Efficiency Technology Advancements�
John German, ICCT!
July 9, 2014!
2!
Passenger Car Fuel Economy Standards Globally!
U.S. 2025: 20.9 Canada 2025: 20.9
EU 2020: 25.8
Japan 2020: 23.4
China 2020: 21.3
S. Korea 2015: 16.7
Mexico 2016 : 14.6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Kilo
met
ers
per L
iter o
f Gas
olin
e Eq
uiva
lent
N
orm
aliz
ed to
US
CAF
E Te
st C
ycle
US-LDV
Canada-LDV
EU
Japan
China
S. Korea
India
Mexico-LDV
Solid markers and solid lines: historical performance Solid markers and dashed lines: final standard Hollow markers and dotted lines: proposal or target under study
[1]$China's$target$reflects$gasoline$vehicles$only.$The$target$may$be$higher$a:er$new$energy$vehicles$are$considered.$$[2]$US,$Canada,$and$Mexico$lightCduty$vehicles$include$lightCcommercial$vehicles.$[3]$Mexico$does$not$include$early$acFon$credits$for$MYs$2012$and$2013$but$does$include$full$applicaFon$of$other$credits.!$!!!
3!
Role of Fuel Economy Standards in Managing Performance – Fuel Consumption Tradeoff: US Example!
1975 1976
1977 1978 1979
1980 1981
1982
1983 1984
1985 1986 1987
1988 1989
1990 1991
1992 1993
1994 1995
1996 1997 1998 1999
2000 2001 2002 2003
2004 2005
2006 2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012 2013
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Fuel Consumption (l/100km)
Acceleration (0-100 kmph) in Seconds for Cars and Wagon 1975-2013 Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Phase I (1975-1981): Fuel consumption reduction takes priority over performance Phase II (1982-1987): Marginal gains in fuel consumption reduction and performance Phase III (1987-2006): Performance gains take priority over fuel consumption reduction Phase IV (2007-?): Fuel consumption reduction takes priority over performance again Data from EPA 2013 Fuel Economy Trends Report
Phase IV?
4!
Technology Deployment Spurred by Fuel Economy Standards!
Opportunities for Vehicle Efficiency Improvements!
Engine Loss!74%!
Engine!
Standby:!6%!
Driveline!Losses:!
4%!
Driveline!
Aero:!4%!
Rolling:!5%!
Braking:!7%!
Fuel Tank:!100%!
20%! 16%!
» Matt Kromer!
Urban Drive Cycle, 2005 2.5L Toyota Camry!
The Real Technology Breakthrough!
! ! !Computers!! Computer design, computer simulations, and
on-vehicle computer controls are revolutionizing vehicles and powertrains!
! Especially important for lightweight materials!! Optimize hundreds of parts – size and material!! Capture secondary weight – and cost –
reductions !! The high losses in the internal combustion
engine are an opportunity for improvement!! Also reducing size and cost of hybrid system!
6!
A broad suite of cost-effective technology packages are available to meet upcoming efficiency standards!
7!
• Assessment of US 2012-2025 standards indicates the standards can be met with:!
" Gasoline direct injection (GDI)!" Turbocharged/downsized engines!" Advanced transmissions (6-speed/8-speed automatic or dual-clutch
transmissions and high efficiency gear box)!" Vehicle mass reduction!" Lower tire rolling resistance!" Improved aerodynamics!" Friction reduction!" More efficient vehicle accessories!" Engine start-stop systems!" …..!" …..!" …..!" Some increased hybrids, EVs, PHEVs!
• No penetration of diesels or hybrid vehicles necessary to meet US 2016 standards.!
• EPA/NHTSA project that MY2025 vehicles will be 90% advanced gasoline, 9% hybrids, and 1% EV/PHEVs!
Accelerating Technology Introduction in the U.S. is driven by Fuel Economy Regulation!
Source: 2013 EPA Fuel Economy Trends Report – Cars only GDI: Gasoline Direct Injection CVT: Continuously Variable Transmission VVT: Variable Valve Timing
GDI! Turbo! VVT! 6 speed! 7+ speed! CVT! Hybrid!2004! -! 4%! 43.7%! 5%! 0.4%! 2%! 1%!
2005! -! 2%! 49.4%! 6%! 0.4%! 3%! 2%!
2006! -! 3%! 58.2%! 12%! 2%! 3%! 2%!
2007! -! 4%! 63.3%! 16%! 2%! 10%! 3%!
2008! 3%! 4%! 62.7%! 19%! 3%! 11%! 3%!
2009! 4%! 4%! 79.1%! 19%! 3%! 11%! 3%!
2010! 9%! 4%! 91.8%! 33%! 3%! 14%! 5%!
2011! 18%! 8%! 94.9%! 54%! 5%! 12%! 3%!
2012! 28%! 10%! 97.7%! 58%! 6%! 15%! 5%!
2013! 38%! 16%! 98.0%! 61%! 8%! 17%! 6%!
9!
Example of Technology Upgrade: High-Selling Passenger Cars 2010 to 2014!
12!
13!
14!
15!
16!
17!
18!
19!
20!
3.7! 3.8! 3.9! 4.0! 4.1! 4.2! 4.3! 4.4! 4.5! 4.6!
Fuel
eco
nom
y (k
m/l)!
Vehicle footprint (m2)!
2014 4-cylinder sedans!
2010 4-cylinder sedans!
Fusion!
2012!2013!
2014!
2015!
2016!Accord!
Camry !
Mazda 6!
Mazda 6!i-eLOOP!
Altima!
10
Technology Costs Dropping Rapidly!Technology availability increases - and its costs decrease - over time!
! Incremental vehicle costs and percent improvements versus MY2008 baseline!! Data from EPA/NHTSA 2012-2016 rulemaking and EPA/NHTSA/CARB TAR for
2020!
11!
Examples of new/future Technologies!
Honda Prototype Engine Base ( Electro-magnetic valve )
HCCI�Engine
30% Improvement in fuel economy:
������� ����������
���
�
��
��
��� ��� � �� �� ��������������������
�������������
�
�
Heat release rate
Crank angle [ATDC deg]
dQ/dθ[
J/de
g]
-40 0 -20 40 20
0
10
20 HCCI SI
Requires increasing the self-ignition region
Next-generation Gasoline Engines!
EX! IN!
EX! IN!
NOL!
Conventional
Negative valve overlap
Fiat MultiAir Digital Valve Actuation
Turbo Dedicated EGR Engines!
! Highly dilute, low temperature combustion!
! ~1% H2 by volume in the intake!
! Advanced ignition systems required!
! ~40% brake thermal efficiency (similar to diesel)!
! PSA 2018 introduction!
13!
SAE INTERNATIONAL
• The maximum torque, minimum rpm where maximum torque occurs, and maximum power were targeted to exceed the reference engine Targeted torque and power required the use of two stage boosting
• Clutched Eaton V400 Supercharger • BorgWarner 2070 Turbocharger • Additional heat exchanger
PFI injector added for supplemental fueling
D-EGR Engine Conversion
2014-01-1190 8
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
TORQ
UE
(Nm
)
ENGINE SPEED (rpm)
2.4 L LEA Torque2.0 L D-EGR Torque2.4 L LEA Power2.0 L D-EGR Power
POW
ER (k
W)
Christopher Chadwell, Dr. Terry Alger, Raphael Gukelberger, Jacob Zuehl – Southwest Research Institute, A DEMONSTRATION OF DEDICATED-EGR ON A 2.0 L GDI ENGINE, SAE 2014-01-1190!
14!
Lightweight Materials:Costs are dropping rapidly!
Vehicle Lightweight Research in 2017-25 Rule!
15 ‐1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Incremental m
ass reduc.on
cost ($ / lb reduced)
Percent vehicle curb weight reduc.on
Data from research literature (confiden=al industry data not shown)
EPA/NHTSA ($4.33/lb/%)
CARB evalua=on ($2.3/lb/%)
Geck 2007
Lotus 2010
Das 2009
Cheah 2007
Plotkin 2009
Aus=n 2008
EEA 2007
AISI 1998
EEA 2007
Lotus 2010 Das 2010
Das 2008
Das 2008
Bull 2009
NAS 2010
Montalbo 2008
Aus=n 2008
AISI 2001
! Technical assessments on mass-reduction involve major studies by national US laboratories, OEM steel suppliers, OEMs with universities!! Each data point represents a different material/design approach to mass reduction!! Studies vary in technical rigor, transparency, comprehensiveness, crashworthiness
validation!! EPA projected average vehicle mass would decrease by 7% by 2025!
Major New Mass-Reduction Work!
16
! Lotus Engineering (CARB) – Toyota Venza!! Continuation of 2010 study (-33% mass Toyota Venza)!! Cost-effective 18-32% mass reduction at < $0/vehicle!! Includes crashworthiness safety (NHTSA FMVSS) validation!
! FEV (US EPA) – Toyota Venza!! Technical assessment of -18% mass at < $0/vehicle!! Includes crashworthiness safety (NHTSA FMVSS) validation
and detailed tear-down cost assessments!
! EDAG / Electricore (NHTSA) – Honda Accord!! Technical assessment of -22% mass at $319/vehicle!! Includes crashworthiness safety (NHTSA FMVSS) validation!
! EDAG WorldAutoSteel “Future Steel Vehicle”!! 12-18% mass reduction, no additional cost, with only using
steels!
! George Washington University (NHTSA) – Chevy Silverado!! 19% mass reduction with advanced plastics, composites!
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Crashworthiness/Plastics/811692.pdf !
Vehicle lightweighting is highly cost-effective!! Major new state-of-the-art studies examine advanced materials,
parts integration, system-level holistic vehicle redesign!! High lightweighting potential, crashworthy designs, and diverse highly
cost-effective approaches!! EDAG, FEV, Lotus, and FSV lightweighting cost results are shown
below!
17!-1000!
-500!
0!
500!
1000!
1500!
0%! 5%! 10%! 15%! 20%! 25%! 30%! 35%!
Incr
emen
tal c
ost (
$/ve
hicl
e)!
Percent vehicle curb weight reduction!
Data from older studies! Data from recent state-of-art studies!
Geck%2007%Ford%F150%
Lotus&2010&
Das%2009%
Cheah%2007%
Plotkin%2009%
AISI%1998%
Das%2010%
Das%2008%
Das%2008%Bull%2009%
NAS%2010%
Montalbo%2008%AISI%2001%
AusCn%2008%
AusCn%2008%
EEA%2007%EEA%2007%
Lotus&2010&NHTSA&EDAG&2012&
FSV&2012&
EPA&FEV/EDAG&&2012&
Lotus&2012&
Percent vehicle curb weight reduction!
Weight Reduction in 2015 Ford F150!
The largest selling vehicle in the US!Weight reduction: !318 kg, 14%!Engine downsize:!3.5L to 2.7L!!
First use of aluminum body in high volume production vehicle! 95% of body– Aluminum! 77% of frame– HSS! !
Source: http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/2015/!
Vanguard of a truly radical transformation in how vehicles are designed and built !
Examples of vehicles in production�Vehicle make Model
year Weight reduction (kg)*
Weight reduction (%)*
Designed market
Ford F150 2015 318 14% US Acura MDX 2014 111 5% US GM Cadillac CTS 2014 111 6% US Peugeot 308 SW Blue Hdi 2014 140 9% EU VW Golf TDI 2015 49 4% EU Audi Q7 2014 363 15% US, EU BMW i3 EV 2014 249 17% US, EU Land Rover Range Rover 2014 350 14% US, EU Porsche Cayenne 2012 181 8% US, EU Audi A8 2014 145 7% US, EU Audi A3 2014 80 6% US, EU Nissan Leaf 2012 80 5% US, EU Lamborghini Huracan 2015 78 5% US, EU Audi TT 3rd gen 2.0 TDI 2015 50 4% US, EU * The weight of new models are compared to its predecessors, except for
BMW i3 EV, which is compared to the conventional steel structure.!
20!
Technology Tear-Down: Robust and Transparent Cost Estimates!
21!
US EPA / CARB / ICCT Vehicle computer simulation RICARDO (Detroit)
Tear-down cost assessment FEV (Detroit)
ICCT Vehicle computer simulation RICARDO (Shoreham + Detroit)
Tear-down cost assessment FEV (Aachen + Detroit)
Significantly improved method to assess CO2 reduction potential and costs of technologies.!
22!
US EPA / CARB / ICCT Vehicle computer simulation RICARDO (Detroit)
Tear-down cost assessment FEV (Detroit)
ICCT Vehicle computer simulation RICARDO (Shoreham + Detroit)
Tear-down cost assessment FEV (Aachen + Detroit)
Significantly improved method to assess CO2 reduction potential and costs of technologies.!
23!
Ricardo CO2 reduction analysis on
behalf of ICCT EPA / NHTSA
2017-25 rulemaking
FEV and Lotus Mass Reduction Analyses
only where no EU information available
FEV cost analysis on
behalf of ICCT
!!Data sources!
Methodology!
CO2 reduction cost curves for EU vehicle segments (ICCT, Meszler Engineering Services)
Baseline, 1.6l, M5, 156 g/km, 6.4 l
SS, 1.6l, M5, 136 g/km, 5.6 l
SS+SGTDI, 0.8l, 8DCT, 97 g/km, 4.0 l
SS+CEGR, 0.8l, 8DCT, 93 g/km, 3.8 l
P2 AtkCPS, 1.9l, 8DCT, 77 g/km, 3.1 l
P2 AtkCPS, 1.6l, 8DCT, -13% mass, -10% RL, 66 g/km, 2.7 l
SS+SGTDI, 0.7l, 8DCT, -27% mass, -20% RL, 74 g/km, 3.0 l
P2 AtkCPS, 1.2l, 8DCT, -27% mass, -20% RL, 58 g/km, 2.4 l
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
-65% -55% -45% -35% -25% -15% -5%
Ad
dit
ion
al d
irect
man
ufa
ctu
rin
g c
osts
[E
UR
] re
lati
ve t
o 2
010 b
aselin
e
CO2 reduction relative to 2010 baseline
95 g/km
(3.9 l/100km)
80 g/km
(3.3 l/100km)
70 g/km
(2.9 l/100km)
corresponding
fleet targets
2015
2020
2025
24!
! C-segment gasoline!
!!!The Final Result!!
Methodology!
25!
Comparison of Vehicles in US versus Mexico !
High Altitude Impacts!
26!
• Fuel economy is BETTER at high altitude:!• Air density is lower, decreasing aerodynamic drag and reducing
pumping losses. !• There is a loss of power if the engine is naturally
aspirated: !• If a manufacturer designs the vehicle for high altitude, they will
need to install a larger engine. !• However, engines in Mexico are still smaller and have less power
than engines in the US, making it easier for Mexican vehicles to meet the standards.!
• Turbocharging will eliminate the power loss at high altitude - while preserving the pumping loss improvements:!
"All EcoBoost V-6 engines maintain peak torque capability at well over 5,000 feet above sea level, making EcoBoost-equipped vehicles ideal for high-altitude operation." http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=30651!
27
Wide-Range Transmission Gears!! Older 4- and 5-speed transmissions have a gear range of about 4.5 (ratio
of shortest gear to tallest gear). It cannot cover all driving from highway cruising to high-altitude grades. Thus, some low-powered vehicles may need to have shorter gears for Mexico.!
! Current 6+ speed transmissions have wider gear ranges, of 6.0 or more. This provides proper gearing for both highway cruising and high-altitude grades, without the need to change gearing.!
! Also note that turbocharged engines do not lose performance at high-altitude, further reducing any need for shorter gears.!
Older transmissions!
Current US transmissions!
Mexico gearing!European gearing!
Gear range!
Gear range!
Gear range!
28
Displacement vs. Footprint: All Vehicles!
! Regression of engine size versus vehicle footprint is 14% higher in the US than in Mexico!! 2008 data for Mexico and the US,
cars and light trucks combined!
y = 0.8165x
R² = 0.3818
y = 0.7158x
R² = 0.36184
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (liters)
Footprint (m2)
U.S. MY2008 vehicles
Mexico MY2008 vehicles
Linear (U.S. MY2008 vehicles)
Linear (Mexico MY2008 vehicles)
US Mexico Mexico vs US
Test weight (kg) 1875 1548 ‐17%
Engine size (liter) 3.3 2.4 ‐27%
Liters/kg 0.117 0.102 ‐13%
Displacement/kg ‐ Mexico versus US vehicles ‐ 2008 data
29
Power vs Footprint: All vehicles!! Regression of engine power (hp)
versus vehicle footprint is 12% higher in the US than in Mexico!! 2008 data for Mexico and the US,
cars and light trucks combined!
y = 57.328x
R² = 0.12543
y = 51.378x
R² = 0.24362
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Horsepower
Footprint (m2)
U.S. MY2008 vehicles
Mexico MY2008 vehicles
Linear (U.S. MY2008 vehicles)
Linear (Mexico MY2008 vehicles)
US Mexico Mexico vs US
Test weight (kg) 1875 1548 ‐17%
Horsepower 220 157 ‐28%
HP/kg 0.117 0.102 ‐13%
HP/kg ‐ Mexico versus US vehicles ‐ 2008 data
30
Cars 1.0L – 3.5L: Horsepower v Footprint!! Regression of HP versus vehicle footprint is 17% higher in the US!
! 2008 data for Mexico and the US!
y = 50.31x
R² = 0.10209
y = 42.92x
R² = 0.27502
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Horsepower
Footprint (m2)
Cars only ‐ Displacement 1.0 ‐ 3.5L
U.S. MY2008 vehicles
Mexico MY2008 vehicles
Linear (U.S. MY2008 vehicles)
Linear (Mexico MY2008 vehicles)
31
Cars 1.0L – 3.5L: Horsepower v Test Weight!! Regression of HP versus test weight is 11% higher in the US!
! 2008 data for Mexico and the US!
y = 0.1265x
R² = 0.37053
y = 0.1137x
R² = 0.45595
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Horsepower
Test weight (kg)
Cars only ‐ Displacement 1.0 ‐ 3.5L
U.S. MY2008 vehicles
Mexico MY2008 vehicles
Linear (U.S. MY2008 vehicles)
Linear (Mexico MY2008 vehicles)
32
Cars 1.0L – 1.8L: Horsepower v Footprint!! Regression of HP versus vehicle footprint is 3% higher in the US!
! 2008 data for Mexico and the US!
y = 32.964x
R² = ‐0.0955
y = 32.011x
R² = 0.34569
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Horsepower
Footprint (m2)
Cars only ‐ Displacement 1.0 ‐ 1.8L
U.S. MY2008 vehicles
Mexico MY2008 vehicles
Linear (U.S. MY2008 vehicles)
Linear (Mexico MY2008 vehicles)
33
Cars 1.0L – 1.8L: Horsepower v Test Weight!! Regression of HP versus test weight is 2% higher in the US!
! 2008 data for Mexico and the US!
y = 0.0928x
R² = 0.35022
y = 0.0913x
R² = 0.52025
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Horsepower
Test Weight (kg)
Cars only ‐ Displacement 1.0 ‐ 1.8L
U.S. MY2008 vehicles
Mexico MY2008 vehicles
Linear (U.S. MY2008 vehicles)
Linear (Mexico MY2008 vehicles)
34!
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy Improvement Opportunities!
35!
Improve vehicle and trailer aerodynamics
Reduce rolling
resistance
Improve transmission and drivetrain
efficiency
Improve engine
efficiency
Reduce vehicle weight
Optimize driver
behavior
Reduce auxiliary
loads
There are many opportunities to reduce fuel consumption of heavy vehicles (including buses).!
US Technology Assessment!
Slide 36!
U.S. National Academy of Sciences (March 2010) found 35-50% improvement could be achieved in the 2015 to 2020 timeframe!
National Academy of Sciences (2010) FIGURE S-1 Comparison of 2015-2020 New Vehicle Potential Fuel Savings Technology for Seven Vehicle Types: Tractor Trailer (TT), Class 3-6 Box (Box), Class 3-6 Bucket (Bucket), Class 8 Refuse (Refuse), Transit Bus (Bus), Motor Coach (Coach), and Class 2b Pickups and Vans (2b). Also, for each vehicle class, the fuel consumption benefit of the combined technology packages is calculated as follows: % FCpackage = 1 – (1 - %FCtech 1)(1 - %FCtech2)(1 - %FCtech N) where %FCtech x is the percent benefit of an individual technology. SOURCE: TIAX (2009) ES-4.!
37!
Conclusion!
Summary!
38!
• Computer aided design and computer simulations are accelerating technology development.!• Especially important for lightweight materials.!
• Costs are rapidly decreasing.!• Altitude impacts are becoming less important, due to
turbocharging and transmissions with a wider range of gears.!
• Engines in Mexico are smaller and have less power than in the US, making it easier for them to meet the standards.!
For more information… ! ICCT Passenger Vehicles website:
http://www.theicct.org/passenger-vehicles
! Global Passenger Vehicle Standards Update: http://www.theicct.org/global-passenger-vehicle-standards-update
! US CAFE Standards: http://www.theicct.org/policies/us-cafe-standards
! EU LDV CO2 Regulation: http://www.theicct.org/policies/eu-light-duty-vehicle-co2-regulation
! Review and Comparative Analysis of Fiscal Policies to promote fuel economy:
! http://www.theicct.org/review-and-comparative-analysis-fiscal-policies
! CO2 Standards: http://www.theicct.org/issues/co2-standards
Anup Bandivadekar anup “at” theicct.org
@TheICCT
Slide 39!
40!
Thank You!