www.advertising.microsoft.com/europe
Ciao Advertising drives Ford into new Galaxy
Looking to generate buzz and customer involvement via search and social media channels, Ford wanted something unique to re-launch their MPV, the Galaxy. Keen on the use of unique user video content and brand awareness, Ford spoke to Ciao the specialists in out-of-the-ordinary consumer information solutions. Ciaos regular audience often make purchase decisions based on consumer reviews and recommendations. So, Ciao and Ford hit upon the idea of including users not just as part of the campaign, but in the delivery of content, messaging and insight, as part of a high-impact strategy. A multi-phase campaign was decided upon and users were invited to put themselves forward to test drive the
Galaxy for two weeks at home. The opening phase utilised professionally shot video, which was later complemented by the Galaxy drivers making their own video diaries, further expanding the messaging behind the campaign. Viewers were able to add their own comments to the videos and therefore became part of the overall experience. Both Ciao community members and non-members were invited to join in. A presence in the social networking arena completed the brand experience. The results were impressive. More than 100 people applied for a Galaxy for a fortnight, and the campaign touched three million unique users. Average dwell time on the Ford Ciao special campaign site was over four minutes and the Galaxy received top marks on Ciao Reviews.
Ciao has proved to be a really effective marketing tool. Its helped to increase relevance and open up our brand and products to a whole new audience, influencing the decision to purchase at the crucial moment.
Sibylle Becher Communications Manager, Ford Germany
3 million 4 minutes 10 seconds
average time spent on site
rating for the Ford Galaxy
You dream it. We deliver it.

unique users

Product Sustainability Index

FordS-MAX FordGalaxy

Feel the difference

Foreword

Sustainable development is one of the key global issues facing society in the 21st century. Ford Motor Company sees this issue as not only a key business challenge but also as an important opportunity to facilitate sustainable growth in our business. Sustainability is one of managements central responsibilities and high on the list of our corporate values. Demonstrating that we put sustainability at the heart of everything we do is Ford of Europes new Product Sustainability Index (PSI). The Ford PSI is the first example in the automotive industry of how sustainability can be integrated into mainstream product development. The main challenges of sustainable development or for us, sustainable mobility - are to continuously make our products more sustainable by further reducing their environmental impact, enhancing their value to society and keeping our focus on efficiency and affordability. And this along the entire life-cycle of our products. As several of the challenges involve a multitude of - often conflicting - issues, we felt it necessary to develop a comprehensive range of vehiclerelated sustainability criteria and integrate them right at the beginning of our product development process. From this was born the Ford PSI. The new Ford Galaxy and Ford S-MAX are the first vehicles developed using this new holistic approach. All future Ford of Europe vehicles will also be developed with PSI in mind, as revealed with the new Ford Mondeo this year. I am proud of my team they are developing good-looking, desirable passenger vehicles whose environmental and societal characteristics and affordability have been improved compared to previous models. I am also proud that the integrity of the Ford PSI initiative has been confirmed by independent, external assessments. Furthermore, our work and results are in line with international standards such as the ISO 14040 Life Cycle Assessment Standard. Fords Product Sustainability Index will help make mobility more sustainable. However, it is also clear that to fully address this issue, society will increasingly need a fully-integrated approach with all stakeholders in the transport sector contributing. We are all part of the problem, and we are all part of the solution.
John Fleming, President and CEO, Ford of Europe

Contents

2.1 2.2 2.3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.4.1 4.8 Executive Summary Product Sustainability Index Introduction PSI Method PSI Implementation Life Cycle Aspects Introduction Definition of Goal and Scope Environmental Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and Cost Data Inventory Life Cycle Impact Assessment and directional Life Cycle Costing Result Interpretation Ford Galaxy and S-MAX Product Sustainability Index Scaling Ford Galaxy and S-MAX PSI Results References Acronyms Appendix ISO 14040 Critical Review of Vehicle Options (full independent report) 32 34

