A02 - MASTGMPHE 2022 - Aspects Strategiques GMP Renault - MBR

Aspects
stratégiques des
développements GMP
Maxime Bayon de Noyer, Renault Group PWT Strategy VP
Agenda
Background & main market inputs
Powertrain technology drivers
Consequences on market mixes and OEM Platform / MoB strategy
Renault Powertrain strategy
Conclusion
2
PWT ‐ Aspects stratégiques des développements GMP
Background & main market
inputs
• Worldwide regulations
• Countries & cities access restrictions
• NGOs & media
• Alternative fuels
4
Main markets inputs & Powertrain drivers
Infrastructure
City Access NGOs / TCO &
Emissions CO2 Restrictions (Total Cost of
Media Ownership)
Alternative
fuels
‐ Fuel price
Real Driving Zero ‐ Incentive &
Emission More & more penalty Difficult to
Emissions CAFX
Zone pressure ‐ Techno. cost « manage »
Numerous, various and uncertain
inputs
5
Worldwide Emission Regulations on Renault Group main
markets
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Scenario
EU Euro6d Scenario Euro6e
Euro7
Brazil L6 L7 L8.1
India BSVI-1 BSVI-2
Russia Euro5b+ Scenario Euro6c
Europe: Eu7 is still unclear but will be very severe  Last regulation dedicated to ICE
Brazil: LEV8 in 3 steps (LEV8.1 2025 / LEV8.2 2027 / LEV8.3 2029); challenging for E100 fuel
but RDE testing conditions are less strict than Europe (Urban only is out of scope) and there is
FAS* opportunity
India: Bharat 6.2 not a technical challenge; no information about Bharat 7 (discussion in India
not started yet)
*FAS: Fleet Average System,  CF for Brazil
Source: Laurent Berthier – DEA‐MKC expert depollution
6
Worldwide CO2 Regulations
Worldwide view of CO2 / fuel consumption regulation (CAFX)
Alliance market coverage is worldwide and impacted by all CAFX regulations
CAFE regulations keep strengthening, with a ‐ 5% /year trend
30 to 55% improvement from 2020 to 2030
Consistent with New COP21 commitment (Fit for 55 for Europe)
Vision for EU 2035  EU Commission proposal to stop ICE‐based PWT sales
7
Strengthening and widening measures to limit vehicles
use/sales at city and country level Source: Martine Meyer – DSP Strategic Environment planning
Countries:
Carbon neutrality targets
ICE sales ban announcements
Cities:
Carbon neutrality targets announced in
different area of the world (EU 2050)
ICE sales ban mainly announced from 2025
(Norway) to 2035 (EU)
From 2030, > 50% of G5 people are
concerned by city access restrictions: LEZ
(Diesel ban, <Eu6 ban) or ZEZ (ICE ban)
8
PHEV, CO2 EMISSION and City Access Restrictions
Geofencing
Technique & public policies usage
Technique
Geofencing establishes a virtual geographic perimeter.
For example, vehicle can switch to electric‐only mode
when entering in Zero Emission Zone or ULEZ
Application by car manufacturers
E‐class New Ford Transit BMW
Since 2018, Ford provides 20 Transit plug‐in hybrid
Geofencing: set‐up a geographical boundary
vans for a 12‐month fleet customer trial in London,
and receive alerts whenever your car enters or using geofencing to switch to EV mode only
leaves this area
Many recent ONG attacks against plug‐in concepts. 2 main technical answers:
• Geofencing should allow PHEV to enter Zero Emission Zones
• Connected On‐board fuel consumption meter should allow to monitor real CO2 emission and the
electric/fuel usage ratio
A PHEV with a 75% usage in electric mode (in distance) has a Carbon FootPrint comparable to
a BEV
9
NGO’s Pressure on OEM for Internal Combustion Engine
Monitoring Realtime emissions though remote sensing OEM benchmarking
Massive measurements
Mature technology for NOx
Individual control
Realtime emissions are now much easier to monitor by 3rd parties
This disruptive measurement technology can blow out mediatic exposure
Emissions goes from compliance topic  competitiveness feature
Discarded vehicles will be identified and pointed out as bad one (dedicated focus)
10
NGO’s Pressure on OEM for EV
EV social acceptance must face potentials blockpoints Europe @2020‐2025
EV expansion is also facing some hurdles
(not exhaustive list: from Cradle to Grave battery footprint, rare earth material availability, …)
11
Alternative FUELS 2030 overview
EU  No « One size fits all » alternative fuel
H2 e-H2 e-CH4 e-liquid

