965 Austin MINI CooperS 2350 8377 1400 78 0,0557 100 28 0,64
ICE 1966 BMW 1800 3230 11178 2400 90 0,0375 100 21 0,57
ICE 1967 Volkswagen karmann-Ghia 2250 7560 1786 53 0,0297 82 21 0,51
ICE 1968 Datsun PL510 1996 6511 2010 96 0,0478 100 25 0,62
ICE 1969 Volkswagen Beetle 1500 1800 5701 1742 53 0,0304 82 25 0,53
ICE 1972 Dodge Challenger 2790 8086 3070 110 0,0358 120 9 0,59
ICE 1976 BMW 2002 6855 17652 2403 98 0,0408 118 25 0,60
ICE 1976 Buick LeSabre 4747 12224 4170 110 0,0264 90 8 0,49
ICE 1977 Buick Regal 4710 11775 3550 105 0,0296 98 9 0,52
ICE 1978 Mercury Cougar XR7 5025 12197 3761 134 0,0356 120 10 0,58
ICE 1982 BMW 323i 13290 28661 2500 143 0,0572 119 20 0,62
ICE 1984 Mazda RX7 10195 20724 2345 101 0,0431 130 22 0,62
ICE 1985 Pontiac Fiero SE 9000 17762 2790 92 0,0330 103 28 0,55
ICE 1987 BMW 325i 26990 50209 2813 168 0,0597 120 24 0,59
ICE 1990 Nissan 300ZX 29100 49541 3300 222 0,0673 125 21 0,62
ICE 1990 Toyota Celica 12698 21617 2500 200 0,0800 110 23 0,70
ICE 1991 Ford Explorer 2WD 16375 27065 3700 155 0,0419 85 14 0,50
ICE 1992 Mitsubishi Eclipse 10860 17427 2680 92 0,0343 105 23 0,55
ICE 1993 Honda Civic 9400 14645 2120 102 0,0481 120 25 0,64
ICE 1993 BMW 325i 29650 46194 3020 189 0,0626 124 25 0,62
ICE 1995 Ford Mustang 14330 21044 3075 145 0,0472 131 22 0,64
ICE 1998 Toyota Rav4 16768 22535 2700 120 0,0444 100 21 0,56
ICE 1999 Hyundai Accent 9100 11873 2090 92 0,0440 90 23 0,57
EV 1999 GM EV-1 33995 44356 2970 137 0,0461 80 101 0,60
ICE 1999 Oldsmobile Cutlass 19800 25835 3080 150 0,0487 100 18 0,56
Hybrid 1999 Toyota Prius 19995 26089 2765 70 0,0253 100 50 0,54
ICE 2000 Chevrolet Metro 10610 13440 1940 79 0,0407 100 44 0,61
Hybrid 2004 Toyota Prius 19995 22505 2855 70 0,0245 100 55 0,55
ICE 2005 Ford Escape 19265 21051 3333 153 0,0459 105 26 0,59
ICE 2006 Honda Civic 14360 15235 2593 140 0,0540 120 35 0,67
Hybrid 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid 21850 23181 2875 110 0,0383 120 50 0,63
ICE 2006 Honda Accord 18225 19335 3056 244 0,0798 110 30 0,71
EV 2006 Th!nk City 34300 36389 2075 27 0,0130 56 155 0,55
ICE 2007 Honda CRV 20395 21007 3428 156 0,0455 120 28 0,62
Hybrid 2007 Ford Escape 26365 27156 3594 133 0,0370 105 30 0,55
EV 2007 Reva Gwiz 17613 18141 1466 18 0,0123 50 166 0,59
ICE 2008 Toyota Camry 19620 19620 3307 158 0,0478 120 23,5 0,62
Hybrid 2008 Toyota Camry Hybrid 25200 25200 3680 147 0,0399 120 33 0,60
Hybrid 2008 Toyota Prius 21950 21950 2932 76 0,0259 100 55 0,56
EV 2008 Smart For Two 56000 56000 1609 41 0,0255 70 134 0,54

9 Copyright © 2008 BMW Group

used by ASME with permission