1. Executive Summary

Ford of Europe introduced a sustainability management tool, the Ford Product Sustainability Index (hereafter PSI) into the product development of the new Ford Galaxy and Ford S-MAX. Fords PSI considers environmental, economic and societal aspects based on: xternally reviewed environmental and cost aspects E such as a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Cost xternally certified aspects such as an allergy-tested E interior ther relevant aspects, including sustainable materiO als, safety, mobility capability and noise The new Ford Galaxy and Ford S-MAX show significant improvements over the previous model Galaxy regarding the lifecycle air quality* , use of sustainable materials, restricted substances and safety. Their affordability (Lifecycle Cost of Ownership) has also been improved when looking at comparable engine types. Thus, Ford can show that indicators from all three major areas of sustainability - environment, social and economic - have been improved. Following the S-MAX and Galaxy, all future Ford of Europe vehicles will be developed in line with PSI, including the 2007 Ford Mondeo.

Table 2-1: Indicators of the Ford Product Sustainability Index (PSI)

Indicator

EnvironLife Cycle Global mental and Warming health
Life Cycle Air Quality Sustainable Materials Substance Management Drive-by-Noise

Metric / Method

Greenhouse emissions along the life cycle (CO2 and equivalent emissions from raw material extraction through production, use to recovery) part of an LCA according to ISO 14040 Emissions related to Summer Smog along the life cycle (Ethene and equivalent emissions) part of an LCA according to ISO 14040 Recycled and natural materials related to all polymers1 Vehicle Interior Air Quality (VIAQ) / allergy-tested interior, management of substances along the supply chain Drive-by-Exterior Noise = dB(A) Including EuroNCAP stars (including occupant and pedestrian protection) Mobility capacity (seats, luggage) to vehicle size Sum of vehicle price and 3 years service (fuel cost, maintenance cost, taxation) minus residual value (note: for simplification reasons cost have been tracked for one selected market; Life Cycle Costing approach using discounting)

Driver for Inclusion

Carbon intensity is the main strategic issue in automotive industry Potential trade-offs between CO2 and non-CO2 emissions Resource Scarcity Substance risk management is key Main societal concern Main direct impact Crowded cities (future issues include: diversity disabled drivers, etc.)

Societal2

Safety Mobility Capability

Economics

Life Cycle Cost
Customer focus, competitiveness
Note: There are, of course, no materials that are inherently sustainable. All materials are linked to environmental, social and economic impacts. However, recycled materials and renewably grown, natural fibers represent an example of how limited resources can be used in a more sustainable way. The overriding factor is whether or not these materials have, in their specific application, a lower environmental impact through the product life cycle than potential alternative materials (see life cycle related PSI indicators and previous paper [24]). 2 Note: The social aspects are being refined and developed for the future. Please note that aspects related to labor, rights etc. are part of other Ford of Europe sustainability management tools such as the MSI.

2.3 PSI Implementation

The Ford of Europe PSI was implemented from the top down, with a process-driven approach - from the very beginning it was linked to the normal product development process. For example, the PSI is now specifically included in the multi panel chart in which all vehicle attributes (craftsmanship, safety, environment, cost, etc.) are tracked towards the targets given from the beginning through all development milestones. It was a top-down approach in that it was called for and authorized by senior management. The roles and responsibilities involved, with the exception of the development of initial methodologies, were taken on by PD itself, without relying on a specialist group internal or external to PD. This ensures that PSI is optimally integrated into PD since it is executed by the same people also running other aspects of product development (Figure 2-2).

End-of-Life / Recovery

Use resources in an environmentally efficient way; reduce environmental burden
Product Sustainability Management Life Cycle Studies