EU 2030 Gasoline LPG CNG
SMR+CCS Renewable Renewable fuel
Production/Capacity RE* RE* Syn CH4 (2025)
Running Cost (€/100 km in

REF -14% -39% +8% +0%/ +25% +49% +137%
2030)
Tank cost / volume
Pollutants Emissions REF ≈ REF ≈ REF

CO2 Tank to Wheel REF -9% -18% -100% -100% -18% ≈ REF
Public stations 130 000 50 000 10 000 ~4 000 10 000 130 000
National restrictions (sales) RE*
City Center access
*REnewable
CNG has good basics, but uncertainties linked to Euro7 and development of infrastructure
depending on countries and/or regions
City center access restrictions at risk for LPG and CNG vehicles which open the door to lobby
with public authorities
e‐liquid fuel will not be mature by 2030 and remain too expensive
12
Life cycle assessment LCA / Carbon Footprint CFP ‐ Europe
Source: DPE, DEA‐T – Life Cycle Thinking, Oct’18
Today CAFX regulation scope concerns CO2 emission from Tank to Wheel
LCA consider the whole scope from Cradle to Grave
13
Life cycle assessment LCA / Carbon Footprint CFP
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Standard Study Standardization Regulation

Study LCA usage Study LCA regulation
LCA Calculation Mandatory
 Public disclosure
Developing a common methodology
Regulation
Vehicle: Climate law: LCA standardization Green NCAP labelling

Revision of target directives
Battery:
Declaration Labelling Threshold
China is the first market to introduce LCA as regulation, with target introduction in 2025
Europe
• First labelling at vehicle level through Green NCAP in 2025/26, and regulation around 2030
• Strong push on battery with introduction of CO2 LCA threshold in 2027
14
Carbon Footprint– EU 2030
Source: DEA-TC Yves BABIAN
(*) : Renewable doesn’t mean neutral
Main assumptions:
No battery recharging
‐ 225 000 km
‐ No battery change
‐ Recycling credit
VP 2030 shown separately
Renault Potential second life ‐ CAPEX not
Plan Climat for battery considered except
target for renewable
(80g/km) electricity
(*) (*)
Baseline:
‐ Electricity mix Eu
IAE SPS: 0,184 kg
CO2 eq / kWh
‐ H2: Electrolyze mix
Eu
‐ CNG: 30% Bio
BEV, REEV, PHEV have the best CFP performance, except if we consider 100% bio CNG
REEV is similar to LR BEV, with the condition to be regularly charged
H2 is only competitive with high level of renewable electricity for its production
CNG CFP lower than gasoline due to better hydrogen / carbon ratio
15
Carbon Footprint – China 2030
Source: DEA‐TC Yves BABIAN
368 g 354 g
(*) : Renewable doesn’t
mean neutral
No battery recharging
Potential second life
for battery Main assumptions:
SMR ‐ 225 000 km
‐ No battery change
‐ Recycling credit
shown separately
‐ CAPEX not
considered except
for renewable
electricity
(*) (*) Baseline:

g/km ‐ Electricity mix CN
IAE SPS: 0,477 kg
CO2 eq / kWh
‐ H2: Electrolyze mix
CN
‐ CNG: 30% Bio
Due to carbon intensity of Chinese electricity, no big LCA difference between conventional
Gasoline ICE, EV, Range Extender, PHEV & HEV
H2 if not based on renewable energy is similar to ICE with SMR process and twice LCA ICE level
with electrolysis process
16
Powertrain technology drivers
• ICE developement for emissions: head winds
• ICE developement for CO2: head winds
• Electrification: what are we talking about?
• xHEV development: packaging stakes
• EV PWT development stakes
• Summary of electrification technologies cost
to value
• Focus on Diesel
18
ICE developement for emissions: head winds
Injection system, Combustion BEV
Particulate (multi‐inj, Pinj, Dual inj,) Particle Filter mandatory
Number
Electrical
Exhaust Heating High
Electrification level Voltage
Inj. system Catalyst Hybrid
Combustion Air injection MHYB 12V MHYB 48V
NMHC + NOx
Technology development can still allow emission reduction, but with increasing cost
impactEnhanced electrification on ICE level may be mandatory even for non‐CO2 purposes
19
ICE developement for CO2: head winds
Engine Efficiency Potential Engine Efficiency : Cost impact
~50% ?
Lean Burn
Heat Recovery
Heat Recovery 2025
VCR Lean Burn
2030
EGR
Miller / Atkinson
VCR
Long Stroke
EGR
~38% Friction Miller / Atkinson
Friction
Long Stroke
2014 2035 Fuel Efficiency improvement (%)
Still some good potential to improve thermal efficiency for Gasoline combustion engines…
…But this has a cost… in increasing competition with electrification technology
20
Electrification: where does the gain come from?
ICE
TECHNOLOGY
Powertrain
REGENERATIVE POWER (kW)
0 20 40 60 80
OVERCOST (€)
Clutch CO2 REDUCTION (%)
0 20 40 60 80 100
21
ICE MILD HYBRID MILD HYBRID

