Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 191
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? APPENDIX A PRESS RELEASE ANNOUNCING FUEL ECONOMY STUDY December 26, 1990 FOR GENERAL RELEASE National Research Council COMMISSION ON ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SYSTEMS ENERGY ENGINEERING BOARD AN EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL AND PROSPECTS FOR IMPROVING THE FUEL ECONOMY OF NEW AUTOMOBILES AND LIGHT TRUCKS IN THE UNITED STATES INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to estimate fuel economy levels that could practically be achieved in new automobiles and light trucks (up to 8500 lbs. gross vehicle weight rating) produced for the United States market in the next decade. The study has been requested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to ascertain the potential and prospects to improve the fuel economy of new vehicles, while meeting existing and pending environmental and safety standards for the vehicles. The study will be conducted in two phases. The work under Phase 1 is to be completed by June 30, 1991 and that under Phase 2 by March 31, 1992. OBJECTIVES Phase 1 of the study is expected to provide, on a "best judgment" basis, estimates by size class of vehicles (e.g., full-sized, mid-sized, compact, and sub-compact passenger cars, and large and small light trucks) produced by automotive corporations with major
OCR for page 192
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? assembly facilities in the United States and Canada of fuel economy practically achievable in the next decade, taking into consideration, as appropriate, provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the state of the art in the applications of technologies relevant to achieving higher fuel economy and improving safety, and the viability of the domestic automotive industry in the U.S. market. Phase 1 work is also expected to result in the identification of principal barriers in the United States that appear to constrain the rates at which technologies enhancing fuel economy can be introduced and sustained in the marketplace. Phase 2 of the study will analyze alternative measures to overcome the principal barriers to the technologies considered in Phase 1. PROPOSED EFFORT A committee will be appointed by the National Research Council to carry out this study. People with requisite qualifications will be sought for membership on the study committee with expertise in areas such as the following: internal combustion engines, fuels and lubricants, drive trains, automotive structures and materials, emission control systems, vehicle design, manufacturing of cars and light trucks, safety, financial practices and markets relevant to the automotive industry, federal and state regulations under which the automotive industry functions, consumer behavior, and automotive industry/U.S. economy interactions. A committee slate will be sought that is balanced with regard to the science and technology type of credentials and those from other disciplinary areas such as finance, economics, regulations, and behavioral sciences. In Phase 1, the Committee will rely primarily on mechanisms such as the following to expeditiously obtain information pertinent to the study: The Committee will invite structured presentations, to be delivered at committee meetings and in a workshop forum, from domestic and foreign automobile manufacturers and their suppliers; from representatives of qualified organizations closely involved with but functioning outside of the automotive industry per se; from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and its contractors and subcontractors as appropriate; and from other relevant parties (individuals, firms and other entities in the private sector, and government agencies). The Committee will avail itself of the data and analytical resources of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that would be relevant to the study including, as appropriate, the resources of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's contractors and subcontractors who specialize in studies of the automotive industry and markets. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will facilitate the Committee's use of these resources. The Committee will commission expert written reviews of selected topics from the extant literature, for example, trade-offs in automotive design of weight versus safety; dynamics of automotive industry changes since the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973; myths and realities in consumers preferences for automobiles; and so forth.
OCR for page 193
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? On the strength of what the Committee ascertains from the foregoing processes, the following tasks will be addressed: PHASE 1 Task 1 The Committee will evaluate technologies in conventionally powered cars and light trucks that could, in the time frame of the next decade, contribute to improved fuel economy of new vehicles. Examples of technologies that might be presented to the Committee include the following: front-wheel drive; reductions in aerodynamic drag; 4-and 5-speed automatic transmissions; torque converter lockup; electronic and computer controls; continuously variable transmissions; 6-speed manual transmissions; high efficiency accessories; electric power steering; engine improvements (e.g., from components design, controls, materials); 2-cycle engines; diesel engines; improved lubricants; energy storage; reductions in rolling resistance and other driveline losses; weight reductions; reductions in horsepower-to-weight ratios. In its evaluation, the Committee will consider factors such as the following: The magnitude of fuel economy improvements that can be expected from the technologies, singly or in combinations. The time at which the technologies could be introduced and the rates at which they might penetrate the U.S. market, given existing industrial capabilities in the United States and limitations (e.g., technical, financial, regulatory, organizational, and marketing limitations) to deploying improved or new capabilities in the next decade. Likely effects in the United States of the technologies on initial and life-cycle costs of vehicles and vehicle safety, taking account of the effects on fuel economy of the interaction between and among technologies. For the purposes of evaluation, the Committee will consider defining a baseline with vehicle size, size mix, equipment and performance consistent with the 1990 model year new cars and light trucks sold in the United States. Measures of fuel economy will be based on the EPA Test Cycle, and assumptions regarding future automotive fuel prices may be based on projections made by the Department of Energy and other sources of such projections available in the public domain. Task 2 The Committee will identify and describe the principal barriers to the introduction in the United States of the technologies underlying the improvements in the fuel economy of new vehicles.