Production

Env. Management (ISO 14001/EMAS), MSI, RESI, working environment, cost

Vehicle use

Cost of Ownership, Allergy-tested label, Fords Eco-Driving, safety, Ford environmental customer information, etc.
Figure 3-1: Managing sustainability along the vehicle life cycle (cradle-to-cradle).
3.2 Definition of Goal and Scope
3.2.1 Goal, Functional Unit and Assessed Vehicles
Goal The goal of the Life Cycle Studies is to: upport internal Product Development by tracking S key environmental life cycle impacts (LCA) and bottomline economic (LCC) impacts of planned and/or implemented engineering actions throughout the product development process erify the PSI results regarding Global Warming and V Air Quality Potential and also check other life cycle environmental impacts not included in the PSI ssess the Ford vehicles environmental life cycle A performance from a purely environmental and economic standpoint dentify and assess the cost associated with vehicle I purchase and maintenance for a typical vehicle buyer in a selected European market assuming a resale after 3 years (typical car ownership trade cycle) Functional Unit All data from the life cycle studies are calculated based on a standard functional unit. It is defined as follows: a European, premium, mid-class, van-sized, five-door vehicle for a minimum of 5 passengers including a luggage compartment with a minimum volume of 900 liters, climate controlled interior, modern entertainment and safety standards with an average mileage of 150,000 kilometers over 12 years. Note: The previous and new Ford Galaxies can seat seven passengers, but then have less than 900 liters luggage capacity in that configuration. An additional LCC value is identified for the case of a resale after 3 years. Assessment Vehicles The following vehicles have been assessed: revious Ford Galaxy 1.9l TDI, 96 kW, P manual 6 speed, economy edition ew Ford Galaxy 2.0 l TDCi with N diesel particulate filter (DPF), 96 kW, trend edition ew Ford Galaxy 2.0 l, gasoline, manual 5 speed, N 107 kW, trend edition ew Ford S-MAX 2.0L TDCi with DPF, N 96 kW, trend edition ew Ford S-MAX 2.0 l gasoline, manual 5 speed, N 107 kW, trend edition The base data for vehicle production is the material breakdown of the different vehicles. These are derived from: omplete teardown of the previous Ford Galaxy C in the Ford dismantling center in Cologne. eight assumptions based on the predecessor platW form and planned weight related actions (for the first life cycle study at the start of vehicle development for the new Ford vehicle models from Gateways KO to PA). eight engineering data of the new Ford vehicles W models (for life cycle studies during product development from gateways PA to PR). MDS data of the new Ford vehicles models [8] comI pleted by engineering data for gateway CC and for life cycle study verification before launch). Note: To avoid complicating this work beyond the point of practicability, the vehicle models chosen represent the normal weight-control models. Similarly, no additional supplier information has been requested to avoid further complication.

that A/C use increases vehicle fuel consumption by 10% over and above the consumption figures listed above. The HFC leakage rate is assumed to be 0.025 kg/year.
Other fluids losses are assumed to be around 5% of initial filling. The leakage rate data is uncertain but is taken here as a worst case assumption and taken at the same rate for all vehicles. uel prices: 1,229 per liter premium gasoline, F 1,099 per liter diesel (variation in sensitivity analysis). nsurance cost are estimated based on a country speI cific set of premiums based on a standard set of individual insurance classes and is indicative only (ratings respective to engineering targets, a 55% deductible, insurance tariff R of Ford insurance, without bonus). All use phase cost are discounted, assuming an interest rate of 8% and 2% inflation. This reflects private consumer interest rates and general European inflation figures.
3.3.4 End-of-Life Phase Assumptions
All vehicles have to fulfill rates of 85% recycling and 95% recovery. These rates have been used for the simplified LCA approach in parallel to product development. For verification, the LIRECAR scenarios for recycling and energy recovery of shredder residues have been used assuming that 50% of the shredder residue goes into recycling and 50% into energy recovery. For End-of-Life vehicles, a substitution methodology is applied to avoid other allocation approaches. The End-of-Life cost are difficult to estimate: rom the first owner perspective there is normally a F residual value of a vehicle and no end-of-life scenario. A trade-cycle is assumed in this study in which first owners replace their vehicles after three years. The residual value forecast is quite difficult, especially for the Ford SMAX, as it is a completely new type of vehicle. The forecast is based on the values for Ford Focus/Ford Focus C-MAX, Mondeo and Ford Galaxy, taking into consideration new-vehicle up-lifts (5%), new vehicle type (8% - similar to C-MAX), correction for potential consumers emotional changes after 3 years (- 5%) and a further correction of minus 2% (no guarantee provided for any of these values). rom the last owner perspective, the worst case endF of-life cost are zero due to the EU ELV directive (the last owner can dispose of a vehicle free-of-charge). rom a manufacturers perspective, the end-of-life F cost are currently also zero. rom a European dismantler and shredding operators F perspective, there are profits based on the high value of scrap. It Market dynamics make it impossible to provide a good estimate of future profits and cost. ELV cost are linked to the large uncertainties as shown in [4]. Therefore, only estimates of future trends and ELV cost can be made. The following assumptions have been made about future trends from a dismantler/shredding operators perspective: emoval of fluids, central neutralization of pyrotechniR cal devices, dismantling of heavy metals, catalytic converter, battery, tires and body glass (according to current legislative and regulatory requirements) ost-shredder treatment approach P euse profits are not considered - this is a R worst case value on-labor related cost are considered for N all vehicles (logistics, overhead, etc.) All cost are discounted using 8% interest and 2% inflation rates as before