12V BSG 48V BSG
TECHNOLOGY
+ 12V 12V + 12V 48V
48V
0 20 40 60 80
OVERCOST (€)
CO2 REDUCTION (%)
48V
0 20 40 60 80 100
EV drive: none
22
ICE MILD HYBRID MILD HYBRID MILD HYBRID

12V BSG 48V BSG 48V e‐AT
TECHNOLOGY
+ 12V 12V + 12V 48V + 12V 48V
0 20 40 60 80
OVERCOST (€)
CO2 REDUCTION (%)
48V 48V
0 20 40 60 80 100
EV drive: parking, traffic jam
23
ICE MILD HYBRID MILD HYBRID MILD HYBRID FULL HYBRID

12V BSG 48V BSG 48V e‐AT HEV
TECHNOLOGY
+ 12V 12V + 12V 48V + 12V 48V + ~200V
0 20 40 60 80
OVERCOST (€)
CO2 REDUCTION (%)
0 20 40 60 80 100
EV drive: up to 2 km, low speed
24
ICE MILD HYBRID MILD HYBRID MILD HYBRID FULL HYBRID PLUG‐IN HYBRID

12V BSG 48V BSG 48V e‐AT HEV PHEV & REX
TECHNOLOGY
+ 12V 12V + 12V 48V + 12V 48V + ~200V + ~400V
0 20 40 60 80
OVERCOST (€)
CO2 REDUCTION (%)
0 20 40 60 80 100
EV drive: 30‐100 km, usual speeds
25
ICE MILD HYBRID MILD HYBRID MILD HYBRID FULL HYBRID PLUG‐IN HYBRID EV

12V BSG 48V BSG 48V e‐AT HEV PHEV & REX
TECHNOLOGY
+ 12V 12V + 12V 48V + 12V 48V + ~200V + ~400V ~400V
0 20 40 60 80
OVERCOST (€)
CO2 REDUCTION (%)
0 20 40 60 80 100
EV drive: 200/500 km, all conditions
26
xHEV developement: packaging stakes
Increasing complexity Think different !
Conventional HEV 2WD PHEV 2WD
PHEV eAWD
e‐motors & electronics Battery Integration
integration (cooling…)
Real « housing crisis »
Many issues / impacts: front overhang (design), crash, trunk & tank capacity, ergonomics
& comfort…
27
xHEV developement: packaging stakes
Fuel Tank
(L)
Rear Overhang Battery capacity
(mm) (kWh)
Trunk
(L)
All OEM seek for best trade‐off between battery size, tank capacity and boot size
Many different possible layouts
No consensus
28
EV PWT development stakes
Mostly focused on battery!
Affordability Range
Battery pack cost to be half by 2030 Energy density to be double by 2030
Charging speed
Range recovery
BATTERY POWER DENSITY (kW/L or kg)
These 3 parameters are intimately linked
Battery technology is not semiconductor technology (Moore law, …)
ePowertrain cost and efficiency has also room for improvement
Infrastructure development is key
29
EV PWT development stakes
Mostly focused on battery!
Charging speed &Range recovery
Highway Mileage recovery by charging 15min
2018 2020 2030

