Supplier qualification · Reviewed 5 October 2026
Set vehicle, power, topology, and volume to build an RFQ evidence checklist. It does not rank suppliers or assess engineering fit.
Magnet-Free Motor's published manufacturing scope includes EESM / wound-rotor assemblies, hairpin stators, and motor lamination stacks. Confirm complete-motor scope, production site, and capacity for your program during the RFQ.
Decision summary
Ask for evidence tied to the exact plant, product scope, process route, and ramp plan. A public BMW example shows an EESM made at its Steyr plant, while other e-drive components are made at separate sites; capability claims should be checked at the location that will build your part.
Source: BMW i3 technical information, 18 March 2026PMSM, EESM/WRSM, and induction designs use different rotor solutions. Ask each candidate to explain the actual process route, controls, and validation for your design instead of treating hairpin winding, magnet insertion, rotor winding, or die casting as universal requirements.
Source: BMW i3 technical information, 18 March 2026IATF 16949 customer-specific requirements vary by OEM, and the applicable quality-system expectations depend on supplier role and scope. ISO 26262 uses a safety lifecycle and ASIL-oriented analysis; do not make ASIL-D a blanket certificate requirement for every motor supplier.
Source: IATF customer-specific requirements; ISO 26262 overviewAlso see: ISO 26262 functional-safety scopePeak power alone is not enough to screen a traction motor supplier. Put continuous and peak torque/speed, voltage, cooling conditions, operating cycle, package limits, annual volume, and ramp profile into the same RFQ baseline.
Source: Procurement guidance; validate against the vehicle and inverter requirementsHow to use the result
The tool combines four choices into a project profile and a set of evidence requests. It does not score suppliers, check live certificates, or infer vehicle safety targets. Use one common RFQ baseline when comparing candidates.
STEP 01
Vehicle type, peak power, topology, and annual volume frame the questions.
STEP 02
Add continuous ratings, speed range, voltage, cooling, package, and ramp needs.
STEP 03
Match certificates, process controls, test records, and capacity to the named plant.
STEP 04
Confirm customer-specific quality and allocated functional-safety requirements.
Architecture comparison
These are questions to take into an RFQ, not universal line requirements or audited supplier ratings. Actual processes vary by design and manufacturing site.
| RFQ dimension | PMSM | EESM / WRSM | Induction motor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rotor approach to verify | Permanent magnets and retention method | Wound rotor and the selected excitation arrangement | Conductive rotor cage / conductor process |
| Evidence to request | Magnet traceability, retention validation, and process controls | Rotor winding controls, excitation continuity, and speed validation | Rotor process controls, balance records, and loss/thermal validation |
| Supply-chain questions | Magnet source, traceability, and agreed change-notification plan | Copper, electrical steel, excitation components, and second sources | Rotor conductor, electrical steel, casting or fabrication route, and capacity |
| Do not assume | That every EESM uses slip rings or the same rotor-winding process | That every supplier owns its rotor casting process in-house |
Qualitative comparison reviewed 5 October 2026. It does not rank cost, efficiency, or supply risk; those depend on the specified motor and use case.
Limits and mitigations
Risk: A certificate may not cover the quoted site, product scope, or OEM program.
Mitigation: Check the certificate and scope with the customer-specific requirements and named production location.
Risk: A successful hand-built sample does not establish cycle time, process capability, or launch capacity.
Mitigation: Ask for a process flow, industrialization milestones, representative line evidence, and a named PPAP/APQP plan.
Risk: A nominal power rating can hide thermal, speed, packaging, or material constraints in the vehicle duty cycle.
Mitigation: Issue a common requirement baseline and compare validated duty-cycle data and costed process assumptions.
Evidence and scope
Sources support the standard scope and the cited production example. They do not certify any third-party supplier. Reviewed 5 October 2026; confirm current editions and applicability to the vehicle class and program.
ISO’s overview lists safety lifecycle parts and ASIL-oriented analysis. Safety allocation and applicable work products must be agreed for the program and vehicle class; this page does not assign an ASIL.
The IATF page publishes separate requirements by automaker, supporting the need to check the target customer’s current rules instead of treating one certification checklist as universal.
BMW describes an EESM on the rear axle, an asynchronous motor on the front axle, and identifies Steyr as the EESM production site. This is one manufacturer’s example, not an industry-wide supplier benchmark.
BMW describes production of rotor, stator, transmission, inverter, and housing across its sites. Use it as an example of why capability and process ownership must be checked by component and location.
For application-level motor sizing and topology trade-offs, see the automotive traction motor guide. For component capability, review the EESM rotor program, or compare custom motor development in the custom traction motor guide.
Share the target duty cycle, topology, annual volume, and production timing to start a technical discussion.
Inquiry Email
Include target torque/speed, quantity, and delivery location.
Prefer a web form? Send your RFQ through the contact page.