29,825 8,498 60% 26,Min - 67 23,248
29,700 8,707 56% 27,Min - 65 24,396
25,800 8,870 61% 26,Min - 60 21,412 28,150 8,389 61% 27,Min - 68 22,073 56,021
Discounted Theoretical ELV profits* (operators) Theoretical Cost of Ownership* (3 years)
55,569 56,525 57,062 52,164 Theoretical LCC* (12 years) * Estimated value for one selected European market, no guarantee that the cost reflect market conditions.

PSI 19

3.5 Interpretation

3.5.1 Data Quality

Data quality will be reviewed predominantly in the following subchapters. Considering the data requirements from chapter 3.2.3, all data sources fulfill these requirements. The data sources themselves do not allow more detailed statistics about data quality indicators. However, for all vehicles significantly more than the required 95% of the materials are reflected in the data. In fact, for all materials at least average data for the material group has been used. For plastics, the data composition was not always clear (i.e. specific type of plastic). In this case, an average of all plastics has been used (mixed thermoplastic). This approximation covers roughly 3% for Galaxy 2l TDCi, 4% for Galaxy 2l I4, 5% for the previous Galaxy, and 2% for the S-MAX variants. In a sensitivity analysis the impact of this approximation has been evaluated, showing a minor impact (clearly below 1% for all impact categories except acidification potential). Looking at all inputs and outputs of the LCI, 5.5% of them are based on measurements, 16.3 % on calculations, 58.2 % on literature, 16.1 % on estimates, and 3.9 % on unknown methods (partly confidential). One example comparing the use of measured data (regarding the previous Galaxy model) versus the use of estimated data (regarding the new Galaxy model) is the leakage rate of R134a. The impact of this data has been specifically analyzed using the PSI tool in a sensitivity analysis. The result shows that this data has no significant impact in that a theoretical doubling of the leakage rate changes the life cycle GWP potential by 0.9 to 1 %.

3.5.2 Dominance Analysis

Based on the share of the various life cycle phases (see Figure 35), an identification of the environmentally dominating life cycle phases is possible. For the vehicles described, the use phase, including fuel production, accounts for most of the Life Cycle GWP and POCP gasoline vehicles more than diesel vehicles and previous Galaxy (Euro 3) more than new Galaxy (Euro 4) this is mainly fuel economy driven. However, the source of the emissions differ slightly. While both sources of emissions are significant, for GWP, the vehicle emissions dominate and for POCP, the fuel production emissions dominate. This is also the reason for the use phases large share of the overall total resource depletion, which includes crude oil, that is between 70% for diesel and 75% for gasoline powered vehicles. However, the production phase is the dominant life cycle phase for total waste with 81 to 88% - mainly due to metal mining waste. Heavier diesel vehicles come in at the upper end of this range. The production phase also accounts for the greatest (96-97%) abiotic resource depletion potential (ADP) mainly precious metals. For the acidification and eutrophication potentials there is a rough 60:40 split between production (higher; mainly due to metal mining and production including precious metals) and use phase. The one exception to this is due to the higher emissions of the previous Galaxy (Euro 3 with 0.5 g NOx/km instead of the new Galaxys 0.25 g NOx/km), the use phase has a 56% share of the acidification potential. The relatively high material production impact is based on high SO2 emissions in the production of several metals (sulphur in the ore) and the production of some plastics. The share of the end-of-life phase is for all studied impact categories below 5% but it should be noted that the metal recycling reduces the environmental impact of the production (see [6] for typical shares between total and net production. It is not this studys purpose to look at these aspects and impacts). Table 3-8 provides input for the dominance analysis. It shows the main contributors to the investigated impact categories for the basic scenario. This information shows that a comprehensive check has been made as to whether all relevant emissions and variations are covered by the data sets used.
Table 3-8: Main contributing substance and material flows for the investigated impact categories
Ford Ford Galaxy Galaxy 2.0L TDCi 2.0L gasoline with DPF Acidification potential ( AP, CML 2001)
Nitrogen oxides Sulphur dioxide Nitrogen oxides COD (water) Total organic bond carbon Carbon dioxide 54.5% 44.3% 52% 36.2% 7.0% 68.4% 30.6% 63.1% 28.5% 5.2%
76.5% 22.8% 77.5% 29.6% 4.3%
Ford Ford S-MAX S-MAX 2.0L 2.0 l TDCi gasoline with DPF
54.7% 44.1% 52.5% 35.5% 7.1% 68.8% 30.3% 63.8% 27.8% 5.2%
Eutrophication potential (EP, CML 2001)
Global warming potential (GWP 100 years, CML 2001)

96.9% 96.4% 96.7% 96.9% 96.4%

20 PSI

Halon (1301) Carbon monoxide NMVOC (unspecified) Nitrogen Oxides 97.8% 10.5% 81.5% 2.6%

96.9% 7.1% 82.0% 5.0%

97.6% 8.2% 79.1% 7.7%
97.8% 10.7% 81.6% 2.6% 97.7% 7.2% 82.0% 5.0%
Ozone depletion potential (ODP, CML 2001) Photochemical oxidant potential (POCP, CML 2001)

Waste (total)

Sludge (oil exploration) Overburden (mining) Tailings (ore processing) 4.5% 69% 24.8% 4.5% 67.6% 25.9% 4.1% 71% 22.5% 4.5% 69.2% 24.6% 4.5% 67.8% 25.7%
Important Notes: Regarding POCP: the methodology suggests impacts for both NOx and VOCs. This is to reflect the ozone creation potential under both common sets of atmospheric conditions that lead to ozone creation: those where NOx is the limiting factor and those where VOCs are the limiting factor. For total waste, the amount of mining waste for precious metals (potentially too low) and for talcum (potentially too high) is seen as questionable, that is, the total waste figures for these should be interpreted with some care.
For Ozone Depletion Potential, the low emissions of Halon can be predominantly traced back to potentially out-dated crude oil production process information about the use of Halon in [11] that should have been updated in the meantime. Due to this potential inaccuracy, ODP is not used for further interpretation. Regarding the economics (Table 3-7), the vehicle price represents 54 to 57% of the overall life cycle cost over 12 years for all vehicles. The share of the fuel cost is assumed to be below 50% of all use phase cost for these assumptions.
3.5.3 Monte-Carlo, Break-even and Scenario Analysis
The assumed mileage of the vehicles has been varied in the study. This factors variation is crucial and it strongly influences those environmental impacts dominated by the use phase. Mileage in particular is a decisive factor for the comparison between vehicles with varying fuel economies (i.e. diesel vs. gasoline). While the production impacts of the diesel vehicles studied is slightly higher than those of the gasoline engines (especially because more metals are needed for a diesel engine, see Table 3-4), the overall environmental performance of the diesels is better when considering the environmental categories where the use phase dominates, GWP and POCP. Here, the reduced impacts during the use phase are more than make up for the additional production impacts (break-even is below 25,000 km for all vehicles except for the previous Galaxy which needs a few thousand kilometers more). The differences between the gasoline vehicles are insignificant, while between the diesel engines there is a remarkable difference between the POCP of the new Galaxy compared to the previous one due to the higher tailpipe emissions of the older, Euro 3 Galaxy.

and hazardous waste are much higher (ADP= 10-15%) due to the very specific linkages to the various types of materials. These thresholds will be used to analyze the significance of differences. Taking the required minimum threshold of 8% (GWP, POCP, total waste), 7% (AP, EP) and 15% (ADP), the following differences can be considered significant: Galaxy 2.0l TDCi is environmentally superior to Galaxy 2.0l in terms of GWP (break-even around 20,000km mileage but significant break-even (i.e. min. 8% better) after 82,000 km), POCP (significant break-even after 37,000 km) as well as AP and EP (significant break-even2 already at 0 km) Galaxy 2.0l TDCi is environmentally superior to the previous Galaxy 1.9l TDI in terms of POCP (break-even 70,000km; significant break-even 2 at around 450,000 km), AP and EP (significant break-even 2 already at 0 km) S-MAX 2.0l TDCi is environmentally superior to S-MAX 2.0l in terms of GWP (break-even around 20,000km mileage but significant break-even2 (i.e. min 8% better) after 82,000 km), POCP (significant break-even 2 after 37,000 km) as well as AP and EP (significant break-even 2 already at 0 km)

22 PSI

All new developed vehicles result in less total waste compared to previous Galaxy (significant break-even 2 below 100,000 km). Considering the economic aspects, there are huge uncertainties around end-of-life profits [4], but their overall impact is negligible (below 0.2%) of the total LCC. More significant is the uncertainty for the real insurance cost (highly dependent on personal contracts), real maintenance cost (theoretical values are worst case assumptions), fuel consumption cost (see Table 3-9) and mileage. Economic break-even conditions can be deduced from the following: Diesel versions are economically preferable beyond 255,000 km over 12 years for the assumed yearly fuel, insurance and maintenance cost or around 200,000 km with cost at 50% of those assumed in the main scenario. The new diesel Galaxy version is economically preferable beyond 250,000 km (S-MAX around 240,000 km) over 12 years for the assumed yearly fuel, insurance and maintenance cost but an interest rate of 4%.
The new diesel versions are economically preferable beyond 160,000 km over 12 years for the assumed yearly fuel, insurance and maintenance cost but an interest rate of 4% and 50% higher fuel prices than assumed in the main scenario. The elasticity of results is larger for the LCC calculations than for the LCA calculations (compare [4]) as there is an additional set of assumptions for the LCC calculations i.e. type of insurance cost, fuel prices and interest rates that represent additional sources of uncertainty while these aspects have no impact on the LCA result.

2 Significant break-even refers to that mileage where one vehicle is significantly better than the other vehicle, i.e. in this case the environmental impact potentials are lower by at least 8 % (GWP, POCP) respectively 7 % (AP, EP) see acronym listing chapter 8.
Figure 3-7. Discounted Life Cycle Cost for a period of 12 years (full, 50% lower insurance/ maintenance cost) for the studied Ford vehicles considering a range of mileages.

75,000

70,000

65,000

60,000

55,000

50,000

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000 -> km 0 Full insurance 50% lower insurance Ford Galaxy 2.0 l Ford S-MAX 2.0 l 300000 Ford Galaxy 2.0 l TDCi Ford S-MAX 2.0 l TDCi Prior Ford Galaxy 1.9 l TDI 400000

PSI 23

Figure 3-8 Discounted Life Cycle Cost for a period of 12 years (interest rate of 4 instead of 8%, 50% higher fuel prices) for the studied Ford vehicles considering a range of mileages.

110,000

100,000

90,000

80,000
30,000 -> km 4% interest rate 50% higher fuel prices 200000 Ford Galaxy 2.0 l Ford S-MAX 2.0 l 300000 400000
Ford Galaxy 2.0 l TDCi Ford S-MAX 2.0 l TDCi Prior Ford Galaxy 1.9 l TDI

3.5.4 Conclusions

Based on the Life Cycle Inventory, Impact Assessment and the sensitivity analysis, the following conclusions can be reached: he calculations performed by non-LCA experts in Product T Development (using the simplified spreadsheet tool) are in line with those calculated by the LCA expert (using an expert LCA tool). The differences, less than 2%, are insignificant, see Figure 3-4, and the non-expert calculations can be used for PSI in parallel to the product development process. ord Galaxy 2.0l TDCi is environmentally superior to Ford F Galaxy 2.0l in terms of GWP (beyond 82,000 km), POCP (beyond 37,000 km) as well as AP and EP (at any mileage). ord Galaxy 2.0l TDCi is environmentally superior to F the previous Ford Galaxy 1.9l TDI in terms of POCP (beyond 450,000 km), AP and EP (at any mileage). ord S-MAX 2.0l TDCi is environmentally superior to F Ford S-MAX 2.0l in terms of GWP (beyond 82,000 km), POCP (beyond 37,000 km) as well as AP and EP (at any mileage). ll new developed vehicles result in less total waste compared A to the previous Galaxy (mileage beyond 100,000 km). iesel versions are economically preferable beyond D 255,000 km over 12 years for the assumed yearly fuel, insurance and maintenance cost and beyond around 200,000 km at 50% of the cost assumed in the main scenario. he new diesel Ford Galaxy version is economically preferable T beyond 250,000 km (Ford S-MAX around 240,000 km) over 12 years for the assumed yearly fuel, insurance and maintenance cost but an interest rate of 4% he new diesel versions are economically preferable beyond T 160,000 km over 12 years for the assumed yearly fuel, insurance and maintenance cost but an interest rate of 4% and 50% higher fuel prices than assumed in the main scenario.

PSI 25

Substance Management: For restricted substances in particular those substances listed in the Global Automotive Declarable Substance List (http://www. gadsl.org) - the following methodology and scaling is used:
Table 4-2: Criteria for the PSI indicator Substance Management (max 15 points)
Substance Management Criteria

Points

0 = no or 1 = yes 1 = limited (e.g. only legal status), 2 = GADSL (www.gadsl.org), or 3 = covers automatically all carcinogenic, other issues e.g. by listing also effect groups 0 = none, 1 = only for key components, 2 = IMDS equivalent, or 3 = Reinforcement in case of non-complying suppliers 0 = no focus, 1 = at best legal compliant, 2 = proactive, or 3 = prepared for new EC chemical policy
Company related rating (max 10 points) Substance Management List exist Coverage of RSL

Reinforcement of RSL

Performance of substance risk management
Vehicle related rating (max 5 points) Smell rating Clean Compartment Features (adding all features covered in the vehicles) 0 = unpleasant smell, 1 = not unpleasant smell 0 = none, 1 point = pollen filter, 1,5 points = PremAir (trademark of Engelhard) equivalent, 2 points incoming air completely filtered (activated carbon), 1 point = EcoTex label, 2 point = complete interior third party labeled covering allergenic aspects
The 80% best-in-industry value is defined by Ford Focus and Ford Focus C-MAX, the vehicles with the first third-party certified, allergy-tested interior.
Mobility Capability Mobility capability is an indicator that will soon undergo further development. The necessary data for an extension are not currently available at all gateways of the vehicle development process. In the interim, the indicator reflects the relationship between: he sum of a weighted number of seats and luggage compartT ment to reflect the capacity to carry passengers and luggage. The weighting factor is 1 for the first and second seat, 0,6 for the third, 0,36 for the fourth, 0,216 for the 5th, 0,1296 for the 6th, 0,07776 for the 7th, 0,046656 for the 8th and 0,027994 for the 9th seat. This factor of 60% for each additional seat beyond the

first two seats is reflecting the declining average usage of seats. hadow area (length x width of vehicle including exterior mirrors) S to reflect the necessary parking area. ultiplied by 1 (none) or 1,2 (mobility service components M included that help drivers to by-pass traffic jams), 1,6 (mobility service components that direct drivers to free parking lots and help in intermodality) The assumption for the 80% value is for a vehicle with a shadow area of 3,75 m2, 2 seats and a 180 l luggage compartment. The worst case is based on a shadow area of 9,94 m2, 2 seats and a 140 l luggage compartment.

26 PSI

4.2 Ford Galaxy and S-MAX PSI Results
The resulting PSIs for Ford Galaxy and S-MAX are based on the abovementioned methodology and scaling, the engineering and technical data of the studied vehicles, the Life Cycle study as reviewed by an independent, external LCA expert as well as the TV certified, allergy-tested interior of the new Ford Galaxy and S-MAX. These figures are scaled by the values provided earlier and transferred in a radar diagram to enable a visual assessment of the areas of improvement over the previous Galaxy and the relative performance compared to the best-in-industry levels for all passenger vehicle segments. The new Galaxy and S-MAX show significantly improved performance regarding the use of sustainable materials, restricted substances and safety. Looking at the same engine types, the affordability (Life Cycle Cost) has been also improved based on the assumptions. Thus, indicators from all three dimensions of sustainability have been improved.
Table 4-3: PSI indicator base data of Ford Galaxy and S-MAX
Life Cycle Global Warming [t CO2-eq](a) Life Cycle Air Quality [kg Ethene-eq](a) Sustainable Materials (note: figures may change) Substance Management(b) Drive-by-Noise Safety Mobility Capability Theoretical Life Cycle Cost (e)

44 tons 45 kg

40 tons 37 kg

41 tons 39 kg

Approx 1 kg nonmetallic recyclates and natural fibers Substance management and pollen filter

Ford S-MAX 2.0L gasoline

43 tons 45 kg
Ford S-MAX 2.0L TDCi with DPF

39 tons 37 kg

Approx 18 kg non-metallic recyclates and natural fibers
Substance management, TV tested pollen filter efficiency and allergy-tested label

72 dB(A)

71 dB(A)

10,4 m2, 7 seats, 435l

73 dB(A) Reference(d)

9,9 m2, 7 seats, 330l

Significant improvement(c) 10,25 m2, 5 seats, 1171l
Significant improvement (c)
based on PSI calculations verified by an independently reviewed LCA according to ISO 14040; 1 t = 1000 kg b based on an independent TV certification, certification number AZ 137 12, TUVdotCOMID 0000007407 c including Euro NCAP savety rating: 5 stars for adult occupant protection, 4 stars for child protection and 2 stars for pedestrian protection d including Euro NCAP savety rating: 3 stars for adult occupant protection, 2 stars for pedestrian protection e 3 years Cost of Ownership including residual value, no guarantee

30 PSI

6 Acronyms
A/C Air Quality Potential ADP AP BUWAL CC COD CoO DPF EuroNCAP EFR EOL EP Euro 3 / 4 EWC FoE GADSL GWP HFC IISI IMA IMDS ISO 14040 KO LCA LCC LCI LIRECAR NOx MSI ODP PA PD POCP PP PR PSI R134a RESI SC SETAC SiC SO2 VI VIAQ VOC WVM Air-Conditioning System See POCP Abiotic Resource Depletion Potential - Issue of sustainable availability of materials Acidification Potential - Issue of acid rain leading e.g. to fish population losses in certain lakes Swiss Environmental Agency Gateway in product development: Change Cut-off Chemical Oxygen Demand Cost of Ownership Diesel Particulate Filter European New Car Assessment Program http://www.euroncap.com/ European Ferrous Recovery & Recycling Federation End-of-Life Eutrophication Potential - Issue of an excessive addition of nutrients to the environment affecting e.g. biodiversity European Emission standards European Waste Catalogue Ford of Europe Global Automotive Declarable Substance List (http://www.gadsl.org) Global Warming Potential (measured as kg CO2-equivalent emissions) - Issue of climate change Hydrofluorocarbon (see R134a below) International Iron and Steel Institute International Magnesium Association International Management Data System http://www.mdsystem.com International Standard about Life Cycle Assessment Gateway in product development: Kick-off Life Cycle Assessment Life Cycle Costing Life Cycle Inventory LCA study Light and Recyclable Car [6] Nitrogen Oxides Ford of Europess Manufacturing Sustainability Index Ozone Depletion Potential - Issue of reducing the stratospheric ozone layer protecting life on earth from harmful UVB sun-light Gateway in product development Program Approval Product Development Photochemical Creation Potential (Summer Smog; measured as kg Ethene-equivalent emissions covering for example NOx, VOC etc.) Polypropylene (plastic) Gateway in product development Program Readiness Ford of Euorpes Product Sustainability Index Refrigerant of air-conditioning (1,1,1,2-Tetrafluorethan) Responsible Employer Sustainability Index Gateway in product development: Strategic Confirmation Society of Environmental Toxicology And Chemistry Silicon Carbide Sulfur Dioxides Vehicle Integration Vehicle Interior Air Quality Volatile Organic Compounds German Association of Metal Industries