OCR for page 194
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? In performing this task, the committee will use information presented by the automobile manufacturers, by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and by others. Such information is expected to cover topics such as the following: manufacturers' capital and operating costs in aggregate; research and development plans and costs, technology development and manufacturing lead times; tooling, assembly lines, plants and facilities conversion; employment; engineering resources; suppliers' capabilities to meet changes; principal federal and state regulations on environment and safety affecting vehicle design and operation, including new safety standards (e.g., automatic restraints, side and head impact protection, roof crush resistance), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, California Air Quality issues, phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs); availability and use of alternative fuels; marketability of new vehicles; initial and life-cycle costs of vehicle ownership; competitiveness issues; best-in-the-world vehicles (on the road); prototypes in testing. It is anticipated that, in the conduct of Tasks 1 and 2, a workshop will be held as described earlier. Proceedings of the workshop will be published promptly on a stand-alone basis. Task 3 The Committee will prepare estimates by vehicle size class of the fuel economy gains that can be practically achieved in the United States in the next decade. As appropriate, the Committee will condition its estimates in terms of sensitivities expected to selected external factors. Examples of such factors (which may also require assumptions and judgments by the Committee) include the state of the U.S. economy at the end of the decade; world oil prices and availabilities; current product plans of automobile manufacturers; heightened public concerns for safety; and so forth. The Committee will also prepare estimates, by vehicle size class, of the average incremental first cost per vehicle to the consumer attributable to higher fuel economy (relative to estimates of average life-cycle costs of vehicle ownership and operation), and the incremental annual cost, in aggregate, to the automotive industry in producing higher fuel economy vehicles. The Committee will not, however, address the formulation of new corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards using its estimates of practically achievable fuel economy improvements in new vehicles nor will it, in Phase 1, address other public policy measures to achieve greater fuel economy in new vehicles. Task 4 The Committee will prepare a Phase 1 report setting forth its findings, the rationale therefor, and the description of the barriers identified in this Phase. A manuscript of this report (after it has been subjected to the National Research Council review process) will be delivered by the National Research Council to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by June 30, 1991.
OCR for page 195
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? PHASE 2 Task 5 As presently envisioned in Phase 2, the Committee will analyze in greater detail the principal barriers to the market introduction and adoption of the most important technologies considered in Phase 1 and present alternative approaches to overcoming these barriers. The Committee will also consider addressing technologies such as electric and hybrid vehicles that were not considered in Phase 1. In any event, a more specific definition of Phase 2 requirements will be made in conjunction with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on the basis of information generated in Phase 1. Task 6 The Committee will prepare a Phase 2 report setting forth its findings and conclusions. A manuscript of this report (after it has been subjected to the National Research Council review process) will be delivered by the National Research Council to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by March 31, 1992. ANTICIPATED RESULTS The study will result in two reports, one at the end of each phase, and a published proceedings of a workshop, which will be held in Phase 1. Committee Agenda: In consultation with NHTSA subsequent to the committee's first meeting, May 13-15, 1991, the date for completing Phase 1 of the study was extended beyond June 30, 1991. The committee held a workshop as part of its second meeting, July 8-12, 1991. The proceedings of the workshop could not, however, be published as originally planned because of time and resource constraints. The schedule for Phase 2 of the study has not yet been determined.
OCR for page 196
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? APPENDIX B PROVEN AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES: FUEL ECONOMY AND PRICE IMPLICATIONS This appendix (1) describes how each proven fuel economy technology works and the aspects of vehicle energy use it affects, (2) examines and compares literature estimates of the improvements in fuel economy that may be achievable for each alternative technology compared with a baseline technology, and (3) examines literature estimates of the retail price equivalent (RPE) of using each alternative technology. The appendix then develops the data bases that underlie the technology-penetration, or shopping cart, projections of fuel economy in Chapter 7. DATA SOURCES FOR THE SHOPPING CART PROJECTIONS To implement the shopping cart approach, one must have data on the costs, fuel economy contribution, and market penetration for the technologies of interest. All are difficult to acquire. In practice, costs proved to be more difficult for the committee to estimate than potential fuel economy improvement, because the underlying bases for the costs are less well defined and hitherto not well analyzed. Also, information on costs is proprietary in nature so the open literature is very sparse. The committee obtained data on the market shares of the technologies in MY 1990 from Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. (EEA, personal communication, October 2, 1991) and from SRI International (1991). The EEA provided the committee with estimates of the market shares for the various technologies by size class and by import versus domestic manufacture, for passenger cars and light trucks. The SRI report provided estimates for all passenger cars manufactured by members of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA), that is, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, and Honda of America.1 The committee compared the two sources by computing the sales-weighted average market shares for domestic cars based on EEA's 1 The text of the SRI report might suggest that the cost analysis included inputs from all the manufacturers. Honda informed the committee that it did not contribute cost information to the study.
OCR for page 197
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? data and comparing them with the market shares reported for domestic manufacturers in the SRI report. By and large, the estimates are in good agreement. Differences (e.g., market shares of 4-valve engines) seem to arise from the inclusion of Honda's U.S. production in the SRI data and its exclusion from EEA's domestic estimates (Honda's U.S. production is considered imported for corporate average fuel economy [CAFE] purposes). The percentage improvement in fuel economy that can be ascribed to a given technology continues to be debated among scientists and engineers. While there has been agreement on some technologies, the committee found contention about others. Most of the arguments have to do with the definitions of technologies—the same name is often given to quite different versions of a generic technology in different sources. Some differences have to do with the details of how a technology is implemented. Most engine technologies considered, for example, can be optimized for performance or fuel economy. When optimized for performance, they do not yield as great a fuel economy benefit. The automotive industry and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), together with EEA, a DOE contractor, have spent a considerable amount of time and effort attempting to resolve the debate over fuel economy potential. In meetings over nearly two years, engineers and experts from the domestic manufacturers and DOE have scrutinized definitions, assumptions, and estimation methods. This process produced revisions of several estimates and a narrowing of differences, but not complete agreement. Estimates made by nearly all the major automobile manufacturers have been compiled by Ford Motor Company (1991). Estimates for particular sets of technologies have also been developed by Berger et al. (1990) and by SRI (1991). The committee considered all these sources, which are compiled in Table B-1. It elected to base its shopping cart projections on two sets of estimates—those developed by EEA (1991a) under the sponsorship of DOE and those developed by SRI (1991) under the sponsorship of the MVMA. The SRI estimates, developed to serve as a consensus from the domestic industry, are generally similar, but not identical to the estimates provided by Ford. The EEA and SRI reports are the only sources that provide technology-specific information on both percentage fuel economy improvements and costs. The cost estimates are summarized in Table B-2. ENGINE TECHNOLOGIES Under the category of engine technologies in Table B-1 are included those technologies that address the thermodynamic efficiency of combustion, internal engine friction, and pumping losses, as well as energy used by essential engine accessories, such as oil pumps and alternators, and nonessential accessories, such as air-conditioners and power steering.
OCR for page 198
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? TABLE B–1 Estimates of Fuel Economy Improvement Potential of Various Technologies (percent) TECHNOLOGY BASELINE EEA SRI BSA FORD GM CHRYSLER TOYOTA HONDA NISSAN MITSUBISHI ENGINE TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL Roller cam followers Flat followers 2.0 1.7 0.3 3.0 1.5 2.4 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.3 Friction reduction, -10% Base 1987 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.4 Accessory improvement Conventional 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.0 1.4 0.5 0.2 0.8 Deceleration fuel restriction None 1.0 1.0 1.0 Compression ratio, +.5 9:1 (EEA 4-V only) [a] 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.3 1.0 FUEL SYSTEMS Throttle-body fuel injection Carburetor 3.0 2.6 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.4 0.8 1.0 3.3 Multipoint fuel injection Carburetor 5.0 [b] 4.6 3.1 6.0 4.0 4.9 2.5 3.5 4.3 VALVE TRAIN Overhead camshaft Overhead valve 3.0 2.5 1.2 3.5 1.5 2.0 0.8 2.0 4 valves per cylinder 2 valves 5.0 3.0 2.1 3.5 3.0 3.5 4.5 2.0 3.4 Variable valve timing Fixed timing 6.0 2.6 3.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 [c] 2.7 REDUCED NUMBER OF CYLINDERS 4-cylinder 6-cylinder 3.0 0.0 1.2 -3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6-cylinder 8-cylinder 3.0 1.0 -0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGIES Torque converter lock-up Open converter 3.0 2.0 2.8 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.2 Electric transmission control Hydraulic 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 4-speed Automatic 3-speed auto 4.5 2.8 2.9 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.3 1.8 3.0 5-speed Automatic 3-speed auto 7.0 3.3 5.0 4.5 3.0 3.5 3.3 4.0 Continuously variable transmission 3-speed auto 8.0 4.8 5.5 4.5 3.0 3.8 5.5 5-speed Manual [d] 3-speed auto 8.0 4.8 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ROLLING RESISTANCE, AERODYNAMICS, AND WEIGHT Front wheel drive Rear wheel drive 10.0 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.0 1.1 3.0 Aerodynamics Base 2.3 2.4 2.7 2.0 3.1 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.2 1.7 Weight reduction, -10% Base 6.6 5.0 9.1 5.5 8.0 5.0 5.5 5.0 6.0 Electric power steering Conventional 1.0 1.4 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Advanced tires, -10% Base 1.0 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 Advanced lubricants Conventional 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.5 [a] Fuel economy benefit for EEA incorporated into 4-valve engine. [b] Apportioned to account for incorporation of limited deceleration fuel restriction in multipoint fuel injection. [c] A savings as large as 12.5 percent can be inferred from discussion in Chapter 2 or Appendix C. [d] Fuel economy benefit assumed same as that of CVT over 3-speed automatic transmission. Source: Committee adaptation of summary of presentations to the committee, July 1991, prepared by A. Gilmour (Ford, 1991). Baseline technologies are arbitrary and have been changed from some original sources to put all estimates on a comparable basis.
OCR for page 199
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? TABLE B–2 Costs of Fuel Economy Improvement Technologies Data Source and Engine Type EEA (1988 $) SRI (1990 $) TECHNOLOGY BASELINE 4 Cyl 6 Cyl 8 Cyl 4 Cyl 6 Cyl 8 Cyl ENGINE TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL Roller cam followers Flat followers 16 24 32 65 65 65 Friction reduction, -10% Base 1987 30 40 50 60 60 60 Accessory improvement Conventional 12 12 12 200 200 200 Deceleration fuel restriction None 5 5 5 Compression ratio, +.5 9:1 (EEA 4-V only) 1 1 1 FUEL SYSTEMS Throttle-body fuel injection Carburetor 42 70 70 65 65 65 Multipoint fuel injection Carburetor 90 134 150 215 215 215 VALVE TRAIN Overhead camshaft Overhead valve 110 160 200 400 400 400 4 valves per cylinder 2 valves 140 180 225 400 400 400 Variable valve timing Fixed timing 140 200 267 100 100 100 REDUCED NUMBER OF CYLINDERS [a] 4-cylinder 6-cylinder 0 (300) (550) 0 (300) (550) 6-cylinder 8-cylinder 300 0 (250) 300 0 (250) TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGIES Torque converter lock-up Open converter 50 50 50 56 56 56 Electric transmission control Hydraulic 24 24 24 122 122 122 4-speed Automatic 3-speed auto 225 225 225 230 230 230 5-speed Automatic 3-speed auto 325 325 325 530 530 530 Continuously variable transmission 3-speed auto 325 325 325 640 640 640 5-speed Manual [d] 3-speed auto ROLLING RESISTANCE, AERODYNAMICS, AND WEIGHT Front wheel drive Rear wheel drive 240 240 240 26 26 26 Aerodynamics Base 40 40 40 60 60 60 Weight reduction, -10% Base —varies [b] — 470 470 470 Electric power steering [c] Conventional 45 45 45 61 61 61 Advanced tires, -10% Base 18 18 18 20 20 20 Advanced lubricants Conventional 2 3 3 3 3 3 [a] Reduced number of cylinders keeping engine displacement constant. Numbers in EEA columns are based on SRI. [b] Based on cost of $0.50 per pound saved (EEA, 1991a) multiplied by 10 percent of average weight of all cars in the size class. [c] Committee estimate based on price of electric power steering for Honda Civic in Japan. Source: Committee estimates based on adaptation of data from EEA (1991b), SRI (1991), and other sources. General This subcategory of engine technologies includes those specifically addressing friction reduction and thermodynamic efficiency, as well as certain ones that do not fit under the other subcategories—fuel systems, valve trains, and number of cylinders.
OCR for page 200
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? Roller Cam Followers In conventional engines, intake and exhaust valves are operated by a camshaft whose lobes are in sliding contact with a cam follower. This is a large source of friction in a conventional engine, accounting for up to one-fourth of all engine friction (Ledbetter and Ross, 1990). Roller cam followers incorporate hardened steel roller bearings that reduce this source of friction. They are estimated to increase fuel economy by about 2 percent. Domestic manufacturers tend to give higher estimates than foreign manufacturers, as shown in Table B-1, and they currently make much greater use of roller cam followers, which are already in widespread use in car and light-truck engines of all sizes. EEA (1991b) estimates that the RPE of roller cams is $4 per cylinder, or $16 for a 4-cylinder engine to $32 for an 8-cylinder. SRI (1991) reports a much higher RPE, $65, as an average for all cars.2 Friction Reduction About 20 percent of engine power is lost to friction (Office of Technology Assessment [OTA], 1991). The primary sources of friction at moderate engine speeds, in order of importance, are the pistons and rings, valve train, crankshaft, and oil pump (EEA, 1991a). Engine friction has been gradually reduced over several decades. According to SRI, redesign of pistons and rings and modification of bearings throughout the engine could produce an overall 10 percent reduction in engine friction, yielding a fuel economy gain of 1.5 to 2.0 percent. EEA and Ledbetter and Ross (1990) concur with the high end of this range (2.0 percent) for the fuel economy effect of low-tension piston rings, closer machining tolerances for pistons, cylinders and bearing surfaces, and use of lightweight pistons.3 The latter sources point out that the use of lightweight valves and ceramic pistons, titanium valve springs, lightweight composite connecting rods, and two rather than three piston rings, together with oil-pump and crankshaft modifications, could reduce engine friction by another 10 percent, for another 2 percent fuel economy benefit. SRI considers lightweight valve trains separately and estimates a fuel economy improvement of 0.5 percent for that change alone. Overall, then, a fuel economy improvement of 2 percent for each 10 percent reduction in engine friction, up to a maximum friction reduction of 20 percent, seems to be a reasonable estimate. Although the amount of friction reduction achievable and its impact on fuel economy may vary by engine, there are no inherent limitations on the use of friction-reducing technology in the engine. 2 In this appendix all EEA cost estimates are quoted in 1988 dollars and the SRI estimates are quoted in 1990 dollars. 3 Advanced synthetic lubricants give small additional reductions in friction. However, they are expensive and, to date, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not permitted their use in fuel economy tests for CAFE purposes because it cannot be guaranteed, owing to their cost, that they will be used in the field.
OCR for page 201
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? The RPE estimates for a 10 percent reduction in internal engine friction are about $50 per car. SRI (1991) puts the RPE at $60, and EEA (1991b) puts the RPE at $30 for a 4-cylinder, $40 for a 6-cylinder, and $50 for an 8-cylinder engine. Accessory Improvements Accessories either perform essential engine-supporting functions (e.g., the water pump, oil pump, cooling fan, and alternator) or provide optional services for the driver and occupants (the power-steering pump and air-conditioning compressor). They can account for perhaps 15 percent of vehicle energy requirements (EEA, 1991a). Accessories typically require about the same amount of energy regardless of vehicle size, so they have a somewhat greater proportional impact on the fuel economy of smaller cars. The energy requirements of accessories do not typically increase in direct proportion to engine speed, yet traditional accessory drive mechanisms are geared so that their speed does increase with the engine speed, which results in a poor match between energy inputs and requirements. Fuel economy can be improved by increasing the efficiency of the accessory system or by better matching its operation to requirements. A great deal of improvement has already been achieved in this area over the past decade. For example, before 1980, most cooling fans were driven by a drive belt operating from the crankshaft. The faster the engine speed, the faster the fan turned. However, at highway speeds the fan is not usually needed, so the energy used to run the fan was wasted. Today, front-wheel drive vehicles are equipped with thermostatically operated electric fans that turn on only when needed. More generally, accessories driven by a single-speed drive use excessive energy at high engine speeds (SRI, 1991). Variable-speed drives can reduce this waste, but so far the cost and complexity of variable-speed drive systems have not been justified by the 0.5 to 1.0 percent efficiency improvement they can achieve (EEA, 1991a; SRI, 1991). EEA asserts, however, that incremental improvements in drive systems, optimization of fan and pump blade shapes, and reduced heat rejection from the engine can combine to raise fuel economy. Estimates of the costs of accessory improvements differ, depending on which specific improvements are included. EEA (1991b) estimates an RPE of $12 for an 0.5 percent improvement, excluding use of variable-speed drives and electric power steering. SRI (1991) estimates that the RPE of two-speed accessory drive will be $200. The high and uncertain costs of these technologies support the committee's view that variable-speed drives are not proven technology. Deceleration Fuel Restriction Since the momentum of the vehicle actually drives the engine during deceleration, it is possible to restrict the fuel input sharply with no effect on operation. In the extreme, shutting off all fuel flow would require restarting the engine to restore power. This is the version considered by SRI (1991). EEA (1991a) combines a partial
OCR for page 244
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? Survey Studies and Consumer Demand Dave Power, J. D. Power, Inc. CAFE and Consumer Behavior Geroge Borst, Toyota Motors Sales U.S.A., Inc. BARRIERS TO INTRODUCTION OF HIGH FUEL ECONOMY VEHICLES IN THE U. S. MARKET Automotive Industry Perspective Ken Kohrs, Ford Motor Company Potential for Improving Fuel Economy of Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Norman Stoller, SRI International Should Consumer Preferences for Comfort, Safety and Performance in a Low Energy Cost World be Considered a Barrier? Fred Smith, Competitive Enterprise Institute Resources, Motivation, and Lead Time Tom Feaheny, Consultant A Concept to Improve the Fuel Economy of the Nation's Motor Vehicles Patrick Raher, Mercedes-Benz Corporation LIGHT TRUCK AND VAN POLICY Basis for Current Regulations on Fuel Economy and Safety of Light Trucks and Vans Orron Kee, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Current Purchase and Use Patterns of Light Trucks and Vans William Bostic, U.S. Department of Commerce Unique Fuel Economy Considerations for Light Trucks and Vans vis-a-vis Passenger Cars James Englehart, Ford Motor Company Yoichiro Kaneuchi, Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., of Japan LATE PAPER Parallels Between U.S. and Australian Automotive Fuel Economy Problems Peter Anyon, Australian Federal Government WRAP UP Thomas H. Hanna, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association Gregory J. Dana, Association of International Auto Manufacturers Ralph Cavanagh, National Resources Defense Council
OCR for page 245
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? 3. Technology Subgroup Meeting, July 31, 1991, Detroit, Michigan Norman Stoller, SRI International Phil Amos, SRI International Larry K. Ranek, SRI International Pamela J. Olson, SRI International Marcel Halberstat, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association Thomas H. Hanna, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association K. G. Duleep, Director of Engineering, Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 4. Safety Subgroup Meeting, August 21-22, 1991, Washington, D.C. Leonard Evans, General Motors Corporation Ernest Grush, Ford Motor Company Brian O'Neil, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety B. J. Campbell, University of North Carolina Clarence Ditlow, Center for Auto Safety Mark Edwards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Charles Kahane, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Terry Klein, National Highway Traffic Safety Adminay Traffic Safety Administration Terry Klein, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Robert Shelton, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 5. Committee Meeting, August 23-25, 1991, Cambridge, Massachusetts No presentations were made at this meeting. 6. Technology Subgroup Meeting, September 5-6, 1991, Detroit Michigan Chrysler Corporation Robert Lutz Gordon Allardyce Beverly Bunting Van Bussmann Francois Castaing Arnold DeJong Thomas Gage Peter Gilezan James Rickert Richard Schaum Robert Sexton Al Slechter
OCR for page 246
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? Ford Motor Company Allan Gilmour Dan Ahrns Chris Aliapoulis Bob Bacigalupi Dick Baker Peter Beardmore Chinu Bhavsar Kelly Brown Jim Endress Haren Gandhi Ed Hagenlocker Bob Himes Mike Jordan Thomas Kenney Ken Kohrs David Kulp John LaFond Pete Pestillo Helen Petrauskas Jeff Pharris Norm Postma Bill Quinlan Bob Rankin Bob Roethler Al Simko General Motors Corporation Robert Stempel Jack Armstrong Lewis Dale Harry Foster Nicholas Gallopoulos Ronald Haas Livonia Plant Donald Runkle Leon Skudlarek Thomas Stephens Gerald Stofflet Tom Young Honda E. Amito Toni Harrington Takefumi Hosaka H. Kano Atsushi Totsune
OCR for page 247
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? 7. Impacts Subgroup Meeting, September 16, 1991, Washington, D.C. Charles River Associates David Montgomery Chrysler Corporation Van Bussmann Tom Gage Al Slechter Ford Motor Company Allan D. Gilmour Kelly Brown Bobbi Koehler-Gaunt Michael Jordan Peter Pestillo Helen Petrauskas Susan Shackson Greg Smith Martin Zimmerman General Motors Corporation Lewis Dale Michael DiGiovanni George Eads Harry Foster Stephen O'Toole Gerald Stofflet 8. Technology Subgroup Meeting September 18, 1991, Washington, D.C. Conventional and Advanced Automotive Fuel Economy Technology: Future Potential and Prospects Gary Rogers, FEV, Inc. Post 2001 Technology Options: Power Trains, Aerodynamics, Electric Vehicles, Hybrids and CAFE Alternatives Paul McCready, Aerovironment, Inc. Roundtable discussion on Conventional Technology, Advanced Technology and CAFE Standards John DeCicco, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy Charles Mendler, Energy Conservation Coalition Marika Tatsutami, Natural Resources Defense Council
OCR for page 248
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? 9. Committee Meeting, September 19-21, 1991, Washington, D.C. Raymond Wassel, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, National Research Council 10. Committee Meeting, October 14-16, 1991, Washington, D.C. No presentations were made at this meeting. 11. Meeting of the Subgroups on Emissions and Environment, October 24, 1991, Washington, D.C. Toyota Motor Corporation Saburo Inui Tadao Mitsuta Ryuzo Oshita Richard Penna Mitsubishi Yoshiaki Dann Steve Sinkez General Motors Jack Benson Lewis Dale Samuel Leonard Stephen O'Toole Gerald Stofflet Richard Taylor Robert Wiltse Ford Motor Company Kelly Brown Richard Baker Haren Gandhi Helen Petrauskas Volkswagen of America Leonard Kata Karl Heinz-Neumann Mercedes-Benz Corporation Klaus Drexl William Kurtz Patrick Raher
OCR for page 249
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? Environmental Protection Agency Karl Helman 12. Meeting of the Subgroup on Standards and Regulations, November 4, 1991, Washington, D.C. Toyota Motor Corporation Charles Ing Saburo Inui Tetsushi Itoh Richard Penna Kazuko Sherman Junzo Shimizu Katsumi Suzuki General Motors Corporation George Eads William Ball Harry Foster James Johnston Gerald Stofflet Honda E. Amito Toni Harrington Ford Motor Company Kelly Brown Allan Gilmour Susan Sheckson Martin Zimmerman Chrysler Corporation Ronald Boltz Van Bussmann Thomas Gage Robert Liberatore Natural Resources Defense Council Ralph Cavanagh 13. Committee Meeting, November 11-13, 1991, Washington, D.C. No presentations were made at this meeting.
OCR for page 250
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? 14. Technology Subgroup Meeting, November 22, 1991, Washington, D.C. No presentations were made at this meeting. 15. Committee Meeting, December 12-14, 1991, Washington, D.C. No presentations were made at this meeting.
OCR for page 251
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? APPENDIX G BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Committee on Fuel Economy of Automobiles and Light Trucks Energy Engineering Board National Research Council Richard A. Meserve (chairman) is a partner in the law firm Covington & Burling of Washington, D.C. His educational background includes a J.D. from Harvard University and a Ph.D. in applied physics from Stanford University. He served as legal counsel to the President's Science Adviser for the period 1977-1981. He is now chairman of the National Research Council's (NRC) Panel on Cooperation with the USSR on Reactor Safety and previously chaired the Committee to Provide Interim Oversight of the Department of Energy's Nuclear Weapons Complex. He is a member of the NRC Committee on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Science. Gary L. Casey is former director, Advanced Technology, at Allied-Signal, Inc., Troy, Michigan, and has managed a variety of R & D functions involving brake, suspension, and engine control systems. He has also served as director of engineering at Mercury Marine, which manufactures marine propulsion systems. He is a mechanical engineer by training, has over 20 years of experience in automotive R & D, and is an adjunct professor at Wayne State University. W. Robert Epperly is president of Epperly Associates, Inc., a consulting firm in New Canaan, Connecticut. He was previously chief executive officer of Fuel Tech N.V., a company engaged in development and commercialization of combustion technology to improve efficiency and reduce emissions. Earlier, he was at Exxon Research and Engineering Company, where he ended 29 years of service as general manager, Corporate Research. He served on the NRC's Committee on Synthetic Fuels Facilities Safety and chaired its Committee on Cooperative Fossil Energy Research. He holds an M.S. in chemical engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute.
OCR for page 252
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? Theodore H. Geballe is a professor of applied physics and material sciences at the Department of Applied Physics, Stanford University. Past service at Stanford includes chairman, Department of Applied Physics, and chairman, Center for Materials Research. Previously, he served as head, Department of Low Temperature and Solid State Physics in the Physical Research Laboratory, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts, and a fellow of the American Physical Society. David L. Greene is a senior research staff member at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee. His work has focused on national policy issues related to transportation energy use, efficiency, and alternative fuels. He is chairman of the section on Environmental Concerns of the NRC's Transportation Research Board and recent chairman of the Committee on Conservation and Transportation Demand. He has a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University. John H. Johnson is presidential professor and chairman, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Mechanics at Michigan Technological University, Houghton. His research work includes combustion studies, hybrid engines, tribology, emissions, and air pollution. He has served on committees of the National Academy of Sciences, Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. He holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the University of Wisconsin. Maryann Keller is managing director and automotive analyst with the brokerage firm of Furman Selz Incorporated, New York. Her work for the past 20 years has focused on the automotive industry. Her previous positions were with the investment advisory firms of Vilas-Fischer Associates, Inc., Paine Webber Mitchell Hutchins, and Kidder, Peabody & Company, Inc. She was a participant in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's four-year study of the automotive industry, currently serves on the Committee to Assess Advanced Vehicle and Highway Technologies of the NRC's Transportation Research Board, and is president of the Society of Automotive Analysts. She holds an M.B.A. from the City University of New York. Charles D. Kolstad is associate professor, Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Economics, University of Illinois, Urbana, and a member of the NRC's Energy Engineering Board. He has also been on the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the staff of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. For over 15 years he has been involved in research on energy and environmental economics and is the author of over 80 scholarly articles, books, chapters, and reports. He holds a Ph.D. from Stanford University. Leroy H. Lindgren is vice president, Manufacturing Planning Systems, Rath & Strong, Inc., Lexington, Massachusetts, a consulting firm that specializes in manufacturing operations, production planning, facilities design, and costing. He also served there as director of technical services and vice president of policy and planning and has extensive experience with the U.S. automotive industry. He was a member of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Motor Vehicles and served as a consultant to the Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, and the
OCR for page 253
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? Environmental Protection Agency. He holds a B.S. in mechanical engineering from the Illinois Institute of Technology and has served as adjunct associate professor at Boston University. G. Murray Mackay is head of the Accident Research Unit, Automotive Engineering Center, University of Birmingham, England, where he has been a reader in traffic safety. His research interests include vehicle design and collision performance, epidemiology of transport accidents, traffic engineering, and the biomechanics of injury. He is fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and has served as director and president of the American Association for Automotive Medicine. He holds a Ph.D. and D.Sc. from the University of Birmingham. M. Eugene Merchant is senior consultant at the Institute for Advanced Manufacturing Sciences, Cincinnati, Ohio. Previously, he was director, Advanced Manufacturing Research at Metcut Research Associates, Inc., and principal scientist for manufacturing research at Cincinnati Milacron Inc. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and has served on the NRC's National Materials Advisory Board and Manufacturing Studies Board. He is past president of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers, the International Institution for Production Engineering Research, American Society of Lubrication Engineers, and the Federation of Materials Societies. He holds a D.Sc. from the University of Cincinnati, where he has been an adjunct professor of Mechanical Engineering. David L. Morrison is technical director, Energy, Resource and Environmental Systems Division, The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Virginia. He was previously president of the IIT Research Institute and director of Program Development and Management, Battelle Memorial Institute. He is a member of the NRC's Energy Engineering Board, has served on the NRC's National Materials Advisory Board, and most recently was chairman of the Committee on Alternative Energy R&D Strategies, whose work resulted in the publication Confronting Climate Change: Strategies for Energy, Research, and Development (1990). He holds a Ph.D. in chemistry from the Carnegie Institute of Technology. Phillip S. Myers is emeritus distinguished research professor, and former chairman, Department Mechanical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and was the 1969 National President of the Society of Automotive Engineers. He was a member of the NRC's Committee on Production Technologies for Liquid Transportation Fuels, whose work resulted in the publication Fuels to Drive Our Future (1990). His research interests are in internal combustion engines, combustion processes, and fuels. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin. Daniel Roos is professor of Civil Engineering, and director of the Center for Technology, Policy, and Industrial Development, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. He is also the director of the International Motor Vehicle Program at MIT, whose reports include The Machine That Changed the World (1990) and The Future of the Automobile (1986). He has also been director of MIT's Center for
OCR for page 254
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? Transportation Studies. He has served as chairman of the Paratransit Committee of the NRC's Transportation Research Board and is chairman of the Committee to Assess Advanced Vehicle and Highway Technologies. He holds a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from MIT. Patricia F. Waller is director of the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Ann Arbor. Previously, she was research professor, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, and director of the university's Injury Prevention Research Center. She also served as associate director for driver studies of the university's Highway Safety Research Center. She chairs the NRC's Transportation Research Board Council on Intergroup Resources and is a member of their Research Technology and Coordinating Committee for the Federal Highway Administration and committees on Planning and Administration of Transportation Safety; Motor Vehicle Size and Weight; and Alcohol, Other Drugs and Transportation. She is a psychologist and holds a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina. Joseph D. Walter is director, Central Research, at Bridgestone-Firestone, Inc., Akron, Ohio. He is an expert in polymers and composites and has 20 years of experience in tire design and rolling friction. He is editor and/or author of book and articles on the mechanics of pneumatic tires and has done advanced design work on composite wheels for automobiles. He is a member of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. He holds a Ph.D. in engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and an M.B.A. in finance from the University of Akron.
Representative terms from entire chapter: