Fuel Economy & Emissions Testing Costs (for manufacturers)

[Snuze]

Does any one have an idea of what it costs an automotive manufacturer to perform emissions testing and fuel economy testing for EPA certification?

A bunch of dumb nerds on the Camaro forum are losing their shit over a rumor that GM is going to put the LT2 in the Camaro for 2023 and 2024 (probably its last years as an ICE, before the name is brought back on an electric crossover).

BuT tHe Lt2 iS a MiD eNgInE! iT wOnT fIt!!!

This is what everyone keeps yelling. But what literally 4 pages of GM fanbois fail to understand is the LT1 and LT2 are from the same engine family. The LT2 block may be a different block casting for mid-mounting, but it uses the same crank, rods, pistons, and cylinder heads. The differences really are just in the intake & exhaust manifolds, camshaft, and tuning. Heck, some intrepid folks have already modified LT2 intakes to fit LT1s (the mods are really just rerouting vacuum lines and the airbox connection) and that alone is a 25 HP boost.

My contention is that GM, if they were to do this, would build an "LT1.5" - an LT1 engine with the LT2 cam, intake, and vehicle specific tuning and its basically the same thing. But that amount of change would require EPA recertification for emissions and fuel economy. I know there are a lot of smart people on Oppo, and some people who have worked for manufacturers, so does anyone have any idea what it costs a manufacturer to perform these tests?

[doodon2whls]

@snuze

The development, calibration, and emissions testing can cost millions. It ain't cheap. And that is why many vehicles don't get a unique enthusiast power train option - like manual transmission. The biz case just won't support it.

[Demon Xanth]

@snuze To give you a scale, I believe the UL testing we had to do for a portable electronic device (not RF, wireless, or mobile, just on a cart) was $60k, took about a week for the lab to do, and there was a 9 month lead before the lab had an opening. If you failed, the cost was the same. But you had to do it again.

[way2blu]

@snuze I like to think (and hope) that GM will just keep the Alpha chassis Camaro in production indefinitely, in the same way Dodge is still making the same Challenger they’ve always made. If Nissan can do it with the Z, GM can and definitely should just keep making the Camaro as-is. It’s an extremely good chassis and will still be competitive in the mid-2020s.

If the LT2 is good for the next 5 years’ production, certification costs might be worth it. Even with the Camaro’s slow sales.

[WasGTIthenGTOthenNOVAthenGTInowA4]

@gibbsemphasis Sure hope so. But if it comes down to using an assembly line for a Camaro, or a much higher volume SUV, I think we all know what GM will do....

[Snuze]

@doodon2whls said in Fuel Economy & Emissions Testing Costs (for manufacturers):

unique enthusiast power train option - like manual transmission.

I understand what you are saying, but I think there is a key difference here - changing powertrain options, i.e. transmissions, requires crash testing, which is exorbitantly expensive. Were talking millions of dollars, and it has to be done for every major engine & drivetrain configuration. So AWD vs 2wd, V6 vs V8, auto vs. Manual. This is why we never got a manual Charger from Dodge - the base platform was never offered with a stick and even though they re-engineered the Challenger for it, they didn't want to absorb the editional engineering costs AND crash testing costs of a manual Charger.

But there is also a "substantially similar clause" which can waive crash testing for such vehicles. For example, Dodge introduces the 392 Hemi thats based on the same block as the old 5.7L hemi, the old crash results are accepted. But if they had designed a new clean sheet engine, they would likely have to retest. But that change still needed EPA certification.

Im not trying to say you're wrong here, because I really don't know, but my gut feeling is the EPA testing is less expensive - thousands, tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands, but not millions of dollars.

[way2blu]

@wasgtithengtothennovathengtinowa4 The fact that GM hasn’t built any SUVs on the Alpha chassis architecture really blows my mind. They could have a better-handling BMW X3 & X5 competitor for Cadillac, but we get a blingy Chevy Traverse instead.

[WasGTIthenGTOthenNOVAthenGTInowA4]

@gibbsemphasis I will never try and understand GM's decision making.

Hell, all they needed to do was make the Blazer a true BOF SUV based on the 2 door Silverado platform and they could have been printing money for the last 3 years. Same thing with a true Raptor fighter.

They always seem to be a day late and a dollar short on their strategies.

And you're right, they could be building amazing Cadillac RWD/AWD SUV's on that platform (assuming it could be converted to use AWD somewhat reasonably).

[way2blu]

@wasgtithengtothennovathengtinowa4

It’s supported AWD since the Cadillac ATS first debuted with it. If GM was trying harder to be modern BMW (instead of late ‘90s BMW with all the sedans) Cadillac would be doing great right now.

[doodon2whls]

@snuze

Building engineering properties for development, calibration and then testing (calibrated instrumented testing) is not cheap. They self certify and the EPA tests only a sample... The cost of the test itself is less than $100K. Everything leading up to the test? Hundred s of thousands to millions depending on the amount of development and calibration necessary...

(I wrote the article on OG Oppo (shared to front page) about the Charger manual trans issue...)

[WasGTIthenGTOthenNOVAthenGTInowA4]

@gibbsemphasis Good point!

[Snuze]

I didn't know (or forgot) that you wrote the article on the manual Charger.

@doodon2whls said in Fuel Economy & Emissions Testing Costs (for manufacturers):

They self certify and the EPA tests only a sample... The cost of the test itself is less than $100K.

That's really what I was looking for. I didn't know that they self certify (one would think after Dieselgate that maybe wouldn't be the case, but that's a whole different discussion). I understand develop and calibration costs will vary based on the amount of changes. In this scenario GM wouldn't really be developing any new hardware - the camshaft and intake manifold from the LT2 already had their development paid for by the C8 program. There would likely be some chassis specific ECM/TCM tuning required since the Camaro uses different transmissions, gear ratios, etc.

And considering the Camaro is a low volume car that GM seems bent on killing off after 2024 maybe any expense is too much. But I also suspect that this development effort would be cheap enough to at least consider doing if they think it will boost sales and justify price increases. Otherwise I'm not sure why this rumor even started, unless it's a total troll.