Cell Energy Density Solid State
Cooling Capacity ~5 kW ~15 kW To be defined*
*ASSB
Charging system required
Voltage 400V 800V less cooling

than Li-Ion
Fast charging required to recover enough autonomy in 15min, especially in highway trip
Breakthrough needed for cell chemistry AND system innovation (high power cooling and 800V)
Smart route planner is required to optimize the total travel time
30
Summary of technologies cost to value
ICE is the cheapest, but not sufficient way to reduce CO2
ICE & electrification Gasoline updates remain mandatory for affordable offers
technologies 2025 and HEV performance
2030 CNG offers good CO2 perf, but highly depending on available
infrastructure
PHEV / REEV offer the best CO2 reduction / overcost ratio,
but are expensive
BEV overcost depends on available battery techno, where 2
CO2 improvement (%) families seems visible: affordable & performance
* cost = powertrain including Platform impact ‐ Overcosts provided with equivalent powertrain performances 31
Europe trend since 2017
Source : Mix energy sales report, YTD October 2021
B Segment C Segment D Segment
Diesel mix is decreasing since 2016, B & C segments are significantly weakening for most OEM
EV + PHEV + HEV mix is increasing: from 15% (B seg) to 32% (C‐seg) in 2021
32
Air quality
Up to 75% Urban population
exposed to AQ limits > WHO
guidelines (2017) Future improvement
Source: 39th International Vienna Motor Symposium ‐
Bosch ‐The Path to a Negligible NO2 Immission
Contribution from the Diesel Powertrain
NOx and PM still over the limit in big cities, shift towards WHO guidelines could increase non compliance
for PM
Euro7 will likely be fuel neutral
Urban access restrictions and Green deal ambitions towards zero emission mobility could shape fuel
based and ICE restrictions much more than exhaust regulation
But whatever its cost/price, TCO, emissions levels, Diesel on PC is dead, and full ICE versions are under
high pressure
33
Planned obsolescence for EACH TECHNOLOGY?
500€ malus France
CAFE Europe
Gasoline
Gasoline
CdA [Gasoline] + 48V
[Gasoline]
(+0,14 m²)
[Gasoline] 48V or LPG HEV
Weight
(+305 kg)
HEV
Clio / Sandero [Clio] + 18g CO2 Kadjar [Kadjar] [[Kadjar]]
PHEV
CNG: HEV alternative from CO2 point of view Duster case = Kadjar, – 5g Bigster ~Kadjar
From CO2 tax / malus point of view
• B hatchback (Clio/Sandero): HEV and / or LPG can last up to 2030 with gasoline updates
• C SUV (Kadjar/Duster): 48V system (“P0”) with gasoline updates are mandatory on ICE, from 2022
Even HEV can become CAFE negative on the mid‐term depending on vehicle and gasoline update
34
Consequences on market mix
and OEM PF / MoB strategy
• Summary of technologies to meet CAFE
requirements
• Mix evolution forecast – All OEMs
• Focus on European CAFE target
• BEV platform strategy
• OEM battery & e motors strategy:
make or buy?
36
Future CAFE regulation 2025‐2030
Proposed by EU Commission in July 21 Previous 2023 revision clause risks

vision (2020)
in order to remain close to real life conditions
2025 (vs 2021) 2030 2030  0 emission in 2035
M1 Targets ‐15% ‐55% ‐37.5%  WLTC cycle evolution
N1 Targets ‐15% ‐50% ‐31%  “Real life” CO2 emissions control
 M1/N1 pooling flexibility
15% 30%
ZLEV mix  Passengers LCV: from M1 CAFE  to N1
for CAFE bonus PHEV (< 50g) = 0.3 x EV (M1) CAFE
Target bonus: ≤ 5%
PHEV – Utility Factor modification – Discussion Ongoing since December 21

Until 2024 2025‐2029 From 2030
 High impact on PHEV CO2 emission 
Usage Factor New UF based on a
Methodology Current UF (based on
Interpolation
default value Example for PHEV C‐seg: could be a
between current
WLTC)
system & New UF
(pending 1st OBFCM 150% increase between 2024 to 2030
data set)
Fit For 55 lead to a strong severization of CO2 target for OEMs
PHEV CO2 emission is highly link to the UF, the UF update could occur from 2025 and will impact
negatively CO2 performance for PHEV  PHEV could be close to efficient HEV
37
Summary of technologies to meet EU Regulation
MILD HYBRID HEV PHEV EV

12V/48V Electrified Gasoline E-Tech HEV E-Tech PHEV EPT Average CO2 g/km ‐ NEDC
120
100
80
60
HR13 DDT MR15 DDT
Which Market Share 40
for -1g contribution
? 20
For 2020 PWT mix : 20 to 30% 7% 2% 1% 0

EV
2020 2025 2030
Negative Negative Uncertain Positive
Depending on UF
For 2030 PWT mix :
contribution contribution contribution CAFE
A% ICE B% HEV C% PHEV
𝑨% 𝑩% 𝑪% 𝑫% 𝑬𝑽
For 2025, even a full HEV vehicle line up will not meet CAFE requirement Strong deployment
of EV (and Plug‐in hybrid) is not anymore, an optional strategy: it is mandatory!
For 2030, PHEV sustainability is linked to the UF methodology update, PHEV can emit more
CO2 than a HEV. BEV is mandatory
38
Mix evolution forecast – All OEMs – 2025
Electrification mix forecast by region by external sources
FCEV; 0%
FCEV; 0%
FCEV; 0%
EV; 22% EV; 17% Gas.‐Gaz;

Was 16% Was 8% EV; 22%
PHEV; 7% 20%
PHEV; 5% Was 18%
Gas.‐Gaz;
42% FullHEV; Diesel; 12%
6%
Gas.‐Gaz; PHEV; 11%
FullHEV; 54%
7%
48V Gas; 48V Gas; 10% 48V Gas;
48V Diesel;
18% 4% 25%
Diesel; 5% 48V Diesel; 48V Diesel;
1% FullHEV; 6%
0% Diesel; 6%
EV trend is strengthened in all markets, with a significant reduction of pure ICE
CN & EU still the closest mix, but divergence increased on PHEV & 48v trend
US ICE mix remains high > 70%, NEV* mix stable ≈ 25% but with EV&HEV on upward trend
(*) : New Energy Vehicle
39
Source
PWT ‐ : Forecasts from major Suppliers and Engineering Firm – December 2021
Aspects stratégiques des développements GMP
Mix evolution forecast – All OEMs – 2030
Mix forecast by region

FCEV; 1% 48V Diesel; Gas.‐Gaz;
FCEV; 1%
8% 3%
FCEV; 2%
Gas.‐Gaz;
Diesel; 7% 13% 48V Gas;
48V Diesel; Gas.‐Gaz; 20%
30% EV; 30%
0% EV; 38% Was 15%
Was 25%
EV; 47%
48V Gas; Was 31%
22%
Diesel; 3%
48V
PHEV; 6% Diesel; FullHEV;
PHEV; 9%
1% 48V Gas; 17% FullHEV; 9%
FullHEV; 10%
13% PHEV; 12%
Main markets are above 50% mix of high voltage Electrified PWT
EU Huge increase of EV mix vs previous forecast, consequence of “Fit For 55” and ICE sales
ban in 2035
PHEV Mix will be revised depending on UF revision
CN & US : Electrification mix trend at a lower speed than EU
40
Source
PWT ‐ : Forecasts from major Suppliers and Engineering Firm – December 2021
Aspects stratégiques des développements GMP
BEV platform strategy
2020 2025
A B C D E A B C D E
Platforms typology for EV Modified ICE PF Hybrid Platforms Dedicated EV Platforms

Production Flexibility ++ + None
Low, the PF has been Limited, design must be Optimized, design is
EV optimization
optimized for ICE. adapted for ICE AND EV focused on EV specification
2 different long‐term approaches:
• Shift to 100 % EV dedicated platform: VW, Ford, Hyundai… capital intensive, thus requiring
large volumes
• Stay with multi energy platform: Stellantis, TATA JLR…Allow high models flexibility but cannot
underpin specific top‐hats
41
OEM Battery Strategy: make or buy?
EV Player Industrial Scheme R&D Tier1
OEM Pack Module Cell Electrode CHEM Key Partner
BYD Make Make Make Make Strong BYD
SDI, LG, SKI for Europe, CATL for China, SKI for
VAG Make Make Buy Buy Strong North America
20% stake in Northvolt
TOYOTA Make Make Buy with JV/Partership Buy Strong JV w/ Panasonic, Agreements w/ CATL
BMW Make Make Buy Buy Strong Agreements w/ SDI, CATL, Northvoltz
ACC ( JV w/ TOTAL, STELLANTIS, DAIMLER),LG,
Daimler Make Make Buy with JV/Partership Buy Limited SKI, CATL (for truck & bus), D‐Accu
Current : Exclusive agreement w/ Panasonic
Buy with partership. (Gigafactory 1)
TESLA Make Make Buy Strong ‘22 : LG (Gigafactory 3) & CATL (Asia)
Make from '22
post ‘22 : Developping In house cells.
BuyStrong
Current : LG
GM Make Make Buy with JV/Partership Limited Future : JV w/ LG
HYUNDAI / KIA Make Buy Buy Buy Limited LG, SKI, CATL for China
FORD Make Make Buy Buy Limited LG, Panasonic, SKI

ACC ( JV w/ TOTAL, STELLANTIS, DAIMLER), LG,
STELLANTIS Make Make Buy with JV/Partership Buy Limited CATL,
BAIC Make Buy Buy Buy Limited LG, CATL
Many trends:
1. Either develop strong partnership with Tier 1: Tesla, Toyota, …
2. Or keep aggressive multisourcing: VW, …
3. Different levels/strategies of chemistry mastery
4. But no OEM strategy to be in « full make », with the noticeable exception of BYD
5. Europe: willingness to launch big battery players (ACC, Northvolt,…)
42
PWT ‐ Aspects stratégiques des développements GMP Source : Insight June 2021 Electric Vehicule Battery Supply Chain Analysis & OEM Declaration
OEM Power Electronics: make or buy?
Typical
Operating margin
Tier 2‐3 +++
Typical Cost Breakdown for Inverter : EMS +
Tier1 ++
Power Module makers generate the biggest Operating margin amongst the actors of the value
chain
Most competitive Tiers1 now producing their own Power module
43
OEM eMotors strategy: make or buy?
Topic Make or Buy lever?

New industrial asset to invest ( Capex) Buy!
Keep control of your value chain Make!
Unlike ICE, e motors are no longer Buy!
differentiators / part of brand DNA ? Electric Powertrain
IPM & EESM Performance & Efficiency
Optimize cost of e machines Make!
Strong investments are made from Tier 1 Buy!
suppliers to catch this new market DZ Radial Axial Moto
xHEV IPM r EV IPM & EESM
Use your existing workforces (R&D & Make! 2017 ‐> MTP 2022 : ‐20% cost reduction
Higher power, efficiency & compact motors
manufacturing plants)
… Make or Buy!?
In addition to « full make » or « full buy », alternative strategies are possible: JV or specific

partnership
This can be a local approach depending on government policies, competitiveness, … (ex.: China)
Trend is globally « Make » for BEV e‐motors, and « Buy » for mild HEV. Full HEV varies
44
Renault strategy
• Regulations & CO2 constraints
expenditure impacts
• Renault global powertrain strategy
• Renault Powertrain mix
46
Renault strategy: regulations & CO2 constraints expenditure
impacts
PWT Line‐up Evolution
(Euro6 b) (Euro6 d temp) (Euro6 e)

(Euro6 d Full)
Workload x2 between 2014‐15 and 2018‐19 to answer the new regulation (Eu6DTemp,
Eu6DFull…)
In 2020, because this trend is not sustainable for the company  rationalization strategy:
• PWT line up development prioritization
• PWT line up rationalization focus on EV and xHEV for Europe, reuse of existing assets for GOM
47
Group Renault global powertrain strategy
1‐ Expand EV
• Real EV
P‐HEV
• Range • Best TCO HEV
• Reassurance
3‐ Improve gasoline PWT 2‐ Develop a range of electrified
offers for competitiveness Powertrains (HEV & PHEV)
ZE = Top priority: FROM PIONEER TO EV FOR ALL
Enhance Renault Brand strategy by electrification and “EASY to CHOOSE” solution for each
segment
Enhance Dacia Brand strategy affordable and proven technologies (ICE, LPG, HEV)
Cover customer’s usage and requirements with best PWT solution (TCO, Cost, Fun to drive)
48
Renault Group EU‐mix scenarii to meet 2025 CAF‐E target
2025 FCEV; 0%
2025
‐15% CO2
vs 2021 Gas.‐Gaz;
EV; 22%
20%
Diesel; 12%
20 to 25% PHEV; 11%
EV/PHEV mix
48V Gas;
& 48V Diesel;
25%
4%
30% FullHEV; 6%
HEV mix
Global OEMs mix as it is
projected for 2025 is
compliant with CAF‐EU
Main gap between Renault mix & market mix is on HEV:
• Strong HEV mix is the consequence of Renault strategy to switch from Diesel to Hybrid E‐TECH for
Passenger car
49
Renault Group Powertrain mix for 2030
Powertrain mix evolution for Renault Group  Climate Plan Commitment
Renault Brand >90% EV MIX in 2030 in Europe
Alpine will be fully EV brand from 2027
H2 offer on LCV thanks to HYVIA, JV with Plug‐Power
50
Conclusion
51
Conclusion
Powertrain technology development directions = f(usage)
Powertrain coverage & needs
Cost reduction
City center Range, fast charge
access H2 EV
ZEV
range FE (Highway)
PHEV
Very low
Very low
emission
emission Autonomy
Very low FE CNG
emission HEV LPG
Fuel Efficiency Very low
GASOLINE emission
DIESEL
Usage intensity
(running cost & mileage)
Need to develop simultaneously many technologies OR to make choice:
• Running cost, autonomy and charging speed competitive BEV
• Electrified PWT based on high efficiency gasoline engine and « tiny » packaging
• CNG engines depending on infrastructure development
• H2 powertrain (fuel cell and/or ICE based depending on green H2 infrastructure development
52
Conclusion
Powertrain cost
Need a breakthrough for BEV in cost reduction to make it compatible with mass market
• Mostly on chemistry technology (ASSB…) and on cellule implementation (Cell to Pack, Module to Chassis…)
53
Conclusion
Regulations, Media & Public opinions: huge stake for automotive industry
Various (transitory) technical solutions are unavoidable to comply with these regulations as
well as with customer usages
Cars cost will rise sharply…
Lots of uncertainties: agility is key
Renault, thanks to shared technologies within the Alliance, and its EV leadership, is well
armed to face these challenges
Exciting & challenging period for automotive experts and engineers!
54

A02 - MASTGMPHE 2022 - Aspects Strategiques GMP Renault - MBR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A02 - MASTGMPHE 2022 - Aspects Strategiques GMP Renault - MBR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aspects

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

India BSVI-1 BSVI-2

Russia Euro5b+ Scenario Euro6c

H2 e-H2 e-CH4 e-liquid

Running Cost (€/100 km in

Tank cost / volume

Pollutants Emissions REF ≈ REF ≈ REF

Standard Study Standardization Regulation

Vehicle: Climate law: LCA standardization Green NCAP labelling

(*) : Renewable doesn’t mean neutral

(*) (*) Baseline:

Clutch CO2 REDUCTION (%)

ICE MILD HYBRID MILD HYBRID

ICE MILD HYBRID MILD HYBRID MILD HYBRID

ICE MILD HYBRID MILD HYBRID MILD HYBRID FULL HYBRID

ICE MILD HYBRID MILD HYBRID MILD HYBRID FULL HYBRID PLUG‐IN HYBRID

ICE MILD HYBRID MILD HYBRID MILD HYBRID FULL HYBRID PLUG‐IN HYBRID EV

Conventional HEV 2WD PHEV 2WD

2018 2020 2030

Voltage 400V 800V less cooling

B Segment C Segment D Segment

Clio / Sandero [Clio] + 18g CO2 Kadjar [Kadjar] [[Kadjar]]

CNG: HEV alternative from CO2 point of view Duster case = Kadjar, – 5g Bigster ~Kadjar

Proposed by EU Commission in July 21 Previous 2023 revision clause risks

PHEV – Utility Factor modification – Discussion Ongoing since December 21

MILD HYBRID HEV PHEV EV

For 2020 PWT mix : 20 to 30% 7% 2% 1% 0

EV; 22% EV; 17% Gas.‐Gaz;

Mix forecast by region

Platforms typology for EV Modified ICE PF Hybrid Platforms Dedicated EV Platforms

TOYOTA Make Make Buy with JV/Partership Buy Strong JV w/ Panasonic, Agreements w/ CATL

BMW Make Make Buy Buy Strong Agreements w/ SDI, CATL, Northvoltz

HYUNDAI / KIA Make Buy Buy Buy Limited LG, SKI, CATL for China

FORD Make Make Buy Buy Limited LG, Panasonic, SKI

BAIC Make Buy Buy Buy Limited LG, CATL

Topic Make or Buy lever?

In addition to « full make » or « full buy », alternative strategies are possible: JV or specific

(Euro6 b) (Euro6 d temp) (Euro6 e)

You might also like

() () Baseline: